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

[Mystery Meat]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Okay.  Whatever you say.  From my little corner of the Internet, it looks a lot like a lack of compassion (and tact...you forgot to get upset about me on that one).  If you don't agree with me, and think there's no value in my opinion or observation, there's really no reason to respond.

Tact is another question entirely. I do not doubt my tact could be better, thus no reason to quibble about that. I will try to improve. 

[Mystery Meat]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

If they had just said, it was their opinion that if I got married then I would become straight then yes.  They are stating their belief which later proved wrong.  When they tell me that it was God making that promise, then it became a lie. Because God in fact had not told them that.  

No, this is still wrong. They can believe that they are feeling the Spirit and are simply misinterpreting. It has happened to me personally (I doubt it has happened to all of those who have tried to discern the will of the Lord). A misinterpretation is not a lie. You cannot prove that they intended to deceive you.

Or there is one more possibility.  When church leaders tell us that something is the will of God based on the Spirit, then that MAY or MAY NOT be true.  There is no reason to trust such statements.  It is just the belief of men and may or may not be the will of God at all.

You are on the right track here. Indeed, we need to verify through personal revelation what we receive from the mouths of our leaders. God would not have it any other way. But, just because a leader is wrong once does not mean they can no longer be trusted. It means they are fallible men. Conversely, just because a leader was right before, does not mean they are right now. But just because they were wrong, does not mean they were liars. My own personal experiences with the Spirit are not binding on you, just as yours are not binding on me. Learning to decipher the Spirit is tricky. It is hard. It communicates to us through our emotions, but not all of our emotions are communications from the Spirit.

 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Clever.

You have not provided all of the options, I will add one more:

A. Church leaders lied.

B. Spirit lied to church leaders.

C. Church leaders mistook emotion for the Spirit.

I think C is the most likely. Unless you have evidence to rebut C, I think it is the most charitable and Christian assumption to make.

My CFR was to rebut your repeated accusation that these leaders were lying. I wanted evidence to show that you knew they were intentionally trying to deceive. You have still not provided it. You asking for a CFR for me on whether or not Church leaders are lying doesn't follow. I cannot provide anything that shows they are not lying as that gets to their intent. I can only rely on their own words (well that and the confirmation of the Spirit). You, on the other hand, have labeled men as liars without providing any evidence of their intent to deceive you. I would be shocked if you could provide some.

Option C above is clearly a misstatement. It is not, however, a lie. In law school we are taught that not all killing acts equate to murder. In order for their to be murder there has to be an intentional killing act (shooting someone in the head, for example). This is different from someone who accidentally hits and kills a pedestrian in a cross walk. At most, this would be manslaughter as the killing was unintentional.  Just as not all killings are murder, not all misstatements are lies. I say again, the fact that you chose to not even list C as an option tells me more about you than it will ever tell me about your leaders (no matter how misguided their statements were).

Ok, I will withdraw my CFR and even withdraw my claim of church leaders lying to me about knowing the will of God concerning gay issues.  That in fact it is their emotions as you stated and MAY NOT be the Spirit of God guiding them on this subject.

I also think church leaders in the future should note that current "policy" issues related to gay members may just be their emotions or it may be the will of God.  But certainly don't count on it being from God, because they don't know if that is a true statement.  That way there will be no expectation that what they are telling members is in fact absolutely true.  It may or may not be true.

[smac97]

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Quote

And there is no basis for rejecting revelation that comes in the form of something other than "God appearing and delivering His word."  None at all.  There is, in fact, a substantial reason to reject that reasoning.  We are, after all, speaking about fifteen men all reaching the same conclusion about the revelatory nature of the policy change.  These are men of substantial experience, intelligence, and character.  Fourteen subordinates to the Presiding High Priest have all sustained as revelation the policy change as given to the Presiding High Priest.  Their unified voice matters.  A lot.  Their course of conduct is also congruent with the scriptures on this issue.  That also matters.  A lot.

The real basis for rejecting any revelation (whether claimed as such officially or unofficially) is whether or not the revelation is in accordance with good principles. 

Well, yes.  But how do we determine whether a principle is "good?"  We have the scriptures, counsel from living prophets and apostles, and our own reckoning of right and wrong.  But the ultimate authority is the Spirit.

So I disagree that "good principles" are somehow distinguishable from these things.  The only way to get to "good principles" is through these things.

Quote

Immediately after learning of the policy, I felt a dark feeling. Most members of the church attribute such experiences as a warning from the spirit against something that is wrong. 

Since learning of the policy I have given the matter a lot of study, contemplation, discussion, and prayer, and have come to the conclusion that the Brethren are acting in accordance with the Lord's will.  So we have arrived at categorically divergent conclusions about the policy changes.  Funny, that.

And we also have one opinion which conforms to the popular and prevailing views of the World, and one which coincides with counsel given by the Lord's anointed.  Funny, that.

Following the Brethren is difficult, particularly when the World is fairly screaming at the Saints.  The Brethren could avoid so much flak if they just gave in.  But they haven't.  And I do not think they will.  The lot of the prophets is not to declare things that are popular, but to declare things that are right.

Quote

But I don't just go by a discrete event like that. I look at larger spiritual principles. And I see the church's increasingly draconian measures against gay marriage bearing very bad fruit. I measure everything by that - a principle that has been attributed to Jesus. 

I haven't seen any "bad fruit."  I suppose we'll have to disagree about that.  Consider this incident in John 6:

Quote

 25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

 26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Fathersealed.

 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

 30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

 32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

 36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may haveeverlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmurnot among yourselves.

 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

 45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be alltaught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

 48 I am that bread of life.

 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and thebread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for thelife of the world.

 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,dwelleth in me, and I in him.

 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

 66 ¶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

These results, in your reckoning, might be construed as "bad fruit."  But not to me.  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually): "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these yesterday, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are not "bad fruit."  They are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when such counsel is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Well, yes.  But how do we determine whether a principle is "good?"  We have the scriptures, counsel from living prophets and apostles, and our own reckoning of right and wrong.  But the ultimate authority is the Spirit.

So I disagree that "good principles" are somehow distinguishable from these things.  The only way to get to "good principles" is through these things.

Since learning of the policy I have given the matter a lot of study, contemplation, discussion, and prayer, and have come to the conclusion that the Brethren are acting in accordance with the Lord's will.  So we have arrived at categorically divergent conclusions about the policy changes.  Funny, that.

And we also have one opinion which conforms to the popular and prevailing views of the World, and one which coincides with counsel given by the Lord's anointed.  Funny, that.

Following the Brethren is difficult, particularly when the World is fairly screaming at the Saints.  The Brethren could avoid so much flak if they just gave in.  But they haven't.  And I do not think they will.  The lot of the prophets is not to declare things that are popular, but to declare things which are right.

I haven't seen any "bad fruit."  I suppose we'll have to disagree about that.  Consider this incident in John 6:

Jesus Christ said something that was not popular.  Many of those who heard it "murmured at him."  Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves."  Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him."  

These results, in your reckoning, might be construed as "bad fruit."  But not to me.  

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually): "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these yesterday, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  

And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."  

And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."  

And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

So the hostile reactions of the World to the inspired leadership of the Brethren is not "bad fruit."  They are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel.  In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when it is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac

My nomination for post of the year. A veritable masterpiece of eloquence and timeliness.

Bravo, Smac!

[Mystery Meat]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ok, I will withdraw my CFR and even withdraw my claim of church leaders lying to me about knowing the will of God concerning gay issues.  That in fact it is their emotions as you stated and MAY NOT be the Spirit of God guiding them on this subject.

I also think church leaders in the future should note that current "policy" issues related to gay members may just be their emotions or it may be the will of God.  But certainly don't count on it being from God, because they don't know if that is a true statement.  That way there will be no expectation that what they are telling members is in fact absolutely true.  It may or may not be true.

Thank you, and I understand what you are getting at. I think you have reasons for feeling this way and I can't say that I would feel any differently. I do think there is some difference, even if meaningless to some, in that the Handbook change was received by revelation and such revelation was witnessed by 15 different men. Of course, your mileage may vary on accepting it as such. That is your right and prerogative.  

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Thank you, and I understand what you are getting at. I think you have reasons for feeling this way and I can't say that I would feel any differently. I do think there is some difference, even if meaningless to some, in that the Handbook change was received by revelation and such revelation was witnessed by 15 different men. Of course, your mileage may vary on accepting it as such. That is your right and prerogative.  

Unless one of those 15 men are willing to say the revelation was more than their emotions or POSSIBLY the Spirit, I am going to disagree with you.  Otherwise it is exactly like the claim made by church leaders last time that proved to be only emotion and not the Spirit.  The one thing we have all learned that claims by the bretheren of revelation are not always revelation.

Look.  I fully believe that the leaders of the church are trying their best to lead the church.  Perhaps, as some have suggested, the fault lies with the members believing that when church leaders say something comes from God or that God is promising something, it may not be true.  In most cases it is just good advice.  Unfortunately many members take what church leaders say as being from God.  And they then go about trying to figure out ways to defend those statements.  Sometimes pulling a scripture here, a quote there to piece together something that they get to make those statements work for them.  (see above statement by SMAC for example)  But as we all know, there is not a single position you can not support by using the scriptures to make your case.  It is why I no longer RELY on church leaders.  I RELY on God.

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Tact is another question entirely. I do not doubt my tact could be better, thus no reason to quibble about that. I will try to improve. 

I also want to say one more thing.  I don't think you disrespect me.  We all get very passionate about these discussions because they are issues that are very emotional.  We are talking about people's lives.  And about what is true and what is not true.  We are talking about basic religious beliefs.  By their very nature they are emotional issues.  

I certainly am not always the most tactful.  And I would say that the more passionate I am about something the less tact I exhibit.  We can all still be reasonable and respect other peoples opinions.  

It is when we start judging others lives is when we cross the line in my opinion.  But then I am a huge supporter of Matthew 1:7.  I think one of the great blessings of being gay is that I have become far less judgmental of others.  Thank you God for the lessons I have learned through my struggles in life.  Being gay does have some upsides to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unless one of those 15 men are willing to say the revelation was more than their emotions or POSSIBLY the Spirit, I am going to disagree with you. 

President Nelson already said that. What he was describing was not mere emotion.

 

[UtahTexan]

On 3/8/2016 at 5:57 PM, california boy said:

You are missing the point of this thread.  The question is, how many straight members of the church would be willing to give up their wife and children for membership in the church.  So the question is to you.  Would you be willing to give up your wife and children in order to be a member of the church?

If I can never fly again and turn invisible to walk through walls again, will I still want to belong to Justice League?

Your question is not relevant.  I do not have to give up anything to be a member of the True Church.  And if I have a problem with the laws of the Church, I would take them up with God.....

[Jeanne]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My nomination for post of the year. A veritable masterpiece of eloquence and timeliness.

Bravo, Smac!

Although I may stand on the other side of the fence in many issues.  This post from Smac is not only eloquent..but builds a better bridge of understanding on how those across from me really feel.  I appreciate it..respect it..and have hope that all members here on this board can create an atmosphere of some sort of universal truth that lies in our humanity.

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Nelson already said that. What he was describing was not mere emotion.

 

What he was describing is EXACTLY what church leaders were describing when they told me that if I just got married, then I would become straight.  That was not true.  Evidently church leaders could not figure out what was emotion and what was the Spirit.  When a church leader tells you something came from God, it may or may not have.  We have learned that lesson haven't we.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

If I can never fly again and turn invisible to walk through walls again, will I still want to belong to Justice League?

Your question is not relevant.  I do not have to give up anything to be a member of the True Church.  And if I have a problem with the laws of the Church, I would take them up with God.....

Lucky you.  I wish I was born straight as well.

And believe me, I have taken this up with God.  He has given me an amazing peace in my life.  And an amazing partner.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

What he was describing is EXACTLY what church leaders were describing when they told me that if I just got married, then I would become straight.  That was not true.  Evidently church leaders could not figure out what was emotion and what was the Spirit.  When a church leader tells you something came from God, it may or may not have.  We have learned that lesson haven't we.

Well, I've had it verified to me on this board how quick and ardent some are in dismissing the revealed word of God as mere emotion if it conflicts with their cherished attitudes and views.

"The effect of a frenzied mind" is how one notable character from scripture put it.

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎07‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 11:44 AM, california boy said:

With all due respect to Mystery Meat, I think he asked the wrong question.  Of course we know the answer the the question about gay members that most TBM will give.  "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it" or some variation of that.

If you want to have a real discussion about how much church membership is worth to you, Let's change the question.  Are you willing to give up your wife to be a member of the church?  Are you willing to give up your children to be a member of the church?  Now think about the implications, knowing that every night of the rest of your life you will be coming home to an empty apartment.  Think about not having your kids around for Christmas, and other holidays or a single day of your life.  Think about the real possibility of spending those holidays alone, in your room.  Think about not ever even dating anyone.  Think about NEVER even hoping that at some point you may find an eternal companion on earth and live the life that every fiber in your soul tells you that you want to live.

Now to quote Mystery Meat

Except the very core of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is taken from you.  Does church membership still appeal to you when you can not participate in the very core of what that church centers on?  Are you willing to go sunday after sunday and hear messages of being with a family you can not have for eternity?  If the core of the church is not available to you, then what is left?  A hollow shell.

But wait there is more.  After you die.  After you have experienced this wonderful life of loneliness with no wife or kids you are instead promised to NEVER have that wife and family that you now so dearly love.  Yes, that is right.  You are guaranteed that you will never be with your family that you gave up to be a member of the church.  Instead, there is some hint that you MAY be able to marry someone of the same sex as you.  Yeah that sounds thrilling doesn't it.  But wait, there is also some hint that you MAY actually desire someone of the same sex as you.  I know that the whole time you were on earth, that never was something that worked.  But hey, it is POSSIBLE that you will be magically changed into someone you were not during your entire life on earth.  Does membership in the church still appeal to you?  Now lets have a real discussion.  Who is signing up and WHY do you want to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

 

Quite apart from the fact that this is comparing apples and nightshade, there's something else you are missing.

People don't elect to believe in the restored Gospel because it matches up with their self-interest. Actual religious conviction is primarily disinterested. That's why believers will make all kinds of sacrifices -- sometimes lifelong sacrifices -- for their beliefs.

The fact is that there have been people who have given up love, companionship and even sex -- which, let's face it, is the real sticking point for the hedonist crowd -- because they believe that that is what God wants them to do. Through living prophets we know that it isn't what He wants -- but what He wants is still the primary consideration for all actual believers everywhere.

 

[UtahTexan]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Lucky you.  I wish I was born straight as well.

And believe me, I have taken this up with God.  He has given me an amazing peace in my life.  And an amazing partner.

I did not see you born....so I have no idea how you were born.  

So, if you are at such peace....why the thread?  

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Lucky you.  I wish I was born straight as well.

You were. And then later in life you married a woman and enjoyed sexual relations with her so much that you had children together with her. Children I remember you saying. Not just one child but more than one. And you stayed married to her for 25 years. Continuing to enjoy having sexual relations with her for most of that time, I presume.

And then you somehow came to the erroneous conclusion that you are gay. Not bisexual, you say,  but gay, even though you had what I'm sure were many years of being happily married to a woman before you turned your attention to men.

And here you are now thinking you are still gay, not bisexual,  as if you've totally fogged over those years you had being happily married to a woman, as you now have your attention focused on the man you are with.

You've still got a lot of sorting out to do in your life, I think, and I don't think you should worry too much about how you now consider men to be sexually attractive.  That was a good discovery you made because it is true that men are sexually attractive.  We are. But women are too and you should not have forgotten that or let your mind fog over that fact. 

And most especially you should not have allowed your attraction to men to replace your attraction to the woman who was once your wife.  

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, I've had it verified to me on this board how quick and ardent some are in dismissing the revealed word of God as mere emotion if it conflicts with their cherished attitudes and views.

"The effect of a frenzied mind" is how one notable character from scripture put it.

 

Fool me once, shame on them.  Fool me twice, shame on me. I just hope that other members don't have to find out in the same painful way that I found out that church leaders claim of knowing God's will can not be trusted.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Lucky you.  I wish I was born straight as well.

And believe me, I have taken this up with God.  He has given me an amazing peace in my life.  And an amazing partner.

Yet despite that "amazing peace," your posts are often full of bitterness and anger and vitriol against the LDS Church and its leaders and doctrines.  And you post these in a forum peopled by active, observant Latter-day Saints, knowing full well they will defend their beliefs against your criticisms of them.  

That's a strange sort of "peace."  But despite our disagreements, I really do wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2016 by smac97

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Fool me once, shame on them.  Fool me twice, shame on me. I just hope that other members don't have to find out in the same painful way that I found out that church leaders claim of knowing God's will can not be trusted.

ah...because it is not convenient for you, you now doubt God's prophets.......

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Quite apart from the fact that this is comparing apples and nightshade, there's something else you are missing.

People don't elect to believe in the restored Gospel because it matches up with their self-interest. Actual religious conviction is primarily disinterested. That's why believers will make all kinds of sacrifices -- sometimes lifelong sacrifices -- for their beliefs.

The fact is that there have been people who have given up love, companionship and even sex -- which, let's face it, is the real sticking point for the hedonist crowd -- because they believe that that is what God wants them to do. Through living prophets we know that it isn't what He wants -- but what He wants is still the primary consideration for all actual believers everywhere.

 

I would agree with you if we could trust church leaders from knowing the will of God.  It is easy to make claims of knowing God's will until it ends up being completely false.  That is where the damage of such claims that are not true lay.  Who should marry has not been their strong point. 

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You were. And then later in life you married a woman and enjoyed sexual relations with her so much that you had children together with her. Children I remember you saying. Not just one child but more than one. And you stayed married to her for 25 years. Continuing to enjoy having sexual relations with her for most of that time, I presume.

And then you somehow came to the erroneous conclusion that you are gay. Not bisexual, you say,  but gay, even though you had what I'm sure were many years of being happily married to a woman before you turned your attention to men.

And here you are now thinking you are still gay, not bisexual,  as if you've totally fogged over those years you had being happily married to a woman, as you now have your attention focused on the man you are with.

You've still got a lot of sorting out to do in your life, I think, and I don't think you should worry too much about how you now consider men to be sexually attractive.  That was a good discovery you made because it is true that men are sexually attractive.  We are. But women are too and you should not have forgotten that or let your mind fog over that fact. 

And most especially you should not have allowed your attraction to men to replace your attraction to the woman who was once your wife.  

This is probably the most inappropriate post of this thread...and that's saying something.

[Russell C McGregor]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Fool me once, shame on them.  Fool me twice, shame on me. I just hope that other members don't have to find out in the same painful way that I found out that church leaders claim of knowing God's will can not be trusted.

I don't have any reason to believe that they can't.

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would agree with you if we could trust church leaders from knowing the will of God.  It is easy to make claims of knowing God's will until it ends up being completely false.  That is where the damage of such claims that are not true lay.  Who should marry has not been their strong point. 

So your position is . . . what?  That our options are A) trust the Brethren, but if and only if they are utterly infallible in each and every thing they say and do and teach, or B) utterly reject the Brethren and don't trust them at all regarding anything they say and do and teach?

That seems to be what you are saying.

Thanks,

-Smac

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

This is probably the most inappropriate post of this thread...and that's saying something.

I disagree