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

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

You don't think so... what???

Express your thoughts in complete sentences,  please.

I just meant that some people prefer that option out of all others, with their eyes wide open about what they are doing.

If consig doesn't want to be one of those I was suggesting that he remain in the Church as long as he can while he continues to try to learn more.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Huh? My remarks apply to you, too! How do you feel blamed? A guilty conscience perhaps? Repent!

IQ, eye color, personality aren't any more  relevant, either.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

 

For you.  

And, all of the above in your post, are your beliefs and opinions.  It's your right to have them just as it's a gay person's right to have theirs.  

Bottom line is you don't know how things will be after this life anymore than a gay person knows.  Their hopes, feelings and beliefs are just as valid as yours.

.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You don't think so... what???

Express your thoughts in complete sentences,  please.

Consiglieri will not be a son of perdition if he resigns from the church.  (Clear enough for you?  )

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, 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.

No, that is not my position.

I just meant that I don't think anyone should leave the Church unless they want to be one.

Otherwise it amounts to leaving and then coming back later or not coming back at all and then not being as good as they could have been if they stayed in and stuck with the program. 

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, that is not my position.

I just meant that I don't think anyone should leave the Church unless they want to be one.

Otherwise it amounts to leaving and then coming back later or not coming back at all and then not being as good as they could have been if they stayed in and stuck with the program. 

That's just nonsense.  If a given member completely loses his or her faith in the very existence of deity and chooses to resign from the Church because they no longer believe it is actually run by an actual God, they clearly aren't doing so because "they want to be [a Son of Perdition]."  Such a choice would be completely rational given their change from believer to non-believer; whether you agree with their decision is completely beside the point.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ttribe

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Consiglieri will not be a son of perdition if he resigns from the church.  (Clear enough for you?  )

Just not as good as he could have otherwise been, huh?

Think of him at his full potential,  though,  either the best of the best or the worst of the worst.  Why should he just settle for being somewhere in the middle? 

[ALarson]

Just now, Ahab said:

Just not as good as he could have otherwise been, huh?

Think of him at his full potential,  though,  either the best of the best or the worst of the worst.  Why should he just settle for being somewhere in the middle? 

Maybe he's not in the middle.  Maybe he's on the best end of the scale for him.  Maybe he woke up and is heading for truth.  Maybe you are on the wrong end and heading in the wrong direction and trusting the wrong people.

Lots of maybes, but maybe....

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

For you.  

And, all of the above in your post, are your beliefs and opinions.  It's your right to have them just as it's a gay person's right to have theirs.  

This is true.

However, my beliefs are based upon disinterested conviction and acceptance of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Those who try to mangle those teachings to accord with their own preferences are ultimately rejecting them.

IOW, someone who wants to build his own doctrine based upon the assumption that he should never have to repent of sexual misconduct is fully entitled to do so; but he cannot then demand that his doctrine be accepted as "Mormon."

Because it is not.

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Bottom line is you don't know how things will be after this life anymore than a gay person knows.  Their hopes, feelings and beliefs are just as valid as yours..

They may be "valid" in some sense; but they are irrelevant to believing Latter-day Saints.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

This is true.

However, my beliefs are based upon disinterested conviction and acceptance of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Maybe, but they are still just your beliefs and opinions.  Some will agree with you and some won't, depending on what their beliefs and opinions are.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's just nonsense.  If a given member completely loses his or her faith in the very existence of deity and chooses to resign from the Church because they no longer believe it is actually run by an actual God, they clearly aren't doing so because "they want to be [a Son of Perdition]."  Such a choice would be completely rational given their change from believer to non-believer; whether you agree with their decision is completely beside the point.

Eyes fully open is what I would rather see.

A decision to leave based on no belief in any diety at all would be a decision based on sheer ignorance of what and who can be known.

[Russell C McGregor]

Just now, ALarson said:

Maybe, but they are still just your beliefs and opinions.

They are just the beliefs and opinions that are consistent with revealed LDS doctrine.

They are not the beliefs and opinions that rebel against revealed LDS doctrine.

And that, it seems, remains the difference.

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Eyes fully open is what I would rather see.

A decision to leave based on no belief in any diety at all would be a decision based on sheer ignorance of what and who can be known.

Wow.  You make some strange comments based on unprovable dogmatic positions.  Thanks for the reminder.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe he's not in the middle.  Maybe he's on the best end of the scale for him.  Maybe he woke up and is heading for truth.  Maybe you are on the wrong end and heading in the wrong direction and trusting the wrong people.

Lots of maybes, but maybe....

Right now he is in the middle because he isn't perfectly good or perfectly evil.  Either way he still has a lot to learn. 

And no I'm fine, but thank you for doubting.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Russell C McGregor said:

They are just the beliefs and opinions that are consistent with revealed LDS doctrine.

They are not the beliefs and opinions that rebel against revealed LDS doctrine.

And that, it seems, remains the difference.

 

True.  Your opinions are based on your beliefs. 

[ALarson]

Just now, Ahab said:

Right now he is in the middle because he isn't perfectly good or perfectly evil.  Either way he still has a lot to learn. 

Then I guess he's no different than any of the rest of us here.  None of us are "perfectly good" or "perfectly evil".  We just disagree a lot  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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?

 

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

No. He has not.

You are taking His name in vain.

Formalise your apostasy.

 

 

1 hour 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.

 

 

44 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.

 

I was responding to ttribe's question to Russell about whether he was "suggesting" consig should "formalize his apostasy."

I was saying I don't believe Russell was doing that. I don't think I'm too hasty in offering my opinion on that point.

And incidentally, I don't agree that apostatizing from the faith necessarily makes one a son of perdition. I should think that happens only rarely, in fact.

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon 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.

 

I would be more inclined to overlook it if it weren't consistent with a chronic pattern I have observed in you which I have pointed out here. It gets really tiresome over time having to re-address questions that have already been answered, fully expecting to have to do it again repeatedly in the future. There comes a time when one feels inclined to call a halt to the pattern, especially when the offender displays a cavalier attitude when the behavior is pointed out.

Quote

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.

The glaring difference, of course, is between isolated expressions of opinion made once in a while by individual Church leaders as opposed to consistent, uniform, united and unanimous declarations made over process of time and sustained by all of them.

I'll repeat the question I asked stemelbow, which he has apparently declined to answer: Where is the statement by the First Presidency or any other general Church leader even hinting that the sin of homosexual behavior will one day be declared non-sinful, will be accepted in the Church of Jesus Christ and will be solemnized in the temples?

Here's another: Where is the statement by any Church leader to the effect that same-sex attraction is a condition that will extend beyond mortality? The very notion is incoherent in the context of the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mtomm]

@HappyJackWagon You can tag people. 

Sorry for the interruption. 

@mtomm Might as well see what happens.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, mtomm said:

@HappyJackWagon You can tag people. 

Sorry for the interruption. 

@mtomm Might as well see what happens.

Did not know that.  Very cool!

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And incidentally, I don't agree that apostatizing from the faith necessarily makes one a son of perdition.

I don't either and I wasn't saying it does. 

Hopefully you didn't misunderstand me.

 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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?

I've never suggested that they have said anything of the sort.  That has nothing to do with my point, though.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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..

I think my point is clear.  Prophets and apostles have officially made statements that do not represent truth or God's will.  We should expect it at times, since we're all human, make mistakes, don't see all things clearly, and all that. 

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then I guess he's no different than any of the rest of us here.  None of us are "perfectly good" or "perfectly evil".  We just disagree a lot  

Right now we're at different stages in the middle, not all at the same stage, but yes consig is somewhere in the middle just as each of us is somewhere in the middle, wherever each of us is in the middle. 

Ultimately we're all going to be at the very top or very bottom of the ultimate scale, though, I think, rather than forever remaining somewhere in the middle. 

And the true Church of Christ is the vehicle/ tool/ organization our Lord is using and will use to the full measure/ stature of perfection of Christ, while those who want to go in the opposite direction would be better off toward their goal by not joining with us or leaving us after they've joined. 

Makes sense, to you, doesn't it?

People who would rather follow Satan rather than Christ need not bother to become a member or remain a member of the body/ Church of Christ. 

 

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Are you suggesting consig resign his membership in the Church?

Having people like me in the Church tends to make some Mormons cranky.

Still waiting for the clarification from Russell, though.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Having people like me in the Church tends to make some Mormons cranky.

Does it?

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Still waiting for the clarification from Russell, though.

What's to clarify? I was answering your question.