awyatt Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Scott, I have no doubt that the furor that will result from Elder Oaks' talk (just delivered eloquently and masterfully) will overshadow the acclaim afforded Pres. Uchtdorf. Pity. -Allen
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 Scott, I have no doubt that the furor that will result from Elder Oaks' talk (just delivered eloquently and masterfully) will overshadow the acclaim afforded Pres. Uchtdorf. Pity. -AllenAnd yet Elder Oaks's talk is every bit as important and needed as President Uchtdorf's. I agree it was eloquent and masterful -- and it is destined to be quoted again and again. 2
Calm Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Okay...got to drag myself out of bed and go down and listen...
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) Okay...got to drag myself out of bed and go down and listen...Just turn on the radio at your bedside. Make it easy on yourself. Edited to add: In case you missed it, Elder Oaks has torpedoed the notion that there will one day be a place in the Church and in the law of God for same-gender sex, either inside or outside of marriage. Let the railing begin. Edited October 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
why me Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 President Uchtdorf's talk is being universally acclaimed here, including among those who class themselves as doubters. While that is a fine thing, we should beware lest we read into it an endorsement or even an acquiescence to the practice of sowing or nurturing seeds of doubt among the young, the recently converted, the distressed, or others whose faith is currently vulnerable or weak. I don't believe that is what was intended here. Hence, the quote that I picked out as the title for this thread.My point exactly. It is hoped that the doubters come back and get stronger in the faith someday. But until they do, they are welcome in the church.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) Yes, but faith must be in "substance and evidence". Imagine where Christianity would be if Jesus had never produced himself for inspection?Probably where the restored Church would be if the Nephite plates were not made available to 11 witnesses for inspection. Edited October 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Just turn on the radio at your bedside. Make it easy on yourself. Edited to add: In case you missed it, Elder Oaks has torpedoed the notion that there will one day be a place in the Church and in the law of God for same-gender sex, either inside or outside of marriage. Let the railing begin. No railing here. If Godhood requires heterosexual, sealed unions, there is no place in LDS theology for homosexual relationships. For gay members, the choice is pretty clear: live a celibate life or leave.
Calm Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Just turn on the radio at your bedside. Make it easy on yourself. Edited to add: In case you missed it, Elder Oaks has torpedoed the notion that there will one day be a place in the Church and in the law of God for same-gender sex, either inside or outside of marriage. Let the railing begin.No radio in my room...don't need a clock to leer at me in the middle of night when I can't sleep. And I tried listening online and it kept freezing so am now in front of the TV and bless the DVR, my husband even told me to rewind and he listened to Brother Oaks' talk again (he was a bit behind and was halfway through Sister Oscarson's talk...which was wonderful).
rpn Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 For gay members, the choice is pretty clear: live a celibate life or leave. No, the choice is live celibate or risk not just your virtue but your heart, because any family relationships in this life will not be sealed eternally.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 No, the choice is live celibate or risk not just your virtue but your heart, because any family relationships in this life will not be sealed eternally. It's a terrible choice: be true to yourself or lose your family.
Calm Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) be true to yourself... This could be debated... And there is also the view of being it being a choice that includes being true to God. Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 This could be debated... Sure. Everything can be debated. That's just how I see it.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 And there is also the view of being it being a choice that includes being true to God. Like I said, a terrible choice. I'm glad I'm not a gay member who believes in the church. I can't imagine that.
CV75 Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 This could be debated... And there is also the view of being it being a choice that includes being true to God.I agree. There is a point where being true to oneself becomes putting oneself before others. Otherwise Jesus would not have said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Matthew 15:13). Our greatest Friend is Jesus.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 I agree. There is a point where being true to oneself becomes putting oneself before others. Otherwise Jesus would not have said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Matthew 15:13). Our greatest Friend is Jesus. Hmmm. I've always been taught that you should be true to yourself, no matter the cost. If your friends required you to, say, drink with them, is there some point at which you should put your friends first and give in?
Calm Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) I agree. There is a point where being true to oneself becomes putting oneself before others. Otherwise Jesus would not have said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Matthew 15:13). Our greatest Friend is Jesus.Not only that, but simply because one may have strong feelings and desires...even ones that feel overpowering for something, acting on such is not necessarily what supports and develops the individual's truest, eternal nature. Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah
Scott Lloyd Posted October 6, 2013 Author Posted October 6, 2013 Like I said, a terrible choice. I'm glad I'm not a gay member who believes in the church. I can't imagine that.For one whose sexual orientation is exclusively same-gender, I agree. I shudder to think of it. However, for one who is bi-sexual, the choice might be difficult, but it would be a matter of suppressing the unwholesome aspects of one's sexuality and forming and cultivating a marital union that is acceptable to God -- just as it is for any heterosexual member of the Church.
ksfisher Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Hmmm. I've always been taught that you should be true to yourself, no matter the cost. If your friends required you to, say, drink with them, is there some point at which you should put your friends first and give in?Elder Oaks seemed to be teaching us to put God first, no matter what the cost."Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God's approval."
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Elder Oaks seemed to be teaching us to put God first, no matter what the cost."Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God's approval." Then what matters is whether the LDS church is God's church and its teachings represents God's teachings.
why me Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 No railing here. If Godhood requires heterosexual, sealed unions, there is no place in LDS theology for homosexual relationships. For gay members, the choice is pretty clear: live a celibate life or leave.I think that we would need to take it up with god. It should be obvious that in the past most christian faiths were not supportive of same sex union. But as time moves on it has become fashionable to support it. And some churches do.
why me Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) Then what matters is whether the LDS church is God's church and its teachings represents God's teachings.I think that you now got it. Of course one can also believe that the episcopal church is god's church too. Or the UU church. They both support same sex marriage. But if one believes that the lds church is god's church, one should follow its teachings. Edited October 6, 2013 by why me
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 I think that you now got it. Of course one can also believe that the episcopal church is god's church too. Or the UU church. They both support same sex marriage. But if one believes that the lds church is god's church, one should follow its teachings. No argument here. For me, it wouldn't be much of a decision, but it must be awful for believing LDS who are gay.
ksfisher Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 Then what matters is whether the LDS church is God's church and its teachings represents God's teachings.Yes, that seems to be one of the most important questions for us to answer in our lives.
canard78 Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 It's a very nice talk. It's refreshing to hear a GA say so clearly that there are other reasons people leave than sin and laziness. His appeal for exmos like me to return was very heartfelt. My issues are historical and doctrinal. No Apostasy, no Nephites, the BoA is not authentic, polygamy and the priesthood ban were doctrines of men. Since those are my beliefs, why return? As someone who accepts that your whole list is potentially correct (though not conclusively) I can tell you that attendance still has merit. The Book of Mormon's ability to teach true principles and persuade people to do good is not dependent on the books historical origins but on the willingness to take the experiment of planting seed. The environment to associate with people who are trying to become better people is a great one for making progress on the path to godliness.
jkwilliams Posted October 6, 2013 Posted October 6, 2013 As someone who accepts that your whole list is potentially correct (though not conclusively) I can tell you that attendance still has merit. The Book of Mormon's ability to teach true principles and persuade people to do good is not dependent on the books historical origins but on the willingness to take the experiment of planting seed. The environment to associate with people who are trying to become better people is a great one for making progress on the path to godliness. Beyond Spammer's list, my problem is that I wasn't happy in the church. Even if I could satisfactorily resolve my issues with the church's truth claims, I have no idea how I would overcome the problem of being unhappy as a Mormon.
Recommended Posts