Why would any LGBT person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Chill out Scott. It may be surprising but I don't see everything you post. Thanks for the response here even though you accuse me of ill will. I just chalk that up to immaturity so it's ok.

I responded immediately after you made your post. Do you typically raise a question and then just drop it without even going back to the thread to see if anyone responded? As I have pointed out, you seem to make a habit of raising this point and then ignoring or neglecting responses that have been made. Again, I wonder how long it is going to be before you do this again.

Quote

So, from what source is Wickman getting his information?  I don't see this as definitive. It again appears leaders are making statements about the eternities based on the logic of their time and culture. I agree with much of Oaks statement with a few exceptions.

This is an unequivocal statement by one of the leading authorities of the Church, with implied assent given by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles there present, who followed up immediately by augmenting it with an additional statement. And the same point is made on the official mormonsandgays.org website. I have to believe they are speaking from a solid doctrinal position. If you deny that, it is up to you to prove it.

Quote

If the brethren are going to give answers to questions (that supposedly we are to accept as doctrine) on subjects that previously have not been addressed by revelation, we need to see a revelation. Otherwise I assume it's good men, doing the best they can, but limited to their time and culture.

These are Church authorities speaking authoritatively in official Church venues. Your contradiction of their statement, well, it is what it is.

I'll say it again: Faced with a choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and the apostles.

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

19 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But we aren't supposed to be blindly obedient to our leaders.

 

Right?

It is quite possible to avoid being “blindly obedient to our leaders” without “speaking or writing in open opposition to the position of the Church or its leaders.”  In my experience, a lot of home teachers manage to accomplish this feat with little apparent effort.

[consiglieri]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And just how exactly do you expect to "see" a revelation? 

You're supposed to get those yourself to corroborate what they tell you, with God corroborating it to you personally, rather than looking for some sort of "thus saith the Lord" statement from those who share what (they say) God told them.

Fair enough, Ahab.

God has told me the "doctrine" that gays will have their sexual orientation changed in the next world is false.

God has also told me the new church policy on those involved in committed gay relationships and their children is false.

God has also told me that the claim by President Russell M. Nelson that the new policy is the result of revelation from God is a stink in His nostrils.

Now that I know these things directly from God, what is my next move?

[busybee]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would you be willing to accept not only a lifetime but an eternity of no physical or emotional intimacy with another person? The difference between what is being said to the LGBT community and what you're suggesting is that they don't even have a HOPE that things can or will be different in eternity. That's a pretty massive difference.

They do have a hope but it isn't what they want. We all have the hope of being free from worldly weaknesses and challenges in eternity. LGBT people don't want that hope. They want the hope that eternity will be shaped according to their mortal desires, and not according to the Lord's plan, so that they will be able to continue in their present state. 

There is hope for ALL who are willing to submit to the will of the Lord.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hey stemelbow, did you notice that this 1949 statement affirms that the priesthood one day would be given to those of African ancestry?

Where is the First Presidency statement (or any other statement from Church leaders) affirming that homosexual relationships will one day be approved and solemnized in the temples?

Isn't that your whole point in dredging this thing up? To prop up your vain hope that Church leaders will one day back down on the matter of homosexual behavior being sinful and unchaste? Is there a statement from Church leaders that even hints that this one day might happen?

 

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My point was made, Scott.  It is that leaders have erred.  That even when officially proclaimed they've been wrong in the past.  There is precedence to think they could be wrong presently on something or in the future. 

So you don't have an answer to the question then? I'll repeat it for emphasis: Where is the First Presidency statement (or any other statement from Church leaders) affirming that homosexual relationships will one day be approved and solemnized in the temples?

Bear in mind that the expectation all along was that the priesthood would one day be given to all worthy males. President Kimball, for one, was so confident of that that he spent many years in fervent prayer seeking a revelation on the matter until his petition was ultimately granted in 1978. By contrast, the Brethren seem unequivocally confident that there will never be any change desinfulizing (to coin a term) homosexual relations. Yet you vainly hold out hope that such will be the case. And you publicly oppose the Brethren on what has been repeatedly stated, even as you find fault with what Church leaders in the past have said and done..

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, busybee said:

They do have a hope but it isn't what they want. We all have the hope of being free from worldly weaknesses and challenges in eternity. LGBT people don't want that hope. They want the hope that eternity will be shaped according to their mortal desires, and not according to the Lord's plan, so that they will be able to continue in their present state. 

There is hope for ALL who are willing to submit to the will of the Lord.

Hear, hear!

[Russell C McGregor]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Fair enough, Ahab.

God has told me the "doctrine" that gays will have their sexual orientation changed in the next world is false.

God has also told me the new church policy on those involved in committed gay relationships and their children is false.

God has also told me that the claim by President Russell M. Nelson that the new policy is the result of revelation from God is a stink in His nostrils.

No. He has not.

You are taking His name in vain.

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Now that I know these things directly from God, what is my next move?

Formalise your apostasy.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, busybee said:

They do have a hope but it isn't what they want. We all have the hope of being free from worldly weaknesses and challenges in eternity. LGBT people don't want that hope. 

You have to know that many gays do not view being gay as a "worldly weakness" or a "challenge".   They embrace it and they love their partners or spouses and families as much as you love yours.  They want to be with them throughout eternity just as you do.  That is their hope,  just as it is your hope.  There is no difference between your hope and theirs.

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Thank you for once more blaming the victims of the Church's anti-gay policies.

As you perfectly well know, and contrary to what you intentionally assert, the Church has no "anti-gay policies."

The Church has anti-sin policies, which are probably what you dislike about it.

And as you perfectly well know, and contrary to what you intentionally assert, the Church's policies have no "victims."

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[busybee]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You have to know that many gays do not view being gay as a "worldly weakness" or a "challenge".   They embrace it and they love their partners or spouses and families as much as you love yours.  They want to be with them throughout eternity just as you do.  That is their hope,  just as it is your hope.  There is no difference between your hope and theirs.

 

We all hope that eternity will be just the way we want it. We will only get that wish if align our will with God's will. 

 

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You have to know that many gays do not view being gay as a "worldly weakness" or a "challenge".   They embrace it and they love their partners or spouses and families as much as you love yours.  They want to be with them throughout eternity just as you do.  That is their hope,  just as it is your hope.  There is no difference between your hope and theirs.

There can be a difference depending on the will to do the Father's will. Granted, there can exist gay couples who are more intent in His will than some hetero couples...but will still matters.

A friend said she is grateful her husband puts God before her. That's what I would want, too.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, busybee said:

 

We all hope that eternity will be just the way we want it. We will only get that wish if align our will with God's will. 

I agree.  And I believe that God will allow us to be with those we love (if they choose to be with us also).  That includes loving gay couples who want to be together after this life.  

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Formalise your apostasy.

 

Are you suggesting consig resign his membership in the Church?

Edited March 9, 2016 by ttribe

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There can be a difference depending on the will to do the Father's will. Granted, there can exist gay couples who are more intent in His will than some hetero couples...but will still matters.

A friend said she is grateful her husband puts God before her. That's what I would want, too.

Yes, I agree.  I am personally acquainted with one such gay couple who are married, very committed to each other and very committed to God.   They are 2 of the finest Christians I've ever been acquainted with.  They devote a great deal of their time in serving others and are filled with integrity and honor.  They very much want to be together after this life.

[busybee]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  And I believe that God will allow us to be with those we love (if they choose to be with us also).  That includes loving gay couples who want to be together after this life.  

I respectfully disagree. We cannot make God in our own image. I guess we shall just have to wait and see.

[ALarson]

Just now, busybee said:

I respectfully disagree. We cannot make God in our own image.

No, we can't.  And you're doing that just as much as anyone else with your hopes of how things will be after this life.  None of us know, but we can have hopes and beliefs and faith.  SSM couples have the same hopes that you have.  But yes, as you stated, "we shall just have to wait and see"....every single one of us.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you suggesting consig resign his membership in the Church?

I think he was responding to the question "what is the next step?".

That is the next logical step in the progression. Pointing out that fact is not the same thing as recommending or "suggesting" it.

 

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he was responding to the question "what is the next step?".

That is the next logical step in the progression. Pointing out that fact is not the same thing as recommending or "suggesting" it.

 

Thank you for your opinion, Scott.  I'll await Russell's answer since it was Russell who posted the "suggestion" and Russell who I asked for clarification.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ttribe

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Fair enough, Ahab.

God has told me the "doctrine" that gays will have their sexual orientation changed in the next world is false.

God has also told me the new church policy on those involved in committed gay relationships and their children is false.

God has also told me that the claim by President Russell M. Nelson that the new policy is the result of revelation from God is a stink in His nostrils.

Now that I know these things directly from God, what is my next move?

Comprehend why you refer to that person as God, realize there is another person who some people refer to as God even though he says the exact opposite of what some other people who are God are saying, and then follow whichever person appeals to you the most out of all others.

Kinda like beauty, good and evil are often in the eye of the beholder, so it's up to you to decide what and who you like the most. 

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he was responding to the question "what is the next step?".

That is the next logical step in the progression. Pointing out that fact is not the same thing as recommending or "suggesting" it.

 

I think you're being a tad too hasty. 

If he's going to leave the Church I think he should leave only if his eyes fully open and with his mind made up that he really wants to be a son of Perdition.

Otherwise he should probably just stay in the Church while he tries to keep learning some things he doesn't know yet.

 

[ALarson]

Just now, Ahab said:

I think you're being a tad too hasty. 

If he's going to leave the Church I think he should leave only if his eyes fully open and with his mind made up that he really wants to be a son of Perdition.

A son of perdition?  I don't think so.  

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think you're being a tad too hasty. 

If he's going to leave the Church I think he should leave only if his eyes fully open and with his mind made up that he really wants to be a son of Perdition.

Otherwise he should probably just stay in the Church while he tries to keep learning some things he doesn't know yet.

 

Wait, is it your position that all who resign are consigned to becoming "Sons of Perdition"?  If so, I'd really like to hear your justification for that one.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Comprehend why you refer to that person as God, realize there is another person who some people refer to as God even though he says the exact opposite of what some other people who are God are saying, and then follow whichever person appeals to you the most out of all others.

Kinda like beauty, good and evil are often in the eye of the beholder, so it's up to you to decide what and who you like the most. 

So know one talks to God or is inspired by prayer unless they agree with everything the church says?  Why bother to pray..why bother to think?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

You have to know that many gays do not view being gay as a "worldly weakness" or a "challenge".

In the which, they are mistaken.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

  They embrace it and they love their partners or spouses and families as much as you love yours.  They want to be with them throughout eternity just as you do.  That is their hope,  just as it is your hope.  There is no difference between your hope and theirs.

Yes there is.

My hope is in accordance with revealed truth. Theirs is contrary to it.

That's a difference.

It might not be much of a difference to you, but it makes all the difference.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I responded immediately after you made your post. Do you typically raise a question and then just drop it without even going back to the thread to see if anyone responded? As I have pointed out, you seem to make a habit of raising this point and then ignoring or neglecting responses that have been made. Again, I wonder how long it is going to be before you do this again.

I like looking for responses but it kind of depends on how busy I am. It would be great if there were a tagging feature on posts. It's easy to miss stuff especially when the conversation moves so quickly and I come back to it hours later. Does this seem reasonable to you Scott or do you prefer to continue attributing my miss of your post to bad will? If you want to assign negative motivation you seriously need to grow up.

This is an unequivocal statement by one of the leading authorities of the Church, with implied assent given by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles there present, who followed up immediately by augmenting it with an additional statement. And the same point is made on the official mormonsandgays.org website. I have to believe they are speaking from a solid doctrinal position. If you deny that, it is up to you to prove it.

So every statement by a 70 or apostle or prophet is gospel/doctrine? Come on. You don't really believe that do you? I'm reminded of the 2007 1st Presidency statement I'll post below.

These are Church authorities speaking authoritatively in official Church venues. Your contradiction of their statement, well, it is what it is.

I readily admit that my opinion is not eternal doctrine. I submit that the opinions of leaders isn't necessarily doctrine either.

I'll say it again: Faced with a choice, I'll cast my lot with the prophets and the apostles.

Good for you.

Quote

1. May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-

   “Not every statement made by a church leader – past or present – necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal though well-considered opinion but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”

I'm also reminded of this from Pres. Lee.

Quote

1.  “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

And this.

Quote

1. Elder B.H. Roberts

   The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”