Clarify The Sin

[Questing Beast]

...as a gay man, I would rather live eternally with the man I love even if it means never having eternal increase or even if it means that I will not reach the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. The idea of living with a woman for eternity is revolting to me. I believe with all my heart that there is a place for gay children of God in this next life. It may not be the same role you play, but then [n]either is this earth life the same role.

...

What if your "believing with all your heart" is simply biology speaking? As pointed out by you, nobody here knows how "spirit children" are brought about, the process is an unknown. This is an imperfect world. So making assertions about how you will feel in the afterlife are not based on that eternal perspective. We have no perspective beyond the here and now, tied to our imperfectly "firing" biology, which undergoes the alteration of change due to health and aging. Is your biology going to dictate who you are most attracted to in the afterlife?

I find the entire subject of "eternal marriage" problematic, since such asserted marriages are formed here for primarily biologically imperative reasons. The religious aspects take a back seat. Those in denial of this are not remembering very clearly what it was like to be young! Add in thirty or so years of marriage to the same spouse, and for many people mighty changes have been wrought in their bodies. "Midlife crisis" sets in. Throw in a health threat or injury requiring medical attention/drugs, etc., and you have a recipe for viewing an otherwise normal marriage as a "failure". Nothing has really changed other than a complex of boredom, fear of not getting out of life all that you feel you are still missing, and altered biology. The marriage is still running on the same formula that has caused it to endure for thirty something years. It is only the changed perspective that wrecks it.

Are we really going to believe that eternal marriage hinges on such a roller coaster of temporary existence? We haven't a clue what we are talking about vis-a-vis eternity as immortals living with each other, especially intimately....

[canard78]

Why not? The Gospel makes it perfectly clear what level of commitment He requires of those who would be His followers.

We may all be on our own personal journey, but that does not mean that all of us are headed towards God. There are many diverse paths that lead only into the mist, so many that they are beyond count. There is only one path that leads back to God, and it is narrow and straight.

My loyalty is to Him first and the church second, so in your theoretical question, I would follow Him.

I explained in my first post that looking for the line shows an incorrect approach to begin with.

If you need something more concrete, I'll give you this: The sin occurs when the spirit leaves.

There is no other vehicle. There is only The Lord's Church and babylon.

The Church of the lamb is not Mormonism though. It is a far broader church and has been around long before 1830.

And the gate is indeed narrow, custom built for one person. Your gate and my gate my be different, but it's still right for each of us.

[canard78]

What if your "believing with all your heart" is simply biology speaking? As pointed out by you, nobody here knows how "spirit children" are brought about, the process is an unknown. This is an imperfect world. So making assertions about how you will feel in the afterlife are not based on that eternal perspective. We have no perspective beyond the here and now, tied to our imperfectly "firing" biology, which undergoes the alteration of change due to health and aging. Is your biology going to dictate who you are most attracted to in the afterlife?

I find the entire subject of "eternal marriage" problematic, since such asserted marriages are formed here for primarily biologically imperative reasons. The religious aspects take a back seat. Those in denial of this are not remembering very clearly what it was like to be young! Add in thirty or so years of marriage to the same spouse, and for many people mighty changes have been wrought in their bodies. "Midlife crisis" sets in. Throw in a health threat or injury requiring medical attention/drugs, etc., and you have a recipe for viewing an otherwise normal marriage as a "failure". Nothing has really changed other than a complex of boredom, fear of not getting out of life all that you feel you are still missing, and altered biology. The marriage is still running on the same formula that has caused it to endure for thirty something years. It is only the changed perspective that wrecks it.

Are we really going to believe that eternal marriage hinges on such a roller coaster of temporary existence? We haven't a clue what we are talking about vis-a-vis eternity as immortals living with each other, especially intimately....

No, we haven't really a clue. So until then, what rationale do we have to not just seal everyone and see what happens when we get there.

What if your "believing with all your heart" is simply biology speaking?

If religion and scripture is written by the powerful majority (90% of people are straight), what if the same can be said for religious dogma. What if the anti-gay religious rhetoric is simply "biology speaking?"

Much of the nonsense that was said about blacks before the priesthood was restored to them was based on racial prejudice, not revelation (McConkie: "Forget everything I said..."). What if the same is happening for this.

Edited July 21, 2013 by canard78

[Erin15]

And the gate is indeed narrow, custom built for one person. Your gate and my gate my be different, but it's still right for each of us.

No, there is not a custom tailored gate and path for each one of us. There is one gate and path that we are all invited to use.

[canard78]

No, there is not a custom tailored gate and path for each one of us. There is one gate and path that we are all invited to use.

This could become a game of yes there is, no there isn't. Suffice it to say I don't agree with you.

[Erin15]

This could become a game of yes there is, no there isn't. Suffice it to say I don't agree with you.

Agreeing with me is irrelivant. What matters is your relationship with The Lord and His Gospel, which, from what you have expressed in this and other threads, is clearly turbulent at the moment.

I pray that you will find the faith to set aside what you want, find His path, and resolve in your heart to follow it. Because, at the end of the day, I want you to be exalted too.

Please do not post about another's faithfulness.

~Mods

[CV75]

No one has provided doctrine showing that homosexual behavior includes holding hands with someone you are romantically attracted to.

Sexual behavior is an expression of sexuality, which, among other things, involves sexual attraction and the capacity to anticipate, experience and respond in relation to a state of sexual arousal. Romantic attraction does involve an element of sexuality. So yes, sexual behavior must include those behaviors that one engages in with someone he is romantically attracted to an which he cannot strictly excise from his sexuality.

Doctrinally, the Sermon on the Mount gets into the intents of a person’s heart for both goodness and wickedness.

Edited July 21, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

We have heterosexual Mormon couples who marry and are not sealed (if the woman has been previously sealed or if the couple simply don't want to). This is not considered sinning.

By who? And how? There are many ways this could be sinning. Is it up to a vote?

We also have couples (often younger) who date, hold hands, kiss but have no intention of marrying each other (and no plan of having sex with each other). This is also not considered sinning.

By who? And how? There are many ways this could be sinning. Is it up to a vote?

[Questing Beast]

No, we haven't really a clue. So until then, what rationale do we have to not just seal everyone and see what happens when we get there.

If religion and scripture is written by the powerful majority (90% of people are straight), what if the same can be said for religious dogma. What if the anti-gay religious rhetoric is simply "biology speaking?"

Much of the nonsense that was said about blacks before the priesthood was restored to them was based on racial prejudice, not revelation (McConkie: "Forget everything I said..."). What if the same is happening for this.

"What if".

You are right about the powerful majority speaking. It's very akin to "the victor writes the histories". That's the world we live in.

We have a plenitude of "historical" examples where minorities tried to get that powerful majority to "live and let live", because the minority was minding its own business and not threatening anyone. The first example that springs to mind (since I am medieval pathematically) is the "crusade" launched against the Cathars of Languedoc. It ended in tears and not a little bloodshed. We live in a different world. Racism as law has been banished to a back burner. Sexual preference as protected by law is fighting for the same status as interracial marriage and equal rights in society, etc. The odd thing is that it is based on sexual preference at all; the distinction is what you want to have sex with, nothing more. The powerful majority never even brought up the subject of sex in marriage, it was a given. If, however, the powerful majority had never had anything to say about sex as possibly "immoral" then this would not even be an issue today. Sex as a plaything is just as tacitly allowed as smoking behind the school. Mostly the "administration" turns a blind eye. The law might care, but we who propel the law don't care, so there is no active use of the law. The same could be happening to "marriage" now. But only if the powerful majority does turn a blind eye.

If their eye turns religious, again, then we'll see something unpleasant happen. Sexual libertinism was an asserted prominent part of Catharism too, which was one of the major factors that offended the medieval powerful majority. When you mix sexual practices in, you offend the religious sentiments of the powerful majority. If the religious sentiments are largely rhetorical, then there is little or no danger to the fighting minority. If, however, the religious sentiments of the powerful majority are awakened and outraged, then the lies about the hated minority will be believed by enough of the powerful majority to end in tears, again....

Edited July 21, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Bikeemikey]

Agreeing with me is irrelivant. What matters is your relationship with The Lord and His Gospel, which, from what you have expressed in this and other threads, is clearly turbulent at the moment.

I pray that you will find the faith to set aside what you want, find His path, and resolve in your heart to follow it. Because, at the end of the day, I want you to be exalted too.

I always find it so offensive when religious folks judge fellow religious folks standing before god.

[Erin15]

I always find it so offensive when religious folks judge fellow religious folks standing before god.

There is a big difference between judging someone's standing before God, and acknowleding obvious messages that a person is giving out about their own spiritual health. The comments that canard78 has made in this and other threads are basically like waving a big flag around. Are we supposed to pretend like the flag doesn't exist?

God expects us to use our judgement and intellect when interacting with others. It is only unrighteous judgement (done without love) that He condemns. I love canard78 as I do all of God's children, and ignoring the messages of spiritual turbulance that he/she is giving out would be to do him/her a disservice.

To use a catechism, no one ever got better by other people pretending they weren't sick, Bikeemikey.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Erin15

[Bikeemikey]

There is a big difference between judging someone's standing before God, and acknowleding obvious messages that a person is giving out about their own spiritual health. The comments that canard78 has made in this and other threads are basically like waving a big flag around. Are we supposed to pretend like the flag doesn't exist?

God expects us to use our judgement and intellect when interacting with others. It is only unrighteous judgement (done without love) that He condemns. I love canard78 as I do all of God's children, and ignoring the messages of spiritual turbulance that he/she is giving out would be to do him/her a disservice.

To use a catechism, no one ever got better by other people pretending they weren't sick, Bikeemikey.

Your underlying premise that carnard78 needs to get better is the primary objection I was raising.

[canard78]

Agreeing with me is irrelivant. What matters is your relationship with The Lord and His Gospel, which, from what you have expressed in this and other threads, is clearly turbulent at the moment.

I pray that you will find the faith to set aside what you want, find His path, and resolve in your heart to follow it. Because, at the end of the day, I want you to be exalted too.

This isn't the board if you want to go testifying and witnessing at people and can get you a thread ban. I've not seen you around much before so just thought I'd mention it.

I believe I am on the path that God wants me to be. I'm on the same path as you, the path to godliness. That we travel it in different vehicles (insert metaphor as appropriate) doesn't bother me, but it does seem to bother you.

Anyway, this is such a tangent off the OP that I'll not discuss this further. Feel free to reply but I won't again.

[canard78]

Your underlying premise that carnard78 needs to get better is the primary objection I was raising.

Thanks Bikeemikey. I'm just going to ignore him/her on the topic for the rest of the thread. I'm involved in this one as I'd actually like to discuss the actual OP, but I'm not sure many others do. Ah well

Edited July 21, 2013 by canard78

[california boy]

Why not? The Gospel makes it perfectly clear what level of commitment He requires of those who would be His followers.

I got it the first time when you said you had no problem judging whether others were disciples of Christ. I still am not interested in judging others. But hey, go ahead if you feel that is your role in life.

We may all be on our own personal journey, but that does not mean that all of us are headed towards God. There are many diverse paths that lead only into the mist, so many that they are beyond count. There is only one path that leads back to God, and it is narrow and straight.

It must be wonderful for you to know so clearly where each of our salvations lie. I know this is kinda odd for you to understand, but I am only concerned with my own salvation and relationship with God.

[Erin15]

I am only concerned with my own salvation

That's the problem. Salvation isn't earned in a vaccume. The desire to help others acheive it as well is essential, it's a basic characteristic of charity that all disciples must come to posess.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I never seen that definition provided in CHI1. Do you have a reference?

That there is none gender to gender in no way shape or form....and never be one, they will only keep what they have; one an, one woman.

[rockpond]

You have typed into the quote box making your words appear as if they are mine. Please correct that. I also can't understand what you are saying in response to my question.

[california boy]

That's the problem. Salvation isn't earned in a vaccume. The desire to help others acheive it as well is essential, it's a basic characteristic of charity that all disciples must come to posess.

Thanks for sharing that with me. I was unaware that you are partly responsible for my salvation.

Edited July 22, 2013 by california boy

[canard78]

I got it the first time when you said you had no problem judging whether others were disciples of Christ. I still am not interested in judging others. But hey, go ahead if you feel that is your role in life.

It must be wonderful for you to know so clearly where each of our salvations lie. I know this is kinda odd for you to understand, but I am only concerned with my own salvation and relationship with God.

It's ok, CASteinman was here for a while then left, now Erin makes an appearance. It gets somewhat tiresome, but the forum wouldn't be the same without them