Is There A Difference Between The Teachings Of Barb Young And Denver Snuffer?

[california boy]

I don’t think you magically become straight, but you do attain a higher form of love and happiness, and channel your procreative powers within the context of the marriage covenant.

 

Neither does anyone of any other sexual proclivity magically become divine in all aspects of his or her character before enjoying the blessings of exaltation.

 

Considering the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, rejecting someone of the opposite sex on the basis of gender is about as shallow and superficial as it gets, while receiving from the Lord someone of the opposite gender is as selfless as it gets.

 

 

I don’t think you magically become straight, but you do attain a higher form of love and happiness, and channel your procreative powers within the context of the marriage covenant.

 

Neither does anyone of any other sexual proclivity magically become divine in all aspects of his or her character before enjoying the blessings of exaltation.

 

Considering the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, rejecting someone of the opposite sex on the basis of gender is about as shallow and superficial as it gets, while receiving from the Lord someone of the opposite gender is as selfless as it gets.

I think I need more clarification to what you are saying here. What do you mean by a higher form of love for someone who is gay?  And what do you mean by a gay man rejecting someone of the opposite gender?  Do you think being gay is just a "shallow and superficial issue?

[Calm]

Perhaps in the next life, for those who choose exaltation, the other becomes for us such a real and immediate individual and our ability to love them so extended, that even if we would have in mortality not have been attracted to them for whatever reason, seeing them in their perfected state and us in ours, there is nothing that gets in the way of the fullest expression of love if we choose it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps in the next life, for those who choose exaltation, the other becomes for us such a real and immediate individual and our ability to love them so extended, that even if we would have in mortality not have been attracted to them for whatever reason, seeing them in their perfected state and us in ours, there is nothing that gets in the way of the fullest expression of love if we choose it.

Here is a favorite quote of mine from Brigham Young, one that I have used on a number of occasions over the years:

 

“Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin” (“Future State of Existence,” Contributor, May 1890, 241; see also Journal of Discourses vol. 10, p. 24).

 

[CV75]

I think I need more clarification to what you are saying here. What do you mean by a higher form of love for someone who is gay?  And what do you mean by a gay man rejecting someone of the opposite gender?  Do you think being gay is just a "shallow and superficial issue?

The higher form of love is for everyone, not just someone who is gay! I notice that calmoriah’s and Scott’s posts indicate the kind of true beauty and capacity to love and cherish I’m talking about. It transcends whatever sexual orientation or proclivity anyone might want come up with, and with that, we can do anything.

 

Your post indicated that you would reject the ultimate gift that is offered and facilitated by the Lord (exaltation) based on someone’s gender. To me, that is shallow and superficial. That your example of this principle involves a woman as a marriage partner makes no difference.

 

The eternal covenant is rooted in the eternal attributes of gender, which are co-rooted in the principles of life. Any other attribute about us can easily change for the better in the resurrection.

 

And no (for the second/third time), this does not mean gays will turn straight—those terms are unreliable and arbitrary anyway, even using one gradient or another, which miss so many variables.

 

P.S. I jumped in very late -- does any of this have anything to do with Denver Snuffer?

[california boy]

The higher form of love is for everyone, not just someone who is gay! I notice that calmoriah’s and Scott’s posts indicate the kind of true beauty and capacity to love and cherish I’m talking about. It transcends whatever sexual orientation or proclivity anyone might want come up with, and with that, we can do anything.

 

Your post indicated that you would reject the ultimate gift that is offered and facilitated by the Lord (exaltation) based on someone’s gender. To me, that is shallow and superficial. That your example of this principle involves a woman as a marriage partner makes no difference.

 

The eternal covenant is rooted in the eternal attributes of gender, which are co-rooted in the principles of life. Any other attribute about us can easily change for the better in the resurrection.

 

And no (for the second/third time), this does not mean gays will turn straight—those terms are unreliable and arbitrary anyway, even using one gradient or another, which miss so many variables.

 

P.S. I jumped in very late -- does any of this have anything to do with Denver Snuffer?

Your speculation as well as others on what love will be like in the next life works so well for you and others because it is an extension and even a perfection of what you experience on earth.  Unless you are willing to extend your view of what this higher form of love is to include the relationship and love between same genders as well.  From my perspective and orientation, I to can get emotionally swept up in a higher and more complete love when it allows me to participate in that love with someone of my own gender.  

 

If you can envision increasing your love and perfecting it so that you would be perfectly ok with spending eternity with someone of your own gender, then I think we are both nodding our heads in the same direction.  If on the other hand, the idea of spending eternity with someone of your same gender and never having that bonded relationship with someone of opposite gender is a bit unsettling for you, then  I think we are both viewing exaltation in the way that we want our own love to grow and progress.

 

Perhaps you take some comfort in believing that God's plan is restricted to opposite gender relationships in the eternities and so things will go the way you envision them to go.  I have no such comfort, which makes my view of exaltation much more difficult to embrace.

 

p.s. I don't know who Denver Snuffer is, so at least my comments have no relation to Denver Snuffer.

[BCSpace]

Except that pretty much every group that isn't the church will at some point have a teaching or practice that is contrary to the teachings of the church. Are you saying that we can't belong to any other organisation but the church. No political parties, or unions?

 

Just those that don't work against the church or it's doctrine.  With political parties, the Church adopts a wheat with the tares stance (as communicated to me in training), but one must certainly realize that holding a TR is not a pass to the CK and does not necessarily make one right with the Lord (also communicated to me in training).

 

Consider also the official doctrine of the Church:

 

“To be valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to take the Lord’s side on every issue. It is to vote as he would vote. It is to think what he thinks, to believe what he believes, to say what he would say and do what he would do in the same situation. It is to have the mind of Christ and be one with him as he is one with his Father.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1974, pp. 45–46; or Ensign, Nov. 1974, pp. 33–35.)

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-76-the-vision-of-the-degrees-of-glory?lang=eng

 

People who tell you that one's public life is separate from one's spiritual life are teaching false doctrine.

 

The spirit of this question is meant to ascertain whether or not you affiliate with an apostate group in a way that threatens your own standing in the church.

 

Indeed.

 

A group that believes that God loves his gay children, has a place for them and hopes that one day that plan will be more widely known is not an apostate group.

 

If that were all, sure.

 

I might not agree with their agenda but they are not an enemy of the church.

 

Post number 16 of this thread seems to establish that they are.

 

I might not agree with their agenda but they are not an enemy of the church. Membership of the group does not effect my standing in the church.

 

I've served in multiple Stakes in several areas where affiliation with this type of group prevents one from holding a TR and sometimes has been a factor in excommunication or a continuation of ongoing disciplinary action.  I've never served where such affiliation, if known, was overlooked.

[BCSpace]

 

That is certainly not the only question in play by any means.  Another TR question reads:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

We have to be very careful there. My parents weren't memebers, and I certainly affiliated with them.

 

 

Not a problem.  If it were known your parents were apostates or rabid anti Mormons, just as if it were known that someone affiliated with the LBGT group in question, one might be asked follow up questions to ascertain if one agreed with and/or provided support for the opposing teachings if one weren't known very well.  If one lied or were coy and very careful, it certainly is possible to get away with it which, I suppose, is partly the reason why the question "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?" is in there too.  Part of the reason for the interview is for self examination.

 

[BCSpace]

Here is a favorite quote of mine from Brigham Young, one that I have used on a number of occasions over the years:

 

“Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin” (“Future State of Existence,” Contributor, May 1890, 241; see also Journal of Discourses vol. 10, p. 24).

 

Let's see if we can put the stamp of official doctrine on that.

 

 

Looks like we can:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/marriage-throughout-the-years?lang=eng&query=Those+who+attain+to+the+blessing+of+the+first+or+celestial

[Calm]

If you can envision increasing your love and perfecting it so that you would be perfectly ok with spending eternity with someone of your own gender, then I think we are both nodding our heads in the same direction.

It might be possible that it is this that allows for same sex relationships in the afterlife. I think it would have to be if somehow there was ever a revelation allowing it. My assumption is that we develop first this ability to love another in a godly, becoming one spiritually way and then when God ordains whatever further married relationship, we allow ourselves to move into an additional dimension based on the unique shared experience between the two individuals that deepens the relationship into something much more as well as being solely unique due to the individuality of those involved. At that point perhaps gender is not important, the other being such a glorious being there is no limitation on love...save the limitations we put on it ourselves at the direction of God because of his knowledge of what exalts and what does not....which may be why at that point gender is very important indeed and why the male-female relationship is currently taught as the only one essential to exaltation.

Perhaps I have come to this view due to the way I fell in love with my husband where friendship, then love came first and then through sharing in expressions of love, the passion**** came instead of the reverse that apparently usually happens to people who at times may even be passionate about people they don't like all that much.

*****Since my husband doesn't share the physical attributes with my (once upon a time) "ideal man"...the kind of man I am attracted to at first glance....save for being tall and having a great voice, I needed to learn of his internal attributes which were my true ideal man, including some I hadn't known cared about before seeing them in action (such as how he treats children) came to realize were much, much more essential than having a certain colour of hair or build or mannerism. I never thought I would ever love a beard so much I would be okay with him getting less money so he could keep it. Beards used to be on my never in a million years list.

[Buzzard]

Your speculation as well as others on what love will be like in the next life works so well for you and others because it is an extension and even a perfection of what you experience on earth.  Unless you are willing to extend your view of what this higher form of love is to include the relationship and love between same genders as well.  From my perspective and orientation, I to can get emotionally swept up in a higher and more complete love when it allows me to participate in that love with someone of my own gender.  

 

If you can envision increasing your love and perfecting it so that you would be perfectly ok with spending eternity with someone of your own gender, then I think we are both nodding our heads in the same direction.  If on the other hand, the idea of spending eternity with someone of your same gender and never having that bonded relationship with someone of opposite gender is a bit unsettling for you, then  I think we are both viewing exaltation in the way that we want our own love to grow and progress.

 

Perhaps you take some comfort in believing that God's plan is restricted to opposite gender relationships in the eternities and so things will go the way you envision them to go.  I have no such comfort, which makes my view of exaltation much more difficult to embrace.

 

p.s. I don't know who Denver Snuffer is, so at least my comments have no relation to Denver Snuffer.

Denver Snuffer, the subject of another thread, is a man who goes around saying the church has fallen into apostasy. He even published a book about it, and just recently paid for his activities and refusal to repent with his membership in the church.

One of my favorite C. S. Lewis quotes is from "The Great Divorce" :“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”

Think about what you have been saying. If you can't have a same gender marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, then you want no part of the Celestial Kingdom. At least that is how I read your statement.  Well, God can accomodate you. But make no mistake, he wants you in his kingdom, but for you as for all of us, it is only on his terms.

You will say I cannot understand, and you will be right. But that is true for a myriad of sins, just as you cannot understand some of the forbidden things that my natural man pushes me toward.

I had a friend growing up who was straight, but for lack of a better term, was hypersexual. Because he just could not keep it zipped, he could not serve a mission or enter the temple. When last I heard about twenty years ago, he had been married and divorced three times and was currently cohabitating with another in a long line. Would you have him say to God that he just couldn't help himself? And should God nod his head and say "I understand, I gave you these urges, so it's not your fault"?

I guess my question to you is, if you still have any testimony of the gospel left, given  the Plan of Salvation as we understand it, what do you want God to do?

[BCSpace]

I think you already know that's doctrine and scripture.

 

Unwilling is no argument or excuse as that applies to any of God's commands.  Shall we reward those unwilling to stop committing murder?  Unable is also no argument or excuse because of Ether 12:27 and the fact that things ultimately get fixed (pun intended).

 

 

What makes you think I think that?

 

 

I agree that celibacy is as pointless as gay sex.

 

 

Who said that?  Not having sex outside heterosexual marriage is following the Church teachings.  You will have exaltation if you follow them.  If you are sealed to a woman before the Judgement, you are following the Church teachings.  Your problem, like Barbara Young, is that you want to change Church teachings.

 

Then why does the church recommend gay men to be celibate in this life.

 

 

So there is a point to sex in the afterlife.

 

If the only path for exaltation is marrying a woman for eternity, why not require all gay members to find a willing wife and start the process here on earth?

 

 

That's the recommendation and the requirement for all whether or not you consider yourself to be gay. 1 Corinthians 11:11 etc.

 

If they can't be happily married to a woman in this life, what makes you even think for a moment that gay men will be happy to be married to a woman in the next?

 

Hope in the resurrection; assuming homosexuality is inborn.

 

My problem is not like Barb Young at all.  I am not campaigning for gay temple marriage.  That is something I leave entirely up to God.  My opinion is completely irrelevant.  I am only expressing the reality of how the plan of salvation works for God's gay children.

 

The reality is that you can either repent or be made whole in the resurrection.  That is what the Atonement accomplished and is the plan of salvation for all God's children.

[foster]

Bcspac said: I've served in multiple Stakes in several areas where affiliation with this type of group prevents one from holding a TR and sometimes has been a factor in excommunication or a continuation of ongoing disciplinary action. I've never served where such affiliation, if known, was overlooked.

Your anecdotes, which reflect your personal animosity, are not much of a basis for asserting a claim on the Church.

The clear implication of this thread is that you feel Sister Young should be excommunicated due to a statement so benign; yet that you claim no difference between Sister Young and Denver Snuffer, demonstrates that your personal agenda and animosoty towards those who do not follow your personal version of what you think God and His Gospel should be.

Given that you are a member of an antimormon board, does that mean you affiliate with persons opposed with the Church?

[LordUther]

 

 

If that were all, sure.

 

 

Post number 16 of this thread seems to establish that they are.

 

 

I've served in multiple Stakes in several areas where affiliation with this type of group prevents one from holding a TR and sometimes has been a factor in excommunication or a continuation of ongoing disciplinary action.  I've never served where such affiliation, if known, was overlooked.

 

Actually post 16 says exactly what I said, that they believe that God loves his gay children and are hoping that all blessings and ordinances will one day be available to them.

 

And yes you may well have ex'd people for being members of this type of group but the fact that the church hasn't started ex'ing people for being members of this group tells you there is a difference. You may not agree with it, but it's not your decision to make.

[thesometimesaint]

Not a problem.  If it were known your parents were apostates or rabid anti Mormons, just as if it were known that someone affiliated with the LBGT group in question, one might be asked follow up questions to ascertain if one agreed with and/or provided support for the opposing teachings if one weren't known very well.  If one lied or were coy and very careful, it certainly is possible to get away with it which, I suppose, is partly the reason why the question "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?" is in there too.  Part of the reason for the interview is for self examination.

 

 

They weren't apostates or rabid anti any religion. They just didn't agree with foundational story of LDS. I supported them in their right to have any religious ideas they wanted. Even if they weren't my own. We got along just fine, but religion wasn't talked about much other than statements of beliefs. A live and let live philosophy. I always knew my parents loved, and took care of me. They also gave me all the opportunity I wanted to learn, to grow, and to make my own decisions. I honor them for that.

[CV75]

Your speculation as well as others on what love will be like in the next life works so well for you and others because it is an extension and even a perfection of what you experience on earth. 

It is not speculation; I have begun to feel charity toward all God's children in this life, and more to the point, I have been the beneficiary of charity far more than I have ever displayed it.

 

Unless you are willing to extend your view of what this higher form of love is to include the relationship and love between same genders as well.

Have you no love of any kind for any woman? I love many men and women in many ways.

 

 From my perspective and orientation, I to can get emotionally swept up in a higher and more complete love when it allows me to participate in that love with someone of my own gender.  

And this is conditional love, as I pointed out earlier.

 

If you can envision increasing your love and perfecting it so that you would be perfectly ok with spending eternity with someone of your own gender, then I think we are both nodding our heads in the same direction.  If on the other hand, the idea of spending eternity with someone of your same gender and never having that bonded relationship with someone of opposite gender is a bit unsettling for you, then  I think we are both viewing exaltation in the way that we want our own love to grow and progress.

I indeed plan to spend eternity with people I love of both genders.

 

Perhaps you take some comfort in believing that God's plan is restricted to opposite gender relationships in the eternities and so things will go the way you envision them to go.  I have no such comfort, which makes my view of exaltation much more difficult to embrace.

But you are viewing exaltation through the lens of sexual desire, and it must be viewed much more broadly.

[BCSpace]

Actually post 16 says exactly what I said, that they believe that God loves his gay children and are hoping that all blessings and ordinances will one day be available to them.

 

Interesting that you didn't mention what else it said...

[california boy]

It is not speculation; I have begun to feel charity toward all God's children in this life, and more to the point, I have been the beneficiary of charity far more than I have ever displayed it.

 

Have you no love of any kind for any woman? I love many men and women in many ways.

 

And this is conditional love, as I pointed out earlier.

 

I indeed plan to spend eternity with people I love of both genders.

 

But you are viewing exaltation through the lens of sexual desire, and it must be viewed much more broadly.

Your speculation (and yes, it is speculation since none of this has been received by revelation)  is that everyone will love everyone.  I don't think anyone is going to dispute that idea.  But I think the issue is what the relationship will be between the person you spend eternity with as a partner and the relationship between other celestial people.  Sure I love women.  Some of my best friends are women.  I love my neighbor.  I love my children.  I love my parents.  But none of those relationships is the same as the relationship between me and my boyfriend.  A sexual relationship is not the only thing that defines that relationship. If I was to never have sex with my boyfriend again, my relationship between him and me would still not be the same as the love and relationship of the other people in my life.  This is not rocket science and shouldn't really be a strange concept for you to grasp.  

 

I feel like you are spewing out smokescreens rather than address the issues I have brought up.  Perhaps that is the best you can do.  After all I certainly have been clear that I do not have any answers to the questions I have raised.