CV75 Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Because they both did not address even one of happyjacks questions. Their answers were glib, and completely glossed over the questions. Or more truthfully, they seemed to imply they had an answer when the church has none.LOL--I don't think you read all you could/should have...
Bobbieaware Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I'm just showing you that your theory about "opposition" breaks down very quickly once you actually examine how things really work.In rebuttal, I was going to copy and paste the prophet Lehi's discourse on opposition in all things found in 2 Nephi 2, but then I remembered you don't believe Lehi is a real person, so I abandoned the idea. But in support of my position I will simply restate the "fictitious" Lehi's proposition that without opposition in all things all things that now exist would vanish into non-existence, including God himself. So I hope you'll excuse me if I choose to take "Lehi" at his word.
Bobbieaware Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 These are the exact kinds of posts I was referring to when I wrote: Neither one of these posters could actually answer any of the questiions that HappyJack actually asked. Instead these are glib answers that gloss over the real issues gay members ask. These questions are some of the questions that the member of the first quorum of 70 were probably referring to when he said the church was still searching for answers from God. Can either one of you posters point to a revelation scripture or even accepted doctrine on whether a gay person will have to become straight in the next life in order to be exalted? And if a gay person has chosen to remain celibate throughout his entire mortal life, what will change that will want him to be with someone of the opposite sex for eternity?? Just what is he overcoming since it is not a sin to be gay? This is exactly why I suggested listening to the Spirit rather than the OPINIONS of so many who have probably not spent nearly the time in fasting and prayer seeking the Spirit for real answers to a real person that you and your family have. Trust in God with all your heart and lean not on the guessings and speculations of others.So although the scriptures and the living prophets forbid the practice of homosexual sex if one wants to be a fully participating member of the Church, I'm the one who's off base?
Gray Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) In rebuttal, I was going to copy and paste the prophet Lehi's discourse on opposition in all things found in 2 Nephi 2, but then I remembered you don't believe Lehi is a real person, so I abandoned the idea. But in support of my position I will simply restate the "fictitious" Lehi's proposition that without opposition in all things all things that now exist would vanish into non-existence, including God himself. So I hope you'll excuse me if I choose to take "Lehi" at his word. It doesn't matter whether or not he was a real person - either your idea can withstand scrutiny or it can't, right? I don't think Lehi's teachings on opposition have anything to do with gender. It's really about good vs bad. Which is why I asked you which gender is the evil one. For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn 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 even the forbidden fruit in opposition to thetree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter Edited September 30, 2015 by Gray 2
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 So although the scriptures and the living prophets forbid the practice of homosexual sex if one wants to be a fully participating member of the Church, I'm the one who's off base?If the church is willing to condemn a person's personal personal practices I think it's fair to ask them to how the atonement works for that individual. Will the gay person still be gay in the next life?Will the gay person be "healed" from being gay in the next life?How does the plan of happiness work for them in eternity if they will still be gay?Will they be alone forever? We're fast to condemn gays without providing any real answers for how they fit in the eternities. There's a huge void where the church doesn't even claim to know how these things work in the eternities, yet we're supposed to condemn the person now and call tehm sinful. That's not good enough for me. 2
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 If the church is willing to condemn a person's personal personal practices I think it's fair to ask them to how the atonement works for that individual. Will the gay person still be gay in the next life?Will the gay person be "healed" from being gay in the next life?How does the plan of happiness work for them in eternity if they will still be gay?Will they be alone forever? We're fast to condemn gays without providing any real answers for how they fit in the eternities. There's a huge void where the church doesn't even claim to know how these things work in the eternities, yet we're supposed to condemn the person now and call tehm sinful. That's not good enough for me. Would those who are lobbying to define homosexuality as normal and not sinful going to accept the answer honestly given? The answer to those questions depend entirely on "gay" being a normal variant of human behavior or a dysfunction and abnormal behavior as it used to be defined by the American Psychological Association. If gay is abnormal and "fixable" in the eternities then:A gay person would not be gay in the next life.There is a balm in Gilead for all these things and it would be cured.If they chose to still be gay and not be "fixed" then they would chose eternity without those blessings conditional upon living the law of chastity as God has defined it.They will not be alone forever. Relationships are a lot more than physical attraction, or should be. If gay is a normal variant on our eternal natures then:A gay person could be unchanged in the afterlife.There is no need to "fix" them.They would receive all blessings conditional upon the laws they obey in the eternities.They will not be alone and they can be sealed or partnered exclusively with the one they love in this life. In the eternities as now we will not lose our agency. Ultimately we will choose for ourselves what is most important to us. That goes for straight people as well as gay. 1
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) Will the gay person still be gay in the next life? . I'll answer that as no. Since "Gay" is a western social cultural construct, invented in last century, I see no reason for it to be an eternal aspect of anyone. Its kind of like asking if there will be hippies or yuppies in the next life. There are cultures out there that still don't know what "gay" means Edited September 30, 2015 by Danzo 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Would those who are lobbying to define homosexuality as normal and not sinful going to accept the answer honestly given? The answer to those questions depend entirely on "gay" being a normal variant of human behavior or a dysfunction and abnormal behavior as it used to be defined by the American Psychological Association. If gay is abnormal and "fixable" in the eternities then:A gay person would not be gay in the next life.There is a balm in Gilead for all these things and it would be cured.If they chose to still be gay and not be "fixed" then they would chose eternity without those blessings conditional upon living the law of chastity as God has defined it.They will not be alone forever. Relationships are a lot more than physical attraction, or should be. If gay is a normal variant on our eternal natures then:A gay person could be unchanged in the afterlife.There is no need to "fix" them.They would receive all blessings conditional upon the laws they obey in the eternities.They will not be alone and they can be sealed or partnered exclusively with the one they love in this life. In the eternities as now we will not lose our agency. Ultimately we will choose for ourselves what is most important to us. That goes for straight people as well as gay.We don't know what the eternities hold so why condemn?If someone or a church is going to condemn I think the responsibility is theirs to explain why, and how God plans to save them. Otherwise the church has NOTHING to offer gay people.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I'll answer that as no. Since "Gay" is a western social cultural construct, invented in last century, I see no reason for it to be an eternal aspect of anyone. Its kind of like asking if there will be hippies or yuppies in the next life. There cultures out there that still don't know what "gay" meansNot in the mood for a semantic game. We all know what it means even if it has only been labled as such for the last century. Gays have always existed. They just weren't acknowledged or called that word.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) If the church is willing to condemn a person's personal personal practices I think it's fair to ask them to how the atonement works for that individual. Will the gay person still be gay in the next life?Will the gay person be "healed" from being gay in the next life?How does the plan of happiness work for them in eternity if they will still be gay?Will they be alone forever? We're fast to condemn gays without providing any real answers for how they fit in the eternities. There's a huge void where the church doesn't even claim to know how these things work in the eternities, yet we're supposed to condemn the person now and call tehm sinful. That's not good enough for me.On the contrary, the Church has made it clear that homosexuality is a condition that will not transcend mortality. From the pamphlet "God Loveth His Children." In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.This notion that "the Church doesn't even claim to know how these things work in the eternities" is a persistent and pervasive myth that deserves to die a quick and merciful death. Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I'll answer that as no. Since "Gay" is a western social cultural construct, invented in last century, I see no reason for it to be an eternal aspect of anyone. Its kind of like asking if there will be hippies or yuppies in the next life. There cultures out there that still don't know what "gay" means Wait, are you suggesting there was no such thing as homosexuality prior to the "social cultural construct" of "gay" being "invented in [the] last century?" Because, it was quite clear that HJW's use of the term "gay" was referring to homosexuality in all of its forms; not the more modern subculture. Otherwise, it seems you think you are playing clever word games, and that's not even remotely helpful to resolving HJW's concerns on this. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 On the contrary, Church leaders has made it clear that homosexuality is a condition that will not transcend mortality.CFR- And I don't mean the Packer statement that was later removed from his conference talk.
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 In the eternities as now we will not lose our agency. Ultimately we will choose for ourselves what is most important to us. That goes for straight people as well as gay. Obviously, the church teaches that engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful. That's not up for debate. The problem with the article is that it claims our agency extends to our "choice" of sexual orientation. The church doesn't teach that, but, as you say, says that it will be made right in the eternities. But thinking you can choose to be gay or straight leads to all kinds of pointless and harmful attitudes and behaviors. It tells parents they can prevent their kids from being gay, and it teaches gay kids that, if they try hard enough, they can make themselves heterosexual. I don't mind saying that both of those erroneous teachings can lead to heartache and even suicide.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 CFRSeriously?Pure silliness. I will rephrase to say that for as long as we have recorded history, individuals have engaged in homosexual activities which we would now call gay. Are you going to actually contribute something to this conversation?
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Wait, are you suggesting there was no such thing as homosexuality prior to the "social cultural construct" of "gay" being "invented in [the] last century?" Because, it was quite clear that HJW's use of the term "gay" was referring to homosexuality in all of its forms; not the more modern subculture. Otherwise, it seems you think you are playing clever word games, and that's not even remotely helpful to resolving HJW's concerns on this. Apparently, he doesn't understand what a social construct is or what its implications are. Race, for example, is a social construct based on physical appearance, but it has little relation to genetics (the most genetically diverse population in the world is sub-Saharan Africa, but they are all lumped together as one race). Similarly, homosexual and heterosexual are social constructs based on behavior and sexual desire. The existence of a social construct does not mean the markers of it are chosen any more than the social construct of race means people choose their skin color. 1
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Wait, are you suggesting there was no such thing as homosexuality prior to the "social cultural construct" of "gay" being "invented in [the] last century?" Because, it was quite clear that HJW's use of the term "gay" was referring to homosexuality in all of its forms; not the more modern subculture. Otherwise, it seems you think you are playing clever word games, and that's not even remotely helpful to resolving HJW's concerns on this. What is Homosexuality in "all of its forms"? Sounds kind of broad.
KevinG Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Obviously, the church teaches that engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful. That's not up for debate. The problem with the article is that it claims our agency extends to our "choice" of sexual orientation. The church doesn't teach that, but, as you say, says that it will be made right in the eternities. But thinking you can choose to be gay or straight leads to all kinds of pointless and harmful attitudes and behaviors. It tells parents they can prevent their kids from being gay, and it teaches gay kids that, if they try hard enough, they can make themselves heterosexual. I don't mind saying that both of those erroneous teachings can lead to heartache and even suicide. I'm having trouble with a culture that says, homosexual behavior is OK for kids to "try out" and sexual experimentation is healthy for youth. I call BS. There are a lot of carnal drives we should be suppressing and that does not necessarily lead to suicide. It often leads to greater stability and health.
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Seriously?Pure silliness. I will rephrase to say that for as long as we have recorded history, individuals have engaged in homosexual activities which we would now call gay. Are you going to actually contribute something to this conversation? Yet I am repeatedly told here and in other forums that homosexual activities do not make one gay. (just as heterosexual activities do not make one straigt)
ttribe Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 What is Homosexuality in "all of its forms"? Sounds kind of broad. Male-Male. Female-Female. You follow? Now, care to actually respond to what I asked? 1
Danzo Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Apparently, he doesn't understand what a social construct is or what its implications are. Race, for example, is a social construct based on physical appearance, but it has little relation to genetics (the most genetically diverse population in the world is sub-Saharan Africa, but they are all lumped together as one race). Similarly, homosexual and heterosexual are social constructs based on behavior and sexual desire. The existence of a social construct does not mean the markers of it are chosen any more than the social construct of race means people choose their skin color. Since race is a social construct, I think it would be reasonable to assume that race is not eternal. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) CFR- And I don't mean the Packer statement that was later removed from his conference talk.Please go back and look at my post again. Read the quote and see the link I added. A bit trigger-happy with the CFR, are you not? Edited September 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 The problem with your rebuttal is that the things that are in opposition to God's will are considered sinful. The opposite of sobriety is addiction to and near constant intoxication on either alcohol or drugs. So is addiction to alcohol or drugs a good thing just because it is a state of being that stands in opposition to sobriety? The opposite of sobriety is not addiction. The opposite of sobriety is intoxication. Which may or may not be a marker of addiction. The vast majority of alcohol users are not addicts.
jkwilliams Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Since race is a social construct, I think it would be reasonable to assume that race is not eternal. For believing Mormons, I think that's quite reasonable. The problem is when you extrapolate from that logic that mortal humans can choose who and what they are attracted to. It doesn't work.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Since race is a social construct, I think it would be reasonable to assume that race is not eternal.Reasonable only to you. The nuclear family is also a social construct so clearly those will not be eternal either.
Recommended Posts