halconero Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I hope this catches on, then. I doubt it, but one can hope. This is totally anecdotal, so don't look to much into it: I traveled with my roommate down to Philly, PA last April so that he could attend a (private, not church sponsored) conference for gay members. I took the opportunity to visit a companion of mine who had come home early from the mission and was feeling down. This physical, health intimacy was a key focus of the conference and while there my roommate met a man from Utah. He asked him why he had come out east when plenty of these meetings were available in Utah. The man responded by telling him that he was a gay member working for the Church in the head offices. He and several others had been sent out to these events and meetings by the First Presidency to participate in and let them know them know the effects, feeling and results of the conferences. He told my roommate that the leadership was very cognizant of the need to support in a deeper, more profound way, it's members, but that they were going about it quietly. While visiting him in Utah he learned that such physical intimacy, and the development of relationships between gay members on this level was looked on with approval in the Church headquarters as a kind of "David and Johnathan" relationship. Discount it if you want, I completely understand if you do. 1
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If it were just that the church wants gay members not to engage in sex, I'd be more accepting and understanding of the church's position. But it's such a double-standard and one that forces gay members to live without loving physical contact at all with anyone they might be sexually attracted to. People tell me the church isn't asking anything of gay members that they wouldn't ask of unmarried heterosexual members. But that's not true. Again, what does 'loving physical contact" between two homosexuals who love each other lead to? Halconero described a situation where two homosexuals are actively striding to NOT act on their homosexuality.
Mystery Meat Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Reading this topic makes my head want to explode. I don't think there is a single person in this thread that "speaks for me" on this topic.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 This is totally anecdotal, so don't look to much into it: I traveled with my roommate down to Philly, PA last April so that he could attend a (private, not church sponsored) conference for gay members. I took the opportunity to visit a companion of mine who had come home early from the mission and was feeling down. This physical, health intimacy was a key focus of the conference and while there my roommate met a man from Utah. He asked him why he had come out east when plenty of these meetings were available in Utah. The man responded by telling him that he was a gay member working for the Church in the head offices. He and several others had been sent out to these events and meetings by the First Presidency to participate in and let them know them know the effects, feeling and results of the conferences. He told my roommate that the leadership was very cognizant of the need to support in a deeper, more profound way, it's members, but that they were going about it quietly. While visiting him in Utah he learned that such physical intimacy, and the development of relationships between gay members on this level was looked on with approval in the Church headquarters as a kind of "David and Johnathan" relationship. Discount it if you want, I completely understand if you do.Red flags abound on this one.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 What will homosexual kissing lead to in the eternities as opposed to you, a male, kissing your wife? I know you "dont believe" but you know the doctrines all too well so you're quite capable in answering the question. If Scott is right and homosexuality is just an issue in this life, a kiss between, say, two men, has no more impact on the eternities than any of the kisses I gave women I dated but did not marry. It violates no commandment I can think of. So, to answer your question, it leads to nothing and therefore is nothing to worry about, in this apostate's opinion.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Discount it if you want, I completely understand if you do. Why would I discount you? That is really good to hear, and I appreciate you sharing it.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I thought we were talking about the future, not the past. And all revelation will be based upon the Standard Works.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If Scott is right and homosexuality is just an issue in this life, a kiss between, say, two men, has no more impact on the eternities than any of the kisses I gave women I dated but did not marry. It violates no commandment I can think of. So, to answer your question, it leads to nothing and therefore is nothing to worry about, in this apostate's opinion. Each time you kissed a woman in the past you came closer, if purely by a physical desire, to get a wife, no?
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Each time you kissed a woman in the past you came closer, if purely by a physical desire, to get a wife, no? No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 And all revelation will be based upon the Standard Works. You have a different understanding of continuing revelation than I do. I've never heard anyone teach that new revelation must be based on the current standard works.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 A man kissing a woman, even in curch, also sets the standards of how things should be to everyone else. How things should be here I include: as they are now, have been, and the eventual goal of a man and a woman.
Rob Osborn Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Your comparison is not fair, you have your wife. Regardless of having attraction to other women you still have your wife. You are asking a gay person to have no-one. It is a completely different scenario. Ok lets ask it. If a prophet asked you to live out the rest of your life not having any more sexual relations with your wife would you? could you? I am 35 years old and the answer is no and so Thank God I am heterosexual and not asked to make this great sacrifice, because I couldn't. It is easy for me to sit back and say, heck yeah I could do it, as I will do anything God asks of me.... but in all honesty. Nope, not a chance in Spirit Prison I could do that.My comparison is completely fair. I am not siding with Satan on this issue to somehow justify sinful behavior. This particular point fails on so many simple levels. There are a myriad of sexual sins man can committ that are contrary to that which the Lord has revealed. Most homosexual relationships are based on sex- its what binds them as a couple intimately. Its about personal satisfaction plain and simple. Gay peopke do not have a right or priveledge to express intimacey with each other in Gods kingdom. As I said previously, it is my firm belief that homosexual acts for the most part are because one willingly and knowingly act in sin despite knowing better. They are not alliwed to share those emotions and remain part of Gods kingdom. Some say its not fair that they cant have multipke wives because of their "born that way" belief and so they go off contrary to Gods law and fulfill their desire. Its still all sin and cant be justified.There may be some genuine rare cases of gender confusion but for the most part homosexuals choose to be gay.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Sweet. Another wishful thinking thread. 1
halconero Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Why would I discount you? That is really good to hear, and I appreciate you sharing it. Because it's anecdotal and could be taken along the same lines as the "My cousin heard Apostle so-and-so says such-and-such at a stake conference once." It happened, but I understand anyone who wants to call Bullpucky on it.
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 No, I wouldn't agree with that at all. So when you kissed your now wife while you were dating it meant nothing as to you wanting to be with her? Likewise, when you kissed the women in your past on dates this did not impact "at all" your eventual goal of getting married?
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 You have a different understanding of continuing revelation than I do. I've never heard anyone teach that new revelation must be based on the current standard works. Why do you think they call these works "standard"? It's the measuring rubric for all things we are to do to fully serve God. Elder D. Todd Christofferson, "The Doctrine of Christ," April 2012 General Conference, Sunday Morning Session., (April 1, 2012) The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him. Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members, but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man¹s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.[4] http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Establishing_new_doctrine
Darren10 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Accordingly, one may very much say that same sex marriae / homosexual behavior, will NEVER be accepted in the LDS Church, even with the doctrine of living revelation.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 So when you kissed your now wife while you were dating it meant nothing as to you wanting to be with her? Likewise, when you kissed the women in your past on dates this did not impact "at all" your eventual goal of getting married? My wife never kissed anyone until we were engaged, so that doesn't apply. I kissed a few girls in my time, but no, kissing girls when I was 16 or 18 didn't have much to do with whom I was going to marry. When I got home from my mission, I kissed a sister missionary I had known in Bolivia. She was very attractive and had been Miss Weber State before her mission, but we both knew it was meaningless. I did feel a little guilty about it afterward.
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 But that is not what faces even SSA people. In the eternities, no blessing of God will be denied any of His children who remain true and faithful. That's why I said I am amazed by the faith of those who can trust in that promise enough to give up all of those relationships in this life.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Why do you think they call these works "standard"? It's the measuring rubric for all things we are to do to fully serve God. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Establishing_new_doctrine Neither of those quotes says anything about new revelation but rather that doctrine comes from revelation, and we judge doctrine by those revelations. If new revelation comes and is accepted as scripture, it stands, whether it is consistent with what we knew in the past.
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 What you appear to be saying is that you lack the ability to postpone sexual gratification even if such postponement would mean obtaining the greatest gifts of God It sounds odd to say so, but I hope I'm misunderstanding you on this. It is far more than just sexual gratification. It is giving up many of the most meaningful relationships we can have in mortal life.
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 There may be some genuine rare cases of gender confusion but for the most part homosexuals choose to be gay. Wow... so there still are people who believe this. Good to know.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Wow... so there still are people who believe this. Good to know. Yes, there are, unfortunately. Apparently, there are a lot of positives to being gay and very few downsides, unless you count likely being rejected by your church, your family, and your peers; bullying; and lack of legal protections. Yep, who wouldn't choose to be gay? Maybe I'll make the switch. Oh, wait, my wife would probably not like that much.
halconero Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 There may be some genuine rare cases of gender confusion but for the most part homosexuals choose to be gay. When did you choose to be straight?
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 When did you choose to be straight? I grew up in California, where they gave us a "gay aptitude" test in high school.
Recommended Posts