rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Im not sure a same sex couple can have a relationship marked by holiness. What about Tom Christofferson (from the OP) and his husband?
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Has the Church or God asked (or commanded) you to be alone? Has the Church threatened to take away your recommend if you date? Would your membership be revoked if you found someone you loved and married them? Let's stop confounding a lack of marriage with denial of marriage. Different problems to solve.No, it's simply threatening that if I don't find someone of my own choosing here in mortality, I'm going to have to go to The Afterlife Equivalent of a Giant Stake Singles Dance featuring the Dregs (albeit the Resurrected Dregs) of Unattached Humanity! Yaaaaaaaaay! P.S.: For those of you who are unclear on the concept, that's called "irony." I'll say it again: Whether your gay or straight, if you happen to depart this life unattached, whatever happens, I don't think an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God is going to have to tell anybody, "Sorry. I know you were expecting something more, or better, or different, but the truth is, it sucks to be you. This is the best I could do." Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure that a secularized society has anything to do with it. In my experience, many of the youth see it as a matter of a loving God that would not want his gay & lesbian children to spend their lives alone. I believe that when we teach our kids correct principles, they won't depart from them. But they have to be correct principles.Among those correct principles is one that is concisely stated in a quote from Elder Russell M. Nelson I have chosen to highlight in my newly revised sig line below. I have chosen a significantly larger type size for it than the other elements of my sig line, befitting both its timeliness and timelessness. Edited to add: In case my sig line should be altered in the future (and any changes made in sig lines are retroactive), let me post the quote here in body of my post: "Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God." -- Elder Russell M. Nelson Edited January 7, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 No, it's simply threatening that if I don't find someone of my own choosing here in mortality, I'm going to have to go to The Afterlife Equivalent of a Giant Stake Singles Dance featuring the Dregs (albeit the Resurrected Dregs) of Unattached Humanity! Yaaaaaaaaay! Why would you refer to people like yourself as "dregs"?
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Among those correct principles is concisely stated in a quote from Elder Russell M. Nelson I have chosen to highlight in my newly revised sig line below. I have chosen a significantly larger type size for it than the other elements of my sig line, befitting both its timeliness and timelessness. 100% agree with that statement by Elder Nelson.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 100% agree with that statement by Elder Nelson.Glad to hear that. I hope you accept its implications.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I hope you accept its implications. And you, as well.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 What about Tom Christofferson (from the OP) and his husband?I do not recognize marriage between same sex couples. So, Tom and his partner are not in a holy sanctioned relationship. The holy ghost does not ratify or sanctify (to make holy) their relationship with each other.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 And you, as well.The implication I accept is that no manner, degree or amount of legislation or judicial fiat is going to make that which is sinful in the eyes of God acceptable.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 The implication I accept is that no manner, degree or amount of legislation or judicial fiat is going to make that which is sinful in the eyes of God acceptable. I agree.
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I do not recognize marriage between same sex couples. So, Tom and his partner are not in a holy sanctioned relationship. The holy ghost does not ratify or sanctify (to make holy) their relationship with each other. I don't think you are qualified or knowledgeable enough to say whether or not their relationship is "marked by holiness". But I understand your belief about what is "recognized".
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I don't think you are qualified or knowledgeable enough to say whether or not their relationship is "marked by holiness". But I understand your belief about what is "recognized".How can something which is an abomination be a mark of holiness. Its not about qualification to know, its called "understanding truth"
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 How can something which is an abomination be a mark of holiness. Its not about qualification to know, its called "understanding truth" And this is where we get to the point that you and I disagree on what is an abomination. Not something I wish to continue debating with you. I assume we'll both be alive in the day when we receive further light and knowledge on the subject.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Why would you refer to people like yourself as "dregs"?Maybe you're finally beginning to get the teeensiest, weeensiest, tiniest, itsiest, bitsiest, faintest hint of a whisp of an inkling what I'm trying to say! There may be hope for you yet! There may be hope for you yet! Congratulations! Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Maybe you're finally beginning to get the teeensiest, weeensiest, tiniest, itsiest, bitsiest, faintest hint of a whisp of an inkling what I'm trying to say! I think that's a premature conclusion. I'm still confused by your latest posts. Edited January 7, 2015 by rockpond
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Has the Church or God asked (or commanded) you to be alone? No. But he has circumscribed the ways in which, had I not covenanted to obey His laws, I can satisfy any need I might have for companionship. Has the Church threatened to take away your recommend if you date? Would your membership be revoked if you found someone you loved and married them?No, on both counts. But there are a lot of ways in which the circumstances of my life (as is true of any mortal life) can be described as less than ideal. The difference is that I'm not claiming an exemption from the Law of Chastity or the Divine Institution of Heterosexual Marriage because of them. Let's stop confounding a lack of marriage with denial of marriage. Different problems to solve. What's the practical difference? The practical effect is the same. The only difference is that ... unlike those who think God ought to suspend "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" and the Law of Chastity ... I I haven't concluded that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God must love me less if I happen to depart this life unattached, that He's going to treat me as a second-class citizen in the next life, or that His "solution" to the "problem" is going to involve forcing me to do something I don't want to do. If you want to treat my "lack of heterosexual marriage" as a problem that can be solved simply by my selecting someone I think is suitable, bopping her over the head, being sealed to her while she's unconscious and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually after she wakes up, I can't stop you. But it isn't that simple. As much as I might wish someone in whom I had expressed an interest would have exercised her agency so as to determine our potential mutual eternal suitability, Christ died for her agency, and for her ability and right to make that choice. Who am I to say otherwise? Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969 2
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I think that's a premature conclusion. I'm still confused by your latest posts.Why? What's confusing about them? P.S.: See my P.S. to my Post #152. Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 What's the practical difference? The practical effect is the same. The only difference is that ... unlike those who think God ought to suspend "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God" and the Law of Chastity ... I I haven't concluded that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God must love me less if I happen to depart this life unattached, that He's going to treat me as a second-class citizen in the next life, or that His "solution" to the "problem" is going to involve forcing me to do something I don't want to do. The practical effect is not the same. There will always be some (gay and straight) who do not have the opportunity to marry in this life for a variety of reasons. Denying marriage to those who DO have the opportunity is a practical difference. I'm not aware of anyone asking for "marriage between a man and a woman ordained of God" nor the law of chastity to be suspended. I certainly am not. Nor am I suggesting that God loves you less for not being married. These are all just red herrings.
Daniel2 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I do not recognize marriage between same sex couples. So, Tom and his partner are not in a holy sanctioned relationship. The holy ghost does not ratify or sanctify (to make holy) their relationship with each other.Every adult couple on the planet sins, even those in the church that know better.Do the sins we commit mean that other aspects of our relationships cannot be considered holy?I don't believe so. Regardless of your answwer, neither of us (thankfully) are the ultimate judge of the holiness of anyone else's relationships. Edited January 7, 2015 by Daniel2
rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Why? What's confusing about them? I don't understand why you keep referring to yourself and other single people as "dregs". I certainly don't see you that way.
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 And this is where we get to the point that you and I disagree on what is an abomination. Not something I wish to continue debating with you. I assume we'll both be alive in the day when we receive further light and knowledge on the subject.We have already received light and knowledge on the subject. Thats why we have holy prophets. The world, run by the devil, is deceived and in denial over homosexuality.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 The practical effect is not the same. There will always be some (gay and straight) who do not have the opportunity to marry in this life for a variety of reasons. Denying marriage to those who DO have the opportunity is a practical difference. I'm not aware of anyone asking for "marriage between a man and a woman ordained of God" nor the law of chastity to be suspended. I certainly am not. Nor am I suggesting that God loves you less for not being married. These are all just red herrings.Sigh. I'm out. Ya'all have fun.
Daniel2 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 How can something which is an abomination be a mark of holiness. Its not about qualification to know, its called "understanding truth"Just as Joseph Smith taught:So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."
Rob Osborn Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Every adult couple on the planet sins, even those in the church that know better.Do the sins we commit mean that other aspects of our relationships cannot be considered holy?I don't believe so. Regardless of your answwer, neither of us (thankfully) are the ultimate judge of the holiness of anyone else's relarionships.There is no part of a homosexual relationship that could be considered holy.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I don't understand why you keep referring to yourself and other single people as "dregs". I certainly don't see you that way.THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whatever the "cause" of one's single state, whether it's because he's gay or because he doesn't happen to find someone who chooses to use her agency to determine their mutual eternal suitability together, no one IS a dreg/second-class citizen/[insert-pejorative-of-choice-here]. 1
Recommended Posts