california boy Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 No, he has the same plan for all his children. It just doesn't involve homosexual acts. In this life or the next. If you think he is picking on homosexuals, my adult daughter has had very limited dating opportunities. I hope for her that she will find a husband in this life, but if not, her expectation is that she must remain virtuous and chaste throughout her life. This life is SO short. We don't see it now, but God has one thing we don't have, infinite perspective. He knows that whatever our trials in life-and for some, that means not having sex-they will be but a moment, and if we can endure, our reward will be beyond what we can comprehend. And most importantly, we will be happy for eternity. If we (not just you, but any of us) indulge our temptations beyond the bounds the Lord has set in this life, it will lead to an eternity of regret. Just like you know most on this board disagree, From the other thread. Being heterosexual and single is not really the same as being gay and celibate. Things gays are not allowed to do in this life. - Hug- Hold Hands- Cuddle on the couch- Light kissing- Heavy kissing- Making out while lying down- Being roommates- Being bedmates I know you desperately want the choices you have made to be validated and accepted by God and his church. So far, the preponderance of the evidence is not on your side, the only glimmer being that there are no proscriptions against gay marriage in the standard works. That's not too surprising, however, considering that twenty years ago, no governmental entity on earth performed them, and the concept barely existed. The brethren have so far, however, given you no wiggle room. Actually I am not desperate at all. I am quite happy with my life and whether the church changes positions or not is really not that important to me. I am only making the point that there really is a LOT of wiggle room. And like I posted above, the churches current policy just seems counter to the very core of church doctrine regarding families and marriage. Chruch leaders have just decided to not include God's gay children. And I agree that church leadesr seem to be in no hurry to even inquire of the Lord about this issue at this time. Oh well.
jwhitlock Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine." ~~ President Uchtdorf "Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work." ~~ Elder Holland #wiggleroom I know that you like to point out that the brethren have been wrong from time to time. It helps you to justify your own positions in opposition to the church. However, when the First Presidency and the Twelve have spoken unitedly, consistently and individually over time in the same voice on this subject, we can be more than reasonably sure that it's direction from the Lord.
rockpond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I know that you like to point out that the brethren have been wrong from time to time. It helps you to justify your own positions in opposition to the church. However, when the First Presidency and the Twelve have spoken unitedly, consistently and individually over time in the same voice on this subject, we can be more than reasonably sure that it's direction from the Lord. I don't point it out to justify my beliefs. I don't feel a need to justify my beliefs to anyone. They are my beliefs. I hope we can chat about this again in a few decades and see where the consistent message is.
jwhitlock Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I don't point it out to justify my beliefs. I don't feel a need to justify my beliefs to anyone. They are my beliefs. I hope we can chat about this again in a few decades and see where the consistent message is. Sure sounds like you're justifying yourself when you cast doubt on the brethren being right. We're chatting about it now because it has been consistent for decades. And we've gone over that consistency in quite a bit of detail, though you still are bent on historical revisionism in justifying your beliefs here.
rockpond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Sure sounds like you're justifying yourself when you cast doubt on the brethren being right.We're chatting about it now because it has been consistent for decades. And we've gone over that consistency in quite a bit of detail, though you still are bent on historical revisionism in justifying your beliefs here.Nope, no historical revisionism here... I'm just actually not wanting to ignore it.And, I didn't cast doubt. I quoted two apostles who repeated a similar message in the past two conferences. Of course, they could be wrong.
jwhitlock Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Nope, no historical revisionism here... I'm just actually not wanting to ignore it.And, I didn't cast doubt. I quoted two apostles who repeated a similar message in the past two conferences.Of course, they could be wrong. You haven't ever bothered to inform us where any of the leaders of the church at any time said that SSM could be a possibility in the future, or that homosexual behavior could be reclassified as non-sinful. Hence, they have been remarkably consistent on these two subjects over time. Hard to revise history when you don't have anything to back you up, isn't it.
rockpond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 You haven't ever bothered to inform us where any of the leaders of the church at any time said that SSM could be a possibility in the future, or that homosexual behavior could be reclassified as non-sinful.They haven't and I never claimed that they did. Not sure what your point is.
jwhitlock Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 They haven't and I never claimed that they did.Not sure what your point is. You've claimed that the church has been "inconsistent" in it's views on SSM and homosexual behavior. That is, if you remember, what the discussion is about. You keep telling us that the church has been "inconsistent", yet you provide no proof. You tell us that the church is going to "change its mind" on SSM and homosexual behavior - despite the church's consistent stance on both of those subjects. Not sure why you continue beating that drum.
Tacenda Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 You've claimed that the church has been "inconsistent" in it's views on SSM and homosexual behavior. That is, if you remember, what the discussion is about.You keep telling us that the church has been "inconsistent", yet you provide no proof.You tell us that the church is going to "change its mind" on SSM and homosexual behavior - despite the church's consistent stance on both of those subjects.Not sure why you continue beating that drum.Are you serious? You don't see the church has backed away from saying "gays" are not born that way. Surely you've seen this.
jwhitlock Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Are you serious? You don't see the church has backed away from saying "gays" are not born that way. Surely you've seen this. What does "born that way" have to do with the two specific items I mentioned?
Tacenda Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 What does "born that way" have to do with the two specific items I mentioned? It didn't, sorry. But just thinking the church has changed it's position in that regard, probably should have read the thread better.
rockpond Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 You've claimed that the church has been "inconsistent" in it's views on SSM and homosexual behavior. That is, if you remember, what the discussion is about.You keep telling us that the church has been "inconsistent", yet you provide no proof.You tell us that the church is going to "change its mind" on SSM and homosexual behavior - despite the church's consistent stance on both of those subjects.Not sure why you continue beating that drum.I claimed that the prophets and apostles have not been consistent in their teachings regarding homosexuality. And I provided references. They have, of course, been consistently beating the anti-SSM drum since it hit the political scene some 20 years ago. Regarding "homosexual behavior", I'm not sure what to say since, to the best of my knowledge, the church hasn't really put a clear definition to that. But, fornication (regardless of gender) has been consistently taught as contrary to the law of chastity. My stance has been that I hope for further light and knowledge regarding God's will for His homosexual children because what is being taught now does not feel consistent, to me, with the plan of salvation nor the scriptures.
jwhitlock Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I claimed that the prophets and apostles have not been consistent in their teachings regarding homosexuality. And I provided references. Which, of course, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Yet you seem to want it to provide some kind of support for you in saying the church will change its mind on SSM and homosexual behavior. My stance has been that I hope for further light and knowledge regarding God's will for His homosexual children because what is being taught now does not feel consistent, to me, with the plan of salvation nor the scriptures. You're still running after the bus after the rest of us have caught it. We have the guidance on SSM and homosexual behavior, and there's no indication God is going to change His mind about beating that same drum. Of course this whole discussion begs the question of whether SSA itself is an eternal trait or just a temporal corruption, like so many other things. In fact, I'm not aware of any human character trait or physical attribute that can't get corrupted by this temporal experience. We all have to deal with some kind of corruption while we're down here; why SSA should be any kind of exception and be treated as an eternal trait isn't borne up by any evidence I can see. Oh well; that's another tangent that probably deserves its own thread.
CV75 Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 My stance has been that I hope for further light and knowledge regarding God's will for His homosexual children because what is being taught now does not feel consistent, to me, with the plan of salvation nor the scriptures.The scriptures say very little about any specialized area of our mortal state or condition, except in terms of our being fallen or saved in our capacity to experience and act as human beings in relation to eternal principle. For example, “authority,” “depravity,” “purity,” and “chastity” are used in scripture, but not much detail is offered about how their nuances should play out in everyday life—it isn’t needed for those with the Holy Ghost (and how to get the Holy Ghost is already clearly described). For example, “morality” is never used in scripture, but we can see that the scriptures are all about that, by virtue of the doctrines, covenants and ordinances that they do spell out. God's will for His [fill in the blank]ual children is the same for all His other children, and His revelations have and will continue to be given in that context. Even using OD2, the language is "all worthy male members," "every worthy member of the Church," "all of our brethren who are worthy," "all his children" and so forth. Marriage is already extended to all worthy members, so what you seem to really be are hoping for is further light and knowledge consisting of a change in the revealed covenant of marriage (or a clear confirmation that the current covenant is really the right one; I suppose you'd accept that), not a new revelation about homosexuality. I do not think He reveals to individual [fill in the blank]uals specific exceptions to grant them license to act contrary to His doctrines, covenants, and ordinances, but rather guides, comforts and strengthens them to endure to the end.
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 From the other thread. Being heterosexual and single is not really the same as being gay and celibate. Things gays are not allowed to do in this life. - Hug- Hold Hands- Cuddle on the couch- Light kissing- Heavy kissing- Making out while lying down- Being roommates- Being bedmates Actually I am not desperate at all. I am quite happy with my life and whether the church changes positions or not is really not that important to me. I am only making the point that there really is a LOT of wiggle room. And like I posted above, the churches current policy just seems counter to the very core of church doctrine regarding families and marriage. Chruch leaders have just decided to not include God's gay children. And I agree that church leadesr seem to be in no hurry to even inquire of the Lord about this issue at this time. Oh well. I have no problem with heterosexuals and homosexuals doing all those things in the privacy of their own home, and the first two in public. Otherwise get a room. God's plan is for everyone. Whether we partake of that plan and to what extent is up to us individually.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Which, of course, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Yet you seem to want it to provide some kind of support for you in saying the church will change its mind on SSM and homosexual behavior.You're still running after the bus after the rest of us have caught it. We have the guidance on SSM and homosexual behavior, and there's no indication God is going to change His mind about beating that same drum.Of course this whole discussion begs the question of whether SSA itself is an eternal trait or just a temporal corruption, like so many other things. In fact, I'm not aware of any human character trait or physical attribute that can't get corrupted by this temporal experience. We all have to deal with some kind of corruption while we're down here; why SSA should be any kind of exception and be treated as an eternal trait isn't borne up by any evidence I can see. Oh well; that's another tangent that probably deserves its own thread.Inconsistency with respect to our teachings on the subject of homosexuality does seem relevant to me when we are discussing whether revelation on the matter has been received. But, hey, I'm happy to be "running after the bus". Someone needs to and I feel like I'm in good company.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 God's will for His [fill in the blank]ual children is the same for all His other children, and His revelations have and will continue to be given in that context. Even using OD2, the language is "all worthy male members," "every worthy member of the Church," "all of our brethren who are worthy," "all his children" and so forth.Agreed.
CV75 Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Agreed.Therefore, the marriage covenant already applies and is already available to all God's children regardless of personal sexuality. Hoping for a change to the covenant won't expand its availability and applicability. Likewise, an alternative covenant isn't necessary because the current covenant is already all-encompassing. Any revelation about sexuality cannot drive a change in the covenant or the creation of an alternative covenant for the same reason.
rockpond Posted January 19, 2014 Posted January 19, 2014 Therefore, the marriage covenant already applies and is already available to all God's children regardless of personal sexuality. Hoping for a change to the covenant won't expand its availability and applicability. Likewise, an alternative covenant isn't necessary because the current covenant is already all-encompassing. Any revelation about sexuality cannot drive a change in the covenant or the creation of an alternative covenant for the same reason.And that, of course, is where we disagree. But I tried to conclude on a positive note.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.