The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[Mystery Meat]

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

[JLHPROF]

Not sure why you always feel like you need to poke the LGBT/SSM bear.
You are correct - there is an impasse.
In the end they will unavoidably be faced with the eternal truth.  And it will break their hearts.  That is the true sadness here.
If in the end we turned out to be wrong, as impossible as that may be, I at least would be happy for them.  But anticipating their inevitable heartbreak and accountability for choices made is sad enough without poking the bear.

Continually pointing out the future weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth helps nobody, and should break our hearts too.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

Or we allow everyone to make their own decisions as they seek to live a happy and fulfilled life.

The afterlife is unknown.

Even if I end up being wrong, I think Jesus will understand the desire to be loving and inclusive. And in the mean time I will build and uplift instead of judging and condemning. I'm good with that.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or we allow everyone to make their own decisions as they seek to live a happy and fulfilled life.

The afterlife is unknown.

Even if I end up being wrong, I think Jesus will understand the desire to be loving and inclusive. And in the mean time I will build and uplift instead of judging and condemning. I'm good with that.

Sorry, I can't agree with that relativistic approach.

The afterlife is NOT unknown.  It has been revealed, but people either by choice or by doubt are not accepting of it.
And loving and inclusive do NOT go hand in hand.  God loves all his children.  He still followed law and its prescribed penalties.

Edited June 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[jkwilliams]

I understand the church's position on homosexuality, but I really don't get the need to constantly bludgeon us with it. 

[Rivers]

 

2 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

You're just realizing this now?

Edited June 17, 2016 by Rivers

[Mystery Meat]

6 minutes ago, Rivers said:

You're just realizing this now?

You're just realizing this now?

I guess I was hoping for some middleground where those who disagreed with the Church wouldn't demand the Church sacrifice its core values in order to be seen as loving. That seems unfair and a little bit prejudiced. In their minds, no such middle ground exists. To them showing love means denying eternal truth.

[Mystery Meat]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand the church's position on homosexuality, but I really don't get the need to constantly bludgeon us with it. 

I am sure it seems that way, and I sincerely apologize for any role I have played in that. But on a silly message board when unfair statements or actual manipulations of what the Church has said and believes on the matter are bandied about, I feel like I can appropriately step in. 

I understand former members, current progressive members and LGBT's position on homosexuality, but I really don't get the need to constantly bludgeon us with it. To constantly make crap comparisons with the revelation that was received on the priesthood ban. To incessantly misrepresent the Church's position. To repeatedly tell me and the Church how we aren't very loving. To try and convince people that the Church will eventually embrace it (as if they need to reassure and justify themselves in their current rebellion) and so when it doesn't happen it only causes more heartache and anger as a result.

Yeah, it goes both ways I suppose.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Mystery Meat said:

I am sure it seems that way, and I sincerely apologize for any role I have played in that. But on a silly message board when unfair statements or actual manipulations of what the Church has said and believes on the matter are bandied about, I feel like I can appropriately step in. 

I understand former members, current progressive members and LGBT's position on homosexuality, but I really don't get the need to constantly bludgeon us with it. To constantly make crap comparisons with the revelation that was received on the priesthood ban. To incessantly misrepresent the Church's position. To repeatedly tell me and the Church how we aren't very loving. Yeah, it goes both ways I suppose.

Well, I would think the church's position is quite clear. Some people disagree with it (I do, for one). It's not a surprise to anyone that the church proscribes homosexuality, but I think the church's exclusion of children of gay parents is unnecessarily divisive and hurtful to children and families. 

Do I expect the church to suddenly embrace homosexuality? Not at all, but I agree with those who hope the church will reconsider a pointless and hurtful policy. 

I don't believe the policy change was done out of malice or hatred, but it is wrong, IMO. 

[Tacenda]

IMO, there are far worse sins.  Like that of taking the Lord's name in vain, for instance, stating something comes from God, when it doesn't.  Or spending an inordinate amount of money on things that could be better spent on taking care of our brothers and sisters here on earth.  Who's plan are we following, Satan's or Gods, when Satan said we must be Gods, what is the truth?  Yes, we are to be like God, but are we to be creators like him?  Isn't He the only creator and we the only created?  Each day we sin, but each day we have the gift of grace, do we use it, take it in our lives, or are we on a ladder to Godhead, thinking it's up to us and not realizing His grace enough.

 

[Duncan]

I'd like to see possibly gay members say like live the LoC until they are married just like non gay members. That way you can be gay but not until you're married and we keep people in and open to God. Now as it is people come out of the closet and they quit the church. I have too many questions about how homosexuality, transgenderism etc. fits into everything and what God expects them to do and how he makes it known to them of what he expects.

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I would think the church's position is quite clear. Some people disagree with it (I do, for one). It's not a surprise to anyone that the church proscribes homosexuality, but I think the church's exclusion of children of gay parents is unnecessarily divisive and hurtful to children and families. 

Do I expect the church to suddenly embrace homosexuality? Not at all, but I agree with those who hope the church will reconsider a pointless and hurtful policy. 

I don't believe the policy change was done out of malice or hatred, but it is wrong, IMO. 

This.  The policy was so unnecessary and hurt so many on both sides of the fence. 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

IMO, there are far worse sins.

Sin is not a matter of degree.
Ok, it kind of is, but not in the eternities.
Stephen Robinson's book explains this clearly but I don't have a copy handy to quote from.  So I'll paraphrase.

According to scripture ANY sin, any sin at all, is sufficient to keep us out of the presence of God.  If we have any sin on us we cannot enter God's presence.  That is why an infinite atonement was needed.  Because we could not remove every sin from ourselves without it.
So the "degree" of sin is about how much repentance and correction is necessary.  Not which are worse and will be punished more.  All sin has the same punishment - death and removal from God's presence.  Not all sin is as easy to apply the atonement towards.
 

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I'd like to see possibly gay members say like live the LoC until they are married just like non gay members. That way you can be gay but not until you're married and we keep people in and open to God. Now as it is people come out of the closet and they quit the church. I have too many questions about how homosexuality, transgenderism etc. fits into everything and what God expects them to do and how he makes it known to them of what he expects.

This is so fair.  Once gay LDS feels that marriage is really acceptable, I would like to see this too..for their relationships.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

Yes indeed.

For you dogma wins the day.  It is not a new thing. And it won't be the last thing where dogma wins over reason, evidence and rational thought.  How unfortunate.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure why you always feel like you need to poke the LGBT/SSM bear.
You are correct - there is an impasse.
In the end they will unavoidably be faced with the eternal truth.  And it will break their hearts.  That is the true sadness here.
If in the end we turned out to be wrong, as impossible as that may be, I at least would be happy for them.  But anticipating their inevitable heartbreak and accountability for choices made is sad enough without poking the bear.

Continually pointing out the future weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth helps nobody, and should break our hearts too.
 

One's eternal truth is another's eternal heresy and/or eternal dogma.  The only thing you have to hold to your eternal dogma is you think God is talking to you telling you your dogma is true.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, I can't agree with that relativistic approach.

The afterlife is NOT unknown.  It has been revealed, but people either by choice or by doubt are not accepting of it.
And loving and inclusive do NOT go hand in hand.  God loves all his children.  He still followed law and its prescribed penalties.

Yea really the afterlife is unknown,  You rely on those who claim God has told them about the after life and you think and have concluded that what they say is true.  But inless God has come to speak to you personally, and not through some mystical feeling and witness of the spirit you really don't know. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Mystery Meat said:

I guess I was hoping for some middleground where those who disagreed with the Church wouldn't demand the Church sacrifice its core values in order to be seen as loving. That seems unfair and a little bit prejudiced. In their minds, no such middle ground exists. To them showing love means denying eternal truth.

The LDS Church has a right to promote whatever it wants. I honor that. If the many find it all BS that is their choice as well.  You can believe whatever you want. But unless you have more evidence then a personal testimony and faith don't feel bad that a lot of people find it all hoooey.

[Teancum]

43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sin is not a matter of degree.
Ok, it kind of is, but not in the eternities.
Stephen Robinson's book explains this clearly but I don't have a copy handy to quote from.  So I'll paraphrase.

According to scripture ANY sin, any sin at all, is sufficient to keep us out of the presence of God.  If we have any sin on us we cannot enter God's presence.  That is why an infinite atonement was needed.  Because we could not remove every sin from ourselves without it.
So the "degree" of sin is about how much repentance and correction is necessary.  Not which are worse and will be punished more.  All sin has the same punishment - death and removal from God's presence.  Not all sin is as easy to apply the atonement towards.
 

Yep. Sin is sin. Ranking sin by degrees it silly and not in keeping with what so called scripture teaches about sin. The book of James says if you are guilty of sin against one part of the law you are guilty of it all.  Yet Mormons love to rank sin.  How silly.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yep. Sin is sin. Ranking sin by degrees it silly and not in keeping with what so called scripture teaches about sin. The book of James says if you are guilty of sin against one part of the law you are guilty of it all.  Yet Mormons love to rank sin.  How silly.

let's be honest murder is worse than stealing a can of coke though

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Duncan said:

let's be honest murder is worse than stealing a can of coke though

Yes.  But if left on our heads the eternal consequence would be the same.

 

 

[The Nehor]

Is anyone else bored with this topic?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Yea really the afterlife is unknown,  You rely on those who claim God has told them about the after life and you think and have concluded that what they say is true.  But inless God has come to speak to you personally, and not through some mystical feeling and witness of the spirit you really don't know. 

True.
Doesn't change that as far as I am concerned the afterlife has been revealed and we get to either accept or reject it.  But our acceptance or rejection won't change it one bit.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

One's eternal truth is another's eternal heresy and/or eternal dogma.  The only thing you have to hold to your eternal dogma is you think God is talking to you telling you your dogma is true.

You do love to say dogma like it's a bad thing.
Again, if I believe one dogma and someone else believes another it's irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Or we allow everyone to make their own decisions as they seek to live a happy and fulfilled life.

The afterlife is unknown.

Even if I end up being wrong, I think Jesus will understand the desire to be loving and inclusive. And in the mean time I will build and uplift instead of judging and condemning. I'm good with that.

I hope that is how it works, but I don't think it is case. The Sermon no the Mount and the teaches of the Apostle show that all rewards are based of our actions and accepting those words as the mind and will of God. 

[BCSpace]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not sure why you always feel like you need to poke the LGBT/SSM bear.
You are correct - there is an impasse.
In the end they will unavoidably be faced with the eternal truth.  And it will break their hearts.  That is the true sadness here.
If in the end we turned out to be wrong, as impossible as that may be, I at least would be happy for them.  But anticipating their inevitable heartbreak and accountability for choices made is sad enough without poking the bear.

Continually pointing out the future weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth helps nobody, and should break our hearts too.
 

Don't the scriptures do just that?