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

[BlueDreams]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Very nice post.  I think more of us should center our lives and faith around Christ and not church leaders.Your experience with church leaders is not the same as mine.  When I trust God, there is peace in my life. When I have trusted that the church leaders speak for God, I have not found peace.  I tried to match the two up for many years and was unable to.  I also know full well that the church is a source of good and hope for many people.  I encourage all that find peace there to attend.  I am glad the church works for you.  Me, not so much.

I've had several experiences recently that I could hear more in depth those who left the church for this or that reason. Most of the time I could understand how they reached where they were (minus those that I know it's a bit of self-justication so that they don't have to change bad behavior...most aren't that, of course...but I've met a couple too many recently). I found myself thinking if I had had their assumptions/experiences within the church/their lives I may have ended up in a similar boat. Not to say my life was peaches-and-cream or any form of LDS ideal... or that I'd ever want to reproduce it for my kids...it just gave me different perspectives. I've never really understood putting so much emphasis on church leaders. Ever. But part of that is that I've never had good enough reason to put much faith in any authority figure in my life period -->parents, teachers, bishops, whoever. God had to win me over when it came to obeying Him. Everyone else is pertinent because I know I can learn from them. But not necessarily omniscient or pivotal in my decisions. 

I don't know enough of your life to say what's right or wrong for you even when there are things I morally/theologically disagree with. I couldn't say if I were in your shoes I wouldn't have done something similar. I would hope that I would have ended up like some of the amazing brothers and sisters I've met/heard their stories who are in the church and experience differing sexual orientations. But I can't say that is certain. In the end, I'd rather let God figure it out and assume it will be a perfect balance of mercy and divine law.

 

With luv,

BD

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ahab, you are talking like I haven't been down this road before.  At one time I would have  believed what you are saying because I wanted to believe it.  But seriously, I was in one of these kinds of marriages for over 25 years.  At what point do you realize that it was WRONG,  Should I have waited for 30 years?  Or 40 years?  It is not like I didn't give it a good honest try.  I had 25 YEARS to check with God.  I am not bisexual.  I am gay.  

I am glad your marriage works for you.  I am glad you are happy.  But what works for you does not necessarily work for everyone.  I am sure you can understand that.

 

 

Love is what makes it work for me.  Being able to see wonderful and desirable qualities in a person regardless of what sex they are, while allowing my appreciation and attraction for them to build up toward wanting to express that in a physical way.  Fully acting on that desire when and only when it is appropriate and we are married and I know God approves of my feelings and desires for that person. 

If your desires are predicated on that person being the same sex as you, as if that is some sort of requirement, with you having no ability at all to see and appreciate all the wonderful qualites in someone/anyone of the opposite sex simply because she is not the same sex as you, then something is very wrong with you, akin to being spiritually short-sighted or blind.

There is no good excuse for that,  your inability to see beauty and wonder in a good woman.  To simply restrain yourself because she isn't your wife is all well and good, and God approves of that type of self restraint, but to not be able to see beauty or have any desire for any woman at all is a problem that you should be trying to overcome. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Ahab

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If your desires are predicated on that person being the same sex as you, as if that is some sort of requirement, with you having no ability at all to see and appreciate all the wonderful qualites in someone/anyone of the opposite sex simply because she is not the same sex as you, then something is very wrong with you, akin to being spiritually short-sighted or blind.

There is no good excuse for that,  your inability to see beauty and wonder in a good woman.  

Have you not read any of what california boy writes regarding his ex-wife?  It's very evident that he sees and appreciates all of her "wonderful qualities" and that he still loves her and cares deeply for her.  I think it's incredible that he stayed with her and raised his kids with her.  Your posts here are absolutely some of the most insensitive that I have read on this forum.

.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Have you not read any of what california boy writes regarding his ex-wife?  It's very evident that he sees and appreciates all of her "wonderful qualities" and that he still loves her and cares deeply for her.  I think it's incredible that he stayed with her and raised his kids with her.  Your posts here are absolutely some of the most insensitive that I have read on this forum.

.

 

Then he shouldn't be saying that what I was talking about didn't work for him.

What I was talking about will work for anybody. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Then he shouldn't be saying that what I was talking about didn't work for him.

What I was talking about will work for anybody. 

He is relating what his own experience was.  He did try it and it did not work for him.  So no, it will not work for anybody.  That it works for you, is great though.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

And  for gay couples who have felt inspired that God has blessed their union?

Well, I think they are in error.  

Romans 10:1-3:

Quote

 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

This includes members of the Church.  Consider 3 Nephi 2:1-2:

Quote

 1 And it came to pass that ... the people began to forget those signs and wonders which they had heard, and began to be less and less astonished at a sign or a wonder from heaven, insomuch that they began to be hard in their hearts, and blind in their minds, and began to disbelieve all which they had heard and seen—

 2 Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts, that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil, to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away 

And 1 Nephi 8:19-32 (emphases added):

Quote

 19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.

 20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.

 21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain thepath which led unto the tree by which I stood.

 22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.

 23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.

 24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

 25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.

 26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

 27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.

 28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they wereashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

...

 30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.

 31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.

 32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in thedepths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.

 33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

 34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

 

 

Well isn't that the current revelation going around for gay members?  If you are gay in this life, you will be magically straight in the next??  But this time we really mean it....

Do you believe you can have a relationship with God even though you are a sinner?  Does Jesus Christ come out second in your life?

I take great comfort in the scripture. "Wickedness never was happiness".  Sorry just not feeling that unhappy.

And I am so tired of this argument that "not all straight people have families either".  When the church starts teaching that straight couples must be celibate all their lives, then I will listen.  Let's just see what happens then.

 

I believe all sinners can have a relationship with Jesus Christ - there is no one else but sinners on this earth.  If not us, then who could?  

The issue is not that we are sinners, but that we strive to follow the Savior.  It has to do with personal priorities.  Does someone who places Jesus first still sin or do they remain a sinner?  Of course!  A sinner feels that sin separates them from Christ; (s)he has sorrow for their sins remains a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Conversely, someone that purposely chooses to embrace their sins and feels no guilt and senses no sorrow has ceased following the Savior and is not, cannot be a disciple of the Savior.  Do you see the distinction?  

You may be tired of the argument that some remain celibate, but that does not diminish how completely it destroys your argument.  You tire of it because you obviously have no counter argument and each of these individuals will stand as a testimony of the worth of choosing the Savior.  Be honest with yourself and with others.  You know your choice and you know what you put first in your life.  

God declared that we should replenish the earth.  God will never rescind that directive.  We are to marry a person of the opposite sex in order to have children.  I cannot see God unmaking this directive in favor of....what else?  What else is there that he could have said that would not have destroyed the entire plan of creation and his plan of salvation?  Nothing.  He actually did what he wanted to do and created us for his purposes.  

One of the most in-depth discussions on the importance of marriage I have ever read was written by John Paul II commonly called his Theology of the Body.  He was both an excellent philosopher and a theologian.  LDS will have to read his text and overlook some of the language, but the vast majority is outstanding.  Though you can read John Paul II's actual text, Christopher West has put it into layman's terms and may be appreciated by others.  

Edited March 9, 2016 by Storm Rider

[USU78]

On 3/8/2016 at 9:14 PM, california boy said:

Well most gays live wonderful and very fulfilled lives.  Just not in the church.  I know it is difficult for many in the church to understand that choice.

You'll please excuse my disbelief in that bit of propaganda. If homosexual are so happy and content, whence their agitation?  Whence their rage?

[Meadowchik]

 

On Tuesday, March 08, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Meadowchik said:

Some may "get it," really. 

Ultimately,  none of us in the trenches of life "know" we will have each other in Heaven. Even if we choose it, they might not.

I think that a honest, loving relationship striving toward truth will eventually yield the ability to love a person deeply, regardless of their gender or anything else. So with those genuine efforts, we'll all get around to loving deeply and unconditionally.

What comes next is what God has planned, and I think as we draw closer to Him, we'll want and be able to reach what He wants for us.

And ultimately,  no good relationship will be lost in the next life, but doubtless every one of them will be transformed into a more perfect state.

California boy, 

To be clear, when I wrote, "I think that a honest, loving relationship striving toward truth will eventually yield the ability to love a person deeply, regardless of their gender or anything else. So with those genuine efforts, we'll all get around to loving deeply and unconditionally,"

I was thinking of your relationship now, (along with that of any others that describes,) since that seems to be what you're striving for.

Please accept an internet hug from me.

On Tuesday, March 08, 2016 at 8:19 AM, california boy said:

NO NO, NO,  I didn't put my sexuality first.  Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.  Why to members of the church just not get this.  I put living a full and happy life with someone I care about and deeply love rather than membership in the church.  I also know that the church promises me that I can't be with him in the next life even if I was faithful, celibate and denied myself a life of no companionship in this life.  And yes, I am willing to live with the consequences of that decision.  Did you get that???  That was my choice.  I see no point in being miserable in this life as well as the next.  Yeah I know you have this wonderful plan of happiness to look forward to where you will be with your beloved wife for eternity.  I have no such promise.  Maybe you would be happy spending eternity with someone assigned to you, but I am not looking forward to that.  Perhaps you would make a different choice.

I made that choice for ALL THE SAME REASONS you made the choice to find a companion to share this life with.  This is NOT about sexuality.  Geeze.  How many times do we have to do this.  Would you be willing to give up your life with your wife and family on this earth as well as your children for a promise that you too could marry someone of the same sex in the next life?  That is the question.  So far only a handful of members have answered that question yes.  

 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I believe all sinners can have a relationship with Jesus Christ - there is no one else but sinners on this earth.  If not us, then who could?  

The issue is not that one is a sinner, but that one strives to follow.  It has to do with personal priorities.  Does someone who places Jesus first still sin or do they remain a sinner?  Of course!  A sinner feels that sin separates them from Christ is has sorrow for their sins.  Someone that purposely chooses to follow their sins feels no guilt and senses no sorrow.  Do you see the distinction?  

You may be tired of the argument that some remain celibate, but that does not diminish how completely is destroys your argument.  You tire of it because you obviously have no counter argument.  Be honest with yourself and with others.  You know your choice and you know what you put first in your life.  

God declared that we should replenish the earth.  God will never rescind that directive.  We are to marry a person of the opposite sex in order to have children.  I cannot see God unmaking this directive in favor of....what else?  What else is there that he could have said that would not have destroyed the entire plan of creation and his plan of salvation?  Nothing.  He actually did what he wanted to do and created us for his purpose.  

One of the most in-depth discussions on the importance of marriage I have ever read was written by John Paul II commonly called his Theology of the Body.  He was both an excellent philosopher and a theologian.  LDS will have to read his text and overlook some of the language, but the vast majority is outstanding.  Though you can read John Paul II's actual text, Christopher West has put it into layman's terms and may be appreciated by others.  

This is in incredibly poor taste.

[USU78]

12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I believe all sinners can have a relationship with Jesus Christ - there is no one else but sinners on this earth.  If not us, then who could?  

The issue is not that one is a sinner, but that one strives to follow.  It has to do with personal priorities.  Does someone who places Jesus first still sin or do they remain a sinner?  Of course!  A sinner feels that sin separates them from Christ is has sorrow for their sins.  Someone that purposely chooses to follow their sins feels no guilt and senses no sorrow.  Do you see the distinction?  

You may be tired of the argument that some remain celibate, but that does not diminish how completely is destroys your argument.  You tire of it because you obviously have no counter argument.  Be honest with yourself and with others.  You know your choice and you know what you put first in your life.  

God declared that we should replenish the earth.  God will never rescind that directive.  We are to marry a person of the opposite sex in order to have children.  I cannot see God unmaking this directive in favor of....what else?  What else is there that he could have said that would not have destroyed the entire plan of creation and his plan of salvation?  Nothing.  He actually did what he wanted to do and created us for his purpose.  

One of the most in-depth discussions on the importance of marriage I have ever read was written by John Paul II commonly called his Theology of the Body.  He was both an excellent philosopher and a theologian.  LDS will have to read his text and overlook some of the language, but the vast majority is outstanding.  Though you can read John Paul II's actual text, Christopher West has put it into layman's terms and may be appreciated by others.  

Beautifully put. The apostate homosexual who marries homosexually doesn't struggle with sin, as we all do,  he celebrates it.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Beautifully put. The apostate homosexual who marries homosexually doesn't struggle with sin, as we all do,  he celebrates it.

that's dismissive.  Don't you realize that even those gay folks who are married also want to do something good in the world?  Want to refrain from lying, love their neighbors, or enjoy being charitable to others?  They struggle with these things just like the rest of us.  There's no need to dismiss them outright.  That's just ridiculous. 

[ERMD]

Catholic priests and nuns (as well as other groups in other religions) forsake personal companionship/romance/relationships in order to dedicate their lives to God.  I admire them for their faith. They somehow manage to not blame their religion for making them give up what some see as the only possible source of fulfillment in mortality.

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by ERMD

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Catholic priests and nuns (as well as other groups in other religions) forsake personal companionship/romance/relationships in order to dedicate their lives to God.  I admire them for their faith. They somehow manage to not blame their religion for making them give up what some as the only possible source of fulfillment in mortality.

 

But...as a consequence a terribly high percentage of Catholic Priests have been child molesters.  Terrible is the best word I could come up with.  It's claimed then, that the life they chose to live has caused them, often, to be sexual deviants because of their lack of sexual maturity and development. 

[ERMD]

Just now, stemelbow said:

But...as a consequence a terribly high percentage of Catholic Priests have been child molesters.  Terrible is the best word I could come up with.  It's claimed then, that the life they chose to live has caused them, often, to be sexual deviants because of their lack of sexual maturity and development. 

You overlook the principle in order make a worthless point.  This is akin to vilifying traditional marriage because infidelity and divorce exist, or to demonize religion because some have committed murder in the name of God.

Why don't you tell us what a hypocritical old woman Mother Teresa was, or shed light on what those Buddhist monks are really doing at their monasteries in the Himalaya?

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Catholic priests and nuns (as well as other groups in other religions) forsake personal companionship/romance/relationships in order to dedicate their lives to God.  I admire them for their faith. They somehow manage to not blame their religion for making them give up what some see as the only possible source of fulfillment in mortality.

Some Catholic priest and nuns keep their vows, but there has also been a lot of sexual abuse (just as stemmelbow stated above):

Here's another example:

https://answeringchristian.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries/

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, ERMD said:

You overlook the principle in order make a worthless point.  This is akin to vilifying traditional marriage because infidelity and divorce exist, or to demonize religion because some have committed murder in the name of God.

Why don't you tell us what a hypocritical old woman Mother Teresa was, or shed light on what those Buddhist monks are really doing at their monasteries in the Himalaya?

Wow.  I disagree.  It is hardly a worthless point.  they made a movie about it that won best picture this year--mostly because the point was so compelling.  It's a sad and disgusting situation, for sure. 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, ERMD said:

You overlook the principle in order make a worthless point.  

Worthless?  I don't think so.  You used Priests and nuns being celibate as an example for someone being able to do this for God.  We've supplied evidence that this hasn't worked out so well for the Catholic church to ask of these men and women.  Do a search for "sexual abuse" and the Catholic church.  It's not just children who are abused, but nuns by Priests and nuns sexually molesting others too.  So, this is a very valid point to make here.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But...as a consequence a terribly high percentage of Catholic Priests have been child molesters.  Terrible is the best word I could come up with.  It's claimed then, that the life they chose to live has caused them, often, to be sexual deviants because of their lack of sexual maturity and development. 

CFR that the percentage of Priests who have been child molestors is higher than those in other services dealing with children, such as teachers. ( I seriously do not know whether ot not this is true, one of the reviews for Spotlight stated that it was unfortunate that this was not clearly stated...nationwide it was 4%).

Given that many male molestors are fathers and uncles, I don't think one should assume without documentation that risk of molestation is increased if one chooses celibacy.

[CV75]

On 3/8/2016 at 11:22 PM, california boy said:

Thanks.  You think you know me.  You don't.  Which is why your judgement means NOTHING to me.

And yes, I noticed you weren't willing to say you would be willing to leave your wife and family for memebership in the church

Why did you not respond to my post here: Posted Monday at 9:03 PM

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR that the percentage of Priests who have been child molestors is higher than those in other services dealing with children, such as teachers. ( I seriously do not know whether ot not this is true, one of the reviews for Spotlight stated that it was unfortunate that this was not clearly stated...nationwide it was 4%).

Given that many male molestors are fathers and uncles, I don't think one should assume without documentation that risk of molestation is increased if one chooses celibacy.

I think it's fair to say I over-claimed on that.  I think some would argue it is a higher percentage, if you browse around you'll see the claims.  But it's a really tough area to feel definitive in, at least that's my take.  Particularly since so many such abuses seem to go un-identified. 

[Calm]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/

Yeah, I agree that stats are hard to find.  I haven't studied abuse in depth, but I don't believe I have ever read celibacy is one of the risks factors.  Availibility of type of victim does seem to have some effect, as can be seen in what happens in prisons.

And there would be a huge difference between forced celibacy such as those incarcerated and those making a personal choice to be celibate, whether in and of itself or because it is required for their life choices.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

If sexual abuse of children among general males is at 10% (am I misreading the claim), it could even be that at 4% the lower among priests.

"The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops following the public outcry over the 2002 scandals. Limiting their study to plausible accusations made between 1950 and 1992, John Jay researchers reported that about 4 percent of the 110,000 priests active during those years had been accused of sexual misconduct involving children. Specifically, 4,392 complaints (ranging from "sexual talk" to rape) were made against priests by 10,667 victims. (Reports made after 2002, including those of incidents that occurred years earlier, are released as part of the church's annual audits.)

Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it's closer to one in 5. But in either case, the rate of abuse by Catholic priests is not higher than these national estimates. The public also doesn't realize how "profoundly prevalent" child sexual abuse is, adds Smith. Even those numbers may be low; research suggests that only a third of abuse cases are ever reported (making it the most underreported crime). "However you slice it, it's a very common experience," Smith says.

Most child abusers have one thing in common, and it's not piety—it's preexisting relationships with their victims. That includes priests and ministers and rabbis, of course, but also family members, friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, youth-group volunteers, and doctors. According to federal studies, three quarters of abuse occurs at the hands of family members or others in the victim's "circle of trust." "The fundamental premise here is that those who abuse children overwhelmingly seek out situations where they have easy and legitimate access to children," he said. "These kinds of positions offer a kind of cover for these offenders.""

[Calm]

It is possible that abuse of nuns is more about the local culture than celibacy itself:

http://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00003542/

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

that's dismissive.  Don't you realize that even those gay folks who are married also want to do something good in the world?  Want to refrain from lying, love their neighbors, or enjoy being charitable to others?  They struggle with these things just like the rest of us.  There's no need to dismiss them outright.  That's just ridiculous. 

Not ridiculous at all.  Nor dismissive.  Calling something by its rightful name is far more charitable than hemming and hawing and using wishywashy language.  Me?  I wish such folks nothing but happiness, but believe they'll never truly be happy choosing to cut themselves off from G-d.