Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 You're playing semantic games again. There's is no need to group or segregate by race. That is not a necessary requirement of race. If it is, please provide a reference so I can understand why it is. But the way we recognize and understand differences is according to race. Those differences will continue to exist. If you're arguing that blacks, and asians, and caucasians, and hispanics etc will still look in eternity as they look now but we won't "Call them" a race, I'm good with that. If you're saying we will all be white, then I'm not good with that at all. If I am arguing that they will be white, than I am still making a racial statement. I am saying that it won't matter and there will not be any organization or classification based on people looking different. Just like there won't be any organization or classification based on what our attractions were in this life.
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 "Identity" is what changed. And that identity was not affected by attractions?
Gray Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 And that identity was not affected by attractions? It doesn't have to be. When you listen to gay people talk about their lives, what you find is they spend their entire lives being attracted only to people of their own gender. At some point they accept that they're gay, but they don't identify as gay until then, despite their sexual orientation remaining consistent.
ALarson Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 And that identity was not affected by attractions?And again I ask if you are open to the possibility that you can change which sex you are attracted to?
jkwilliams Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 And that identity was not affected by attractions?How we identify ourselves has a huge number of factors that affect our perception. Self-image is much more fluid than gender attraction. 1
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 And again I ask if you are open to the possibility that you can change which sex you are attracted to?Answered in the thread that you asked the original question.
ALarson Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Answered in the thread that you asked the original question.Saw that and here is your response: Danzo: As society changes, their classifications of my attractions might very well change.I have made a choice (and a covenant) to " love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else." (D&C 42)had I not made that choice and covenant, I who I am attracted to might be subject to change. Edited October 1, 2015 by ALarson
CV75 Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) I recommend you two to take the time and effort to digest this stuff for yourselves. Nooooooo!!!! Not this "compound in one" stuff again.In what verses do we find the concept of the "compound in one" being an opposite of "one body"?You really need to read these scriptures with an open mind. 2 Nephi 2: 11 “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.” This verse juxtaposes “a compound in one” with “one body.” A compound in one is comprised of the corresponding opposing elements; one body has no corresponding opposing elements. They are opposite! Keep reading and you will see (hopefully) by verse 13 that all existence depends on this principle. One body is nothing; a compound in one is everything. They are opposite! The ones that aren't good or bad are not presented as "opposition". Lehi never says that wisdom and power are opposites - ditto for mercy and justice. But even forbidden fruit is presented as "bad" or bitter, compared to the tree of life which is "good" or sweet. Yes, they are presented as "opposition"! For example, verse15: “And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.” It doesn’t say which tree was sweet and which was bitter. Each could be either depending on one’s perspective. It would have been bitter had they remained in Eden forever. It would have seemed sweet to avoid the pain of progress (but not forever!). And Eve “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” – sweet! And then the Fall (bitter!). And then the realization of their greater blessings (sweet!). So instead, their respective “flavors,” whatever they were, have mostly to do with their enticing (and conversely, repelling) nature (2 Nephi 2:16; D&C 29:39). Wisdom and power are opposites in the same way knowledge and faith are. See Alma 32. For example, see the spiritual connection between wisdom and knowledge with 2 Nephi 21:2. I'm sure you're familiar with all the information available about faith being the first principle of power, is power, etc: D&C 39:12; http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/FAITH.htm Mercy and justice are also opposites. Justice exacts punishment and mercy brings relief. “25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice?” (Alma 42:25). This is why only the Atonement can bring them together. Edited October 1, 2015 by CV75
rockpond Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 What do you think of this study? http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1153.pdf "Among women, 1.36% with a heterosexual identity changed, 63.63% with a homosexual identity changed, and 64.71% with a bisexual identity changed. Among men, 0.78% with a heterosexual identity changed, 9.52% with a homosexual identity changed, and 47.06% with a bisexual identity changed." The study indicates that there were a total of 21 men who self-identified as homosexual at the beginning of the study. 19 of those 21 still self-identified as homosexual at the end of the 10 year study.
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 The study indicates that there were a total of 21 men who self-identified as homosexual at the beginning of the study. 19 of those 21 still self-identified as homosexual at the end of the 10 year study.an almost 10% change. a small sample size, I admit, but perhaps further studies can be designed to include more people and confirm or reject the conclusions of this study.
ALarson Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) The study indicates that there were a total of 21 men who self-identified as homosexual at the beginning of the study. 19 of those 21 still self-identified as homosexual at the end of the 10 year study.Which says absolutely nothing regarding the other 2 changing their sexual attraction to the same sex. Edited October 1, 2015 by ALarson
rockpond Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 an almost 10% change. a small sample size, I admit, but perhaps further studies can be designed to include more people and confirm or reject the conclusions of this study. Yes, almost 10% on a small sample size which, I think, supports the statement I (and Elder Holland) made.
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Yes, almost 10% on a small sample size which, I think, supports the statement I (and Elder Holland) made. Just curious, do what do you think of 1 Corinthians chapter 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." Do we need to edit it out of our scriptures?Or does it just not apply to some people? 1
mtomm Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Since this is fundamental to my salvation and the eternal salvation of virtually every gay person who has ever lived, I would like to know if even you think that this is DOCTRINE? Did this absolute knowledge as to what happens in the eternities to all gay people come from REVELATION? Is this a clear statement from GOD? If the statement is true, then does that mean that 99.9% of all gays who have ever lived in the world do not have to worry about overcoming their same sex attraction in this life because it will automatically disappear. And their loving relationships on this earth will not be counted against them because they will be judged on the knowledge they have in mortality? If this statement is true, then will only LDS gays be condemned for acting out in this life because they knew better? If this statement is true, then being gay seems to be the LEAST thing to worry about in mortality since it is a single behavior that simply disappears when we die unless of course you are a member of the church. Since you believe the church has all the answers on this issue, I would love your thoughts and references to the questions I ask. This is about personal salvation. Not much interested in opinion here. It does seem to only condemn gay Mormons who have a knowledge of their sins. It's too bad your questions are being ignored in this thread. I found them very thought provoking.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I recommend you two to take the time and effort to digest this stuff for yourselves. You really need to read these scriptures with an open mind. 2 Nephi 2: 11 “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.” This verse juxtaposes “a compound in one” with “one body.” A compound in one is comprised of the corresponding opposing elements; one body has no corresponding opposing elements. They are opposite! Keep reading and you will see (hopefully) by verse 13 that all existence depends on this principle. One body is nothing; a compound in one is everything. They are opposite! Yes, they are presented as "opposition"! For example, verse15: “And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.” It doesn’t say which tree was sweet and which was bitter. Each could be either depending on one’s perspective. It would have been bitter had they remained in Eden forever. It would have seemed sweet to avoid the pain of progress (but not forever!). And Eve “saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise” – sweet! And then the Fall (bitter!). And then the realization of their greater blessings (sweet!). So instead, their respective “flavors,” whatever they were, have mostly to do with their enticing (and conversely, repelling) nature (2 Nephi 2:16; D&C 29:39). Wisdom and power are opposites in the same way knowledge and faith are. See Alma 32. For example, see the spiritual connection between wisdom and knowledge with 2 Nephi 21:2. I'm sure you're familiar with all the information available about faith being the first principle of power, is power, etc: D&C 39:12; http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/FAITH.htm Mercy and justice are also opposites. Justice exacts punishment and mercy brings relief. “25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice?” (Alma 42:25). This is why only the Atonement can bring them together.Thank you for the specific reference. I'll check it out.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Just curious, do what do you think of 1 Corinthians chapter 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." Do we need to edit it out of our scriptures?Or does it just not apply to some people? Why would we need to take it out or not apply it to everyone? "The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is." -- MormonsandGays.org
CV75 Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Thank you for the specific reference. I'll check it out.Cool--notice that the "bitter" and the "sweet" prove to be subjective designations for Adam and Eve. The Lord designed it that way, which is why I think He stood back, preserving their agency while the devil tried to wrangle a "bitter" end by sweetly and convincingly presenting what he thought was the bitter option ("for he knew not the mind of God"--Moses 4:6).
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 The words of the living prophets clear up any ambiguity. There have been many statements made in recent General Conferences that set the record straight. Prior to the fall, at the time God created Adam, when the template for the proper earthly order of things was being established, the Lord said it is not good that man be alone. So he created a woman, not another man, to be Adam's eternal companion (there was no death) and commanded them to multiply. This is the proper order of things. Those who through the eternal Spirit resist the temptations of the fallen nature that beckon one to follow a path contrary to the will of God, whether that path be fornication, pornography, adultery, sexually acting out on same sex attraction, etc, will receive God's glory and honor and be exalted in the celestial kingdom of God.The choice is clear: violate the will of God and enjoy the ephemeral pleasures of the natural man during this very brief lifetime (a flash in the pan when compared to eternity), or live a life of godly sacrifice and deny oneself the pleasures of the natural man, that exaltation and a life of eternal happiness may be assured. Surely the Lord spoke the truth when he said, "some are made eunuchs of men, and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Those members who struggle with same sex attraction have been given a great blessing in disguise, for if against the inclinations of the flesh they choose to not violate the will of God, they will surely be numbered among the great heroes of faith in eternity and will be compensated beyond measure for their virtuous lives of godly sacrifice.You're defending a modern idea by attempting to employ scripture. But you clearly lack understanding of the Adam and Eve narrative. 1
The Nehor Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Just curious, do what do you think of 1 Corinthians chapter 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." Do we need to edit it out of our scriptures?Or does it just not apply to some people? Depends on how unique the temptation has to be. If it can be something as simple as lust or envy it can apply and be common to all although individual targets of the sins and circumstances would vary widely. Then again almost everyone has some sin they are untempted by. Does that make it uncommon?
california boy Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 It does seem to only condemn gay Mormons who have a knowledge of their sins. It's too bad your questions are being ignored in this thread. I found them very thought provoking. I am guessing that my questions are much more difficult to answer because there are no answers. When you think through some of the positions of the church and the implications of those statements, it brings up a lot of difficult question. Obviously this is a little personal for me. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how the plan of salvation works if you are gay. I have come to the conclusion that the church leaders really have no idea. They can make general statements to try and fit being gay into the straight paradigm, but if you go a little deeper, it doesn't make sense. When this occurs, I strongly advise anyone to fast and pray. Trust God. Maybe some day, church leaders will figure all this out. Until they do, their understanding will continue to evolve. Certainly at least one of the first quorum of 70 understands that. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 What I imagine will materialize is multiple references to the 20 year milestone and how visionary the proclamation was. As with last conference, we'll have more than one speaker preach the value of one man, one woman marriage. Millennials and Gen Z'ers will tune out while some of us wonder exactly who doesn't believe in the value of man-woman marriage. But I hope to be proven wrong.It's not self-evident to me that "millennials and Gen Z'ers" in the Church en masse "tune out" inspired doctrine or counsel pertaining to the proclamation on the family or the Lord's definition of marriage. But even if they do, that does not render the teachings untrue. Reminds me of the implication expressed a couple of days ago on the "Dissatisfied Liberal Mormons" thread that changing divine doctrine would make us more "likable."
Scott Lloyd Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) I am guessing that my questions are much more difficult to answer because there are no answers. When you think through some of the positions of the church and the implications of those statements, it brings up a lot of difficult question. Obviously this is a little personal for me. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out exactly how the plan of salvation works if you are gay. I have come to the conclusion that the church leaders really have no idea. They can make general statements to try and fit being gay into the straight paradigm, but if you go a little deeper, it doesn't make sense. When this occurs, I strongly advise anyone to fast and pray. Trust God. Maybe some day, church leaders will figure all this out. Until they do, their understanding will continue to evolve. Certainly at least one of the first quorum of 70 understands that.The doctrines of God pertaining to marriage and the family are what they are, and they will not change. You are a precious son of Heavenly Father. Approach Him in humble prayer, plead for forgiveness, express your determination to obey His commandments all the remaining days of your life, and petition Him to strengthen and support you in that resolve. All the blessings He has in store for the most faithful of His children can be yours. Edited October 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 The doctrines of God pertaining to marriage and the family are what they are, and they will not change. You are a precious son of Heavenly Father. Approach Him in humble prayer, plead for forgiveness, express your determination to obey His commandments all the remaining days of your life, and petition Him to strengthen and support you in that resolve. All the blessings He has in store for the most faithful of His children can be yours. You are assuming that 1. I haven't prayed and fasted many times about this. And 2. God answers my prayers the same way he answers yours. I certainly feel His Spirit and love in my life. And I also feel incredibly blessed to have a companion to share this life with in a healthy and loving way. I used to think that I had to be a member of the church to grow closer to God. I found out that is not true. How you live your life is what brings one closer to God. I can not be a part of the church with it's current policy on marriage. As you know I have never advocated for the church to change their position. So I believe I will probably live the rest of my life outside the walls of the church. It won't really effect my relationship with God one way or the other. That comes from within yourself, not within the walls of the church. Yes, I am a precious son of Heavenly Father. I look forward with joy for that day when I too can stand before God and account for my life. I put my trust in Him. If I am condemned to someplace lower in His kingdom than you for loving my boyfriend and sharing my life with him, I will be ok with that. Scott, you and I live very different lives. You are rock solid sure that you are on the path towards exaltation. You are a strong defender of what you believe in. I am glad for you. I hope you never waiver in that path. I wish you all the love and happiness God can give you. I too stand for truth and what is right. I just seen those two things very differently than you do. I also hope I don't waiver in that path. Thank you for your kind and personal post.
rockpond Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 It's not self-evident to me that "millennials and Gen Z'ers" in the Church en masse "tune out" inspired doctrine or counsel pertaining to the proclamation on the family or the Lord's definition of marriage. But even if they do, that does not render the teachings untrue. Reminds me of the implication expressed a couple of days ago on the "Dissatisfied Liberal Mormons" thread that changing divine doctrine would make us more "likable."I wouldn't expect your experience with millennials to match mine. So that's fine. I certainly agree that people tuning out doesn't make something untrue. Similarly, people tuning in doesn't make something true. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that we change divine doctrine. That strikes me as your interpretation of what they are saying.
Recommended Posts