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

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see how you could even be open to the possibility. 

It's purely theoretical.  I find the notion of same-sex marriage fundamentally incompatible with too many aspects of the Restored Gospel.  I chalk most of today's talk up to A) wishful thinking, and/or B) a pretext for speaking against the Brethren now.  Nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

It's purely theoretical.  I find the notion of same-sex marriage fundamentally incompatible with too many aspects of the Restored Gospel.  I chalk most of today's talk up to A) wishful thinking, and/or B) a pretext for speaking against the Brethren now.  Nothing more.

Thanks,

-Smac

The very reasons I put it at zero on the likelihood spectrum. 

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What makes you think I am in a stage of denial?  I have never said it was not a sin.  And I have never said that the church should change it's policy on SSM.  Love too hear why you think I am in denial.  What a curious thing to say.

The context in which I said that should have given you a clue.  I was responding to your comments about how you thought the Church might someday change it's policy or view on SSM, as if you seriously thought and are still thinking the Church might someday condone it and the same sex sexual relations that generally go along with it.

Can you now admit that the Church would never do that, or that at least the Lord wouldn't.  Ever?

If the Church were to ever condone it as something that is acceptable to our Lord and to God our Father, thinking it was righteous, then the Church would be making a mistake on that and be in apostasy, itself.  Which is not supposed to happen again according to what the Lord has told us.

And if you're hoping God does or ever will approve of same sex sexual relations then you're in denial of how God really feels about it.

So can you now admit that neither the Church, as a collective body,  nor our Lord and our Father would ever condone it?

If you can then maybe you are ready for the next stage of grief that you need to deal with.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The very reasons I put it at zero on the likelihood spectrum. 

My guesstimate is not much higher than that.  Hence the emphasis on "theoretical."

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, unless there is no such change.  That would be a "reason."

But the thing I don't get is this preoccupation about what might happen in the future.  What's the point of that, I wonder?  It's not like any of us are claiming to have received inspiration about how the Church will treat same-sex marriage in the future, so all we are doing, really, is arguing over whose sheer speculation is going to happen.  What's the value in that?

Well, it's call hope.  Many have that hope and it includes a change in the future.  I think the preoccupation has become such on both sides of the SSM issue.  Some hope it will never change (and believe it won't) and some hope that it will change (and believe it will).  The value is that the leaders do listen to the members and God listens and answer prayers.  

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Moreover, I wish to emphasize two points here: First, I am open to the theoretical possibility that the Church will reverse course and embrace or endorse or tolerate same-sex marriage.  I think such a possibility is exceedingly low, but I am open to it.  

Second, that theoretical possibility of what the Church might do in the future does not, I think, excuse the Saints from sustaining the Brethren in the here and now.

I'm glad you are open to the theoretical possibility that the Church will reverse it course.  Anyone that doesn't even consider it may happen is fooling themselves because of the past changes made in policies and doctrines over the years.

I also agree that it's important to sustain the brethren today too.

.

Edited March 12, 2016 by ALarson

[BookofMormonLuvr]

In case it hasn't already been answered the correct response to the query in the title is:

Green Jell-O

You're welcome.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not at all.

We have a letter from the Prophet.  He stated things very clearly and plainly.  If you want to try to qualify that or make it seem unimportant (because of who the person was asking the questions), go ahead and try.  It does not change what the Prophet stated.  It also does not change the fact that the doctrine was changed years later.  

And, it does not change the fact that doctrine could change again.  Will it?  We don't know, but a good indicator is to look at the history of how doctrine has evolved and changed over the years.

There you go again! You cannot show where I am qualifying his letter and making it seem unimportant because of who (and who are you saying it is?) is asking (and what are you saying is being asked?) questions, and that he did not state what he stated. By doing so, you miss answering my actual points and questions, stifling open dialogue.

I really would like someone to answer, "how do you know Nelson was inspired; how would you have known it at the time; and how did he behave?" I can’t blame anyone for a lack of insight on the first two questions, but it seems pretty easy to recognize the behaviors reflected in his letters. That would be an interesting conversation (for me).

Those doctrines put forth in President Smith’s letter were not changed so much as disavowed (and relegated to the status of theories), and the racist application of any correct doctrine condemned. The doctrine of the priesthood hasn’t changed, but the practice or policy of the ban was lifted.

The “Things Changed; They Could Change Again” doctrine is as vacuous as the “They Were Wrong Before; They Could Be Wrong Again” doctrine as a means to expand the dialogue. Can you imagine someone saying such things to justify his views in a serious council? This is why it is important to understand the process by which light and knowledge comes into the Church; while Nelson didn't seem to grasp it completely, he was smart enough not to bring up these absurdities...

Regarding the “They Were Wrong Before; They Could Be Wrong Again” doctrine, if a saint thinks past leaders were wrong or mistaken or amiss, he will forgive and bask in the greater light and knowledge we have today. If he thinks they are wrong now, or could be wrong “again,” he will trust that the Source of his enlightenment will ensure his involvement or views in His councils as the Restoration rolls forth. If he fears they could be wrong “again,” he draws upon his faith in the Lord and sustains His servants as He requires.

In this way, he is a happy man as the old ship Zion moves forward. "I Forgave [Trusted, Had Faith] Before; I Will Forgive [Trust, Have Faith] Again." When we forgive others, we usually find out where we were wrong (and vice versa)!

Conveniently, the “Things Changed; They Could Change Again” doctrine ignores the things that do not change.

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

The atonement and resurrection of Christ do not change. Their opposition, sin and death, do not change. Life and death, and sin and atonement, began with and were faced only by a couple (Adam and Eve) legitimately married by God as man and woman.

So let’s stop with the “things can change” when some things clearly do not, in order to discuss this intelligently. The same with “they were wrong before” and charging me with taking positions I do not.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, it's call hope.  Many have that hope and it includes a change in the future.  I think the preoccupation has become such on both sides of the SSM issue.  Some hope it will never change (and believe it won't) and some hope that it will change (and believe it will).  The value is that the leaders do listen to the members and God listens and answer prayers.  

I'm glad you are open to the theoretical possibility that the Church will reverse it course.  Anyone that doesn't even consider it may happen is fooling themselves because of the past changes made in policies and doctrines over the years.

I also agree that it's important to sustain the brethren today too.

Hope is not a strategy LOL. And as wonderful as it is for many purposes, is hardly rational. So in projecting the future, well... we have to begin with things that do not change and draft a trajectory from there. But that's been revealed already, hasn't it!

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So your claim to be in receipt of revelation was really just a ruse to try to bait a board member into saying something you wanted her/him to say? Interesting. Do you by any chance have a spare six onties of silver that I can borrow?

It was no ruse.

My claim is as real as President Nelson's claim of revelation for the new CHI policy.

If not more so. 

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Hope is not a strategy LOL. 

Where did I state that?  LOL

We all hope for different things in our life.  That doesn't make it a "strategy".

Edited March 12, 2016 by ALarson

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The very reasons I put it at zero on the likelihood spectrum. 

Gotta agree with Scott here. As he noted there was always an implicit point that someday the priesthood ban would be lifted.  Not so with homosexual marriage.   And given the doctrine of marriage in the eternities and what its purpose is now and in the eternities I just don't see it changing.....ever.

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Ahab said:

The context in which I said that should have given you a clue.  I was responding to your comments about how you thought the Church might someday change it's policy or view on SSM, as if you seriously thought and are still thinking the Church might someday condone it and the same sex sexual relations that generally go along with it.

Can you now admit that the Church would never do that, or that at least the Lord wouldn't.  Ever?

If the Church were to ever condone it as something that is acceptable to our Lord and to God our Father, thinking it was righteous, then the Church would be making a mistake on that and be in apostasy, itself.  Which is not supposed to happen again according to what the Lord has told us.

And if you're hoping God does or ever will approve of same sex sexual relations then you're in denial of how God really feels about it.

So can you now admit that neither the Church, as a collective body,  nor our Lord and our Father would ever condone it?

If you can then maybe you are ready for the next stage of grief that you need to deal with.

I am really beginning to wonder about these post you keep directing at me, which consistently state things that I have NEVER said and tell me how I feel.  Find me one post where I said I thought the church might someday change it's position on SSM.  The only thing i have ever said is that I don't know if it will ever change. I am wondering if this constant misstatement of what I am saying is you projecting your own wants and desires on me.  Maybe you think I am free to say what you want to say.  Does that bother you?  Maybe you really do want to be in a same sex relationship and resent that fact that you had to marry a woman.

See how this works Ahab?  See what it feels like to have another person tell you what your thoughts and desires are when you have never said any of those things?  I am not really angry about your constant putting words in my mouth.  I am more amused, and wonder why you do it.  Maybe you can explain.

So this is the post you were responding to.  Show me where it says that I want or hope that the church will change its position on SSM

Quote

 

There are very similar things between the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and SSM.  Both just feel wrong to so many members.  Even before the ban was lifted, members were struggling to rectify the church's doctrine and their own spiritual confirmations.  Both seem to have their origins in long held prejudices that changed over time as people moved away from discriminating.  Both have had definitive statements that what the church leaders was Gods will.

Whether the church EVER changes it's position on SSM is pure speculation.  But no one can state as a fact that no change will ever come.  (well maybe except Scott)  In the mean time many gay members are being lost.  

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Gotta agree with Scott here. As he noted there was always an implicit point that someday the priesthood ban would be lifted.  Not so with homosexual marriage.   And given the doctrine of marriage in the eternities and what its purpose is now and in the eternities I just don't see it changing.....ever.

Just a general question on this subject since so many think that it is all about procreation in the next life.  Do you think that two male gods could create worlds? a universe?  Might there be other jobs in the next life besides having babies?  Do we really know how spirits are formed?  Can you tell me ONE thing that gay couples could not do that opposite sex couples could do that you know of for sure?  I bolded that part for a reason.  Not speculation, but facts.

I bring this up in all seriousness because it seems like the only stumbling block you, Scott, and others have about SSM is how Mormons view the eternities.  So just what in the eternities are you sure about that gay couples could not do?

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Just a general question on this subject since so many think that it is all about procreation in the next life.  Do you think that two male gods could create worlds? a universe?  Might there be other jobs in the next life besides having babies?  Do we really know how spirits are formed?  Can you tell me ONE thing that gay couples could not do that opposite sex couples could do that you know of for sure?  I bolded that part for a reason.  Not speculation, but facts.

I bring this up in all seriousness because it seems like the only stumbling block you, Scott, and others have about SSM is how Mormons view the eternities.  So just what in the eternities are you sure about that gay couples could not do?

Yes...they cannot be "man and woman" as the Scriptures state.  But, I understand that not everyone accepts the Scriptures.  Some only accept them when it is convenient.  

[Teancum]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just a general question on this subject since so many think that it is all about procreation in the next life.  Do you think that two male gods could create worlds? a universe?  Might there be other jobs in the next life besides having babies?  Do we really know how spirits are formed?  Can you tell me ONE thing that gay couples could not do that opposite sex couples could do that you know of for sure?  I bolded that part for a reason.  Not speculation, but facts.

I bring this up in all seriousness because it seems like the only stumbling block you, Scott, and others have about SSM is how Mormons view the eternities.  So just what in the eternities are you sure about that gay couples could not do?

Since you replied to me I should clarify.  I said I do not see the church ever changing.  Personally I think God, if there is a God like we hope and have faith in (though what God seems to be to humans seems pretty diverse)  that this God has not problem with a gay couple because if God exists this God created gay couples that way.

I don't believe a God that is powerful enough to create the universe and worlds intentionally gives us specific rules then weaknesses that are in opposition to those rules while causing us to forget everything we allegedly learned while living with this entity for maybe billions of years as some sort of cosmic test.  This idea has simply become absurd to me.  I don't intend that as an insult to the LDS view of what is termed the Plan of Happiness or the Plan of Salvation.  I just can't get my head around it anymore.  Maybe it is because I have turned more back to what the scriptures call the natural man and such a man is allegedly an enemy to God.  Hmmm well He allegedly created the plan and the circumstances that makes me His enemy did He/It not?  I cannot believe in such a being right now any more than I can hobbits, elves, dwarves and so on.  Even though I wish the wonderful stories of Tolkien and Middle Earth were true I know they are not.   Now I don't know for certain what is taught about the LDS Plan of Salvation is not true or do I know it is true.  But I skeptical.  If God is real I feel He/She/It is far removed from us and whatever the next life holds if there is one this entity will be the ultimate of kindness and mercy to us failing and flawed creature He/She/It created.  

So I think gay couples will be as loved by God as anyone.

[Teancum]

55 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Yes...they cannot be "man and woman" as the Scriptures state.  But, I understand that not everyone accepts the Scriptures.  Some only accept them when it is convenient.  

And some even accept them when they create absurdities.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

Yes...they cannot be "man and woman" as the Scriptures state.  But, I understand that not everyone accepts the Scriptures.  Some only accept them when it is convenient.  

It would help me see the support you claim from scripture if you could point to the scriptures that explains how spirit children are created.  Or are you just speculating from scripture?

[busybee]

23 hours ago, california boy said:

 In the mean time many gay members are being lost.  

And many other members who, unlike King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon, are not willing to give up all their sins to know God. 

'Protected minority' status does not extend to any sin. And it never will. 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, busybee said:

And many other members who, unlike King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon, are not willing to give up all their sins to know God. 

'Protected minority' status does not extend to any sin. And it never will. 

You are probably right.  Sex within the bounds of marriage just sounds so sinful.  It probably is in the best interest in bringing gay couples to christ by kicking them out of the church and calling them apostates.  Yeah i get it.  They do sound just as wicked as king Lamoni.  I withdraw my statement.  It isn't a shame so many gays are leaving the church. I totally see your point

[busybee]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are probably right.  Sex within the bounds of marriage just sounds so sinful.  It probably is in the best interest in bringing gay couples to christ by kicking them out of the church and calling them apostates.  Yeah i get it.  They do sound just as wicked as king Lamoni.  I withdraw my statement.  It isn't a shame so many gays are leaving the church. I totally see your point

 Oh get off your hobby horse.

I didn't say it wasn't a shame that they were leaving the church. I said there were many who are leaving the church rather than giving up their sins. It is a shame when anyone leaves the church to follow after their sins. No 'protected minority' sins is what I said. No-one is screaming about others being excommunicated for their actions, but there are loud voices shouting that gays should get a free pass for theirs because they are 'married'.

Sexual activity between two people of the same sex is a sin in the eyes of God. Being married doesn't make it not so. 'Gay marriage' is a man-made institution. It will not exist in the eternities. 

Edited March 12, 2016 by busybee

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, busybee said:

 Oh get off your hobby horse.

I didn't say it wasn't a shame that they were leaving the church. I said there were many who are leaving the church rather than giving up their sins. It is a shame when anyone leaves the church to follow after their sins. No 'protected minority' sins is what I said. No-one is screaming about others being excommunicated for their actions, but there are loud voices shouting that gays should get a free pass for theirs because they are 'married'.

Sexual activity between two people of the same sex is a sin in the eyes of God. Being married doesn't make it not so. 'Gay marriage' is a man-made institution. It will not exist in the eternities. 

It does sound terribly wicked and evil to find a partner in this life.  You do realize this thread is about LBGT.  Was I not suppose to bring them up in this thread?

[busybee]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

It does sound terribly wicked and evil to find a partner in this life.  You do realize this thread is about LBGT.  Was I not suppose to bring them up in this thread?

Knock yourself our dude.

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It would help me see the support you claim from scripture if you could point to the scriptures that explains how spirit children are created.  Or are you just speculating from scripture?

I do not rely just on Scripture.  And anyone who has read the Scriptures does not need me quoting it.  And if you have not read it, it makes your constant moaning more understandable.

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, busybee said:

And many other members who, unlike King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon, are not willing to give up all their sins to know God. 

'Protected minority' status does not extend to any sin. And it never will. 

Such self proclaimed certainty is such a wonderful thing. 

Enforcing your religious views on society in general because you think God told you truth by some mystical experience in my view is as much as a sin as you think homosexuality is.

Religious believers need to do better than "Because my God says so...."

[busybee]

21 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Such self proclaimed certainty is such a wonderful thing. 

Enforcing your religious views on society in general because you think God told you truth by some mystical experience in my view is as much as a sin as you think homosexuality is.

Religious believers need to do better than "Because my God says so...."

 I'm not enforcing my views on anyone. Everyone is free to believe what they want, but if I cannot not state what I believe with certainty, I have no business defending those same beliefs.

I'm stating my view that SSM will never be ok in the church with the same certainty that others are stating their opposing views. I thought that was what a discussion was about. Those who are claiming that the church will one day recognise SSM have yet to come up with a shred of evidence that would influence me to change my opinion. Until then I'll stick with what I know. 

Edited March 12, 2016 by busybee