california boy Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Of course I mean well. And of course God will never change. Now, whether you are screwed for eternity or not isn't MY call. I have no idea what God is going to do about the situation you find yourself in -- the situation of being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. I accept that you love your boyfriend with all your heart, and I don't blame you for it. Or him, for that matter. What this means for the eternities is something I do not dare to predict, but what is inescapable is that all the evidence points one way: God does not condone your relationship. Although I do believe that God treasures love itself as a very important matter.You're not ignorant of all this, CB. I know that I haven't written anything that is new to you. So why are you reacting all wounded about it? At this point though, I think that perhaps I should have just deleted my post before posting it. You know the score, and so do I, then why make a point of it? Well, too late now.As I said to Tacenda, "if all this life is an accident of the vibration of random particles in a universe and when we die our consciousness is snuffed out like the candle in the wind, then all of this doesn't matter one hoot-n-holler. Then all we are is just dust in the wind. And eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow it's all over."Platitudes and song lyrics aside, I don't know which way you believe this will fall out in the end, for all that I believe I know which way things will be. And I doubt seriously that I am in any way qualified to advise you regarding these things, if they do go the way I believe. I do know that I wish for you all that is good and well, and hope sincerely for your eternal wellbeing. Whether we're sputtering candles or stars of glory in the end. Well I don't feel wounded at all. In fact I feel the opposite. I have a wonderful life with a person I love very dearly. I really have no interest in promises of eternal increase with a woman. So that promise is not something that I strive for nor something I feel cheated out of just because I will not receive it. I only point out that every gay man has no interest in that reward. And I also point out that according to what the church currently teaches, if you are gay, you are screwed forever unless you want to be magically turned straight. For gay members, that just sounds horrible as well. The church has no "plan of happiness" for a gay member. That is all I am saying. No one likes to face that little troublesome fact. But I believe God does have a path for His gay children. Maybe at some point the church will find out what that path is. I trust in God more than I do the frailties of men. He has blessed me in this life with all that I want. He will bless me in the next.. Trust in the Lord with all thy heart and lean not unto thy own understanding.
JLHPROF Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Well I don't feel wounded at all. In fact I feel the opposite. I have a wonderful life with a person I love very dearly. I really have no interest in promises of eternal increase with a woman. So that promise is not something that I strive for nor something I feel cheated out of just because I will not receive it. I was once taught that the "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth" of people at the final judgement will be primarily because they will come to realize what blessings they could have had but will now miss out on in the eternities.I don't know if that's "official" doctrine but I could see this situation applying. Your statement reminds me very much of that of Fanny Young (Brigham's sister): Brigham remembers the fall of 1843 when he, Joseph and Fanny were discussing the Mormon belief in the necessity of entering plural marriage in order to obtain exaltation and enter the celestial kingdom. Not won over, Fanny remarked, “Now, don’t talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor I wish to perform. I don’t want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.” Joseph replied, “Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” and then turned to Brigham, “Here, Brother Brigham, you seal this lady to me.” Brigham said that Fanny submitted to Joseph’s impromptu proposal and he “sealed her to him.” Perhaps, like Fanny, you do not know what you will want when you get there. You just assume it is the same as you want now.
Stargazer Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Well I don't feel wounded at all. In fact I feel the opposite. I have a wonderful life with a person I love very dearly. I really have no interest in promises of eternal increase with a woman. So that promise is not something that I strive for nor something I feel cheated out of just because I will not receive it. I only point out that every gay man has no interest in that reward. And I also point out that according to what the church currently teaches, if you are gay, you are screwed forever unless you want to be magically turned straight. For gay members, that just sounds horrible as well. The church has no "plan of happiness" for a gay member. That is all I am saying. No one likes to face that little troublesome fact. But I believe God does have a path for His gay children. Maybe at some point the church will find out what that path is. I trust in God more than I do the frailties of men. He has blessed me in this life with all that I want. He will bless me in the next.. Trust in the Lord with all thy heart and lean not unto thy own understanding. I'm happy for you, then.
Damien the Leper Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Dehlin is irrelevant as is the church's opinion on same sex marriage. The sooner this is realized, the better.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) The main argument against incest for adults is deformed children. What if they decided to have their tubes cut so they can't have kids. That pretty much takes care of that primary argument.Likewise if it's same-gender incest. Given society's newfound tolerance for same-sex "marriage," can "marriage" between same-sex relatives be too far off? They used to say incest is the "last taboo." Time will tell. Edited February 21, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Coreyb Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Likewise if it's same-gender incest. Given society's newfound tolerance for same-sex "marriage," can "marriage" between same-sex relatives be too far off?They used to say incest is the "last taboo." Time will tell.Brigham Young is quoted as saying that one day brothers and sisters will marry and it is only our biases that keep us from doing it now. I guess I am just biased
JLHPROF Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Brigham Young is quoted as saying that one day brothers and sisters will marry and it is only our biases that keep us from doing it now. I guess I am just biased Well we're all brothers and sisters aren't we? And then there's the old question of who did Cain, Abel, and Seth marry? Brigham was probably right...
sethpayne Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 And then there's the old question of who did Cain, Abel, and Seth marry? Given that these folks are in all likelihood mythical archetypes, I don't think a logically consistent story line was of primary concern. Brigham was probably right... I sure hope not. I hope this BY prophecy goes down with all of his other discarded nonsense. Yeah. Let's have brothers and sisters marry each other. Great idea.
carbon dioxide Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Likewise if it's same-gender incest. Given society's newfound tolerance for same-sex "marriage," can "marriage" between same-sex relatives be too far off?They used to say incest is the "last taboo." Time will tell.It is a race to the bottom. 30 years ago few people would even seriously consider SSM as being accepted in American society. Now many do and who knows what society will accept 30 years from now. I have no doubt that even those who support SSM today will be shocked at what is coming down the road in the coming decades. If we make it that far.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 For what it may be worth, I penned the following about ten years ago: As many commentators have already pointed out, it is a moral outrage to deny certain people the right to marry legally just because we are stuck with fossilised cultural adhesions from a clearly less enlightened time. Extending marriage rights to self-identifying homosexuals is definitely a move in the right direction, but what about others whose rights are equally denied under our antiquated laws and social customs? If we are to agree that consenting adults should be able to enter into loving, legally binding, and societally sanctioned relationships of their own choosing, there are a number of other silly taboos we must also jettison. Inappropriate comparisons deleted by mod
Robert F. Smith Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 For what it may be worth, I penned the following about ten years ago:Sick, even though you have a legitimate point in some sort of reverse psychological manner.
rockpond Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) deleted Edited February 21, 2015 by rockpond
Pahoran Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 I think you are probably right. Is all it would take is for church leaders to start looking at the sin of sexual relations outside of marriage as being the law of chastity. I don't remember a exception to this when it comes to gay relations. The church has just made it an exception. When are you going to abandon this notorious canard? The highlighted statement is an outright and brazen lie. The Church has absolutely NOT "just made it an exception." The amoral state has changed the definition of marriage. The Church has maintained the correct definition. Rather publicly, in fact. Or are you perhaps unaware of the Church's opposition to the redefinition of marriage? Maybe one day you will begin to discuss the issue of authentic marriage with some degree of good faith. But that day has yet to come. But for those who are discussing it in good faith: the Church's definition of chastity has always confined acceptable sexual relations to husband-and-wife pairings where the parties are legally and lawfully married. The phrase "legally and lawfully" is understood to refer to two distinct bodies of law: "legally" refers to human law, and "lawfully" to divine law. "Same sex marriage" may be legal in a few places; someday, it may be legal everywhere, but it will never be lawful anywhere. And that's not going to change. Get used to it. There are far more Bible statements condemning fornication and adultery than homosexual relations outside of marriage and none about homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage. It doesn't mention it for much the same reasons that it doesn't mention silent music, square circles or whether God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift. In biblical terms, the concept of "homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage" is an oxymoron, and any comment thereon would be simply incoherent. "Same sex marriage" is a legal fiction. It has no standing in the eyes of the Lord. Consequently, same sex pairings have exactly the same status they've always had. Of course the Bible talks much more about the more prevalent sins. Homosexuality was as abnormal then as it is now. Church leaders aren't there right now, but church leaders weren't there on the blacks holding the priesthood in 1950's either. An irrelevant comparison. By making it, you merely demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. Regards, Pahoran 3
Pahoran Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Sorry I am just not going to comment on this offensive post. Except you did, when you called it "offensive." But since you're "not going to comment," I guess that's supposed to get you out of explaining just what's so "offensive" about it. I see. Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 You your self feel that it should be changed e,g, gay marriage will be in the temple, that is essentially repealing it and replacing it with something else. Let me make this absolutely plain: any person who predicts that "gay marriage will be in the temple" is predicting the outright apostasy of the Church. And any person, claiming to be a Latter-day Saint, who argues that "gay marriage... in the temple" would be a good or desirable thing, is proclaiming themselves to be in complete apostasy. And not only in an institutional sense. Before anyone can argue themselves into believing such an abomination to be a good thing, they must, themselves, be sunk so deep in sin as to be utterly insensible to the promptings of the Holy Ghost. Regards, Pahoran 2
Pahoran Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 There are actually a lot of reasonable explanations, defenses, and Mormon-friendly analyses in the podcasts. One of the best was produced just a few months ago, by Dehlin who was no longer even a believer at the time. I highly recommend it: Fiona & Terryl Givens and "The Crucible of Doubt". Yeah, that was part of his marketing. As he admitted to one of his anti-Mormon friends, "A [Grant] Palmer is worth a [Richard] Bushman." It's the sugar coating for the poison pill. Now that the mask has been dropped, it's probably time for his shills to stop waving it at us and telling us it's his real face. It's not. Never was. Regards, Pahoran
california boy Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 When are you going to abandon this notorious canard?The highlighted statement is an outright and brazen lie. The Church has absolutely NOT "just made it an exception." The amoral state has changed the definition of marriage. The Church has maintained the correct definition.Rather publicly, in fact. Or are you perhaps unaware of the Church's opposition to the redefinition of marriage?Maybe one day you will begin to discuss the issue of authentic marriage with some degree of good faith. But that day has yet to come.But for those who are discussing it in good faith: the Church's definition of chastity has always confined acceptable sexual relations to husband-and-wife pairings where the parties are legally and lawfully married.The phrase "legally and lawfully" is understood to refer to two distinct bodies of law: "legally" refers to human law, and "lawfully" to divine law."Same sex marriage" may be legal in a few places; someday, it may be legal everywhere, but it will never be lawful anywhere.And that's not going to change.Get used to it. It doesn't mention it for much the same reasons that it doesn't mention silent music, square circles or whether God can create a rock too heavy for him to lift. In biblical terms, the concept of "homosexual relations within the bonds of marriage" is an oxymoron, and any comment thereon would be simply incoherent."Same sex marriage" is a legal fiction. It has no standing in the eyes of the Lord. Consequently, same sex pairings have exactly the same status they've always had.Of course the Bible talks much more about the more prevalent sins. Homosexuality was as abnormal then as it is now. An irrelevant comparison. By making it, you merely demonstrate your ignorance of the subject.Regards,Pahoran Or maybe we just disagree.
rockpond Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Yeah, that was part of his marketing. As he admitted to one of his anti-Mormon friends, "A [Grant] Palmer is worth a [Richard] Bushman." It's the sugar coating for the poison pill.Now that the mask has been dropped, it's probably time for his shills to stop waving it at us and telling us it's his real face.It's not.Never was.Regards,PahoranWe had almost this exact same exchange a month ago. And here is the response I gave you then...I've never liked the "Palmer worth a Bushman" statement. But are we summarily characterizing a person by a single quote now? If so, we're all in trouble. I don't want our Church leaders treated that way so I don't think it's fair to do to Dehlin. Have you spent hours and hours interviewing LDS apologists and then publishing those interviews out to your audience (hundreds of thousands of downloads per year)? Have you given that kind of voice to content experts to promote the Church? Is it a sin to interview Grant Palmer? Is there something immoral about that? There is a good chance that if I hadn't come across MS & Dehlin years ago when my faith crisis began, I probably would have left the church. And I know many others who feel the same (including a good friend who went on to become our RS president).
rockpond Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Let me make this absolutely plain: any person who predicts that "gay marriage will be in the temple" is predicting the outright apostasy of the Church.And any person, claiming to be a Latter-day Saint, who argues that "gay marriage... in the temple" would be a good or desirable thing, is proclaiming themselves to be in complete apostasy.And not only in an institutional sense. Before anyone can argue themselves into believing such an abomination to be a good thing, they must, themselves, be sunk so deep in sin as to be utterly insensible to the promptings of the Holy Ghost.Regards,PahoranSorry, you are just factually incorrect with these conclusions.
mfbukowski Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 No, that's not emotional blackmail. Now, california boy's "poor, pitiful me" post immediately following yours, on the other hand. ...Which one was that? Are there any other kind?
mfbukowski Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder
Pahoran Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Sorry, you are just factually incorrect with these conclusions.Thank you for your opinion.And now, here is the support for my position:1 Nephi 15:34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.And your support is found... where, exactly?Regards,Pahoran 2
Pahoran Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 We had almost this exact same exchange a month ago. And here is the response I gave you then... I've never liked the "Palmer worth a Bushman" statement. But are we summarily characterizing a person by a single quote now? If so, we're all in trouble. I don't want our Church leaders treated that way so I don't think it's fair to do to Dehlin. Have you spent hours and hours interviewing LDS apologists and then publishing those interviews out to your audience (hundreds of thousands of downloads per year)? Have you given that kind of voice to content experts to promote the Church? Is it a sin to interview Grant Palmer? Is there something immoral about that? There is a good chance that if I hadn't come across MS & Dehlin years ago when my faith crisis began, I probably would have left the church. And I know many others who feel the same (including a good friend who went on to become our RS president). So you keep saying. But why exactly did you stay? Did you stay to remain part of a covenant community of Saints? Or to white-ant the Church, like Dehlin tried to do? IOW, did you stay as a follower of Jesus Christ, or a follower of John Dehlin? Because if the latter, then you need to think about Joshua 24:15. When you told your bishop that you sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and the only person on earth with power to exercise all priesthood keys, did you genuinely mean that as a believing Latter-day Saint? Were you declaring your belief that President Monson is the Lord's chosen mouthpiece on the earth today? Or did you quietly tell yourself that those terms are strictly organisational and institutional only, and merely represent an agreement that President Monson is the recognised president of the Church? You don't need to answer those questions. They are thought questions, to be answered by yourself alone. I mention them because, as you know, Mister Dehlin taught his followers that the second approach is acceptable, when in fact it is hypocritical prevarication. As for the rest: I'm not judging Mister Dehlin by one quote. I spotted him for a wolf in sheep's clothing long before I heard of that admission. But let's be clear: if someone said a hundred nice things about his neighbour, and then only once confessed to murdering that neighbour -- and the confession was corroborated by additional facts -- then that "one quote" would be enough to convict him. Mister Dehlin's "one quote" is in the nature of such a confession. Especially since it was a boast to a fellow enemy of the Church. That's what Mister Dehlin has been for years now, and his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcast was his main vehicle for his emnity. Any attempt to deny that would be, to coin a phrase, "factually incorrect." Regards, Pahoran 4
rockpond Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 So you keep saying. But why exactly did you stay?Did you stay to remain part of a covenant community of Saints?Or to white-ant the Church, like Dehlin tried to do?IOW, did you stay as a follower of Jesus Christ, or a follower of John Dehlin?Because if the latter, then you need to think about Joshua 24:15.When you told your bishop that you sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and the only person on earth with power to exercise all priesthood keys, did you genuinely mean that as a believing Latter-day Saint? Were you declaring your belief that President Monson is the Lord's chosen mouthpiece on the earth today?Or did you quietly tell yourself that those terms are strictly organisational and institutional only, and merely represent an agreement that President Monson is the recognised president of the Church?You don't need to answer those questions. They are thought questions, to be answered by yourself alone. I mention them because, as you know, Mister Dehlin taught his followers that the second approach is acceptable, when in fact it is hypocritical prevarication.As for the rest: I'm not judging Mister Dehlin by one quote. I spotted him for a wolf in sheep's clothing long before I heard of that admission.But let's be clear: if someone said a hundred nice things about his neighbour, and then only once confessed to murdering that neighbour -- and the confession was corroborated by additional facts -- then that "one quote" would be enough to convict him.Mister Dehlin's "one quote" is in the nature of such a confession. Especially since it was a boast to a fellow enemy of the Church.That's what Mister Dehlin has been for years now, and his so-called "Mormon Stories" podcast was his main vehicle for his emnity.Any attempt to deny that would be, to coin a phrase, "factually incorrect."Regards,Pahoran If you want to ask me questions, you'll need to answer mine first.
rockpond Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Thank you for your opinion.And now, here is the support for my position:1 Nephi 15:34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.And your support is found... where, exactly?Regards,Pahoran My support is that I am not in apostasy nor am I "so deep in sin as to be utterly insensible to the promptings of the Holy Ghost".
Recommended Posts