Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Sometimes I am amazed at how well you two straight guys "get it".  I can tell that you have not only talked to gay guys before, but you have also listened.  I do think that others try to understand, but i always get the feeling that the they are talking to gay guys, they are more concerned with how to fit what they are saying with the paradigm  the church has set out, that they don't really hear all of what the other person is saying.  They are always ready for a "but how about this" kind of answer.  Like they are trying to correct how the person actually feels in order to make it fit into their own beliefs.  Perhaps we all do that.  We feel like the paradigm we believe in is he correct one, and if it differs from what we think is right, then it is them that must be wrong.  I know I have to be careful of not doing that myself.  I don't always succeed.  Thanks guys, for listening.

Thanks California Boy. Very kind of you to say so. 

 

 

[california boy]

So I am going to discuss what you have said outside the church paradigm.  Perhaps it will make better sense to you on what a gay person's understanding is.

 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

At times I think we are saying the same thing and at other times I don't think we are.  I suspect we agree on many points, but not all points.  

I reject the concept that an individual with SSA is uniquely different i.e. that having SSA is a pervasive way of being that allows an individual to be attracted to their own gender.  I tend to think that having SSA is just that - being attracted to member of your own gender; nothing more and nothing less.  

Maybe not uniquely different.  We are all different from each other.  But I can tell you that being gay is much more than just being attracted to members of your ow gender.  Just like being black is much more than just your skin color.  Or being Mormon is much more than just believing church doctrine.  Or being Irish is much more than just where you are from.  Can you see that?  

 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

The reason SSA is spoken of as sinful, which is more accurate than terming it a defect because that puts a spin on it that is incorrect, is because SSA is directly counter to the plan that God has for his children.  An individual chooses to follow Christ and accepts his teachings or not.  We each learn to suppress temptation in its myriad forms in exchange for focusing on becoming a more evolved, righteous being.  

Btw, I have talked and talk with many individuals with SSA or who use the label gay.  We have made conflicting conclusions about those interactions.  

This is where trying to fit being gay in with church doctrine makes communicating difficult.  Because for you, SSA (which always makes it sound like some kind of clinical disease or condition to me) HAS to be directly counter to the plan that God has for His children.  For you, there can be no other plan.  No other path back to Him.  And unless one follows that plan as the church has defined it, then they can not choose to follow Christ and is not accepting His teachings.  

Here is the flaw for me.  Can you say with all certainty that church leaders know absolutely for sure how God will judge His gay children, and what exactly is their destination when they die.  Can you say that all who are gay will magically be made straight in the next life?  Or can you say that only those faithful gay members that follow the paradigm the church has outlined will be made straight?  Will the rest retain their attraction to those that they have love on earth?  Will they not be magically made straight in the lreseruction, but have to overcome their sexual orientation?  If so, why do they have to overcome something that was forced upon them.  As far as I know, no one asked to be gay.  Can you answer any of these questions with certainty?

 

 

[Jeanne]

I believe that God will be a harsher judge to those of have judged gay people than the judgement of gays themselves.  Why not just judge on the kindness and contribution to this life on earth?

[Meadowchik]

Yes. There is room for everyone in the Plan of Happiness.

I have my own speculations, but we know we'll only be judged based on what we know and are capable of, and that all will have a full opportunity for all blessings, be it now or in the next life.

[Storm Rider]

20 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe that God will be a harsher judge to those of have judged gay people than the judgement of gays themselves.  Why not just judge on the kindness and contribution to this life on earth?

If we use scripture as a standard for how God will judge then just stopping at "God will be a harsher judge to those who have judged" is all that is needed.  I don't see any evidence to support that God feels more kindly to those who judge certain sins as more preferred than others.  If you have a reference I would like to see it.

It is extremely easy to find camaraderie for those who support your own position than otherwise.  I have tried to portray that the challenge to follow Christ is universal and no single group, single sin, or individual has a harder time of following Christ than any other.  The sacrifice of self is the same for all.  

Those who seek to make allowances that sin is acceptable for this individual and not for others become respecter of persons and imitate the Calvinist doctrine of predestination when looking at the opposite side of that philosophy.

God is clear that no sin is acceptable.  All are sinners and I don't not see any truth in defining which among us is a bigger or lesser sinner.  We all fall short of the holiness of God. 

We should be compassionate toward ourselves as well as others - we are sinners and we all seek God's mercy.  Let us show mercy to others if we would have God be merciful toward us.  Let us be patient with the sinful nature of others as we would want God to be patient with us.  Lastly, let us not fool ourselves into thinking that we may sin a little and it will be acceptable.  Rather, let us eagerly seek after repentance for all our sins that we may be washed in the blood of our Savior and stand before him with a true heart knowing that we have run a good race. 

[kllindley]

On 7/17/2016 at 9:22 AM, california boy said:

I am not sure what you are saying here, so I will ask for greater clarification.  If a gay person commits to NEVER having sexual relations with the person he loves and shares his life with and keeps all of the commandments, I would say that is doing all he can to follow Christ.  Isn't by reframing from any sexual relations with his partner he loves sacrificing all his wants, passions and desires in exchange for accepting his yoke?? That is a whole lot more of sacrificing wants, passions and desires that is required for anyone else.  With all of those sacrifices made above and beyond what anyone else is asked to make, can he and his partner enter into the celestial kingdom?  Just trying to make sense of what you are writing in the context of the question I asked.

I think the sacrifice is the very same.  I love the passage in Omni that tells us that we must "offer your whole souls as an offering unto him." I think being willing to sacrifice my "gay" identity is no more than my whole soul, which is being asked of everyone else.  In the eternities, I will no longer be defined by my profession, though that is a huge part of who I am now.  

 

On 7/17/2016 at 9:24 AM, california boy said:

Well as long as I can be with him throughout eternity in the Celestial Kingdom, that is all that matters.  I am not worried about being sealed on this earth life to him, I will not worry about being sealed to him in the next.  

I fully expect to spend eternity with dearly beloved brothers and friends, enjoying a depth of intimacy that is only hinted at here in mortality. 

 

23 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course there is a lot more asked of a gay member.  Gay couples can't marry the one they love, everyone else can.  They can't have any sexual relations with the one they love.  Everyone else can because they can marry the person they love.  Both things go hand in hand.

I get that the church demands anyone who is gay to not have sexual relations with the person they love.  And I accept that.  But does the fact that a gay couple who stay celibate also not allow them to enter the Celestial Kingdom together?  Is there no plan of happiness for a gay couple?  Or are they not allowed to be with the one they love for eternity.  That is what I am not quite clear on in your answers.  Yet is is really the only answer that is important to someone who is gay.

 

For all the work you have done to try to keep other's from bringing up sex, to say that both things go hand in hand, seems to do just that.  

And, while I respect your right to steer this discussion, you seem to have jumped now not only from "having feelings" to behaviors, but even further to the idea that "having feelings" equates to an unalterable identity; "someone who is gay."

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you may be looking at my comments in the wrong way.  I am not bothered by the sacrifice that is asked of those that are gay.  I am bothered by the relinquishing of love.  How can someone give up the person they love and for what?  Glory?  It doesn't seem worth it.  Not the sacrifice, but the glory.  I would rather be eternally connected with the person I love than inherit a throne. Does that also seem like a selfish thing to do?  Toss away the person you love for what?  I still struggle what that is I am trading it for.  It is only the realization that what you want the most, to be with the person you love above all else,  may still not be given to you no matter what sacrifices or faith or works or righteousness.  

So  far, the church has not offered that hope as a possibility.  Can you understand why I no longer have faith or trust in the church, but put all my hope, and faith and trust to God.  I believe in Him.  I believe in His mercy.  And I believe He would not ask me to rip the love out of my heart for my partner in exchange for glory or a throne or exaltation, whatever that is.

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes I have been married to a woman.  And this I know.  I don't ever desire to be married to a woman again.  Nothing against women, it is just something that at the time I really didn't have an interest in, but was doing solely because my church leaders told me it is what God wanted me to do, and made me a promise that if I did, I would no longer be attracted to guys.  Well we all know how that turned out.

Some say that when someone who is gay dies, then they become a different person.  They will no longer want to be with someone of the same sex.  They have no basis for making this claim any more that my church leaders making the EXACT same promise years ago did.  I would also have to some how wipe out a lifetime of love for my partner.  It would be a shell of me if that were true.  Yeah.  I don't really buy it.  Who we are, for good or for bad rises with us in the next life.  If we haven't conformed to what God wants us to become like on this earth, there is not some magical transformation that suddenly makes us what God wants us to be.  If that were true, there would be no point of this earth life.  My life goal no longer is to become straight.  My life goal is to become more Christ-like.  That is plenty for me to work on.  If the church teaches that if it is a requirement to get into the Celestial Kingdom, is to marry someone of the opposite sex, then by that very doctrine, they are teaching that there are no gays in the Celestial Kingdom.  

I challenge that learning to be fulfilled in an opposite-sex relationship would have to "wipe out a lifetime of love."  There are many different types of love, and those are not always so easy to tease apart.  Learning to cleave unto my wife and none else, does not wipe our a lifetime of love for my parents.  But it does change it.  I don't mean that your life goal should be to become straight.  I don't think that is a helpful goal. But I still contend that people are not really divided up into gay and straight as neatly and cleanly as your post makes it sound.  On the one hand you seem to be saying that having attraction and loving feelings for someone of the same-sex is enough to make someone gay; but then if that person enters into an opposite-sex marriage they must no longer be gay.  Am I missing something?

 

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

Sometimes I am amazed at how well you two straight guys "get it".  I can tell that you have not only talked to gay guys before, but you have also listened.  I do think that others try to understand, but i always get the feeling that the they are talking to gay guys, they are more concerned with how to fit what they are saying with the paradigm  the church has set out, that they don't really hear all of what the other person is saying.  They are always ready for a "but how about this" kind of answer.  Like they are trying to correct how the person actually feels in order to make it fit into their own beliefs.  Perhaps we all do that.  We feel like the paradigm we believe in is he correct one, and if it differs from what we think is right, then it is them that must be wrong.  I know I have to be careful of not doing that myself.  I don't always succeed.  Thanks guys, for listening.

And I am amazed at how they seem to not "get it" when it comes to my experiences and feelings.  I think it does ultimately come down to the fundamental paradigm we believe in.  With different fundamental beliefs about what sexual orientation is and is not, we are going to continue to speak past each other.  I don't know how to make sense of the Church's position from within a framework that starts with the assumption that "gay" is a biologically determined, immutable identity.  I just don't. That is not a fundamental assumption that I share. But the question of social constructionism vs essentialism, is not a debate that can actually be answered.  It depends on the world belief you choose to accept.  The best I can do is respect others' decision as authentic and sincere; acknowledge that from another paradigm, the church's position appears unavoidably unjust; and calmly point out that while the essentialist paradigm is valid and reasonable, it is not the only valid and reasonable perspective.   

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think the sacrifice is the very same.  I love the passage in Omni that tells us that we must "offer your whole souls as an offering unto him." I think being willing to sacrifice my "gay" identity is no more than my whole soul, which is being asked of everyone else.  In the eternities, I will no longer be defined by my profession, though that is a huge part of who I am now.  

What you're basically saying, from my perspective, is that the church expects a degree of asceticism for gays. Fair enough. I never thought of Mormonism as adhering to the ascetic principle, but you've given me reason to rethink that. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Maybe not uniquely different.  We are all different from each other.  But I can tell you that being gay is much more than just being attracted to members of your ow gender.  Just like being black is much more than just your skin color.  Or being Mormon is much more than just believing church doctrine.  Or being Irish is much more than just where you are from.  Can you see that?  

I totally agree that accepting gay as identity is much more than being attracted to members of your own gender.  That is why it is so important to distinguish between sexual identity and sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation is only about attraction.  And maybe that is why being "Gay" can mean so many things to different gay people.  

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is where trying to fit being gay in with church doctrine makes communicating difficult.  Because for you, SSA (which always makes it sound like some kind of clinical disease or condition to me) HAS to be directly counter to the plan that God has for His children.  For you, there can be no other plan.  No other path back to Him.  And unless one follows that plan as the church has defined it, then they can not choose to follow Christ and is not accepting His teachings.  

Here is the flaw for me.  Can you say with all certainty that church leaders know absolutely for sure how God will judge His gay children, and what exactly is their destination when they die.  Can you say that all who are gay will magically be made straight in the next life?  Or can you say that only those faithful gay members that follow the paradigm the church has outlined will be made straight?  Will the rest retain their attraction to those that they have love on earth?  Will they not be magically made straight in the lreseruction, but have to overcome their sexual orientation?  If so, why do they have to overcome something that was forced upon them.  As far as I know, no one asked to be gay.  Can you answer any of these questions with certainty?

 I think this is what I was getting at in my previous comment.  While for me, SSA does have to be directly counter to the plan (at least in an eternal sense), for you being Gay HAS to be a permanent, unquestionable part of mortal and eternal identity.  Anything else is demeaning to you.  "Magically made straight" is not exactly a neutral way of describing it.  

Again, I can't answer from the sexual orientation essentialist perspective, but from the Church paradigm, this is no different than a man who is sexually attracted to other women than his wife  (whether he ever acted on it in mortality) being perfected, through the Atonement of Christ, through a process that may take a long time after death, to a state where he no longer has any sexual attraction to women other than his wife.  Or the man who has a temper, or is selfish, or impatient, or whatever (whether or not he acts on it in mortality) having to undergo a fundamental change in his nature such that he no longer even feels things contrary to the Divine Nature.  And from that Church perspective, I fully anticipate having deep feelings of affection and love for billions of spirit brothers.  Rather than having to "give up" the love I feel for men, I expect it to be purified and sanctified such that there is no sexual/romantic aspect.  

I understand that this view is not satisfying to someone who operated from a different paradigm of the basic nature of sexual orientation and sexual identity.  It was very unsatisfying to me for a long time, while I also accepted an essentialist perspective.  I think that is why Elder Bednar tried (clumsily and rather unsuccessfully) to challenge the idea essentialist narrative before explaining the place that LGBT members have in the Church.  I think (hope) he is intelligent enough to understand that from the essentialist paradigm, the Church's position seems unfair, arbitrary, rejecting, and even cruel.  

[rongo]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I can tell that you have not only talked to gay guys before, but you have also listened.  I do think that others try to understand, but i always get the feeling that the they are talking to gay guys, they are more concerned with how to fit what they are saying with the paradigm  the church has set out, that they don't really hear all of what the other person is saying.  

You said the word paradigm. I think I just heard Kevin Christensen's ears prick up . . .

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So I am going to discuss what you have said outside the church paradigm.  Perhaps it will make better sense to you on what a gay person's understanding is.

Maybe not uniquely different.  We are all different from each other.  But I can tell you that being gay is much more than just being attracted to members of your ow gender.  Just like being black is much more than just your skin color.  Or being Mormon is much more than just believing church doctrine.  Or being Irish is much more than just where you are from.  Can you see that?  

This is where trying to fit being gay in with church doctrine makes communicating difficult.  Because for you, SSA (which always makes it sound like some kind of clinical disease or condition to me) HAS to be directly counter to the plan that God has for His children.  For you, there can be no other plan.  No other path back to Him.  And unless one follows that plan as the church has defined it, then they can not choose to follow Christ and is not accepting His teachings.  

Here is the flaw for me.  Can you say with all certainty that church leaders know absolutely for sure how God will judge His gay children, and what exactly is their destination when they die.  Can you say that all who are gay will magically be made straight in the next life?  Or can you say that only those faithful gay members that follow the paradigm the church has outlined will be made straight?  Will the rest retain their attraction to those that they have love on earth?  Will they not be magically made straight in the lreseruction, but have to overcome their sexual orientation?  If so, why do they have to overcome something that was forced upon them.  As far as I know, no one asked to be gay.  Can you answer any of these questions with certainty?

Sorry, Cal; I missed this post.

No, I cannot see the difference between an Irishman and an American or an African.  Each individual is human; they have a different culture because they come from a different country, may speak a different language, but they remain human.  Just stop at - we are not uniquely different.  I realize we are talking about something that you have come to treasure above...it appears almost all things.  You value being gay and I place no special value on it.  It is a way of being that I think of as simply carnal just as we are all carnal.  I recognize that it would be important if we all acknowledged that having SSA is somehow special or unique, but I think, imho, that it is just being human.  It is neither normal or abnormal - it is being human.  

I value using the term SSA in certain conversations of this nature because it is a reminder that no one is "gay" as if it is fundamental to their being.  It is simply choosing or feeling compelled to be with others of our own gender.  I don't see it as an affliction or disease, but as a way of being.  I don't know why some of God's children feel this way and I don't know how much of it is a learned behavior and how much of it is not.  

Humanity has had a recognized plan from God for over six thousand years - God created man in his image and likeness - now go and multiply.  Where in that command are humans with SSA?  How do they fit?  You answer the question because you reject any answer I have been able to provide.  

I say with certainty that God created us with a plan - this life is a trial designed to test if we will choose to overcome the carnal nature of man and take up the cross and follow the Holy One of Israel.  We each get to choose and no one will be left out of that choice.  You are determined to force everyone to accept that having SSA is an eternal way of being and that for you individually to be happy requires that God recognize you as a gay man with a gay lover and that you get to be gay for eternity.  If not, then it is not heaven and it is not happiness. You limit God and deny any desire to be in union with him IF it means you forfeit your own stipulations of how God must be and must accept you on your own terms.  Don't you see the conflict of that position?  Who else gets to go to heaven with "demand list" and be recognized as as joint-heir with Christ?  

For example, I want to go to heaven, but I can only be in heaven if I get my own way.  Pick your way - now God must comply or he is not God for you.  Somehow a God that invites all to come unto him and that all must sacrifice their own egos, their own will for their lives, and acknowledge God as Lord and Savior is a lesser, unloving God solely because he is unwilling to acquiesce to your wants and desires.   

Each of us came to this world with a specific set of temptations.  I think that we also learn to be tempted by the things of this world.  You are as human as everyone else is.  Your cross is not bigger and no smaller than any of God's other children.  Come, join the human race and accept that we are all alike and that there is one path to God.  

 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is a sacrifice to not be allow any sexual contact for your entire life.  But I don't look at all sacrifices as being a bad thing. 

And I am saying in my posts that looking at something/anything as a sacrifice may be an obstacle to moving towards a greater understanding of what God has in mind for us.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting question.  I have never really thought about that.  But as I look back I would say that yes, I have gone through all of those stages.  Some lasted longer than others.  

However dealing with being gay is different than being angry with the way the church treats gays outside of the church.  I am still pretty angry about that and probably will be until church leaders quit trying to take away the civil rights of others.  In some ways, it is more difficult for me to accept the actions the church has taken against gay couples than it has been for me to deal with being gay.  Maybe because I always had this image that the church leaders were more fair then they turned out to be.  They, of course have every right to be as aggressive as they legally can against gay couples, but I strongly believe it is morally wrong to continue to work to deny others their civil rights.   The sooner they quit this political agenda, the sooner I can leave it alone.  I also think the no baptizing your children policy is wrong.  But at least that is not directed at those outside the church.  I just feel bad for those children.  I don't think it is always in their best interest.  

Are LDS church leaders really trying to take away the civil rights of others, or is that actually ordinary boundary maintenance?  As usual, LDS leaders get no credit at all for their efforts to advance LGBT civil rights, but are portrayed aggressively taking legal action against same-gender couples.  Is this a true and balanced picture, or is it colored by anger?

[california boy]

11 hours ago, kllindley said:

IAnd I am amazed at how they seem to not "get it" when it comes to my experiences and feelings.  I think it does ultimately come down to the fundamental paradigm we believe in.  With different fundamental beliefs about what sexual orientation is and is not, we are going to continue to speak past each other.  I don't know how to make sense of the Church's position from within a framework that starts with the assumption that "gay" is a biologically determined, immutable identity.  I just don't. That is not a fundamental assumption that I share. But the question of social constructionism vs essentialism, is not a debate that can actually be answered.  It depends on the world belief you choose to accept.  The best I can do is respect others' decision as authentic and sincere; acknowledge that from another paradigm, the church's position appears unavoidably unjust; and calmly point out that while the essentialist paradigm is valid and reasonable, it is not the only valid and reasonable perspective.   

Kin, I think you have clearly outlined you paradigm on this issues, as I hope I have as well.  We all have different experiences in life that help form those beliefs.  For you, your marriage has achieved the results you were hoping for, so you think it is possible for anyone to follow the path that you have forged.  Remember I too was married for over 25 years.   You can not say that I didn't earnestly try that same path.  I also had those same hopes and dreams the things would work out and I would be able to have the solution that you found.  But for me, it didn't work out that way.  I never could make it work.  I felt it was a deceiving way of living and actually felt it was immoral to have sexual relations with someone I wasn't deeply connected with.  I never got that connection.   I began to understand that for me, being gay was not something I could or even have to change.  I began to feel that what I was doing was causing me to pull further away from God and not closer to him.  I finally knew that I had to do what was probably the hardest thing I have ever done in my life.  I had to be honest with my family, my friends, the church and most importantly with God.  So I came out to everyone.  It was like this burden that I had been carrying around with me for my  whole life was lifted.  It felt like I was reborn literally.  This sense of happiness flooded my soul.  And through it all, a deep sense that God was with me.  I knew without a doubt that I was on the path that God had for me.

So our journeys are very dissimilar.  I hope you can see why I believe what I do.  I don't be so presumptuous to tell you that you are on the wrong path and that you are not living an authentic life.  I only support you on the journey you are on.  I hope you would do the same for me.  But it is your choice, and in the end, it no longer matters to me what others think of my relationship with God.  

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Sorry, Cal; I missed this post.

No, I cannot see the difference between an Irishman and an American or an African.  Each individual is human; they have a different culture because they come from a different country, may speak a different language, but they remain human.  Just stop at - we are not uniquely different.  I realize we are talking about something that you have come to treasure above...it appears almost all things.  You value being gay and I place no special value on it.  It is a way of being that I think of as simply carnal just as we are all carnal.  I recognize that it would be important if we all acknowledged that having SSA is somehow special or unique, but I think, imho, that it is just being human.  It is neither normal or abnormal - it is being human.  

I value using the term SSA in certain conversations of this nature because it is a reminder that no one is "gay" as if it is fundamental to their being.  It is simply choosing or feeling compelled to be with others of our own gender.  I don't see it as an affliction or disease, but as a way of being.  I don't know why some of God's children feel this way and I don't know how much of it is a learned behavior and how much of it is not.  

Humanity has had a recognized plan from God for over six thousand years - God created man in his image and likeness - now go and multiply.  Where in that command are humans with SSA?  How do they fit?  You answer the question because you reject any answer I have been able to provide.  

I say with certainty that God created us with a plan - this life is a trial designed to test if we will choose to overcome the carnal nature of man and take up the cross and follow the Holy One of Israel.  We each get to choose and no one will be left out of that choice.  You are determined to force everyone to accept that having SSA is an eternal way of being and that for you individually to be happy requires that God recognize you as a gay man with a gay lover and that you get to be gay for eternity.  If not, then it is not heaven and it is not happiness. You limit God and deny any desire to be in union with him IF it means you forfeit your own stipulations of how God must be and must accept you on your own terms.  Don't you see the conflict of that position?  Who else gets to go to heaven with "demand list" and be recognized as as joint-heir with Christ?  

For example, I want to go to heaven, but I can only be in heaven if I get my own way.  Pick your way - now God must comply or he is not God for you.  Somehow a God that invites all to come unto him and that all must sacrifice their own egos, their own will for their lives, and acknowledge God as Lord and Savior is a lesser, unloving God solely because he is unwilling to acquiesce to your wants and desires.   

Each of us came to this world with a specific set of temptations.  I think that we also learn to be tempted by the things of this world.  You are as human as everyone else is.  Your cross is not bigger and no smaller than any of God's other children.  Come, join the human race and accept that we are all alike and that there is one path to God.  

 

Storm,  I think you have outlined very clearly the church's paradigm that we have been discussing.  Clearly this plan works for you.  And I believe you have found deep happiness as has many others in this plan.  That is exactly why I encourage my children and others who experience what you have experienced to stay involved in the church.  

But, as you can see from my post above, I have had a different experience with that path.  I didn't find that happiness that you have found.  I didn't connect with God following that path that you have found.  I don't know why.  Certainly no one can say that I didn't give all my heart and soul into trying to make it work.  My life probably looked very much like yours.  Served a mission,  graduated from BYU, married in the temple, 6 kids, fulfilled every calling as faithfully as I could,  called to leadership positions, set in PEC meeting every sunday for most of those 25 years, raised a family, etc.  But, I now firmly believe that while this path works so well for some, it doesn't for others.  There are other paths that bring others closer to God, away from the one you are on.  I spend a lot of my lifetime traveling around the world.  I have seen other faiths embraced just as fully as you have embraced the church.  And I have seen those faiths bring that same joy and happiness to those individuals and those families.  I have seen them pray in their great cathedrals and temples, with the light of soft candle light on faces that are just as devout and sincere as any I have ever seen in the LDS church.

I remember once being in a Buddhist temple.  There was a kind priest there blessing the people.  He had a bundle of reeds that he would dip in water and then sprinkle it on the person that knelt before him.  The priest would then take a small string and tie it around the person's wrist.  They were never to take it off.  It was to remind them to be kind to others, exhibit full charity and remind them of their devotion and promises to God.  When all the people were gone, he looked over at me standing in the corner, observing all that had happened and he motioned me over to him.  I was a little surprised, but I went over to him.  He took the reeds, dipped it in water, sprinkled me and then tied the string around my wrist as well.  I was so touched that he would include me, obviously a westerner who was not of his faith.  It didn't matter to him.  His message was for everyone.  I wore that string on my wrist for almost two years before it finally fell off.  It reminded me daily to include others in my life that may not be like me,  It reminded me to be kind to others, practice charity to all and stay devoted to God.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are such a very small tiny fraction of the number of people who have ever been born.  If we can not accept that there might not be other paths back to God, then we have to accept the fact that being a member of the church is of little or no importance to God.  If being a member of the church in this life is important to the plan of happiness, then one also has to accept the fact that this plan of happiness is a complete and utter failure.  Even in the Mormon paradigm, all the significant work has to happen after death.  Members of the church believe that in the end, everyone that wants entrance into God's kingdom  has to conform to their paradigm.  Others have a similar view.  God has some sorting out to do.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are LDS church leaders really trying to take away the civil rights of others, or is that actually ordinary boundary maintenance?  As usual, LDS leaders get no credit at all for their efforts to advance LGBT civil rights, but are portrayed aggressively taking legal action against same-gender couples.  Is this a true and balanced picture, or is it colored by anger?

The LDS church leaders are trying to conform all the citizens of the country to conform to their beliefs about marriage.  In order to do so, they have to do it by taking away the civil rights of gay couples.  They seem to be willing to try and do that. It is that simple.

I think all have acknowledged the efforts the church made to pass legislation that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment in the state of Utah.  But discrimination in housing still exists in this country.  There are still 31 states that allow such discrimination.  If the church has made the decision to fight discrimination against gays in employment and housing, did the church think that issue was resolved now that the state of Utah passed laws?  If the goal of the church was to increase goodwill in the state of Utah with the gay community, then they succeeded quite well.  If the goal of the church was to be a leader in fighting discrimination in housing and employment for all gays as you seem to be suggesting, then they have yet to make much of an effort outside of the state of Utah.  Can you tell me what the goal of the church is?   Because at this point, I seem to be a bit unclear.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

The LDS church leaders are trying to conform all the citizens of the country to conform to their beliefs about marriage.  In order to do so, they have to do it by taking away the civil rights of gay couples.  They seem to be willing to try and do that. It is that simple.

I think all have acknowledged the efforts the church made to pass legislation that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment in the state of Utah.  But discrimination in housing still exists in this country.  There are still 31 states that allow such discrimination.  If the church has made the decision to fight discrimination against gays in employment and housing, did the church think that issue was resolved now that the state of Utah passed laws?  If the goal of the church was to increase goodwill in the state of Utah with the gay community, then they succeeded quite well.  If the goal of the church was to be a leader in fighting discrimination in housing and employment for all gays as you seem to be suggesting, then they have yet to make much of an effort outside of the state of Utah.  Can you tell me what the goal of the church is?   Because at this point, I seem to be a bit unclear.

I suggested no such thing, and your summary of what the LDS leaders have in fact done in Utah seems more balanced than the angry comments you made before.  The LDS Church has taken a principled stand, which we both applaud, and it can be applied anywhere.  At the same time, I see no current effort by LDS leaders to take away the civil liberties of members of the LGBT community.   Even their past efforts to pass marriage legislation (such as Prop 8 in California) are no longer relevant.  Why?  For the same reason that Pres Obama no longer argues for such marriage legislation (which he did when he came into office).  Anyone with a lick of sense can see that the law has changed and that public opinion (including Mormon opinion) has changed.  Such change is good and will continue.

You ask about the goal of the LDS Church.  For you it seems unclear.  I would prefer to speak of "goals" plural, and to focus on some of the primary goals, beginning with the Plan of Happiness (which is the focus of this thread).  Everything the LDS Church does is presumably in furtherance of that main goal.  But, how that shakes out in practice is what interests us here.  Does that make sense, california boy?

[UtahTexan]

On 7/18/2016 at 11:05 AM, Jeanne said:

I believe that God will be a harsher judge to those of have judged gay people than the judgement of gays themselves.  Why not just judge on the kindness and contribution to this life on earth?

Define judge  Do you mean like I have seen you do?  or like you accuse others of doing?

Just curious

[UtahTexan]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

The LDS church leaders are trying to conform all the citizens of the country to conform to their beliefs about marriage.  In order to do so, they have to do it by taking away the civil rights of gay couples.  They seem to be willing to try and do that. It is that simple.

I think all have acknowledged the efforts the church made to pass legislation that prohibits discrimination in housing and employment in the state of Utah.  But discrimination in housing still exists in this country.  There are still 31 states that allow such discrimination.  If the church has made the decision to fight discrimination against gays in employment and housing, did the church think that issue was resolved now that the state of Utah passed laws?  If the goal of the church was to increase goodwill in the state of Utah with the gay community, then they succeeded quite well.  If the goal of the church was to be a leader in fighting discrimination in housing and employment for all gays as you seem to be suggesting, then they have yet to make much of an effort outside of the state of Utah.  Can you tell me what the goal of the church is?   Because at this point, I seem to be a bit unclear.

 

The LDS Church has standards developed by God.  Accept it or don't

I am not "against" gays.  Though I am not in favor of gay "marriage"....I have always been in favor of some sort of union where the couple are entitled to the same governmental benefits that married couple receive.  I have two really good friends....they are gays who have been together almost 30 years.  That is amazing.  They SHOULD be allowed to receive tax benefits, etc.  They should have the same governmental advantages I enjoy with my wife.

My very best friend in college is gay.  He and his partner have been together almost 15 years.  They should also have those benefits.

But the Church needs to stand firm with what Heavenly Father has decreed.  And the constant bickering is getting old.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suggested no such thing, and your summary of what the LDS leaders have in fact done in Utah seems more balanced than the angry comments you made before.  The LDS Church has taken a principled stand, which we both applaud, and it can be applied anywhere.  At the same time, I see no current effort by LDS leaders to take away the civil liberties of members of the LGBT community.   Even their past efforts to pass marriage legislation (such as Prop 8 in California) are no longer relevant.  Why?  For the same reason that Pres Obama no longer argues for such marriage legislation (which he did when he came into office).  Anyone with a lick of sense can see that the law has changed and that public opinion (including Mormon opinion) has changed.  Such change is good and will continue.

You ask about the goal of the LDS Church.  For you it seems unclear.  I would prefer to speak of "goals" plural, and to focus on some of the primary goals, beginning with the Plan of Happiness (which is the focus of this thread).  Everything the LDS Church does is presumably in furtherance of that main goal.  But, how that shakes out in practice is what interests us here.  Does that make sense, california boy?

I would have agreed with you until the recent efforts by the church to push back on pending legislation in Mexico and the vote coming up in Australia asking the members to get involved in fighting gay marriage..  Sadly, the church seems to be picking up again right where they left off with Prop 8. They are just doing it in other countries.  To what extent remains to be seen.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would have agreed with you until the recent efforts by the church to push back on pending legislation in Mexico and the vote coming up in Australia asking the members to get involved in fighting gay marriage..  Sadly, the church seems to be picking up again right where they left off with Prop 8. They are just doing it in other countries.  To what extent remains to be seen.

So the message to the Church is . . . what, exactly?  "Stick to your principles!  Unless I personally disagree with them, in which case you should not stick with your principles, and should instead capitulate to my worldview, and either vote the way I want you to vote or abstain from voting in ways I do not like."

I'm not sure I understand your position.  You say you respect the Church and its principles, but then you object to the Church expressing a viewpoint based on those principles.  How does that work?

-Smac

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

The LDS Church has standards developed by God.  Accept it or don't

I am not "against" gays.  Though I am not in favor of gay "marriage"....I have always been in favor of some sort of union where the couple are entitled to the same governmental benefits that married couple receive.  I have two really good friends....they are gays who have been together almost 30 years.  That is amazing.  They SHOULD be allowed to receive tax benefits, etc.  They should have the same governmental advantages I enjoy with my wife.

My very best friend in college is gay.  He and his partner have been together almost 15 years.  They should also have those benefits.

But the Church needs to stand firm with what Heavenly Father has decreed.  And the constant bickering is getting old.  

I understand the church having standards that they believe were given to them by God.  I am fine with that.  My issue is when the church starts to deny people their civil rights in order for ordinary citizens that do not share their belief that God has developed standards to conform to the church's standards.  That is just wrong and I believe more in keeping with the plan Satan proposed where he wanted to force everyone to live the gospel.

Your friends deserve more than the tax benefits.  They deserve the right to marry just like every other citizen in this country.  They deserve to be treated equally under the law despite your own personal religious beliefs.  Fortunately the Supreme Court and every other court in this country agrees.  No one should be denied their civil rights because of yours or anyone else's religious beliefs. Why you or anyone else would believe that their own personal religious beliefs should be used to deny anyone their civil rights is really beyond my understanding.  I just don't get that kind of thinking, any more than I understand why Jews would all the sudden start outlawing ham in this country because they think it is the dietary standard given to them by God.  Sorry, but people can decide for themselves if they want bacon with their eggs in the morning.  Religion doesn't get to dictate other peoples behaviors 

I know you have heard all of this before.  And I understand why you don't want gay marriage for yourself or others in the church, But I take it your friends are not members of the church.  For the life of me, I don't understand why you would say that your gay friends are only entitled to the tax benefits of  marriage and not entitled to be legally married.  The Mormon church has nothing at ALL to do with their marriage.  The government does.  It is government recognition of their marriage, not church recognition of their marriage.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I understand the church having standards that they believe were given to them by God.  I am fine with that.  My issue is when the church starts to deny people their civil rights in order for ordinary citizens that do not share their belief that God has developed standards to conform to the church's standards.  That is just wrong and I believe more in keeping with the plan Satan proposed where he wanted to force everyone to live the gospel.

Your friends deserve more than the tax benefits.  They deserve the right to marry just like every other citizen in this country.  They deserve to be treated equally under the law despite your own personal religious beliefs.  Fortunately the Supreme Court and every other court in this country agrees.  No one should be denied their civil rights because of yours or anyone else's religious beliefs. Why you or anyone else would believe that their own personal religious beliefs should be used to deny anyone their civil rights is really beyond my understanding.  I just don't get that kind of thinking, any more than I understand why Jews would all the sudden start outlawing ham in this country because they think it is the dietary standard given to them by God.  Sorry, but people can decide for themselves if they want bacon with their eggs in the morning.  Religion doesn't get to dictate other peoples behaviors 

I know you have heard all of this before.  And I understand why you don't want gay marriage for yourself or others in the church, But I take it your friends are not members of the church.  For the life of me, I don't understand why you would say that your gay friends are only entitled to the tax benefits of  marriage and not entitled to be legally married.  The Mormon church has nothing at ALL to do with their marriage.  The government does.  It is government recognition of their marriage, not church recognition of their marriage.

I did not say just tax benefits.  I believe they should receive the same benefits married couples do.  I do not believe they should be allowed to "marry".  I believe marriage is between a man and woman.  They can call it a union or whatever.....I just believe "marriage" is between a man and woman.

As to anything else, The Church should be able to decide how it wants its rules and regulations to be and you are free to belong or not belong.  The whining should stop.  I will say what I said when I was Catholic to those who supported abortion....."if you want to be Catholic...be Catholic...and accept and follow all Catholic teachings.  Otherwise, be something else.  No one is making you be Catholic."

Same for those here.  The LDS Church has its rules and standards.  Either belong and follow them, or do not belong.  No one is forcing anyone to be LDS.  So....make a choice....and stop whining.  

BTW....my "stop whining" is not directed at you personally....but a general statement to all who keep complaining......it is what it is....

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I understand the church having standards that they believe were given to them by God.  I am fine with that.  My issue is when the church starts to deny people their civil rights in order for ordinary citizens that do not share their belief that God has developed standards to conform to the church's standards.  

Do you see how slanted and unfair "deny{ing} people their civil rights" sounds?  Particularly since what you are describing is people exercising constitutional rights by participating in the legislative process?

You object to the Church and its members exercising their constitutional rights.  That does not seem appropriate or healthy.  It's not like the Church and its members have been resorting to violence, or threats, or coercion, or anything other than completely lawful behavior.

I am reminded of this story about Tom Hanks expressing a similar attitude toward us:

Quote

Tom Hanks says he's sorry he told FOXNews.com that Mormons who supported California's constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage were "un-American."

"Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California's Proposition 8 as 'un-American,'" the actor said in a statement through his publicist. "I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination."

"But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American," the statement continues. "To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are 'un-American' creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use 'un- American' lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have."

I hope some day you can come to a place wherein you do not object to Latter-day Saints exercising their right to "vote their conscience."

Quote

That is just wrong and I believe more in keeping with the plan Satan proposed where he wanted to force everyone to live the gospel.

Right.  Latter-day Saints who disagree with you about same-sex marriage, and who dare to vote in a way you don't like, are satanic.

Such a pleasant conversation.

Quote

Why you or anyone else would believe that their own personal religious beliefs should be used to deny anyone their civil rights is really beyond my understanding.  

And rather than seek to understand what you presently do not, you attribute the worst, most evil of motives to us.  You literally accuse us of having satanic motives.

And what's really weird is that our position is actually pretty straightforward, and pretty easy to understand.  And yet here you are, professing both ignorance on your part and - in that admitted position of ignorance - attributing satanic motives to us.  (Are the majority of Californians who in 2008 voted in a way you don't like re: Prop 8 likewise satanic?  Or is that just a special accusation you reserve for the Mormons?)

I disagree with Tom Hanks, but at least he got it.  At least he called for "respectful disagreement."  

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2016 by smac97

[kllindley]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

Kin, I think you have clearly outlined you paradigm on this issues, as I hope I have as well.  We all have different experiences in life that help form those beliefs.  For you, your marriage has achieved the results you were hoping for, so you think it is possible for anyone to follow the path that you have forged.  Remember I too was married for over 25 years.   You can not say that I didn't earnestly try that same path.  I also had those same hopes and dreams the things would work out and I would be able to have the solution that you found.  But for me, it didn't work out that way.  I never could make it work.  I felt it was a deceiving way of living and actually felt it was immoral to have sexual relations with someone I wasn't deeply connected with.  I never got that connection.   I began to understand that for me, being gay was not something I could or even have to change.  I began to feel that what I was doing was causing me to pull further away from God and not closer to him.  I finally knew that I had to do what was probably the hardest thing I have ever done in my life.  I had to be honest with my family, my friends, the church and most importantly with God.  So I came out to everyone.  It was like this burden that I had been carrying around with me for my  whole life was lifted.  It felt like I was reborn literally.  This sense of happiness flooded my soul.  And through it all, a deep sense that God was with me.  I knew without a doubt that I was on the path that God had for me.

So our journeys are very dissimilar.  I hope you can see why I believe what I do.  I don't be so presumptuous to tell you that you are on the wrong path and that you are not living an authentic life.  I only support you on the journey you are on.  I hope you would do the same for me.  But it is your choice, and in the end, it no longer matters to me what others think of my relationship with God.  

 

I can see why you believe what you do.  I don't think I have anywhere tried to tell you that you are on the wrong path.  I have spoken up for years in defense of the right and need of each person to live their own life as they judge best.  I have vocally expressed that even as I believe that the Church is true, I also believe that God's plan for many LGBT individuals may be to leave the Church and pursue same-sex relationships.  I believe in a God who is powerful enough to work everything out, even when I can't.  That is why I am surprised that you accuse me of thinking that because I have been blessed with success it is possible for anyone to follow the same path.  That would indeed be presumptuous.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I understand the church having standards that they believe were given to them by God.  I am fine with that.  My issue is when the church starts to deny people their civil rights in order for ordinary citizens that do not share their belief that God has developed standards to conform to the church's standards.  That is just wrong and I believe more in keeping with the plan Satan proposed where he wanted to force everyone to live the gospel.

Your friends deserve more than the tax benefits.  They deserve the right to marry just like every other citizen in this country.  They deserve to be treated equally under the law despite your own personal religious beliefs.  Fortunately the Supreme Court and every other court in this country agrees.  No one should be denied their civil rights because of yours or anyone else's religious beliefs. Why you or anyone else would believe that their own personal religious beliefs should be used to deny anyone their civil rights is really beyond my understanding.  I just don't get that kind of thinking, any more than I understand why Jews would all the sudden start outlawing ham in this country because they think it is the dietary standard given to them by God.  Sorry, but people can decide for themselves if they want bacon with their eggs in the morning.  Religion doesn't get to dictate other peoples behaviors 

I know you have heard all of this before.  And I understand why you don't want gay marriage for yourself or others in the church, But I take it your friends are not members of the church.  For the life of me, I don't understand why you would say that your gay friends are only entitled to the tax benefits of  marriage and not entitled to be legally married.  The Mormon church has nothing at ALL to do with their marriage.  The government does.  It is government recognition of their marriage, not church recognition of their marriage.

I wish you would acknowledge that not every one agreed that there was an unquestionable Civil Right to marry whomever you want.  The legal argument in Oberfell V Hodges was that gay people existed as a separate class, whose only way to access the civil institution of marriage was through a marriage to a same-sex partner.  This argument rests on the assumption of an essentialist theory of sexual orientation.  While I accept that a narrow 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court decided to accept the essentialist narrative as legally true, that doesn't mean that it is ontologically or morally true.