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

[ttribe]

52 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Does it?

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

 

But, you didn't answer mine....

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Does it?

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

 

Okay.

 

Then you were not suggesting I resign from the LDS Church.

Good to know. 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

Just now, consiglieri said:

Okay.

 

Then you were not suggesting I resign from the LDS Church.

Good to know. 

 

Not at all.

I'd much rather you repented instead.

But if you're going to maintain the blasphemy that God has revealed to you (of all people) that what He revealed to His chosen servants is "a stink in His nostrils" then the next logical step is to make formal what is already real.

 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Not at all.

I'd much rather you repented instead.

But if you're going to maintain the blasphemy that God has revealed to you (of all people) that what He revealed to His chosen servants is "a stink in His nostrils" then the next logical step is to make formal what is already real.

 

What God has spoken, He hath spoken.

He is God and does not repent.

The new policy remains a stink in His nostrils, and will to everlasting.

What should I do when God refuses to repent of the revelation He has given me?

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, consiglieri said:

What God has spoken, He hath spoken.

He is God and does not repent.

The new policy remains a stink in His nostrils, and will to everlasting.

What should I do when God refuses to repent of the revelation He has given me?

You mean the one where He told you you have more of the Spirit than all 15 of the apostles and prophets combined?

Your assertions are growing ever more irrational. Are you all right? I'm getting worried about you.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 8/3/2016 at 2:33 AM, consiglieri said:

I believe Elder Bednar was being disingenuous in completely redefining a commonly understood word to suit his personal agenda.

Taking his comments in context, it appears Elder Bednar redefined the word "homosexual" to mean not just a person who experiences same sex attraction, but who acts on that attraction.

As has already been demonstrated -- in a response to you, no less -- Elder Bednar is not being disingenuous. At all. Nor is he redefining anything in an idiosyncratic way. He is actually using the word in the very way that serious scholars (including gay ones!) of the history of sexualities use it, and it has nothing to do with either behaviour or attraction. It specifically references identity, and fixed, gendered sexual identities (of any and all kinds) have a known, and very recent, genealogy. I understand that you clearly don't like the implications of such serious historical research and would therefore prefer to just blithely continue to ignore it, but to then suggest that Elder Bednar is somehow being disingenuous is, well, disingenuous.

Quote

To be consistent, Elder Bednar would have to say that most of the youth and YSA are not "heterosexual members of the church," because they have not acted on their attractions.

No, to be perfectly consistent, Elder Bednar would have to say that there are no 'heterosexual members of the Church' full stop. And I'm confident that he would say such a thing. Your persistent and false claims to the contrary, the prophets of God have never embraced any facet of the late 19th-century innovation of sexual identities, including socially constructed 'heterosexuality'.

Quote

Welcome to wonderland.

Indeed. I'm just wondering when you'll realise that you -- and other members of the Church on both sides of this madness -- are the one mentally inhabiting a looking-glass world that didn't even exist anywhere (in time or space) until Europe 150 years ago.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

Do you think that anyone who makes it to celestial glory will have any trouble feeling complete joy themselves or for anyone else there or for the arrangement set forth by God's order?

 

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As has already been demonstrated -- in a response to you, no less -- Elder Bednar is not being disingenuous. At all. Nor is he redefining anything in an idiosyncratic way. He is actually using the word in the very way that serious scholars (including gay ones!) of the history of sexualities use it, and it has nothing to do with either behaviour or attraction. It specifically references identity, and fixed, gendered sexual identities (of any and all kinds) have a known, and very recent, genealogy. I understand that you clearly don't like the implications of such serious historical research and would therefore prefer to just blithely continue to ignore it, but to then suggest that Elder Bednar is somehow being disingenuous is, well, disingenuous.

No, to be perfectly consistent, Elder Bednar would have to say that there are no 'heterosexual members of the Church' full stop. And I'm confident that he would say such a thing. Your persistent and false claims to the contrary, the prophets of God have never embraced any facet of the late 19th-century innovation of sexual identities, including socially constructed 'heterosexuality'.

Indeed. I'm just wondering when you'll realise that you -- and other members of the Church on both sides of this madness -- are the one mentally inhabiting a looking-glass world that didn't even exist anywhere (in time or space) until Europe 150 years ago.

Yup. It occurs to me that sexuality labels are like the visible tip of an iceberg. There is still that ninety percent of sexuality and all it's implications and all that imply it that remains invisible.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Meadowchik

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You mean the one where He told you you have more of the Spirit than all 15 of the apostles and prophets combined.

Your assertions are growing ever more irrational. Are you all right? I'm getting worried about you.

Now you know how I feel when you judge 15 men more spiritual than anybody else simply because of the position they hold.

And in spite of the policies they endorse.

 

[Rain]

 

On Wednesday, March 09, 2016 at 2:18 PM, mtomm said:

@HappyJackWagon You can tag people. 

Sorry for the interruption. 

@mtomm Might as well see what happens.

You can also do it by quoting the question when you answer it, but the questioner's notifications have to be turned on. I too get caught up in things outside the board so I'm grateful for notifications when I come back or else I may not only not see it, but may not even remember I asked. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Rain
auto correct error

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Now you know how I feel when you judge 15 men more spiritual than anybody else simply because of the position they hold.

How do you feel about the relevancy of your IQ, eye color and personality on your day of judgement? How about EQ, biocatalytic thresholds and ESP/intuition indices? Your Meyers-Briggs and Strong-Campbell scores?

[consiglieri]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do you feel about the relevancy of your IQ, eye color and personality on your day of judgement? How about EQ, biocatalytic thresholds and ESP/intuition indices? Your Meyers-Briggs and Strong-Campbell scores?

Why do you feel the need to threaten me with judgment day just because we disagree?

I thought the LDS Church encouraged its members to seek after personal revelation.

I also thought the LDS Church encouraged its members to deepen their spirituality and draw closer to God.

These things I have done and continue to do.

Where am I going wrong?

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Now you know how I feel when you judge 15 men more spiritual than anybody else simply because of the position they hold.

 

 

Not because of the position they hold, but why they hold the position they hold.

And it's not a question of who is "more spiritual."

Edited March 10, 2016 by ERMD

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why do you feel the need to threaten me with judgment day just because we disagree?

I thought the LDS Church encouraged its members to seek after personal revelation.

I also thought the LDS Church encouraged its members to deepen their spirituality and draw closer to God.

These things I have done and continue to do.

Where am I going wrong?

LOL I’m not threatening you! I’m hearkening back to yesterday’s exchange where I was pointing out that by that time we are judged, sexuality is no more relevant than whether or not we are a Yankee’s fan, a Republican, or a Pepper… or any other thing coloring our psyche such as IQ, eye color, personality; EQ, biocatalytic thresholds and ESP/intuition indices; Meyers-Briggs and Strong-Campbell scores…

When we are judged, all mortal impediments are removed so they are no longer relevant. In the subject at hand, our psyche is also changed to put God’s way of life first (as we did in the premortal estate I suppose), so any lesser priority is no longer relevant either. That is why we will admit the justness of ending up in a lesser kingdom should we not be exalted, as the many scriptures I provided attest.

I’m not suggesting at all that you are going wrong in seeking personal revelation, deepening your spirituality or drawing closer to God (knock yourself out!)—that isn’t our conversation.

[Tacenda]

Joanna's words here are noteworthy.  Start watching at the 9:20 mark.  Her quote here, speaking for the gay person is profound...."I need to kill off my Mormon side, I need to kill off my gay side, and then the third story is...the gay Mormon who killed themselves.  All three are death stories, we like some life stories."  

Edited March 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Joanna's words here are noteworthy.  Start watching at the 9:20 mark.  Her quote here, speaking for the gay person is profound...."I need to kill off my Mormon side, I need to kill off my gay side, and then the third story is...the gay Mormon who killed themselves.  All three are death stories, we like some life stories."  

Nah… strip yourself of pride and envy and uncleanness:

“Behold, are ye stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God. Behold ye must prepare quickly; for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand, and such an one hath not eternal life. Behold, I say, is there one among you who is not stripped of envy? I say unto you that such an one is not prepared; and I would that he should prepare quickly, for the hour is close at hand, and he knoweth not when the time shall come; for such an one is not found guiltless.” (Alma 5:28-29)

“Be wise in the days of your probation; strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God.” (Mormon 9:28)

The only thing to keep is the name by which you are known:

“And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives. And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.   And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts. I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you. For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?” (Mosiah 5)

“Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day; And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.” (3 Nephi 27:5)

Putting off the natural man is a good thing.

[Sleeper Cell]

18 hours ago, consiglieri said:

What God has spoken, He hath spoken.

He is God and does not repent.

The new policy remains a stink in His nostrils, and will to everlasting.

What should I do when God refuses to repent of the revelation He has given me?

You could try excommunicating Him for apostasy.

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

You could try excommunicating Him for apostasy.

LOL!

I know you are joking, but you raise a good point.

The LDS Church has progressed to the point where they would have to excommunicate God for apostasy!

And I don't even want to think what they would do to Jesus . . .

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

I know you are joking, but you raise a good point.

The LDS Church has progressed to the point where they would have to excommunicate God for apostasy!

And I don't even want to think what they would do to Jesus . . .

 

You are talking gibberish.

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

These things I have done and continue to do.

So it seems you agree that sexuality is as irrelevant as any other psychic (i.e. spiritual, inner or psychogenic) condition/state in confessing that God is just, which confession, as the common denominator for all God’s children, is a reflection of the least measure of light and knowledge we all receive.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

 

You can also do it by quoting the question when you answer it, but the questioner's notifications have to be turned on. I too get caught up in things outside the board so I'm grateful for testing notification when I come back or else I may not only not see it, but may not even remember I asked. 

I suspect, after a pattern of behavior over time, that HJW ignores my responses on this point because he doesn't like them.

But we''ll see what the future holds: whether he continues to repeat his mantra as though there had been no response given.

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said:

You could try excommunicating Him for apostasy.

He's not a member.  It's just his Church.

So when some people don't act like he wants them to act he can expel them whenever and to wherever he wants to and there ain't a dang thing anyone can do to stop him.

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOL I’m not threatening you! I’m hearkening back to yesterday’s exchange where I was pointing out that by that time we are judged, sexuality is no more relevant than whether or not we are a Yankee’s fan, a Republican, or a Pepper… or any other thing coloring our psyche such as IQ, eye color, personality; EQ, biocatalytic thresholds and ESP/intuition indices; Meyers-Briggs and Strong-Campbell scores…

When we are judged, all mortal impediments are removed so they are no longer relevant. In the subject at hand, our psyche is also changed to put God’s way of life first (as we did in the premortal estate I suppose), so any lesser priority is no longer relevant either. That is why we will admit the justness of ending up in a lesser kingdom should we not be exalted, as the many scriptures I provided attest.

That's something we don't talk about very often and I think it would help to think of that a little more and more often. 

When the veil is lifted we will remember how we were before we came here, and the reason for why we came here. And then we will look back on our mortal lives to see how we did.

Lots of embarrassment for most people I'm sure, but hopefully most of us will have learned from our mistakes and be trying to do better and better, repenting when we realize it's necessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

On March 9, 2016 at 0:04 PM, 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?

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..

 

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

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. 

To me, it seems to have a great deal to do with your point, which is to minimalize and marginalize clear and unanimous statements from the Brethren regarding the wrongness of homosexual behavior and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman merely because certain individuals on isolated occasions in years past have over-claimed or made  unauthoritative and unwise statements. I am pointing out that the present circumstances with regard to the unanimous agreement by the Brethren on the matter of homosexual behavior is quite unlike what you insist on dredging up from the past.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Give some examples: Who on earth possessed greater light and knowledge at the time they made such statements (and how do you know this, and how would you have known it at the time), and how did he behave?