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

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

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.

I know the scriptures well.  In fact well enough to state this undisputed fact.  There is no where in the scriptures that tells us how spirit children are formed in the next life.  There is a scripture that says they existed in the beginning with God  And they can not be created.  Which seems to indicate that no procreation of spirits are required.  Hence no male/female relationships are even needed if spirit children do require some kind of sexual act.

Quote

 

D&C 93:29

 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 

Those that say male/female couples to create spirit children are wrong.  It is nonsense according to Mormon doctrine.  That is not what the scriptures say.  So how do people make the erroneous statement that a gay couple could not be a part of the plan of salvation?  You certainly can not support that statement by doctrine in the scripture.  One would have to claim a new revelation to make such a statement.  And they would declare such a major shift in Mormon doctrine that they would announce such a revelation in a fireside for the youth.  

Be careful who you accuse of not knowing the scriptures.  I taught seminary for 6 years. 

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, busybee said:

 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. 

I agree that the LDS Church will not change its position.  It has every right to set its own rules in this regards and I would never want to limit that whether I agree or disagree.

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I know the scriptures well.  In fact well enough to state this undisputed fact.  There is no where in the scriptures that tells us how spirit children are formed in the next life.  There is a scripture that says they existed in the beginning with God  And they can not be created.  Which seems to indicate that no procreation of spirits are required.  Hence no male/female relationships are even needed if spirit children do require some kind of sexual act.

Those that say male/female couples to create spirit children are wrong.  It is nonsense according to Mormon doctrine.  That is not what the scriptures say.  So how do people make the erroneous statement that a gay couple could not be a part of the plan of salvation?  You certainly can not support that statement by doctrine in the scripture.  One would have to claim a new revelation to make such a statement.  And they would declare such a major shift in Mormon doctrine that they would announce such a revelation in a fireside for the youth.  

Be careful who you accuse of not knowing the scriptures.  I taught seminary for 6 years. 

I did not say that you did not know.  I said IF you know, then you need not ask me.  And if you DID NOT know, then I understood your moaning.  As a teacher, you should have learned to read more carefully before responding

[busybee]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know the scriptures well.  In fact well enough to state this undisputed fact.  There is no where in the scriptures that tells us how spirit children are formed in the next life.  There is a scripture that says they existed in the beginning with God  And they can not be created.  Which seems to indicate that no procreation of spirits are required.  Hence no male/female relationships are even needed if spirit children do require some kind of sexual act.

Those that say male/female couples to create spirit children are wrong.  It is nonsense according to Mormon doctrine.  That is not what the scriptures say.  So how do people make the erroneous statement that a gay couple could not be a part of the plan of salvation?  You certainly can not support that statement by doctrine in the scripture.  One would have to claim a new revelation to make such a statement.  And they would declare such a major shift in Mormon doctrine that they would announce such a revelation in a fireside for the youth.  

Be careful who you accuse of not knowing the scriptures.  I taught seminary for 6 years. 

Corinthians 11:11 seems to be pretty certain that men and women need each other in the Lord.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

 

It doesn't say '...neither is the man without the woman or another man, neither the woman without the man or another woman, in the Lord'

Would you care to expound on this scripture and how it would pertain to SSM in the eternities? 

Edited March 13, 2016 by busybee

[rodheadlee]

On 3/9/2016 at 10:57 AM, 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?

Start your own church.

[california boy]

41 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I did not say that you did not know.  I said IF you know, then you need not ask me.  And if you DID NOT know, then I understood your moaning.  As a teacher, you should have learned to read more carefully before responding

Oh brother.  Looks like you really don't want to have dialogue on this site.  That is fine.  I will try to remember that.

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, busybee said:

Corinthians 11:11 seems to be pretty certain that men and women need each other in the Lord.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

 

It doesn't say '...neither is the man without the woman or another man, neither the woman without the man or another woman, in the Lord'

Would you care to expound on this scripture and how it would pertain to SSM in the eternities? 

What does this have to do with the need for man/woman relationships in the next life to create spirits?

I would be the first to affirm that every man/woman needs God in their relationship.  You think this scripture has to do with how spirits are created?  Where do you get that?

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh brother.  Looks like you really don't want to have dialogue on this site.  That is fine.  I will try to remember that.

lol...you misquote me and are proven incorrect and I do not wish dialogue?  Yes....if that is the type of person you are....then please remember this

[busybee]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

What does this have to do with the need for man/woman relationships in the next life to create spirits?

I would be the first to affirm that every man/woman needs God in their relationship.  You think this scripture has to do with how spirits are created?  Where do you get that?

I don't have any idea how spirits came to be from intelligences. I assume it could very well be in a similar way to how mortals came to be from spirits, but I do not know. I do know, however, we cannot obtain exaltation without our heterosexual spouse, and used Corinthians 11:11 to support that claim. I asked you to expound on that and how you could reconcile SSM with that scripture. You dodged my question.

 You said you understand the scriptures having 'taught Seminary for 6 years'. Knowing and understanding are two different concepts

This scripture is about a bit more than 'having God in the relationship' But ok, if that's how you want to read it,  do those in SSM/relationships not need God? I don't understand what you mean by 'every man/woman needs God in their relationship.This scripture is not about individuals, but about couples. The scripture refers to 'the man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man' in the Lord. The relationships spoken of here are patently heterosexual. There is no wiggle room here at all.

This scripture does refer to, in my opinion, the eternities where we will be 'in the Lord'. And man cannot be there without the woman, and vice versa. There is no either/or.

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, busybee said:

I don't have any idea how spirits came to be from intelligences. I assume it could very well be in a similar way to how mortals came to be from spirits, but I do not know. I do know, however, we cannot obtain exaltation without our heterosexual spouse, and used Corinthians 11:11 to support that claim. I asked you to expound on that and how you could reconcile SSM with that scripture. You dodged my question.

 You said you understand the scriptures having 'taught Seminary for 6 years'. Knowing and understanding are two different concepts

This scripture is about a bit more than 'having God in the relationship' But ok, if that's how you want to read it,  do those in SSM/relationships not need God? I don't understand what you mean by 'every man/woman needs God in their relationship.This scripture is not about individuals, but about couples. The scripture refers to 'the man is not without the woman, and the woman is not without the man' in the Lord. The relationships spoken of here are patently heterosexual. There is no wiggle room here at all.

This scripture does refer to, in my opinion, the eternities where we will be 'in the Lord'. And man cannot be there without the woman, and vice versa. There is no either/or.

I get that is your interpretation.  But the scriptures doesn't even hint that it is talking about after we die.  And your statement that you don't know how spirits are created are exactly my point.  I also don't know.  No one knows.  You are making an assumption.  Which means that others can equally make assumptions about gay couples.  The whole thing is an assumption.  The point being that male/female relationships may or may not be any different than male/male relationships.  Certainly we know from scriptures that the gods (plural) worked together to create the earth.  And the names we are given are all male.  No female is mentioned in creating the earth.  That only further supports that male gods could very well be coupled.  There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that precludes such relationships as being possible.  Certainly one could state that the whole plan of salvation does not implode if such relationships exist.

I want to clarify so that there is no misunderstanding.  This of course is not Mormon doctrine.  In fact, there is no Mormon doctrine on relationships in the next life except that male/female are allowed. But nowhere do the scriptures say that is exclusive.  This is just a discussion.  Throwing around ideas and guesses.  I hope you don't feel defensive about what I am suggesting.  Because I also have no idea what will be allowed.  And I am not suggesting that male/male relationships will be allowed.  Just don't know.  I do appreciate your perspective.  I just don't think you have provided any more support for your position than the one I presented.

[rodheadlee]

On 3/9/2016 at 0:22 PM, ttribe said:

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.

D&C 84:41 I 'm sorry I don't know how to quote it on this toy tablet.

[ttribe]

19 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

D&C 84:41 I 'm sorry I don't know how to quote it on this toy tablet.

That doesn't say anything about becoming a Son of Perdition.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I get that is your interpretation.  But the scriptures doesn't even hint that it is talking about after we die.  And your statement that you don't know how spirits are created are exactly my point.  I also don't know.  No one knows.  You are making an assumption.  Which means that others can equally make assumptions about gay couples.  The whole thing is an assumption.  The point being that male/female relationships may or may not be any different than male/male relationships.  Certainly we know from scriptures that the gods (plural) worked together to create the earth.  And the names we are given are all male.  No female is mentioned in creating the earth.  That only further supports that male gods could very well be coupled.  There is certainly nothing in the scriptures that precludes such relationships as being possible.  Certainly one could state that the whole plan of salvation does not implode if such relationships exist.

I want to clarify so that there is no misunderstanding.  This of course is not Mormon doctrine.  In fact, there is no Mormon doctrine on relationships in the next life except that male/female are allowed. But nowhere do the scriptures say that is exclusive.  This is just a discussion.  Throwing around ideas and guesses.  I hope you don't feel defensive about what I am suggesting.  Because I also have no idea what will be allowed.  And I am not suggesting that male/male relationships will be allowed.  Just don't know.  I do appreciate your perspective.  I just don't think you have provided any more support for your position than the one I presented.

Cal, your position is just such a stretch.  All we have know of God and his teachings for thousands of years is really, in your opinion, much too narrow and not accurate.  It avoided one of the most basic relationships - that of a same sex couple.  Among so many other things this is what stretches the discussion out of proportion.  You base most of your position on that fact that God was not explicit in several scriptures about addressing the position of same sex couples, or their lack, in the kingdom of God.  That is a pretty tenuous position.

As far as the creative process of intelligences to spirits, I am with you.  I don't have a clue and I don't like it when people make assumptions.  By the same token, the Proclamation of the Family and the teachings of the scriptures on the importance of the male-female couple leads to definitive conclusions that make a coherent, whole doctrinal foundation.  

I understand your desire to create a hope, but....geez, that is a real long shot with no support in any book of scripture.  

[rodheadlee]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That doesn't say anything about becoming a Son of Perdition.

So no forgiveness in this life nor the next life is not a Son of Perdition?

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So no forgiveness in this life nor the next life is not a Son of Perdition?

Nope.  Besides, a fundamental requirement of becoming Son of Perdition is betraying a sure knowledge of the Savior and his gospel. How many people who apostatize do you really think have such a knowledge?

Edited March 13, 2016 by ttribe

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Well, since you've previously averred that Pres Nelson's claim is 'a stink in God's nostrils' and, further, that his claim is 'an infinite deal of nothing', I think you've told us quite a bit about your claim to revelation. Thank you.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 content and BML removed from thread

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Nope.  Besides, a fundamental requirement of becoming Son of Perdition is betraying a sure knowledge of the Savior and his gospel. How many people who apostatize do you really think have such a knowledge?

I don't know but I feel I do. If I were to apostasize right now I would be denying the Holy Ghost. I would be denying all of the spiritual experiences God has given me and I haven't been inside a Temple yet. Why is everyone getting sealed and accepting the priesthood if they are not sure? I don't think hedging your bet is acceptable to God.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I don't know but I feel I do. If I were to apostasize right now I would be denying the Holy Ghost. I would be denying all of the spiritual experiences God has given me and I haven't been inside a Temple yet. Why is everyone getting sealed and accepting the priesthood if they are not sure? I don't think hedging your bet is acceptable to God.

If you are still relying upon faith, you are not eligible to be a Son of Perdition -

" All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it." ( Joseph Smith, Jr., 1844-04-07, reprinted as “The King Follett Sermon,” Ensign, May 1971, p. 13.)

Not authoritative, but also see: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Sin_Against_the_Holy_Ghost

Also: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Unpardonable_Sin

And: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/unpardonable-sin

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

Since the LORD categorizes homosexual sex in the same list of abominable sex acts as incest and bestiality- in your logic, California Boy, is legitimacy also given to those acts as long as there is a "marriage" involved?

Wow really?  You are comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality?  Unbelievable.  And just as unbelieveable is that CountryBoy and Busybee both gave you a rep point for that nasty post.  Disgusting is all I can say.  And there is no place in dialogue comparing me or any other gay person to someone committing incest and bestiality.

I might add that the LORD also calls eaters of cheeseburgers, shrimp eaters and anyone wearing cotton blends as an abomination.  Have you ever done any of those?  Would that make you the same as someone committing incest or bestiality?  

I was just posting some concepts that I thought would be interesting to talk about.  I am not presenting them as my beliefs.  I did want to give others something to think about.  When you start comparing my relationship to my partner as incest and beastiality, I know it is time to leave this thread.  Shame on all three of you

 

[california boy]

17 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, your position is just such a stretch.  All we have know of God and his teachings for thousands of years is really, in your opinion, much too narrow and not accurate.  It avoided one of the most basic relationships - that of a same sex couple.  Among so many other things this is what stretches the discussion out of proportion.  You base most of your position on that fact that God was not explicit in several scriptures about addressing the position of same sex couples, or their lack, in the kingdom of God.  That is a pretty tenuous position.

As far as the creative process of intelligences to spirits, I am with you.  I don't have a clue and I don't like it when people make assumptions.  By the same token, the Proclamation of the Family and the teachings of the scriptures on the importance of the male-female couple leads to definitive conclusions that make a coherent, whole doctrinal foundation.  

I understand your desire to create a hope, but....geez, that is a real long shot with no support in any book of scripture.  

Thanks for your response.  But I am no longer participating in this thread.  Perhaps another day we can view things from a different perspective.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow really?  You are comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality?  Unbelievable.  And just as unbelieveable is that CountryBoy and Busybee both gave you a rep point for that nasty post.  Disgusting is all I can say.  And there is no place in dialogue comparing me or any other gay person to someone committing incest and bestiality.

I might add that the LORD also calls eaters of cheeseburgers, shrimp eaters and anyone wearing cotton blends as an abomination.  Have you ever done any of those?  Would that make you the same as someone committing incest or bestiality?  

I was just posting some concepts that I thought would be interesting to talk about.  I am not presenting them as my beliefs.  I did want to give others something to think about.  When you start comparing my relationship to my partner as incest and beastiality, I know it is time to leave this thread.  Shame on all three of you

 

FYI - BofMLuvr is not part of the mainstream Church anymore...he left to join a fringe group.  Hopefully, you won't paint all members with the same brush based on his behavior.  As for CB and BB, well...that's something different altogether.

[UtahTexan]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow really?  You are comparing homosexuality to incest and bestiality?  Unbelievable.  And just as unbelieveable is that CountryBoy and Busybee both gave you a rep point for that nasty post.  Disgusting is all I can say.  And there is no place in dialogue comparing me or any other gay person to someone committing incest and bestiality.

I might add that the LORD also calls eaters of cheeseburgers, shrimp eaters and anyone wearing cotton blends as an abomination.  Have you ever done any of those?  Would that make you the same as someone committing incest or bestiality?  

I was just posting some concepts that I thought would be interesting to talk about.  I am not presenting them as my beliefs.  I did want to give others something to think about.  When you start comparing my relationship to my partner as incest and beastiality, I know it is time to leave this thread.  Shame on all three of you

 

Scripture was being quoted and that offended you.  And me repping someone for quoting Scripture was offensive to you.

 

So....you can shame on me all you want.  When I am shamed for following Scripture, I will wear that with pride.  

[UtahTexan]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

FYI - BofMLuvr is not part of the mainstream Church anymore...he left to join a fringe group.  Hopefully, you won't paint all members with the same brush based on his behavior.  As for CB and BB, well...that's something different altogether.

really?  pray tell, what is it?

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

really?  pray tell, what is it?

No, thanks.  Not getting sucked into another pointless discussion with you.