Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 You didn't address the question at all. You restated the source of the question.I asked what makes one thing pure, and the other impure.You said because one is good (pure), and the other is evil (impure).I also asked you to tell me the difference between good and evil... not that I need you to tell me the answer, but to try to get you to think about it.If you're not up to thinking about it, though, I can give you a few pointers.First, let's note that one thing you are talking about is the opposite of the other. On one hand, there is sexual relations between members of the opposite sex, and on the other hand, there is sexual relations between members of the same sex.Now let's also notice that when talking about "good" and "evil", we are also talking about things that are opposite to each other, with good being the opposite of what is evil.Are you starting to get the picture yet?Two things that are opposites can't both be good, and both also can't be evil, because they are opposites.One is good, and the other is evil.
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) I also asked you to tell me the difference between good and evil... not that I need you to tell me the answer, but to try to get you to think about it.If you're not up to thinking about it, though, I can give you a few pointers.First, let's note that one thing you are talking about is the opposite of the other. On one hand, there is sexual relations between members of the opposite sex, and on the other hand, there is sexual relations between members of the same sex.Now let's also notice that when talking about "good" and "evil", we are also talking about things that are opposite to each other, with good being the opposite of what is evil.Are you starting to get the picture yet?Two things that are opposites can't both be good, and both also can't be evil, because they are opposites.One is good, and the other is evil.The opposite of "having sex" is "not having sex", not just changing who is having sex with who. You're changing a variable, not presenting an opposite.Speaking to my brother-in-law is not the opposite of speaking to my sister-in-law.Thus your answer is incoherent. Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) The opposite of having sex is not having sex, not just changing who is having sex with who. Close, but not quite.The opposite of having sex is not having sex, that part is true.Changing the "sex" of the person another person has sexual relations with is changing the "type" of sexual relations a person is having... it doesn't just change the persons having sexual relations, but it changes it from one type of sexual relations to the "opposite" type. From same to opposite.You're changing a variable, not presenting an opposite.The variable I'm changing is the "sex" (as in male or female) of the person or people having "sex" (meaning sexual relations), and that makes all the difference.Speaking to my brother-in-law is not the opposite of speaking to my sister-in-law.Speaking to a man is the opposite of speaking to a woman, though... not because the speaking is different, but because the "sex" of the persons are opposite. Edited June 17, 2011 by Ahab
Calm Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 This change seems to be the church throwing a bone to gay Mormons who have no hope of ever marrying in the temple (not to who they love anyway). If gay Mormons who wish to stay in the church believe they will be "fixed" in the next life and be able to marry as Mormonism expects, they might stop killing themselves in such high numbers.IF it was an actual change, you might have a point.However, it's been taught that sincere, faithful singles would have the chance to marry in the next life for as long as I can remember (and alas that is a long time) long before gay marriage was even imagined in the political scene.
Calm Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 The thing is, to probably most gays, the idea of having an eternal marriage with a woman is...revolting, and not at all a heavenly ideal.You are not forced to imagine heaven in terms of what you don't want. It is an issue of trusting the Father that he knows you well enough and loves you enough to bless you with all the good that you desire. There are things that I desire now that I wonder if I will receive in the next life because they don't seem like the kinds of things a celestial individual would need. I could get worried that I'm going to miss out or I can just relax and let the next life take care of itself while living to the best of my ability now.
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Speaking to a man is the opposite of speaking to a woman, though... not because the speaking is different, but because the "sex" of the persons are opposite.Okay then... which is good, speaking to the man, or the woman? And if one is good, according to your logic, its opposite must be evil. Right?
Calm Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 If the bishop discovered they were gay, for example, how would that affect receiving a recommend? IIRC, there has been at least one LDS who participated in a gay marriage the result being he was excommunicated, Buckley Jeppson.
Calm Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) I'm guessing there's probably something about this issue in the CHI, but I'd like someone to disclose what is said about it.The Law of Chastity in the CHI specifies a legal marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual relations is included in the list of sins violating said Law and is therefore subject to church discipline. Ask your bishop to see the handbook itself if you want to exact language. Edited June 17, 2011 by calmoriah
zerinus Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 So what is it, in your opinion, that makes the inherent urges and love of an infertile heterosexual couple more pure and deserving of expression than the inherent urges and love of an infertile homosexual couple?In both, the potential for natural children is not an issue.You didn't address the question at all. You restated the source of the question.I asked what makes one thing pure, and the other impure.You said because one is good (pure), and the other is evil (impure).Whatever God has ordained is good, pure, holy; whatever He has not ordained is not.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Okay then... which is good, speaking to the man, or the woman?Ask my wife. For some reason she doesn't seem to mind me talking to men, but her ears perk up when I talk to another woman. And if one is good, according to your logic, its opposite must be evil. Right?Well, not always. For some reason it seems to have more to do with who we have sex with.You've noticed that yourself, too, right?Why would same sex sexual relations even be an issue if everybody was okay with it?Clearly, one is good, and the opposite is at least questionable.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 The Law of Chastity in the CHI specifies a legal marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual relations is included in the list of sins violating said Law and is therefore subject to church discipline. Ask your bishop to see the handbook itself if you want to exact language.Thank you for that info, oh thou who hast more authority than either mski or me. That's pretty much all I was asking for.So, according to the CHI, a legal and lawful marriage is defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, at least as far as the Church is concerned.For some reason I feel to say "Duh!, I think I already knew that!"
Calm Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Thank you for that info, oh thou who hast more authority than either mski or me. That's pretty much all I was asking for.So, according to the CHI, a legal and lawful marriage is defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, at least as far as the Church is concerned.For some reason I feel to say "Duh!, I think I already knew that!"You can check out the lds.org study by topic listing as well for more detail (use view more for specific language about married 'man and woman' and homosexuality): http://lds.org/study/topics/chastity?lang=eng
Rob Bowman Posted June 18, 2011 Author Posted June 18, 2011 Talk about a thread getting derailed....I have negative authority here, but I would suggest that further discussion about gays be taken elsewhere.
David T Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Although, Rob, I do think it is, in a very real sense, on topic.1) Will all get a chance to be married for eternity?2) If all get a chance, will some choose not to, and still fill all other CK requirements?3) Who would choose not to, and for what reasons?What point would you like to roll back to? Or have your questions and concerns been adequately addressed? Edited June 18, 2011 by nackhadlow
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Talk about a thread getting derailed....I have negative authority here, but I would suggest that further discussion about gays be taken elsewhere.This is a red-letter day!We agree on something!
zerinus Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Although, Rob, I do think it is, in a very real sense, on topic.1) Will all get a chance to be married for eternity?The answer to that is a qualified yes. There are more serious sins that can disqualify one from obtaining exaltation; and if you are guilty of the serious sins the lesser ones might not be the deciding factor.2) If all get a chance, will some choose not to, and still fill all other CK requirements?I think you are asking the wrong question here. If you ask the question: "Will some people qualify to enter one of the lesser degrees of the Celestial Kingdom, without qualifying for exaltation?" the answer to that would obviously be yes. The next question: "Why would some people qualify for one of the lesser degrees but not for exaltation?" will be little harder to answer. "Not wanting to be married for eternity" may be one of the reasons, but not the only one. There may be other factors involved. The D&C suggests that those who did not qualify failed because they did not have sufficient faith in the system. They did not believe enough in the principle, or they did not take it seriously enough to repent and qualify. They understood it, but were too lukewarm to want to qualify for the blessings of a temple marriage. There are a lot of people who are like that, such as among the inactives for example. There may still be other factors which may not be obvious to us, but God understands them better than we do. I recall having read a comment by a General Authority many years ago (I don't remember by whom or when) that some people will fail of exaltation because they haven't learned to love their companions enough. So there may be all kinds of reasons why one may disqualify for the highest reward, other than just "not wanting to be married for eternity".3) Who would choose not to, and for what reasons?See above. There is a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that is relevant to the above questions:D&C 88:28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory [in this life] shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory [in this life] shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory [in this life] shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.So it seems that those who will obtain any one of the different degrees or states of glory in the next life are people who have already acquired a predisposition towards them in this life. So exactly how do you know if you have done that or not, I wouldn't know. Only God knows. You would have to ask Him I suppose. Edited June 18, 2011 by zerinus
Messenger Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) I was reading a talk from one of my favorite speakers today and I couldnt help but think of this thread when I read it .... The Principle of Compensation"The third thing we can do is understand the principle of compensation. The Lord compensates the faithful for every loss. That which is taken away from those who love the Lord will be added unto them in His own way. While it may not come at the time we desire, the faithful will know that every tear today will eventually be returned a hundredfold with tears of rejoicing and gratitude.One of the blessings of the gospel is the knowledge that when the curtain of death signals the end of our mortal lives, life will continue on the other side of the veil. There we will be given new opportunities. Not even death can take from us the eternal blessings promised by a loving Heavenly Father."Source: Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin ;Come What May, and Love It Edited June 24, 2011 by Messenger
Recommended Posts