First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[canard78]

On 20 May 2016 at 10:44 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

With you, I'm inclined to adopt the practice of smac97, who has taken lately to declining to enter into a substantive discussion with you. I agree with him that you are little more than a provocateur.

You might have @consiglieri on ignore, but he's not the only one interested in your response to the question he raised. 

Would you respond to it if I were to say that I was also interested in you clarifying your statement on Sister Okazaki's motives.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, canard78 said:

You might have @consiglieri on ignore, but he's not the only one interested in your response to the question he raised. 

Would you respond to it if I were to say that I was also interested in you clarifying your statement on Sister Okazaki's motives.

Me three..

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Me three..

You're four...I already told Scott I was looking forward to his reply to Consig for a long time.    I think Consig asked a legitimate question and personally, I don't think he is being treated fairly on this board.  It would be nice to have Scott and Consig's viewpoints and knowledge on a lot of various topics. 

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You're four...I already told Scott I was looking forward to his reply to Consig for a long time.    I think Consig asked a legitimate question and personally, I don't think he is being treated fairly on this board.  It would be nice to have Scott and Consig's viewpoints and knowledge on a lot of various topics. 

I apparently can't count, I knew you were in line.   

[Scott Lloyd]

On May 22, 2016 at 1:19 AM, canard78 said:

You might have @consiglieri on ignore, but he's not the only one interested in your response to the question he raised. 

Would you respond to it if I were to say that I was also interested in you clarifying your statement on Sister Okazaki's motives.

Asked and answered (in a response to someone other than consig).

And I don't have anybody "on ignore." It's just that I generally choose not to enter into dialogue with consiglieri. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You're four...I already told Scott I was looking forward to his reply to Consig for a long time.    I think Consig asked a legitimate question and personally, I don't think he is being treated fairly on this board.  It would be nice to have Scott and Consig's viewpoints and knowledge on a lot of various topics. 

I assert my prerogative to decline to enter into dialogue with anyone here. The moment it is clear that such a prerogative is denied me will be the moment I cease my participation here. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 6:43 PM, longview said:

I do not condemn anyone who struggle with same sex attractions.  However, I have three questions for you:

1- Do you believe you existed as a spirit child of God before being born into this world?

2- Do you believe that there were ONLY two sexes in the pre-existence?

3- Do you believe that spirit beings could have homosexual tendencies?

You didn't ask me but I'll share my opinion anyway.

1- yes

2- Probably (in my limited understanding that's what makes sense to me though I accept I could be wrong)

3- Absolutely. I believe there is great diversity among God's creations.

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assert my prerogative to decline to enter into dialogue with anyone here. The moment it is clear that such a prerogative is denied me will be the moment I cease my participation here. 

That's the best you can do?

Really?

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Asked and answered (in a response to someone other than consig).

 

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assert my prerogative to decline to enter into dialogue with anyone here. The moment it is clear that such a prerogative is denied me will be the moment I cease my participation here. 

So, did you answer consiglieri's question or not?  If so, can you link to where you posted an answer as many here would like to read it.

[Jeanne]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assert my prerogative to decline to enter into dialogue with anyone here. The moment it is clear that such a prerogative is denied me will be the moment I cease my participation here. 

I gave you a rep point because I sure don't want you to leave...just feel that others should be able to participate as you do. Scott, many times you have asked for CFR's and required them.  This should work both ways.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[longview]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- Absolutely. I believe there is great diversity among God's creations.

Not inclined to agree.  In this fallen world, there is a great deal of chaos, confusion, tragedy, afflictions and all kinds of oppositions.  Included would be biological tendencies, disorders, experimentation, abuse (that leads to a "messed-up life"), deliberate perversion, uncertainty, "wrong path taken", etc.

But in the pre-existence, there was/is greater order and purity.  I do not think God would create (organize) spirit children, some of which would have homosexual tendencies.  However, if you want to go back a step further and ask: "were there intelligences that had homosexual tendencies that became spirit children?"  I would say it is extremely unlikely.  There were no "reproducing" in that realm, only in pre-existence (spiritual), mortaility (biological), "hereafter" (Eternal Increase).  I might even guess that there were no gender among the intelligences.  We will know when we get back up there and the "veil of forgetfulness" is taken off our minds.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, longview said:

Not inclined to agree.  In this fallen world, there is a great deal of chaos, confusion, tragedy, afflictions and all kinds of oppositions.  Included would be biological tendencies, disorders, experimentation, abuse (that leads to a "messed-up life"), deliberate perversion, uncertainty, "wrong path taken", etc.

But in the pre-existence, there was/is greater order and purity.  I do not think God would create (organize) spirit children, some of which would have homosexual tendencies.  However, if you want to go back a step further and ask: "were there intelligences that had homosexual tendencies that became spirit children?"  I would say it is extremely unlikely.  There were no "reproducing" in that realm, only in pre-existence (spiritual), mortaility (biological), "hereafter" (Eternal Increase).  I might even guess that there were no gender among the intelligences.  We will know when we get back up there and the "veil of forgetfulness" is taken off our minds.

Among that great order and purity was 1/3 or all of God's children who rebelled. I'm guessing they weren't a monolith, meaning they likely had individual issues that would have caused them to rebel. It's hard to imagine 1/3 of the hosts of heaven being identical. And I'm not sure how pure they were. After all, they didn't keep their first estate. There must have temptation in the pre-mortal world.

That means God created 1/3 of his children as rebellious children (if you subscribe to the idea that he "created" them instead of organizing their intelligences). I'm more prone to subscribe to the idea of organizing from pre-existing intelligence which means spirits and intelligences may have been gay  from the beginning. I have no reason to think otherwise.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I gave you a rep point because I sure don't want you to leave...just feel that others should be able to participate as you do. Scott, many times you have asked for CFR's and required them.  This should work both ways.

I agree with you, Jeanne, and would add that I view answering a (legitimate) CFR differently than I do being drawn into a back-and-forth with a provocateur.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

So, did you answer consiglieri's question or not?  If so, can you link to where you posted an answer as many here would like to read it.

See my last response to ttribe.

I won't bother to link it. You're as capable as I of searching the thread.

[california boy]

On May 22, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I disagree with this. It is based on a traditional but, in my view, erroneous interpretation of scripture. Cravings to which a physical body is subject cannot continue if there is no physical body. 

Interesting point of view Scott.  Do you think there will be no sexual attraction among heterosexuals as well?  Do you think a gay person who has had a life long relationship with his partner will loose all feelings for that partner because there is no physical body?  If a gay person still has those same feelings of affection for his life long partner, wouldn't he still be gay?  Will straight couples loose their feelings of affection for their life long partners as well because they no longer have a physical body?  Love to hear your thoughts.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See my last response to ttribe.

I won't bother to link it. You're as capable as I of searching the thread.

Thanks.  That's fine, I'll try to take a look (I just didn't know if it was in this thread or another one).  I've been traveling and haven't followed the threads that closely and just thought you might know right where your response was.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Interesting point of view Scott.  Do you think there will be no sexual attraction among heterosexuals as well?  Do you think a gay person who has had a life long relationship with his partner will loose all feelings for that partner because there is no physical body?  If a gay person still has those same feelings of affection for his life long partner, wouldn't he still be gay?  Will straight couples loose their feelings of affection for their life long partners as well because they no longer have a physical body?  Love to hear your thoughts.

What puzzles me is that I have heard that those who die are still subject to cravings of the WOW.  An alcoholic will still crave liquor and smokers will want and desire to light up.  So which is it?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks.  That's fine, I'll try to take a look (I just didn't know if it was in this thread or another one).  I've been traveling and haven't followed the threads that closely and just thought you might know right where your response was.

ttribe asked me if, based on my posts, he could draw a conclusion about my opinion of Sister Okazaki.

I candidly responded that I disapprove of her public second-guessing of the Brethren in the manner in which they created and presented the family proclamation and thought it unseemly, considering her past position in the Relief Society general presidency.

I added that, beyond that, he was not justified in drawing any conclusion about my opinion of her.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What puzzles me is that I have heard that those who die are still subject to cravings of the WOW.  An alcoholic will still crave liquor and smokers will want and desire to light up.  So which is it?

I remember hearing this while growing up, and I have to say it doesn't ring true to me.

I could conceive, perhaps, of a psychological disposition to continue ungodly tendencies, but my understanding is that at death, the body is left in the grave while the spirit goes to the spirit world. Hence, any physical cravings belonging to the body would thus be left behind.

As for the resurrection, I understand from the teaching of Amulek in Alma 2 that the body will be resurrected in a whole state; that is, all maladies, deformities, injuries, diseases -- congenital or otherwise -- will be removed in the resurrection.

What I keep hearing from the gay lobby is that people who are homosexual were "born that way." If this is true, then homosexuality would be a condition of mortality that will not be perpetuated beyond the grave.

Furthermore, if one has striven to overcome his homosexuality in mortality and to live in accordance with the laws of God as best he can, it seems to me inconsistent with the justice and mercy of God that he would be obliged to deal with such a condition in the hereafter. And I have cited statements to the contrary from official Church sources.

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I remember hearing this while growing up, and I have to say it doesn't ring true to me.

I could conceive, perhaps, of a psychological disposition to continue ungodly tendencies, but my understanding is that at death, the body is left in the grave while the spirit goes to the spirit world. Hence, any physical cravings belonging to the body would thus be left behind.

As for the resurrection, I understand from the teaching of Amulek in Alma 2 that the body will be resurrected in a whole state; that is, all maladies, deformities, injuries -- congenital or otherwise -- will be removed in the resurrection.

What I keep hearing from the gay lobby is that people who are homosexual were "born that way." If this is true, then homosexuality would be a condition of mortality that will not be perpetuated beyond the grave.

 

Aren't there some characteristics we're born with that aren't merely biological? In fact, isn't that the entire reason we stress lineage of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother? We bring characteristics with us from the pre-mortal world.

You seem to be assuming that being gay is a physical condition that can be cured via the resurrection. Couldn't it just as easily be an emotional, psychological, spiritual, or eternal condition?

 

[ttribe]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

ttribe asked me if, based on my posts, he could draw a conclusion about my opinion of Sister Okazaki.

I candidly responded that I disapprove of her public second-guessing of the Brethren in the manner in which they created and presented the family proclamation and thought it unseemly, considering her past position in the Relief Society general presidency.

I added that, beyond that, he was not justified in drawing any conclusion about my opinion of her.

To paraphrase Master Yoda - "My own counsel will I keep on the conclusions I choose to draw."

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Aren't there some characteristics we're born with that aren't merely biological? In fact, isn't that the entire reason we stress lineage of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother? We bring characteristics with us from the pre-mortal world.

You seem to be assuming that being gay is a physical condition that can be cured via the resurrection. Couldn't it just as easily be an emotional, psychological, spiritual, or eternal condition?

 

Here's Hartman Rector in general conference, October 1970:

Habit of smoking cigarettes To illustrate, I knew a man who was a member of the Church but had re- turned to his habit of smoking cigarettes. He said he didn't want to smoke but just couldn't help it. Of course, he could have overcome the habit if he had really wanted to while he had his body to help him. If the spirit tells the body not to pick up the cigarette, the body won't pick it up, and abstinence over time allows the spirit to overcome the desire. This man finally suffered a stroke. His body was paralyzed with the exception of his right arm and his eyes. As his son-in- law picked him up from the porch of his house, where he had fallen, with the only arm this man could move, he reached for the cigarette in his son-in- law's mouth, but he could not hold onto it. His son-in-law held the lighted cigarette to the stricken man's lips, but in his condition he could not hold it in his mouth. For nine months this man lay on his bed. He actually wore out the pocket of his pajamas reaching into it for a cigarette that was not there.

Then he died and went into the spirit world. Do you suppose he still wants a cigarette? On the basis of Amulek's state- ment, he does. But there is just one catch—there are no cigarettes in the spirit world. Would you suppose he is in paradise or in spirit prison? The answer seems only too obvious.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Here's Hartman Rector in general conference, October 1970:

 

 

I worried about the WOW in the spirit world and worried about my sister who had just got out of rehab for her alcoholism just before her suicide.  I worried about her so much!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

I worried about the WOW in the spirit world and worried about my sister who had just got out of rehab for her alcoholism just before her suicide.  I worried about her so much!

I'm with Scott that the belief expressed by Elder Rector doesn't ring true, but obviously some people believe it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Aren't there some characteristics we're born with that aren't merely biological? In fact, isn't that the entire reason we stress lineage of a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother? We bring characteristics with us from the pre-mortal world.

You seem to be assuming that being gay is a physical condition that can be cured via the resurrection. Couldn't it just as easily be an emotional, psychological, spiritual, or eternal condition?

 

Statements from Church leaders on official Church websites say otherwise.

Moreover, I believe the assurance given by Amulek applies to more than just physical conditions.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Scott Lloyd