Exalting Gays (Thought Experiment)

[california boy]

Again I don't see the consistency here I guess. You are no longer a member yet you believe that temple marriage came from God and that somehow we could have known about it without prophets, since the prophets were wrong about how they defined it.

Yes, I am very confused and still looking for something that hangs together consistenly

Please explain how it is possible for us to know about temple marriage and yet maintain that the prophets were wrong about how it works.

And how do you look to God to "decide these things" if the prophets are wrong and you don't seem to want to be your own prophet?

How are we to know what God decides then?

 

Well in the past, God would give his prophets revelations from Him directly.  Evidently God has stopped that practice, and the heavens are once again sealed.  I guess I long for the days when prophets like Joseph Smith could ask God questions and he would clarify how He wanted His church to function.  Now we seem to be left once again to committee deciding these matters.

 

The consistency is simply this.  Revelations come from God.  Committee decisions are not an indication of God's will.  I am more interested in God's will than church leaders will.  It just seems to be more important. I will wait for God to speak.  Until then, I  won't worry very much about what the church thinks about this issue.  Heck we see members of the church so desperate to know the will of God and a revelation on some of these important issues, they are willing to declare the Proclamation a revelation from God, a position the church itself has never espoused.  As far as I know, the last revelation in the church came in 1978, 36 years ago.

[ERayR]

Well in the past, God would give his prophets revelations from Him directly.  Evidently God has stopped that practice, and the heavens are once again sealed.  I guess I long for the days when prophets like Joseph Smith could ask God questions and he would clarify how He wanted His church to function.  Now we seem to be left once again to committee deciding these matters.

 

The consistency is simply this.  Revelations come from God.  Committee decisions are not an indication of God's will.  I am more interested in God's will than church leaders will.  It just seems to be more important. I will wait for God to speak.  Until then, I  won't worry very much about what the church thinks about this issue.  Heck we see members of the church so desperate to know the will of God and a revelation on some of these important issues, they are willing to declare the Proclamation a revelation from God, a position the church itself has never espoused.  As far as I know, the last revelation in the church came in 1978, 36 years ago.

 

Are you reading the same scriptures that I am?

 

Acts 1:26

And they cast their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

[Daniel2]

So you are saying that it's ok with you that gay couples get secondary roles in the ck and are not exalted?

I wouldn't call it "secondary." That's like telling your child that wants to be a doctor (instead of a lawyer, like his father) that he's chosen a 'secondary' role.... it's a different one, based on different desires. Unless one is so pompus as to presume that anything less than heterosexual exaltation is 'secondary.' <gag>. Diversity is necessary and beautiful in every facet of existence. We can't all be farmers. Or lawyers. Or teachers. Or police officers. Or construction workers. All are necessary, and none without honor or any less deserving of respect.

No problem with that, but that wasn't the question. We are told that even those in the telestial kingdom will have "joy"-

Are we...? The rest of your reference notwirhstanding, where and whom said we'd have "joy" in the telesales kingdom?

But I really think that I could never have gotten away with putting it the way you did with the gay sterotypes:

If I had said that you would have said that I was stereotyping gays as florists and interior decorators.

Gay men tend to be more creative, artistic, nurturing, and intuitive/emotional than straight men--although that is not always the case. Because gay couples can't procreate without external assistance, many adopt dogs and cats and treat them as children. That isn't a stereotype--it's a reality. Had you or if you acknowledge that, I would have and will agree with you. No sense getting offended over reality. Edited December 29, 2014 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

Well in the past, God would give his prophets revelations from Him directly.  Evidently God has stopped that practice, and the heavens are once again sealed.  I guess I long for the days when prophets like Joseph Smith could ask God questions and he would clarify how He wanted His church to function.  Now we seem to be left once again to committee deciding these matters.

 

The consistency is simply this.  Revelations come from God.  Committee decisions are not an indication of God's will.  I am more interested in God's will than church leaders will.  It just seems to be more important. I will wait for God to speak.  Until then, I  won't worry very much about what the church thinks about this issue.  Heck we see members of the church so desperate to know the will of God and a revelation on some of these important issues, they are willing to declare the Proclamation a revelation from God, a position the church itself has never espoused.  As far as I know, the last revelation in the church came in 1978, 36 years ago.

So revelations only come from God if you agree with them.

You only like the old ones including and prior to 1978. Proclamation on the Family obviously excluded.

What about the old biblical prohibitions against homosexuality? I have asked that a dozen times at least.

[mfbukowski]

The consistency is simply this.  Revelations come from God.  Committee decisions are not an indication of God's will.  I am more interested in God's will than church leaders will.

Still no answer on how we are supposed to know that will.

Never mind- you obviously do not have an answer.

[mfbukowski]

I wouldn't call it "secondary." That's like telling your child that wants to be a doctor (instead of a lawyer, like his father) that he's chosen a 'secondary' role.... it's a different one, based on different desires. Unless one is so pompus as to presume that anything less than heterosexual exaltation is 'secondary.' <gag>. Diversity is necessary and beautiful in every facet of existence. We can't all be farmers. Or lawyers. Or teachers. Or police officers. Or construction workers. All are necessary, and none without honor or any less deserving of respect.

Are we...? The rest of your reference notwirhstanding, where and whom said we'd have "joy" in the telesales kingdom?

 

Seriously?  Just D&C.

 

"The Glory of the Telestial ... Surpasses All

Understanding" (D&C 76:89)

Bruce R. McConkie (Quorum of the Twelve)

That glory granted the inhabitants of the lowest kingdom of glory is called telestial glory. In the infinite mercy of a beneficent Father it surpasses all mortal understanding, and yet it is in no way comparable to the glory of the terrestrial and celestial worlds. Telestial glory is typified by the stars of the firmament, and "as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world" (D. & C. 76:81-112; 1 Cor. 15:41), meaning that all who inherit the telestial kingdom will not receive the same glory. (Mormon Doctrine, p.778)

John A. Widtsoe (Quorum of the Twelve)

These kingdoms, though very different, are filled with the children of God the Father. Though those of the lower kingdom have not shown themselves worthy of the fulness of salvation, yet the love of the Father envelops them. Even the glory of the lowest, the telestial, "surpasses all understanding." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p.199)

Neal A. Maxwell (Quorum of the Twelve)

Each post-resurrection kingdom is a kingdom of glory that is far better than this world we now know. Even "the glory of the telestial" will surpass "all understanding" (D&C 76:89). (If Thou Endure It Well, p. 129)

God thus takes into merciful account not only our desires and our performance, but also the degrees of difficulty which our varied circumstances impose upon us. No wonder we will not complain at the final judgment, especially since even the telestial kingdom's glory "surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89). God delights in blessing us, especially when we realize "joy in that which [we] have desired" (D&C 7: . ["According to the Desire of [Our] Hearts," Ensign, Nov. 1996, p. 21]

Dallin H. Oaks (Quorum of the Twelve)

The lowest degree is the telestial domain of those who "received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets" (D&C 76:101) and who have had to suffer for their wickedness. But even this degree has a glory that "surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89). Its occupants receive the Holy Spirit and the administering of angels, for even those who have been wicked will ultimately be "heirs of [this degree of] salvation" (D&C 76:88). ["Apostasy and Restoration," Ensign, May 1995, p. 86]

 

http://scottwoodward.org/kingdomsofglory_telestial_surpassesunderstanding.html

 

Gay men tend to be more creative, artistic, nurturing, and intuitive/emotional than straight men--although that is not always the case. Because gay couples can't procreate without external assistance, many adopt dogs and cats and treat them as children. That isn't a stereotype--it's a reality. Had you or if you acknowledge that, I would have and will agree with you. No sense getting offended over reality.

 

 

That is clearly a heterophobic stereotype.

[Daniel2]

Seriously? Just D&C.

http://scottwoodward.org/kingdomsofglory_telestial_surpassesunderstanding.html

Seriously.

All of the sources you list speak of the "glory" of the other kingdoms. None of them mention "joy," save for Maxwell... and his meaning is obscure. What if I desire joy in being married to my same-sex spouse? Does that mean God will delight in granting me that...? That supports my position, not yours...

If "joy" is to be had in all three kingdoms, what's the point of shooting for the celestial...?

That is clearly a heterophobic stereotype.

Haha. Ok. If that's how you'd care to characterize what I said, it's no skin off my nose. ;-) As I said, stereotypes are often based on trends. No harm in a acknowledging them. Edited December 29, 2014 by Daniel2

[california boy]

So revelations only come from God if you agree with them.

You only like the old ones including and prior to 1978. Proclamation on the Family obviously excluded.

What about the old biblical prohibitions against homosexuality? I have asked that a dozen times at least.

 

Nope.  Revelations only come from God.  And I expect a prophet of God to tell us when he has received such a revelation.  The last time I heard a prophet say he received a revelation from God was in 1978.  When the prophet declares the Proclamation on the Family as a revelation from God, then I will accept it as that.  What we have been told about the proclamation so far is that it was drawn up by a committee and voted upon by the leadership of the church.  I accept that as being what it claims to be.  You on the other hand are the one declaring it a revelation without a single statement by the prophet agreeing with that opinion.  Why would you do such a thing?  What gives you the right to declare what a revelation is.  Isn't that the job of the prophet?  If it is, then so let him declare it as such.  If you have such a statement from the prophet declaring the Proclamation on the Family a revelation from God that here is a CFR.  Show us the statement from the prophet.  Otherwise withdraw your claim that it is a revelation.  

 

The Bible clearly records that God calls ALL sexual relations outside of marriage an abomination.  Why would gay sex be any different than straight sex?  Would you like me to provide scriptures calling heterosexual relations outside of marriage an abomination as well?

 

And I have answered your questions a dozen times.  You just don't like the fact that no revelation has been given by God concerning celestial marriage for all of God's children.  I am not saying that one will come.  I am only saying that no such revelation has been received by the prophet of God.  So you, the church leadership or anyone else can not say what the will of God is on this matter until God reveals His will.  

 

If this is the Church of Jesus Christ, then He is in charge.  If this is the church of man, then it is appropriate that a committee gets together, draws up a policy and then votes on it.  Perhaps no revelation with come.  If that is the case, then we do know whose church this is.  No longer is it the church of continued revelation.  It has become something else.

[Coreyb]

I believe Elder Packer called it a revelation, but that part was edited out for the published text. Sounds like an internal struggle, I will try to find it for the discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that the prophets ought to be the ones declaring which of their words are revelations from God.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Coreyb

[california boy]

Still no answer on how we are supposed to know that will.

Never mind- you obviously do not have an answer.

 

 

Cute.  As you know, I have answered the question numerous times.  One last time.  A revelation from God is a revelation when the prophet of the church declares he has received such a revelation.  Not a hard concept.  Perhaps you might do a little reading in the D&C to refresh your mind on how Joseph Smith declared revelation when he received it concerning church doctrine.  You might start with the first vision.  No committee was present.

 

 Isn't the claim that the church of Jesus Christ is run by Christ himself through a prophet of God who receives revelation is what separates the Mormon church from all other churches that are run by committee? If the church does not receive revelation, then why join?  Is it just because you think that Mormon committees are more correct than other churches???

[Coreyb]

This discusses the issue and responds.

http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2010/12/revelation-vsopinion.html?m=1

Sorry, I'm not trying to derail my own thread

[california boy]

This discusses the issue and responds.

http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2010/12/revelation-vsopinion.html?m=1

Sorry, I'm not trying to derail my own thread

 

Read it.  An interesting opinion by Tim Barker.  It claims to be nothing more than that.  I am not trying to be difficult here.  Perhaps I missed the memo that prophets will no longer declare when they have received a revelation.

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................................

...........................I agree wholeheartedly that the prophets ought to be the ones declaring which of their words are revelations from God.

Of course they should be given that prerogative.  However, even the OT covers a considerable period of time, and revelations came no more often (perhaps less often) then than nowadays.  We imagine sometimes that OT peoples received a revelation a week, but there is no indication that that is so.  It just seems that way while reading a very compressed and abridged anthology of biblical literature.  Revelations have only come on God's schedule, which could let a people languish for centuries before a real revelation comes, e.g., the Israelites enslaved in Egypt for a long time before they were released, and even then they spent 40 additional years in the wilderness before being allowed to enter the Promised Land.

 

The initial period of the modern Restoration of all things resulted in very frequent revelation -- until the LDS Church structure and theology had been established.  After that it tapered off, not being nearly as crucial on a regular basis.  Moreover, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the office of the Presidency of the High Priesthood (Thomas Monson) if it is thought to entail only revelatory activity.  Just managing a huge and dynamic church is a big enough problem by itself, without adding unnecessary revelations on every issue which was already dealt with long ago.  God speaks in his own sweet time, not on demand.  Meantime, those who hold the keys as general authorities speak to us regularly in His name, advising us on what is required and why.  We need only the Holy Spirit to confirm or deny that advice.  All of us have that right of personal revelation.

[california boy]

Of course they should be given that prerogative.  However, even the OT covers a considerable period of time, and revelations came no more often (perhaps less often) then than nowadays.  We imagine sometimes that OT peoples received a revelation a week, but there is no indication that that is so.  It just seems that way while reading a very compressed and abridged anthology of biblical literature.  Revelations have only come on God's schedule, which could let a people languish for centuries before a real revelation comes, e.g., the Israelites enslaved in Egypt for a long time before they were released, and even then they spent 40 additional years in the wilderness before being allowed to enter the Promised Land.

 

The initial period of the modern Restoration of all things resulted in very frequent revelation -- until the LDS Church structure and theology had been established.  After that it tapered off, not being nearly as crucial on a regular basis.  Moreover, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the office of the Presidency of the High Priesthood (Thomas Monson) if it is thought to entail only revelatory activity.  Just managing a huge and dynamic church is a big enough problem by itself, without adding unnecessary revelations on every issue which was already dealt with long ago.  God speaks in his own sweet time, not on demand.  Meantime, those who hold the keys as general authorities speak to us regularly in His name, advising us on what is required and why.  We need only the Holy Spirit to confirm or deny that advice.  All of us have that right of personal revelation.

 

 

Your explanation brings up a couple of very interesting points.  It certainly explains why there may very well have been many things "done in the name of God" that God had nothing to do with.  The killing of innocent children being one of them.  Perhaps some of the verses on this very subject were just written by men who, like current church leaders, never received those words from God at all, but just felt like that is what God would say.  Certainly there are many other things written by Paul such as not wearing gold jewelry, women not being allowed to pray or teach in church etc, that doesn't appear to be a revelation coming from God, but more something decided by men (Paul in this case)

 

The other thing you bring up is how the Holy Ghost reveals the truth or falsehood of some of these statements to members of the church.  This explains why some members feel the Holy Ghost has witnessed to them that gays should be allowed to marry in the temple and others have not.  Perhaps the Holy Ghost is telling mfbukowski and others that they should definitely not marry someone of the same sex in the temple.  They interpret this as banning all gays from marrying in the temple when in fact the promptings only are met for their own lives and how they are suppose to conduct themselves.  

 

Interesting thoughts.  Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

Of course they should be given that prerogative.  However, even the OT covers a considerable period of time, and revelations came no more often (perhaps less often) then than nowadays.  We imagine sometimes that OT peoples received a revelation a week, but there is no indication that that is so.  It just seems that way while reading a very compressed and abridged anthology of biblical literature.  Revelations have only come on God's schedule, which could let a people languish for centuries before a real revelation comes, e.g., the Israelites enslaved in Egypt for a long time before they were released, and even then they spent 40 additional years in the wilderness before being allowed to enter the Promised Land.

 

The initial period of the modern Restoration of all things resulted in very frequent revelation -- until the LDS Church structure and theology had been established.  After that it tapered off, not being nearly as crucial on a regular basis.  Moreover, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the office of the Presidency of the High Priesthood (Thomas Monson) if it is thought to entail only revelatory activity.  Just managing a huge and dynamic church is a big enough problem by itself, without adding unnecessary revelations on every issue which was already dealt with long ago.  God speaks in his own sweet time, not on demand.  Meantime, those who hold the keys as general authorities speak to us regularly in His name, advising us on what is required and why.  We need only the Holy Spirit to confirm or deny that advice.  All of us have that right of personal revelation.

Yes I agree.

 

To me conference talks are "revelation".  I choose to accept which revelations are confirmed to me personally or not.  I think that waiting for someone else to declare something a "revelation" for me is tantamount to blind obedience, and will never accept that as doctrine.

 

But to each his own.

 

To me it is clear that hanging this whole issue of gays being exalted on whether or not the Proclamation is a "revelation" and declared as such is rubbish.  That's not the issue at all. 

 

Both those advocating that position have already left the church by their own admission, and now they assert that it was because they disagree with the church because of the definition of "REVELATION"?

 

And that all that it would take to draw them back into the fold would be a clarification that the Proclamation was a "revelation"?

 

. The last time I heard a prophet say he received a revelation from God was in 1978. When the prophet declares the Proclamation on the Family as a revelation from God, then I will accept it as that.

So if this is done, he will give up the gay lifestyle and accept the "word of God"?

 

I find that hard to believe.

Edited December 29, 2014 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

Yes I agree.

 

To me conference talks are "revelation".  I choose to accept which revelations are confirmed to me personally or not.  I think that waiting for someone else to declare something a "revelation" for me is tantamount to blind obedience, and will never accept that as doctrine.

 

But to each his own.

 

To me it is clear that hanging this whole issue of gays being exalted on whether or not the Proclamation is a "revelation" and declared as such is rubbish.  That's not the issue at all. 

 

Both those advocating that position have already left the church by their own admission, and now they assert that it was because they disagree with the church because of the definition of "REVELATION"?

 

And that all that it would take to draw them back into the fold would be a clarification that the Proclamation was a "revelation"?

 

So if this is done, he will give up the gay lifestyle and accept the "word of God"?

 

I find that hard to believe.

 

I would certainly take the word of God more seriously than a committee of men.  Is it unreasonable to want to know whether God  approves of this whole idea of living a celibate life.  The idea of not being with another human throughout this life pretty much goes against everything that is in our nature.  

 

I wonder how many straight members would stay in the church if this same group of men declared that you too must leave your loved one, and live a celibate life?  Would all of you want a revelation directly from God on this subject?  Or would you be willing to blindly follow the men running the church leave your spouse and live the rest of this life alone with the promise that when you die, you would not be united with your loved one, but would be assigned someone else to be with for eternity.  

 

Doesn't sound so enticing now, does it.

[DJBrown]

I believe Elder Packer called it a revelation, but that part was edited out for the published text. Sounds like an internal struggle, I will try to find it for the discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that the prophets ought to be the ones declaring which of their words are revelations from God.

 

Here are a few statements that should be fairly difficult to dismiss from the brethren on the Proclamation:

 

President Hinckley stated just before reading the Proclamation in 1995:  "With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation."

 

President Packer said this in a Worldwide Leadership Training, "

A proclamation in the Church is a significant, major announcement. Very few of them have been issued from the beginning of the Church. They are significant; they are revelatory. At that time, the Brethren issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." It is scripturelike in its power. When you wonder why we are the way we are and why we do the things we do and why we will not do some of the things that we will not do, you can find the authority for that in this proclamation on the family. There are times when we are accused of being intolerant because we won't accept and do the things that are supposed to be the norm in society. Well, the things we won't do, we won't do. And the things we won't do, we can't do, because the standard we follow is given of Him. As we examine this proclamation more closely, see if you don't see in it the issues that are foremost in society, in politics, in government, in religion now that are causing the most concern and difficulty. You'll find answers there - and they are the answers of the Church." Feb 9, 2008   Elder Ballard said this in Oct conference 1999, "False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles."    

[JAHS]

Elder Bruce Hafen said:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex.  Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction

 

This makes complete sense to me. It is an eternal principle and it wouldn't be fair if everyone did not have the chance to have this. 

[Coreyb]

Proclamation: the act of saying something in a public, official, or definite way : the act of proclaiming something

: an official statement or announcement made by a person in power or by a government

Declaration: the act of making an official statement about something : the act of declaring something

: something that is stated or made known in an official or public way

: a document that contains an official statement : a document that makes a declaration

Reaffirmation: re- again

: back to an original place, condition, etc.

affirmation 1 a :the act of affirming

b :something affirmed :a positive assertion

2 :a solemn declaration made under the penalties of perjury by a person who conscientiously declines taking an oath

..versus...

Revelation: a usually secret or surprising fact that is made known

: an act of making something known : an act of revealing something in usually a surprising way

: something that surprises you

Full Definition

1 a :an act of revealing or communicating divine truth

b :something that is revealed by God to humans

2 a :an act of revealing to view or making known

b :something that is revealed; especially :an enlightening or astonishing disclosure <shocking revelations>

c :a pleasant often enlightening surprise <her talent was a revelation>

To put this train back on the rails, what I have said about The Proclamation is not that it is not inspired or inspiring, or that it does not affirm the stance of the church as an institution as it relates to families. What I am saying it that it has certainly not been presented to the church as a revelation from God. Does that mean that mfbukowski and anybody else can't find it to be a revelation? Of course not! I can find the KFD, or the gospel of Thomas, or the Lectures on Faith to be revelations. It is the assertion that The Proclamation is the new word from God that I disagree with. It teaches us NOTHING that was not already revealed, taught, and practiced. It is a summary of the interpretations of (selected) past revelations put together for the sake clarity and brevity on the subject of family, and it does a dang good job at that. However, to assume that this is Gods new revealed final word on the subject of family that cannot or will not be superseded by any future revelations goes well beyond what the text claims, or what Gordon B. Hinckley, the presumed architect of the document has ever stated.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Coreyb

[mfbukowski]

I would certainly take the word of God more seriously than a committee of men.  Is it unreasonable to want to know whether God  approves of this whole idea of living a celibate life.  The idea of not being with another human throughout this life pretty much goes against everything that is in our nature.  

 

I wonder how many straight members would stay in the church if this same group of men declared that you too must leave your loved one, and live a celibate life?  Would all of you want a revelation directly from God on this subject?  Or would you be willing to blindly follow the men running the church leave your spouse and live the rest of this life alone with the promise that when you die, you would not be united with your loved one, but would be assigned someone else to be with for eternity.  

 

Doesn't sound so enticing now, does it.

Yes I know- you have said this repeatedly.  It seems you don't understand the idea that "the natural man is an enemy to God"

 

I am not at this point going to argue with you about whether or not certain sexual drives are "natural" or not- that is irrelevant.  The point is that people do in fact make tremendous sacrifices including celibacy, for God, and many others choose not to behave in certain ways to which they are powerfully drawn because they believe those drives are sinful.   Ask Catholic priests and nuns, ask reformed alcoholics, ask Hindus, Christians Buddhists and who knows how many others.

 

I am close friends with a church leader who has been in prison for dealing drugs because he was an addict himself, years ago, and now he helps others to overcome their addictions.

 

And don't for one minute presume you know anything about my personal sacrifices for the Lord.

 

There is nothing in this post or attitude to lead anyone higher, to ennoble anyone, to cause them to want to be better people, or change in any way.  There is no desire shown here to transform one's life- speaking sexually or otherwise.

Where is there ANY understanding of this, Rev. 3:1

 

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame , and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

THAT kind of sacrifice

 

Doesn't sound so enticing now, does it.

 

 

I'm about done with this silliness.  We are making no progress whatsoever.

[Robert F. Smith]

Your explanation brings up a couple of very interesting points.  It certainly explains why there may very well have been many things "done in the name of God" that God had nothing to do with.  The killing of innocent children being one of them.  Perhaps some of the verses on this very subject were just written by men who, like current church leaders, never received those words from God at all, but just felt like that is what God would say.  Certainly there are many other things written by Paul such as not wearing gold jewelry, women not being allowed to pray or teach in church etc, that doesn't appear to be a revelation coming from God, but more something decided by men (Paul in this case)

Yes, and Paul himself says as much about some of his personal advice (I Cor 7:6-9,25-40, II Cor 8:8-10).

 

The other thing you bring up is how the Holy Ghost reveals the truth or falsehood of some of these statements to members of the church.  This explains why some members feel the Holy Ghost has witnessed to them that gays should be allowed to marry in the temple and others have not.  Perhaps the Holy Ghost is telling mfbukowski and others that they should definitely not marry someone of the same sex in the temple.  They interpret this as banning all gays from marrying in the temple when in fact the promptings only are met for their own lives and how they are suppose to conduct themselves.  

...............................................

I'm not sure that the Holy Spirit is going to provide disunity and just any old confirmation of someone's bias or prejudice.  That would make no sense.  However, it is noteworthy that in 1978 the Twelve and First Presidency were in full harmony in the revelatory experience they received, even though it went against some strong beliefs of some of those present.

[mfbukowski]

... It teaches us NOTHING that was not already revealed, taught, and practiced. It is a summary of the interpretations of (selected) past revelations put together for the sake clarity and brevity on the subject of family, and it does a dang good job at that. However, to assume that this is Gods new revealed final word on the subject of family that cannot or will not be superseded by any future revelations goes well beyond what the text claims, or what Gordon B. Hinckley, the presumed architect of the document has ever stated.

On the other hand, it reaffirms what has always been taught, since the inception of the church.  Always.

 

I would think that when one reaffirms what has always been emphatically taught for nearly 200 years, it certainly does not signal that a change is imminent

[Coreyb]

On the other hand, it reaffirms what has always been taught, since the inception of the church.  Always.

 

I would think that when one reaffirms what has always been emphatically taught for nearly 200 years, it certainly does not signal that a change is imminent

Oh I agree that it does not signal any imminent change, but I just dont find that it restricts a possible future change.

[mfbukowski]

Oh I agree that it does not signal any imminent change, but I just dont find that it restricts a possible future change.

This is nothing like opening up the priesthood in 1978

 

In that case, there had always been ambiguity about the policy- "oh it will be changed some day" or "we don't really know why the Lord has done this". and then there were always those historical precedents - the Blacks who had been ordained in the early church, previous statements by Joseph Smith sympathetic to Black people, etc.

 

This is totally different.  There has never been a hint that this issue could change, and only reaffirmations that it will always be this way.  To me, changing this would be as fundamental as declaring the Book of Mormon as non-scriptural, or optional.

 

It would change the whole character of the church into something totally alien- it would essentially make us Protestants.

 

Yes that could happen I suppose, but then we would not be "we" any longer, "we" would be something else.

[california boy]

Yes I know- you have said this repeatedly.  It seems you don't understand the idea that "the natural man is an enemy to God"

 

I am not at this point going to argue with you about whether or not certain sexual drives are "natural" or not- that is irrelevant.  The point is that people do in fact make tremendous sacrifices including celibacy, for God, and many others choose not to behave in certain ways to which they are powerfully drawn because they believe those drives are sinful.   Ask Catholic priests and nuns, ask reformed alcoholics, ask Hindus, Christians Buddhists and who knows how many others.

 

I am close friends with a church leader who has been in prison for dealing drugs because he was an addict himself, years ago, and now he helps others to overcome their addictions.

 

And don't for one minute presume you know anything about my personal sacrifices for the Lord.

 

There is nothing in this post or attitude to lead anyone higher, to ennoble anyone, to cause them to want to be better people, or change in any way.  There is no desire shown here to transform one's life- speaking sexually or otherwise.

Where is there ANY understanding of this, Rev. 3:1

THAT kind of sacrifice

 

 

I'm about done with this silliness.  We are making no progress whatsoever.

 

Well if being celibate is how we are to put off the natural man, then should it be required of all saints?  Are you willing to be celibate in order to put off the natural man?  Come on, you only say this about being gay because it is something you don't have to worry about.  You are straight.  It is easy for you to say gays in loving relationships should put off the natural man and be required to live their lives without a loving partner.