bluebell Posted March 21, 2017 Author Posted March 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: In my family, this portion of the Oaks/Wickman interview on the LDS Newsroom in the fall of 2006 was cited by some members of my family as justification for some of my family members' ongoing refusal to be in the same room with me, and prohibit their spouses and family members from doing the same: I'm grateful that this new video tempers that previously released newsroom interview. I was thinking of this specific interview when i saw this video. I know that people have used it to show that the church teaches we should shun gay family members so to me, this new video is a clarification that is very much needed. 1
Ahab Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gray said: It's between a man and multiple women. No one is claiming that the women have relationships with each other, but the man has relationships with multiple women. The marriage relationship is but not the sexual relations aspect of a righteous polygamous marriage. The sexual relations aspect of a righteous polygamous marriage is still only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. By God's definition of marriage. The world need not agree.
Johnnie Cake Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, bluebell said: Think about something that you sincerely believe is wrong. Then think about someone you love doing it? Would it be offensive for you to continue to love them while still believing their actions are wrong? Only because I respect you as a sincere valued member of this board, I'm going to answer the question that you asked. It would not be offensive to continue to love them irrespective of whatever their actions were even those actions that I might disagree with or those which I personally would have chosen not to make for myself. Unlike God my love is unconditional....that does not mean that a loved one could not offend me, only that I would continue to love them irrespective of their choices. Edited March 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Gray Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 26 minutes ago, Ahab said: The marriage relationship is but not the sexual relations aspect of a righteous polygamous marriage. The sexual relations aspect of a righteous polygamous marriage is still only between a man and a woman who are married to each other. By God's definition of marriage. The world need not agree. No, you're wrong there. The man has a sexual relationship with multiple women. But by your math there's no such thing as a polygamist. "Sir, how many wives do you have." "One" "But aren't you married to Jane and Deb?" "Yes." "But that means you have two wives." "I have one wife. I also have one wife. They're discrete relationships." Any polygamist might feel justified in his temple recommend interview with this creative accounting.
Guest Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 55 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: In my family, this portion of the Oaks/Wickman interview on the LDS Newsroom in the fall of 2006 was cited by some members of my family as justification for some of my family members' ongoing refusal to be in the same room with me, and prohibit their spouses and family members from doing the same: Wow, nothing like naming a source as to "what might have" caused the "policy" to maybe exists. Just not fair, and quoting it to me the parent of a gay child as a source.
Ahab Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, Gray said: No, you're wrong there. The man has a sexual relationship with multiple women. Not at the same time. Only with one wife at a time in a righteous polygamous marriage. It's not an orgy. There is only one wife together with her one husband, one of each at a time.
Johnnie Cake Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: That's part of the point, but not all of it. I do believe we should be careful about pulling motes out of other's eyes when we have beams in our own eyes, but when we love others we should try to help them, too, while we still work on ourselves. With all due respect you'd make an absolutely horrible Bishop...pray to what ever that that never happens...but if it does...I pray for who ever has to confess to you Edited March 21, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Have fun in that imaginary paradise of yours, good buddy. I wish you well. The only problem is, since you are quite wrong, that all the rest of us are going to be jostled and shoved down the road to oblivion which you have chosen for yourself and for the rest of us. Kind of like Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, which was well-intentioned but completely wrong. Kind of like having our future determined by the Donald. And I don't mean Donald Duck. Why not step out into the light Robert....its a beautiful day and the sun is shining...Life is absolutely amazing
Ahab Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: With all due respect you'd make an absolutely horrible Bishop...pray to what ever that never happens...but if it does...I pray for who ever has to confess to you I will pray for you too.
Johnnie Cake Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: And you've made the point before how you don't think that's a valid way to answer questions. Is there some reason you are refusing to answer it? Maybe because your answer would show how it's not actually offensive to love someone while hating choices they've made that you believe are wrong? just catching up to this post...but I did already answer this question. If I ever somehow inferred that it is offensive to love someone when they make a choice I disapprove of that was never my intent...
Johnnie Cake Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Ahab said: I will pray for you too. Honestly, I would prefer you don't...
Ahab Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 Just now, Johnnie Cake said: Honestly, I would prefer you don't... I will anyway. And I love you too.
Daniel2 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: Wow, nothing like naming a source as to "what might have" caused the "policy" to maybe exists. Just not fair, and quoting it to me the parent of a gay child as a source. Hi, PaPa, I have always appreciated the loving example you've provided as you've described your support for your daughter while simultaneously being true to your personal beliefs. I'm not sure I understand your response above. It seems as if I may have caused offense....? If that's the case, I am sorry--that wasn't my intention, nor did I intend to be "not fair." I was trying to provide context within the thread to in a general sense for those reading here as to how some church members have interpreted that interview as advice suggesting that they shouldn't accept their LGBT family members and their significant others or welcome them into their homes. Could you help me understand a little more what you meant by your comments above and if I offended you...? Again, I apologize if so. Thanks, Daniel Edited March 21, 2017 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I was thinking of this specific interview when i saw this video. I know that people have used it to show that the church teaches we should shun gay family members so to me, this new video is a clarification that is very much needed. Sounds like we were both thinking along the same lines, too! I agree. Thanks for sharing!
JLHPROF Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Only because I respect you as a sincere valued member of this board, I'm going to answer the question that you asked. It would not be offensive to continue to love them irrespective of whatever their actions were even those actions that I might disagree with or those which I personally would have chosen not to make for myself. Unlike God my love is unconditional....that does not mean that a loved one could not offend me, only that I would continue to love them irrespective of their choices. God's love is unconditional too. I don't know where you are getting the idea that God ever stops loving any of his children. His love is unconditional in the same way as yours: "....that does not mean that a loved one could not offend God, only that He would continue to love them irrespective of their choices."
canard78 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: What is considered a sin by society does change from one generation to the next. God however does not look at the calendar to decide what is sin and what is not sin. Mixed race marriage? Sin or no sin? Ever a sin or never a sin? If a prophet calls it "repugnant" and "against's God's doctrine" does that make it a sin or no sin? 1
canard78 Posted March 21, 2017 Posted March 21, 2017 On 3/20/2017 at 10:03 PM, Meadowchik said: I'd say the messages are mixed: "The devil has been called “the great deceiver.” He attempts to counterfeit every true principle the Lord presents. Remember, counterfeits are not the same as opposites. The opposite of white is black, but a counterfeit for white might be o -white or gray. Counterfeits bear a resem- blance to the real thing in order to deceive unsuspecting people. They are a twisted version of something good, and just like counterfeit money, they are worthless. Let me illustrate. One of Satan’s counterfeits for faith is superstition. His counterfeit for love is lust. He counterfeits the priesthood by introducing priestcraft, and he imitates God’s miracles by means of sorcery. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, but same-sex marriage is only a counterfeit. It brings neither posterity nor exaltation. Although his imitations deceive many people, they are not the real thing. They cannot bring lasting happiness. God warned us about counterfeits in the Doctrine and Covenants. He said, “That which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness” (D&C 50:23)." From "The War Goes On" by Elder Larry R. Lawrence http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/magazines/ensign-april-2017/2017-04-00-ensign-eng.pdf I was having a conversation with someone about this today. I would be interested to know who the senior editorial lead is for the Ensign and for the youtube channel. I'd be surprised if they both reported to the same source. The Ensign seems to be a far more orthodox version of mormonism than what is depicted in the social/video platforms. I wonder if this is coordinated and intentional, based on the different audience (Gen X vs Gen Y and Z) or if this is more a symptom of the different attitudes of the leading general authorities on those projects. It certainly seems like there are factions within the LDS leadership, pulling in different directions. If that's the case, I hope the progressives prevail. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Why not step out into the light Robert....its a beautiful day and the sun is shining...Life is absolutely amazing Hey, johnnie: Lala Land is a Hollywood musical film. Not quite the real world.
Johnnie Cake Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: God's love is unconditional too. I don't know where you are getting the idea that God ever stops loving any of his children. His love is unconditional in the same way as yours: "....that does not mean that a loved one could not offend God, only that He would continue to love them irrespective of their choices." Seems Elder Nelson disagrees with you and agrees with me... Quote Divine Love Is Also Conditional While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. The word does not appear in the scriptures. On the other hand, many verses affirm that the higher levels of love the Father and the Son feel for each of us—and certain divine blessings stemming from that love—are conditional.Before citing examples, it is well to recognize various forms of conditional expression in the scriptures. - Elder Russel M Nelson
Johnnie Cake Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hey, johnnie: Lala Land is a Hollywood musical film. Not quite the real world. Where's Robert F. Smith and what have you done with him? 1
Gray Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Ahab said: Not at the same time. Only with one wife at a time in a righteous polygamous marriage. It's not an orgy. There is only one wife together with her one husband, one of each at a time. Polygamists are married to multiple women at the same time. If "true" marriage is between a man and a woman, polygamy isn't "true" marriage. The man has a relationship with multiple women. I have a ten dollar bill in my pocked. Would it be honest to say I have one dollar, since I technically do have one dollar (I just omitted the other nine dollars)? No, that's deceptive. Edited March 22, 2017 by Gray 1
JLHPROF Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Seems Elder Nelson disagrees with you and agrees with me... He's as entitled to be wrong as anyone.
Ahab Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 28 minutes ago, Gray said: Polygamists are married to multiple women at the same time. If "true" marriage is between a man and a woman, polygamy isn't "true" marriage. Um, polygamy is true marriage multipled by however many wives or husbands there are in each particular polygamous marriage. One marriage, of the polygamous kind, with however many wives or husbands there are in it. But that was not the point I was making earlier. My point then was that in a righteous polygamous marriage there is only 1 man and 1 woman having sexual relations together at any one particular time. It is a private time for a man to bond with 1 of his wives in sexual union and the other wives respect their privacy at that time. Rather than it being an orgy with the man havin sexual relations with more than 1 wife at the same time. I hope I have now made this clear enough for you to understand this time. My point was a simple one and I had no idea it would be so hard for you to understand.
Gray Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Um, polygamy is true marriage multipled by however many wives or husbands there are in each particular polygamous marriage. One marriage, of the polygamous kind, with however many wives or husbands there are in it. But that was not the point I was making earlier. My point then was that in a righteous polygamous marriage there is only 1 man and 1 woman having sexual relations together at any one particular time. It is a private time for a man to bond with 1 of his wives in sexual union and the other wives respect their privacy at that time. Rather than it being an orgy with the man havin sexual relations with more than 1 wife at the same time. I hope I have now made this clear enough for you to understand this time. My point was a simple one and I had no idea it would be so hard for you to understand. But you didn't say that righteous marriage was about a man having sex with only one woman at a time. There are many philandering men who can meet that standard. Math is not your friend, Ahab. If it's between a man and a woman, then polygamy is out. Edited March 22, 2017 by Gray
Ahab Posted March 22, 2017 Posted March 22, 2017 12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Seems Elder Nelson disagrees with you and agrees with me... Elder Nelson was talking about higher levels of love and associated blessings from that greater love which are conditional. But he still loves everybody and Elder Nelson said so himself in that same address: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/02/divine-love?lang=eng "Divine Love and the Sinner Does this mean the Lord does not love the sinner? Of course not. Divine love is infinite and universal. The Savior loves both saints and sinners."...
Recommended Posts