mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I think this is a good point. It's merely the creation of a socially constructed identity that is new. The reality is that the behavior and orientation has always existed.No, that's your description because you believe its true. Do undiscovered species exist now? What do they look like? How much do they weigh? Are there butterflies with feathers? A species cannot be said to "exist" until we know about it. What is it? We don't know!
Kenngo1969 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I knew a Bishop who called an "Assistant Secretary to the Bishop" who was a very efficient and qualified woman who helped him with paperwork. Nothing wrong with that.Do you see him when you look in the mirror? (Had to ask! )
Calm Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) That's why I say there was no concept of "death" before the fall therefore it did not "exist" but no one here buys that.You forgot me. Edited January 18, 2015 by calmoriah
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Do you see him when you look in the mirror? (Had to ask! )This time, not guilty, but I would have done it if I needed to.
mfbukowski Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) You forgot me.No way did I forget you- that is still my siggy! Once you see that, it is life changing, and I am convinced the only way one can see religious experience as completely as "rational" as science. Maybe in another hundred years everyone will just know that it is that way and look back at these times as the dark ages. I don't see how one can believe that we will magically be able to organize worlds when they do not understand that we are doing it today, every day of our lives. Somewhere out there there are aliens looking into the night sky and wondering what those pinpricks of light in the great dome of the heavens are, knowing that life could only exist on their special, favored, magical planet. If they have not defined it, it could not possibly exist. And for them, we really do not exist. One of the greatest places, it has been found, to "discover" new species is in fish markets where fisherman have been selling an eating "unknown" species for centuries. After all Columbus "discovered" America, didn't he?? Before that, clearly it did not exist.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110901-shark-new-species-eaten-science-ocean-squalus-formosus-dogfish/ Edited January 19, 2015 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The claim is that just as this was a "new species", what we now call "homosexuality" was just unnoticed before, or just seen as part of human behavior. The classification "homosexual" had not been defined, just as the "new species" of shark had not been defined. New Species Likely Unnoticed by EatersS. formosus ("Formosa" being a former name for Taiwan), likely wound up in the fish market in the same way most deep-ocean sharks do—as bycatch, accidentally ensnared during hunts for other fish.In fish markets, "it is unlikely people would know the difference"—tastewise or otherwise—between the new species and other sharks, said White, emphasizing that he hasn't eaten the new species and doesn't know how it's prepared. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110901-shark-new-species-eaten-science-ocean-squalus-formosus-dogfish/Understanding this is the essence of understanding "Social Constructivism". If we don't know about it, or can't understand and talk about it, for all practical purposes it "doesn't exist". When we do, it is like Columbus "discovering" America from a European point of view. We can only "know" what everyone else already "knows" and has named. By speaking about it it makes it "real" for us. There was no "day and night" until humans created the terms, any more than there was a "S. formosus" before it was "discovered", and for us of course God is Human The Bukowski translation understanding of the Bible: 1 In the beginning God created defined the heaven and the earth.2 And the earth was without form, and void; and "darkness" was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided defined the light from the darkness.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the "first day." 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 The same was in the beginning with God.3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. All "things" were organized by "The Word". Edited January 19, 2015 by mfbukowski
Scott Lloyd Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Is there a church teaching that homosexual tendancies will cease in the next life? The mormonsandgays website, for one source. I'd link to it, but that's difficult to do with an iPod touch.It might do you good to go there anyway and explore it. It appears you are not well acquainted with it. It's also the place where the Chrisofferson quote I gave is found.I have to correct myself on this post. In my memory, I had conflated the content on the mormonsandgays website with this Q and A interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman, which is posted on "Newsroom" on lds.org. Here is the relevant portion from the posted Q and A: ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. (Bold emphasis mine) This may have been cited and linked to on the mormonsandgays site, and perhaps that is what caused me to conflate the two. But that is of little moment. The statement is out there for anyone to read, and it is easy to see from it that the Church's position is that SSA is not a condition that existed in the pre-mortal existence, nor is it a condition that will persist after mortality. 1
DBMormon Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 The statement is out there for anyone to read, and it is easy to see from it that the Church's position is that SSA is not a condition that existed in the pre-mortal existence, nor is it a condition that will persist after mortality.At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. - Elder Christofferson I would add that it is Elder Oaks words and not necessarily Church position and certainly not Doctrine unless you have all 15 men teaching it as "our Doctrine is not hard to find" 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I would add that it is Elder Oaks words and not necessarily Church position and certainly not Doctrine unless you have all 15 men teaching it as "our Doctrine is not hard to find"Seriously? It's actually a statement by Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy, implicitly endorsed by Elder Oaks as he adds a comment to it. In any event, this is not a one-time, offhand remark made by some visiting General Authority going off on a tangent at a stake conference somewhere out in the hinterlands. It is a perpetual part of content placed on the Church's official website -- with a global readership potentially numbering in the millions -- on a section of the website designated as "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public." This is the place where Church Public Affairs sends inquiring news media representatives who have questions about the official Church position on this or that topic. To argue that it is nothing more than an expression of personal opinion strikes me as an act of desperation by someone who dearly wants that to be the case. Edited January 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
DBMormon Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 Seriously? It's actually a statement by Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy, implicitly endorsed by Elder Oaks as he adds a comment to it. In any event, this is not a one-time, offhand comment made by some visiting General Authority going off on a tangent at a stake conference somewhere out in the hinterlands. It is a perpetual part of content placed on the Church's official website -- with a global readership potentially numbering in the millions -- on a section of the website designated as "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public." This is the place where Church Public Affairs sends inquiring news media representatives who have questions about the official Church position on this or that topic. To argue that it is nothing more than an expression of personal opinion strikes me as an act of desperation by someone who dearly wants that to be the case.The brethren have given me room to see comments not heralded by at least a chunk of them as not binding. They said it... and I take the liberty they have given. Again Doctrine is not what one leader says and Doctrine is what all 15 teach. I am not defining it, they are. so yes what I hold to be the official stance of the church is much more messy than your throwing out a quote by a seventy and saying it is the official position because one apostle reiterated it.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The brethren have given me room to see comments not heralded by at least a chunk of them as not binding. They said it... and I take the liberty they have given. Again Doctrine is not what one leader says and Doctrine is what all 15 teach. I am not defining it, they are. so yes what I hold to be the official stance of the church is much more messy than your throwing out a quote by a seventy and saying it is the official position because one apostle reiterated it.We're just going to ignore the fact, then, that it's posted in a place branded as "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public"? But if you're determined to ignore or marginalize this very clear exposition by a member of the Twelve and of the Seventy within official content designed to aid journalists in explaining the position of the Church to the public, let me pose this question: Is there anything in the sermons, writings or other discourses of the Brethren that so much as hints at contradicting what Elder Wickman and Elder Oaks have said here? Edited January 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
DBMormon Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 We're just going to ignore the fact, then, that it's posted in a place branded as "the official resource for news media, opinion leaders and the public"? But if you're determined to ignore or marginalize this very clear exposition by a member of the Twelve and of the Seventy within official content designed to aid journalists in explaining the position of the Church to the public, let me pose this question: Is there anything in the sermons, writings or other discourses of the Brethren that so much as hints at contradicting what Elder Wickman and Elder Oaks have said here?I am big on loopholes. So if something is not said to contradict what one or two people say then it is official church position? If you don't agree then no sense in playing this out. It is a disagreement... its ok
Scott Lloyd Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I have to correct myself on this post. In my memory, I had conflated the content on the mormonsandgays website with this Q and A interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman, which is posted on "Newsroom" on lds.org. Here is the relevant portion from the posted Q and A: (Bold emphasis mine) This may have been cited and linked to on the mormonsandgays site, and perhaps that is what caused me to conflate the two. But that is of little moment. The statement is out there for anyone to read, and it is easy to see from it that the Church's position is that SSA is not a condition that existed in the pre-mortal existence, nor is it a condition that will persist after mortality.Though I had earlier cited the mormonsandgays website when I should have cited the "Newsroom" Q and A with Elders Oaks and Wickman, I did find the following on mormonsandgays. The statement is not tied to a specific individual, but it does support the point I am making. And it seems obvious that it reflects the official position of the Church. We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction. On the other hand, thus far, I have found nothing from the Brethren or the Church to even insinuate that SSA might be a condition that persists into the eternities. Edited January 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I am big on loopholes. So if something is not said to contradict what one or two people say then it is official church position? If you don't agree then no sense in playing this out. It is a disagreement... its okAnd I'm big on reasonable conclusions. I will only summarize by saying that if the only statements to be found in official sources indicate clearly that SSA is not a post-mortal condition, and there has been nothing said to contradict those statements, the only reasonable conclusion is that the official and unequivocal Church position is that the condition does not persist beyond mortality. Edited January 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I am big on loopholes. My nomination for the Truth of the Day Award. 1
DBMormon Posted January 21, 2015 Author Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) My nomination for the Truth of the Day Award.If nothing else I try to be honest. So where do I get my award? It can go right next to this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FuXPl51Bo <-----41:30 to 41:48 (listen closely at 41:44) .... melts the cockels of my heart everytime I watch and I play it twice day Edited January 21, 2015 by DBMormon
Bob Crockett Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 If nothing else I try to be honest. So where do I get my award? It can go right next to this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FuXPl51Bo <-----41:30 to 41:48 (listen closely at 41:44) .... melts the cockels of my heart everytime I watch and I play it twice dayAn appeal to loopholes is to thumb your nose at policy and doctrine, it seems to me. An appeal to exception to define a rule is some sort of logical fallacy.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 This time, not guilty, but I would have done it if I needed to.I quite consistently was amazed at the inspiration and revelation that I saw fall quite regularly on ordinary, regular men (good men, to be sure; probably better than I am in many ways, but ordinary and regular in most all of the ways that matter) as I sat at my bishop's elbow for 32 months. My testimony is that God is in charge of this work, because if He left us to our own devices, we surely would screw it up irreparably within a span of about five minutes!
Kenngo1969 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 The brethren have given me room to see comments not heralded by at least a chunk of them as not binding. They said it... and I take the liberty they have given. Again Doctrine is not what one leader says and Doctrine is what all 15 teach. I am not defining it, they are. so yes what I hold to be the official stance of the church is much more messy than your throwing out a quote by a seventy and saying it is the official position because one apostle reiterated it. OK. How about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/10/gender-is-an-essential-characteristic-of-eternal-identity-and-purpose?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 OK. How about The Family: A Proclamation to the World? Mate, I think you underestimate just how much DBMormon likes his loopholes.
ksfisher Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) While not applying specifically to SSA I think the following scripture has application as to whether or not it will extend to the eternities:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.Revelation 21:3-7http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/21?lang=eng Edited January 21, 2015 by ksfisher 1
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 I quite consistently was amazed at the inspiration and revelation that I saw fall quite regularly on ordinary, regular men (good men, to be sure; probably better than I am in many ways, but ordinary and regular in most all of the ways that matter) as I sat at my bishop's elbow for 32 months. My testimony is that God is in charge of this work, because if He left us to our own devices, we surely would screw it up irreparably within a span of about five minutes! There is no question in my mind that the "mantle of authority" is absolutely real. It was an amazing experience and on many occasions I was directed to do things which would have never crossed my mind ordinarily. And after I was released I was back to my old funky ordinary self in no time flat. I have spoken to others who are and have been in those kinds of positions and in my experience, all agree to having had similar experiences.
Calm Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) While not applying specifically to SSA I think the following scripture has application as to whether or not it will extend to the eternities:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.Revelation 21:3-7http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/21?lang=engOne of my favorites... "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes" This is such a tender image. Edited January 21, 2015 by calmoriah
DBMormon Posted January 21, 2015 Author Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) An appeal to loopholes is to thumb your nose at policy and doctrine, it seems to me. An appeal to exception to define a rule is some sort of logical fallacy. I am always looking for the wiggle room Bob.I need parts of the gospel to figurativeI need to have the true Doctrine of Tithing and not have have leaders shove 10% of gross down my throat when that is not God's word.I need members to allow me to live by the spirit rather than be told I can't eat rum cake or beer battered onion rings.I need to see Joseph as flawed as he implements polygamy. If I can;t have that I have to leave. I need the flexibility. I was a very black and white follow the rules person. I am not anymore. I live Moroni 7 - If it draws me to Christ... awesome. If not I will find a way to avoid it. The Church either takes me this way or if it forces me to fit it's culturally defined box, I will have to go. Edited January 21, 2015 by DBMormon 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 21, 2015 Posted January 21, 2015 Mate, I think you underestimate just how much DBMormon likes his loopholes.Probably. I don't necessarily look for loopholes, but I do find myself frequently challenged to keep all of the balls in the air in the juggling acts that are life and living the Gospel, respectively. If I'm doing OK in one/some areas, I find I've probably "dropped the ball" in others. What can I do but pick them all up and start again? 1
Recommended Posts