Gay Beehive Delivers Prepared Speech in F&T Meeting - Ends as Expected

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

How many gay people do you know dream of the day they can become heterosexual?  Perhaps there are some. And if they are, then they should go for it.  Quite honestly, I don't meet many gays that want to become straight.  

Speaking as one who was reared completely outside the social constructions of what has become dominant Western culture, I have zero desire to become heterosexual, homosexual or any other off-the-rack identity (sexual or otherwise). It all sounds like rather heavy chains to me. I'm quite happy to be a free agent instead, and in my case (because I've chosen it by covenant), that means the liberty to become whatever God in His eternal wisdom desires me to be.

To each, his/her own, I guess. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

"would be so indescribably beautiful and perfect in every way"

If this is based off physical appearance, then very few of us are going to look anything like we do in this life.

If, otoh, the source of the sensation of beauty is the entire being, physical appearance may matter little in the end.  If, for example, the impression of overwhelming beauty came from a light that issued from a being, the physical body of that being could be quite nondescript and yet we would perceive a being of beauty.  If our minds are so open that we could 'see' a person's wisdom and love or their personality, that might very well replace facial features in how we tell each other apart.

I used the phrase "in every way" because that's how I meant my comment to be taken. Not just in every physical way, but in every way whatsoever.

But I expect that each and every one of us will look far better than we do in this life.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't read the quote as about eternal sexual attraction at all.  To me it is evidence of something else.  And my comment was suggesting why it might be as BY described.

In our culture, symmetrical features are generally seen as more beautiful.  Does that mean asymmetry is a physical blemish even if perfectly functional and healthy and will be removed or will it be our perception of beauty that changes?  I lean heavily towards the latter, though I am hoping to gain a few inches to my 5'5" to balance the size of my skull (which follows my 6'2" father more than my 5'3" mother).

This interpretation is in part because BY was from a Protestant background and would have, imo, a natural disinclination to think of angels in terms of sexual beauty.  I may be assuming something I shouldn't, but perception of "beauty" certainly isn't restricted or even mainly a sexual experience.

I think we are pretty much on the same page. Except that I believe there will be physical perfection along with every other kind of perfection.

 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I used the phrase "in every way" because that's how I meant my comment to be taken. Not just in every physical way, but in every way whatsoever.

But I expect that each and every one of us will look far better than we do in this life.

I know that you used "every way".  I just believe the very limited physical aspect we now see, a short range of colours, will be a very small part of our experience in the future, perhaps our sight will  expand to all wavelengths or perhaps it will just amount to that level of difference.

It is possible certainly that we will look nothing like we do now, though Jesus was not described as physically stunningly gorgeous after resurrection.  Perhaps we will be the same save for changing of actual dysfunctional or damaged attributes (scars, lack of limbs, etc).  Perhaps it will instead be our perception that changes, we will see things as they are, not through a glass darkly.

I find the distinction of physical beauty rather meaningless because I don't believe our perception of matter is much more accurate than a dog or possibly an ant.  Think of how a trained artist can enjoy a masterpiece in comparison to an untrained, colorblind observer with such bad eyesight it looks like blurry blobs even with the best of glasses.

That is what our perception is like in mortality, blurry blobs of grey, imo.  When we can see in detail, in full glorious color, would we even react in the same way we react to the grey?  Will what appealed to us in grey blobs have any impact on our thoughts of the glory we now behold and fully comprehend and experience?

I get the impression from some that resurrection will ultimately be like going to the best plastic surgeon, that we will have to be altered to become beautiful rather than just discovering that we already were once the smudges are all burned off by God's refining power.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My default assumption is that when the prophets and apostles speak and act with one accord as pertaining to the administration of and teaching within the Church of Jesus Christ, they do so under inspiration from Him whose Church bears His name.

If they were to send you a letter explicitly telling you it was a revelation from God, would it change your mind?

So has Elder Oaks opinion been embraced by the entire quorum?  I haven't heard that it has.  If it hasn't would you consider it a revelation?

In answer to your second question, I think I answered that question just a couple of posts up.

Quote

 

And can you then tell me what the great reward to being without the most important human connection on this earth is after a celibate gay man dies is?  Is the church now telling gay men that while our previous "from the mouth of God" if you only marry a woman then you will become straight.  Now we have changed that since that didn't really work out did it.  So now "from the mouth of God" you will marry a woman after you die, THEN you will become straight.

Fool me once . . . 

 

I have been told too many times that church leaders speak for God when it has turned out that they didn't.  Confirmation comes from the Spirit, not from a letter from church headquarters.  

Edited June 22, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why do so many deride as ignorant the notion that someone, given the choice between being gay and straight, would choose to be gay?

I am not sure who you are talking about here?  Or what you are saying you believe.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

"So all that assertion that there must be a man and a woman to have eternal offspring is just nonsense after all?"

I think he is saying that it may not be sexual attraction that leads people to want to be together or procreate in the next life.  There may be another form of love.

I believe this myself.  I think we will be so aware of the other as an individual, that generic sexual attributes will have little to no impact on why we love another as they do now.

I believe that as well.  It is not just sexual attraction that draws us to the person we want to share our life with.  While that may be the beginning of the relationship, it is not what sustains the relationship.  

But there is something far more that takes place.  I am not even sure what that is.  Why is it that we can love and admire someone very deeply but still only remain friends?  I was in a heterosexual relationship with someone that was a very kind and loving person.  Someone I still admire very much today.  Yet our relationship could never come together.  I have been with my boyfriend for 9 years.  From the very  beginning I feel in love.  That love has only gotten deeper and more complete.  I could give up all sexual relations with him tomorrow.  It would not change how I feel about him one bit.  We would still be together and I would still be deeply in love with him.  

And I certainly don't have a desire to procreate with him.  If that was the motivator, I obviously would not be with him but would have found this connection with my former wife. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I know that you used "every way".  I just believe the very limited physical aspect we now see, a short range of colours, will be a very small part of our experience in the future, perhaps our sight will  expand to all wavelengths or perhaps it will just amount to that level of difference.

It is possible certainly that we will look nothing like we do now, though Jesus was not described as physically stunningly gorgeous after resurrection.  Perhaps we will be the same save for changing of actual dysfunctional or damaged attributes (scars, lack of limbs, etc).  Perhaps it will instead be our perception that changes, we will see things as they are, not through a glass darkly.

I find the distinction of physical beauty rather meaningless because I don't believe our perception of matter is much more accurate than a dog or possibly an ant.  Think of how a trained artist can enjoy a masterpiece in comparison to an untrained, colorblind observer with such bad eyesight it looks like blurry blobs even with the best of glasses.

That is what our perception is like in mortality, blurry blobs of grey, imo.  When we can see in detail, in full glorious color, would we even react in the same way we react to the grey?  Will what appealed to us in grey blobs have any impact on our thoughts of the glory we now behold and fully comprehend and experience?

I get the impression from some that resurrection will ultimately be like going to the best plastic surgeon, that we will have to be altered to become beautiful rather than just discovering that we already were once the smudges are all burned off by God's refining power.

Quote

 

Scott:

It's just that I have always imagined that an exalted woman -- any exalted woman -- would be so indescribably beautiful and perfect in every way, not just physically, that I would have no problem whatsoever being matched with her -- assuming I myself had attained exaltation.

You didn't really say what you think of the Brigham Young quote. Did you notice I looked it up and pasted it in verbatim as an addendum to my post? I don't believe Brother Brigham is referring merely, or even primarily, to sexual attraction here -- if he is referring to sexual attraction at all. That said, bear in mind that in the resurrection, all physical blemishes of mortality will be removed.

 

I am pretty much on the same page as you on this Calm.  I have problems with Scott's beliefs

There is something huge missing in this that I don't quite understand.  If what Scott is saying is true, we will see so much light and goodness in those that have been exalted that we could be with anyone, why even have temple marriage?  Why are we even given the choice of who we will spend eternity with while we are in this mortal state.  Wouldn't it be a much more enlightened time to make that choice after we are exalted?  The church teaches, and perhaps it is the very core value of church doctrine that temple marriage is eternal.  But why?  If we could be with anyone who is exalted, why choose anyone?  why choose in mortality?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I know that you used "every way".  I just believe the very limited physical aspect we now see, a short range of colours, will be a very small part of our experience in the future, perhaps our sight will  expand to all wavelengths or perhaps it will just amount to that level of difference.It is possible certainly that we will look nothing like we do now, though Jesus was not described as physically stunningly gorgeous after resurrection.  

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. There is this passage from Isaiah 53:

Quote

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender ^aplant, and as a ^broot out of a ^cdry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no ^dbeauty that we should desire him.

But I had always understood that to be a prophecy pertaining to His life in mortality, not His resurrection. That His physical appearance in mortality would not be so extraordinary that one would think HIm to be the Messiah from his appearance alone.
 

Quote

 

Perhaps we will be the same save for changing of actual dysfunctional or damaged attributes (scars, lack of limbs, etc).  Perhaps it will instead be our perception that changes, we will see things as they are, not through a glass darkly.

I find the distinction of physical beauty rather meaningless because I don't believe our perception of matter is much more accurate than a dog or possibly an ant.  Think of how a trained artist can enjoy a masterpiece in comparison to an untrained, colorblind observer with such bad eyesight it looks like blurry blobs even with the best of glasses.

That is what our perception is like in mortality, blurry blobs of grey, imo.  When we can see in detail, in full glorious color, would we even react in the same way we react to the grey?  Will what appealed to us in grey blobs have any impact on our thoughts of the glory we now behold and fully comprehend and experience?

I get the impression from some that resurrection will ultimately be like going to the best plastic surgeon, that we will have to be altered to become beautiful rather than just discovering that we already were once the smudges are all burned off by God's refining power.

 

I see it as more that we were already beautiful in appearance in our pre-mortal existence and that beauty will be restored and incorporated into our physical bodies once the imperfections of mortality have been removed in the resurrection. That our spiritual, not our physical, form is the baseline. If our perception can be perfected, I don't see it as inconceivable that our appearance will be as well -- part and parcel of the "smudges" being "burned off" that you speak of.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So has Elder Oaks opinion been embraced by the entire quorum?  I haven't heard that it has.  If it hasn't would you consider it a revelation? 

The fact that it has been on an official Church website for years, one that news media are invited to go to for ascertaining the position of the Church, and has never been contradicted by any member of the Quorum of the Twelve or anyone else in Church leadership tells me that they all assent to its content. Or do you have even one piece of evidence that any of them disagree with it?
 

Quote

 

In answer to your second question, I think I answered that question just a couple of posts up.

I have been told too many times that church leaders speak for God when it has turned out that they didn't.  Confirmation comes from the Spirit, not from a letter from church headquarters.

 

So it wouldn't make any difference to you whatsoever, even if you were told explicitly that this knowledge was received by revelation. You'd retain the same opinion. That's what I suspected. This repeated demand for an explicit statement of revelation is really just a debating point for you.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I am not sure who you are talking about here?  Or what you are saying you believe.

In the past, when some have incorrectly inferred that a person has chosen to be gay, the response has often been something along the lines of, "Why do you think anyone would choose this?" That given the choice, no one would choose homosexuality if they could help it.

For example, in one of the videos on the latest mormonandgay.org website (and I don't recall which one at the moment), one of the individuals profiled recounted that when his father expressed shock that his son would choose a gay orientation, that was his response.

Perhaps you would have chosen it, but I don't think you can speak for everyone on that subject.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I am pretty much on the same page as you on this Calm.  I have problems with Scott's beliefs

There is something huge missing in this that I don't quite understand.  If what Scott is saying is true, we will see so much light and goodness in those that have been exalted that we could be with anyone, why even have temple marriage?  Why are we even given the choice of who we will spend eternity with while we are in this mortal state.  Wouldn't it be a much more enlightened time to make that choice after we are exalted?  The church teaches, and perhaps it is the very core value of church doctrine that temple marriage is eternal.  But why?  If we could be with anyone who is exalted, why choose anyone?  why choose in mortality?

I see it as being one of the tests and lessons of mortality that we learn to esteem one another for more than physical attributes alone, or even in spite of them. Ideally, in the course of their marriage, a husband and wife do learn that as pertaining to each other.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. There is this passage from Isaiah 53:"

In essence what I mean is no one remarked to Christ "Death becomes you, my Lord."  There was no remarking of a significant change in any appearance from before death to post resurrection,

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. There is this passage from Isaiah 53:"

In essence what I mean is no one remarked to Christ "Death becomes you, my Lord."  There was no remarking of a significant change in any appearance from before death to post resurrection,

OK.

But don't know that such a thing is to be expected -- or that there would necessarily be record of it if it did happen.

Also, it seems the resurrection of the Lord was a special case, that He appeared to them in a form* that His disciples would recognize, including, of course, the tokens of His crucifixion, the wounds in His hands, feet and side. We know from the scripture in Alma that for the rest of us, the wounds and scars incurred in mortality will be removed, that "not one hair of their head shall be lost."

*That He could and did appear in different forms is shown by the fact that His appearance to Joseph Smith during the First Vision, for example, was far different than His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, who did not see Him as a glorified being of light and did not even recognize Him as the Jesus whom they had known in His mortality.

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

"would be so indescribably beautiful and perfect in every way"

If this is based off physical appearance, then very few of us are going to look anything like we do in this life. ...

 

Don't worry Cal.  I love you for your mind!  

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see it as being one of the tests and lessons of mortality that we learn to esteem one another for more than physical attributes alone, or even in spite of them. Ideally, in the course of their marriage, a husband and wife do learn that as pertaining to each other.

Lord, I hope so!  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Lord, I hope so!  

Sometimes I have to hope that my wife looks ahead to the day when she will see me in my resurrected and glorified state.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The fact that it has been on an official Church website for years, one that news media are invited to go to for ascertaining the position of the Church, and has never been contradicted by any member of the Quorum of the Twelve or anyone else in Church leadership tells me that they all assent to its content. Or do you have even one piece of evidence that any of them disagree with it?
 

So it wouldn't make any difference to you whatsoever, even if you were told explicitly that this knowledge was received by revelation. You'd retain the same opinion. That's what I suspected. This repeated demand for an explicit statement of revelation is really just a debating point for you.

Scott, I haven't demanded anything.  I am trying to understand your position.  I am trying to understand what you consider is a revelation from God and what is an opinion of man.  From what I am getting, you consider Elder Oaks words as the word of God because no one has corrected him.  It is perfectly fine for you to have that opinion.  It is after all your opinion.  

You have nailed my opinion on the head.  Yes it would not matter one bit if all the 12 said they agree. I have had too many times in my lifetime where church leaders have said they were speaking for God when they were not.  They lost their credibility for me long ago.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the past, when some have incorrectly inferred that a person has chosen to be gay, the response has often been something along the lines of, "Why do you think anyone would choose this?" That given the choice, no one would choose homosexuality if they could help it.

For example, in one of the videos on the latest mormonandgay.org website (and I don't recall which one at the moment), one of the individuals profiled recounted that when his father expressed shock that his son would choose a gay orientation, that was his response.

Perhaps you would have chosen it, but I don't think you can speak for everyone on that subject.

Well that is a bit of a distortion of what I mean.  I would have never chosen to be gay.  And I would also repeat the statement, "Why would anyone choose this".  But I am gay   I have lived my whole life being gay.  My earthly experience has been dramatically shifted because of this.  So much of who I am has been a result of dealing with being gay.  I am not willing to throw away the person I love so deeply and just so I can be straight.  I have learned to deal with being gay.  I have learned to live a full life with all the things that makes that life rich and fulfilling.  What is the upside now?  There is no compelling reason to give up so much just to be straight.  And I am just guessing that people won't be so anti gay in heaven.  I am hoping that people have moved beyond that kind of pettiness.

[Kenngo1969]

I believe I understand the concept of seeing beyond someone's physical attributes, a la the basic "black-letter" Scripture of, e.g., 1 Samuel 16:7 (if I can be forgiven for applying a legal term of art to Holy Writ ...  ... occupation hazard, I guess! )  I believe that; it's a true principle.  That having been said (and I'm not sure I can explain this in a way that will make sense to anyone else), while I am looking forward to certain very obvious physical imperfections being removed in the resurrection, and while I don't consider my disability to be a part of my being, nonetheless, it has made me a different person than I would have been otherwise (mostly for the better, I hope!).

I certainly can handle the idea of sloughing off physical imperfections; I welcome the prospect.  But there are some things associated, even with those imperfections, that I hope I get to take with me!  

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Scott, I haven't demanded anything.  I am trying to understand your position.  I am trying to understand what you consider is a revelation from God and what is an opinion of man.

I'm not Scott.  Obviously, your mileage varies, and his may, as well, but I consider the fact that The Family: A Proclamation to the World was signed by all of The Fifteen to be highly significant.  (Perhaps I'm simply too easily impressed! )

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not Scott.  Obviously, your mileage varies, and his may, as well, but I consider the fact that The Family: A Proclamation to the World was signed by all of The Fifteen to be highly significant.  (Perhaps I'm simply too easily impressed! )

Absolutely it is significant, and I might have mentioned it myself, but from past experience, I really don't think california boy would find it impressive. At this point I'm doubtful anything would impress him in this regard.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe I understand the concept of seeing beyond someone's physical attributes, a la the basic "black-letter" Scripture of, e.g., 1 Samuel 16:7 (if I can be forgiven for applying a legal term of art to Holy Writ ...  ... occupation hazard, I guess! )  I believe that; it's a true principle.  That having been said (and I'm not sure I can explain this in a way that will make sense to anyone else), while I am looking forward to certain very obvious physical imperfections being removed in the resurrection, and while I don't consider my disability to be a part of my being, nonetheless, it has made me a different person than I would have been otherwise (mostly for the better, I hope!).

I certainly can handle the idea of sloughing off physical imperfections; I welcome the prospect.  But there are some things associated, even with those imperfections, that I hope I get to take with me!  

Understood. And definitely understandable. But wanting to retain the growth you have experienced and the things you have gained from having the physical imperfections is not the same thing as wanting to retain the imperfections themselves.

 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe I understand the concept of seeing beyond someone's physical attributes, a la the basic "black-letter" Scripture of, e.g., 1 Samuel 16:7 (if I can be forgiven for applying a legal term of art to Holy Writ ...  ... occupation hazard, I guess! )  I believe that; it's a true principle.  That having been said (and I'm not sure I can explain this in a way that will make sense to anyone else), while I am looking forward to certain very obvious physical imperfections being removed in the resurrection, and while I don't consider my disability to be a part of my being, nonetheless, it has made me a different person than I would have been otherwise (mostly for the better, I hope!).

I certainly can handle the idea of sloughing off physical imperfections; I welcome the prospect.  But there are some things associated, even with those imperfections, that I hope I get to take with me!  

When I became LDS, things like this began to make more sense:

Ether 12:27

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their ^aweakness. I ^bgive unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my ^cgrace is sufficient for all men that ^dhumble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make ^eweak things become strong unto them.

How many time I would have given my eye tooth for a different body, but everything works, and there is always someone worse off than you...some don't get an opportunity to make anything of their lives. Now I see the plan of salvation in such a different light than when I was young and mad. Now it is something beautiful even if sometimes very hard. But it is those difficulties and things we overcome that win us a place by Yeshua's side. Otherwise, there would be no Job in the scriptures.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not Scott.  Obviously, your mileage varies, and his may, as well, but I consider the fact that The Family: A Proclamation to the World was signed by all of The Fifteen to be highly significant.  (Perhaps I'm simply too easily impressed! )

I keep reading critics saying that the proclamation was written up by the Kirton and McConkie law firm, and that it wasn't a revelation. What does the lawyer in you say about that? 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Tacenda