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

[Garden Girl]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

She seemed to object to me saying that gay couples are well situated for caring for children and that straight people do abandon their children. I'll let GG clarify her views.

 

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think we're maybe talking past each other. Did I say all gay couples are ready to take care of kids? Did I say all straight people who give their children up abandon them?

Hello Gray... 

What I objected to was your flat-out assertion that gay couples are well situated to care for the children abandoned by straight folks...

That's just it... you didn't say "most" or "many" gay couples are well situated... you said "gay couples" as if all were well situated...  so I simply pointed out that not all gay couples were well situated to care for children anymore than all heteros.

I objected to your use of the word "abandoned" when referring to children of straight folks.  I asked you if you understood how confusing and painful it was for a young girl or woman to give up a baby for adoption...  it affects most such mothers all of their lives...

GG

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Calm...

I did say "It matters to me when someone tries to drag God into it." (Homosexuality).   I was speaking generally about gays who say that God created them that way...  It is, however, what the girl said.  I opined that God didn't have anything to do with it... that IMO homosexuality was a result of something happening physiologically involving cells, genes, chromosomes. etc during development that impacted a person's sexual orientation.  I tried to convey that IMO God does not create anyone contrary to his purposes for his children.  

GG 

I got that iyo God does not create contrary to his purposes from what you said.  I think you are very clear on that.  And hopefully now I understand what you mean by "dragging God", etc.  

[Garden Girl]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I got that iyo God does not create contrary to his purposes from what you said.  I think you are very clear on that.  And hopefully now I understand what you mean by "dragging God", etc.  

I could have said "bring" God into it... meaning that some gay people like to say that God created them that way when IMO he did not nor would not...

GG

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I could have said "bring" God into it... meaning that some gay people like to say that God created them that way when IMO he did not nor would not...

GG

I don't personally have much of a problem with people saying "God made me this way" because I believe that God is the Creator and one can say he chooses to intervene or withhold his hand according to his purposes.  It is when they add "so I don't have to change in any way" that I will say "going too far there".

I just don't think that works for justification because while God called his first creations "good", he did not say the same of what happens after the Fall and indeed, we are taught that God came and suffered and died for us because none of us are perfect.

The difference for me is in what some people believe are to be changed and what is not or is neutral (guessing hair color is a neutral).  I personally believe there is much more of ourselves we will be refining than we know now, even by LDS standards.  I based this on God having an infinity of time to progress.  Refinement, advancement of what we know now probably would involve a few thousands years at most for someone particularly stubborn, but still open to change.  That means to me there is a lot going on in our beings we are not aware of.  Huge assumption, of course.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Are you saying no gay couples are well situated to caring for children, and no straight people abandon their children?

Of course God engineered homosexuality. Who else woyld have done it? As with all talk of God's action, I am speaking metaphorically of course

Some of us are fine with evolution and freedom throughout God's creation. I've never bought the idea that God micromanaged every aspect of the development of the universe. We just have faith that God can turn it to good, not that he intended every aspect of my life.

The alternative is to say that God intended every psychological flaw. Now of course it's that idea that leads people to raise the problem of evil against belief in God. After all if God intended all the evils we encounter ranging from genetic diseases, to learning disability, to diabetes and so forth, then he's accountable for them. The typical Mormon theodicy is that we came here to progress and learn by experiencing these things. But while there is a certain near Calvinist false doctrine that everything was planed exactly for us by God, such a view would make God rather evil. I think God puts us into a situation we can eventually get out of, and that we freely chose to come here. But I just don't accept that everything, especially our biology, is by God. 

It's of course understandable why some people, who are persecuted because their tendencies or appearance aren't considered normal by society really are normal. We've done that with racism. We should do it with much more. In terms of social prejudice I fully agree we should do it with homosexuality. Yet we have to be careful we don't embrace a logic that simply treats all biology as perfect. That's independent of the homosexual question of course. Just that once you go down that line, you have to accept that all biology is perfect the same way. If you say God engineered homosexuality, you have to also say by the same logic he engineered downs syndrome, muscular dystrophy and everything else in human biology. Are we willing to go there? And if we do, what kind of God is left?

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't personally have much of a problem with people saying "God made me this way" because I believe that God is the Creator and one can say he chooses to intervene or withhold his hand according to his purposes.  It is when they add "so I don't have to change in any way" that I will say "going too far there".

I just don't think that works for justification because while God called his first creations "good", he did not say the same of what happens after the Fall and indeed, we are taught that God came and suffered and died for us because none of us are perfect.

The difference for me is in what some people believe are to be changed and what is not or neutral.  I personally believe there is much more of ourselves we will be refining than we know now, even by LDS standards.  I based this on God having an infinity of time to progress.  Refinement, advancement of what we know now probably would involve a few thousands years at most for someone particularly stubborn, but still open to change.  That means to me there is a lot going on in our beings we are not aware of.  Huge assumption, of course.

When I read things like God didn't make them that way, it hurts my heart. Because I put myself in their shoes, and think what or how I would feel if someone told me God didn't make me the way I am. Or what if the gay person feels like someone is saying they were a mistake. 

How would the heterosexual feel if someone said that to them and that God didn't make them that way and they should like someone of the same sex and if they don't, then go without any kind of union. 

The people in the Bible said many things. From don't eat a certain food, to women must have long hair, to ? Too many to list. These are men speaking, how do we even know it came from God? Is God really that hateful to women to say they must be a slave to men? Or the God of the Old Testament kill off women and children. Oh, how about the talking donkey, yeah that happened for sure. How bout some of these men were prejudice or homophobes themselves. 

How come in the LDS articles of faith the Bible is only true as long as it's translated correctly. What is that specifically, can anyone say? I doubt it. And just as they dispell things in the Bible as being incorrect, could they see any room that God may have been fine with His creation of gay people. There are millions of different kinds of species in the world, and people on here believe God can't create someone gay? Seriously? The Bible says crap about alot of things, if we are going to take it all serious, several of you are breaking it right now I'm sure. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Of course God engineered homosexuality. Who else woyld have done it? As with all talk of God's action, I am speaking metaphorically of course

I am lost understanding how it can be both an absolute ("of course...") and a metaphor.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

How come in the LDS articles of faith the Bible is only true as long as it's translated correctly. What is that specifically, can anyone say? I doubt it. And just as they dispell things in the Bible as being incorrect, could they see any room that God may have been fine with His creation of gay people. There are millions of different kinds of species in the world, and people on here believe God can't create someone gay? Seriously? The Bible says crap about alot of things, if we are going to take it all serious, several of you are breaking it right now I'm sure. 

I don't think it's taking a position on what God could or couldn't do. Rather it's just thinking that not every aspect of anyone, myself included, is completely determined. Ultimately it has nothing to do with homosexuality except to the degree some (not most) have used an odd Calvinist like argument to defend it. I'm completely fine with God setting things up and putting some limits on things but allowing a great deal of freedom in this world. Otherwise you have to explain why God gave someone cancer, or a learning disability, or deafness or whatever else. Am I fine with God having done that for some purpose in some cases? Sure. Completely. And I'd include sexuality in that. But if we say it's true in every case we have to say it is true in the cases we'd not want to assign blame to God for. 

In other words, we can pick and choose where we apply the principle if we're going to hold it. We can't say, well I was born perfect but that family struggling with a couple of autistic kids wasn't. We have to be able to say we're all loved, that we don't say someone is less valuable,  yet also not buy into God determining every situation we encounter including our body's. Again could God? Sure. But there are implications you need to think through if you say God does do that.

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Garden Girl]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't personally have much of a problem with people saying "God made me this way" because I believe that God is the Creator and one can say he chooses to intervene or withhold his hand according to his purposes.  It is when they add "so I don't have to change in any way" that I will say "going too far there".

 

That's where I am too... because some invariably do just that... I believe the girl said God created her perfectly just as she is... 

GG

[california boy]

On 6/18/2017 at 7:05 AM, cinepro said:

But does LDS doctrine distinguish between a healthy, faithful homosexual marriage and an adulterous relationship?  Is one considered morally better than the other?  As far as I know, one will get you ex-communicated much more quickly than the other.

Yeah isn't that ironic?  Something that the scriptures including one of thee 10 commandments and Christ clearly taught as being sinful gets more leeway in the church than a gay marriage.  Something that rips families apart while the other creates families.  I have always felt that to be extremely odd.  Just another one of those hypersensitive gay policies.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

CB... Sigh...

Yes, we have a different view... I had hoped my tone and posted expressions of my view conveyed that though we do have differences, I wanted you to understand that I felt you have just as much right to your view.  Did I condemn you... or the 12 year old... for being gay?  No.  I did say that I did not believe God had anything to do with "making" individuals gay, but that I felt something happens in the physiological development of cells, genes, chromosomes etc that impacts that.  And that God did not purposely create people to be at odds with his purposes for his children, the main one being creation of life... made possible by the way he physically created male and female. "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1st Cor 11:11).   I said I know God is fair and just and takes all things into consideration when he judges us... and our hearts.

Did I express a desire to control the 12 year old?... No. She's welcome to her own views... What makes you think I was offended or that she shouldn't have a voice to express her views?  My objection was that she chose to do so with a prepared talk which she decided to deliver from the pulpit at a Sunday F&T meeting, while being filmed, and which contained views contrary to Church teachings... IMO this was not simply expressing her views... it was grandstanding for effect.  Otherwise, why the camera... why the prepared talk?   What makes you think the Church is trying to control her hopes and dreams?  Or her choices?  The Church has well established doctrines in regard to marriage, sexual relationships, etc that apply to all members, including me.  

All members are free to accept and follow these doctrines, or reject them if they so choose.  It is entirely up to us.  It's called agency... I do understand completely, CB, that choices are difficult, and painful, for the members who are gay and believe in the doctrines of the gospel.   Yes they limit me as well as all single members... I've been widowed for 19 years, starting when I was a very young 58... I had to walk away from wonderful gentleman because he was a confirmed bachelor and I couldn't be the woman he wanted... and I wouldn't break my covenants... it was a choice painful to make.

From your post, I can see you are reading things into mine that are not true nor did I intend.   I was sorry to see your comment that if I was offended that I really had some issues I needed to work through...  I was not offended, and am sorry if you think I was... And, I shared an experience I had with gay friends... not trying to show how many gay friends I have...

GG

This statement is what my post was addressing.

Quote

CB... It matters to me when someone tries to drag God into it... No, the whole Mormon Church is not going to collapse because one 12 year old decides to get up in F&T meeting with an agenda and use the pulpit to "share" what believing members consider false doctrine... I just consider her actions inappropriate.  

And this is what my post to you was about.

 

Quote

 

I respect your view.  I  want to hear your point of view.  It is different than mine, but I certainly am not going to get upset with the way you drag God into your personal beliefs.  I don't even care that you are condemning me because I am gay and God could not possibly have had any part to play in that.  I don't care that you think anything other than a relationship between a man and a woman is the only way God wants it.  It is your perspective.  You should be given a voice to express that belief.  The fact that i don't share that belief is irrelevant.  I can't take that belief away from you.  Nor should I.

So why this desire to control this young girl for expressing her spiritual feelings about God just because she is gay.  Why does it matter to you that she has a relationship with God different than yours.  Why can't she have different belief than yours?  Why should that offend you?  It is not your belief, it is hers.  She should not have a voice?  You think you should be offended by her beliefs and hopes and dreams? Does the church have a right to control her hopes and dreams of finding a companion and get married?  The church may very well have the power to shut her mike off.  They have the power to kick her out of their church.  But they don't have the power to control her own choices and her own belief about God.  If you are offended by that, then you really have some issues you need to work through.

Less than 1% of the people in the world share your religious beliefs.  Are you offended that they drag God into their religious beliefs as well?  Seriously, I think you need to re evaluate this thing.

This isn't about who has the most gay friends.

 

It is clear that people have very strong feelings on this subject. Sometimes we address the part that we feel like misrepresents our opinion and don't address the part that is more clearly stating an objection to our opinion.   I know I do this constantly even when I am trying very hard to not do that.  My apologies if I misrepresented your point of view.  I was just shocked that you seemed to be saying that she is not allowed to bring God into her beliefs.  

 

 

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think it's taking a position on what God could or couldn't do. Rather it's just thinking that not every aspect of anyone, myself included, is completely determined. Ultimately it has nothing to do with homosexuality except to the degree some (not most) have used an odd Calvinist like argument to defend it. I'm completely fine with God setting things up and putting some limits on things but allowing a great deal of freedom in this world. Otherwise you have to explain why God gave someone cancer, or a learning disability, or deafness or whatever else. Am I fine with God having done that for some purpose in some cases? Sure. Completely. And I'd include sexuality in that. But if we say it's true in every case we have to say it is true in the cases we'd not want to assign blame to God for. 

In other words, we can pick and choose where we apply the principle if we're going to hold it. We can't say, well I was born perfect but that family struggling with a couple of autistic kids wasn't. We have to be able to say we're all loved, that we don't say someone is less valuable,  yet also not buy into God determining every situation we encounter including our body's. Again could God? Sure. But there are implications you need to think through if you say God does do that.

How do your views fit in with the doctrine of being foreordained (Abraham 3) Or how does your views get in what patriotically blessings?  How does your view fit in with this incident in the Bible?

Quote

3Jesus answered, Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

It is sounding to me that the man was blind for a reason.  This all seems to get complicated.

Edited June 19, 2017 by california boy

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

Hello Gray... 

What I objected to was your flat-out assertion that gay couples are well situated to care for the children abandoned by straight folks...

That's just it... you didn't say "most" or "many" gay couples are well situated... you said "gay couples" as if all were well situated...  so I simply pointed out that not all gay couples were well situated to care for children anymore than all heteros.

I see what you're saying. I never meant to imply any kind of percentage. Gay couples, by nature of being childless, are in general in a good position to adopt. I wouldn't hazard to guess what percentage of individuals are personally ready for that. I was really talking about reproduction, or lack thereof.

 

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I objected to your use of the word "abandoned" when referring to children of straight folks.  I asked you if you understood how confusing and painful it was for a young girl or woman to give up a baby for adoption...  it affects most such mothers all of their lives...

GG

I think I understand. Abandonment DOES happen, but of course that is not a blanket description of every or most case. My point was there are children without parents - perhaps one of the purposes of gay marriage is to provide a home for such children.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am lost understanding how it can be both an absolute ("of course...") and a metaphor.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean?

Metaphor isn't less true than a statement meant literally. Metaphor is truth+, as Borg liked to say.

The metaphor of the engineering of life by God is really talking about evolution. The work of God is the way the universe functions. Homosexuality is an evolved behavior and therefore the work and will of God. Metaphorically. It can serve several good purposes.

[Gray]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Some of us are fine with evolution and freedom throughout God's creation. I've never bought the idea that God micromanaged every aspect of the development of the universe. We just have faith that God can turn it to good, not that he intended every aspect of my life.

The alternative is to say that God intended every psychological flaw. Now of course it's that idea that leads people to raise the problem of evil against belief in God. After all if God intended all the evils we encounter ranging from genetic diseases, to learning disability, to diabetes and so forth, then he's accountable for them. The typical Mormon theodicy is that we came here to progress and learn by experiencing these things. But while there is a certain near Calvinist false doctrine that everything was planed exactly for us by God, such a view would make God rather evil. I think God puts us into a situation we can eventually get out of, and that we freely chose to come here. But I just don't accept that everything, especially our biology, is by God. 

It's of course understandable why some people, who are persecuted because their tendencies or appearance aren't considered normal by society really are normal. We've done that with racism. We should do it with much more. In terms of social prejudice I fully agree we should do it with homosexuality. Yet we have to be careful we don't embrace a logic that simply treats all biology as perfect. That's independent of the homosexual question of course. Just that once you go down that line, you have to accept that all biology is perfect the same way. If you say God engineered homosexuality, you have to also say by the same logic he engineered downs syndrome, muscular dystrophy and everything else in human biology. Are we willing to go there? And if we do, what kind of God is left?

When I say God engineered something, I'm using that as a metaphor for evolution. Homosexuality seems to be an evolved phenomenon and not a harmful phenomenon in the way that genetic disease is. God of course does not have literal "purpose" - purpose is what humans have. God just IS.

 

[Bobbieaware]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

When I say God engineered something, I'm using that as a metaphor for evolution. Homosexuality seems to be an evolved phenomenon and not a harmful phenomenon in the way that genetic disease is. God of course does not have literal "purpose" - purpose is what humans have. God just IS.

 

Keeping in mind that God said the following to the prophet Moses when Moses was speaking to God "face to face, as a man speaks to another man," how does the following declaration from God to Moses not prove he has a very literal purpose that he is personally and proactively deeply involved in wanting to accomplish?

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1)

Edited June 19, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Kenngo1969]

I hate to sound like a malcontent here, but I'm honestly trying to understand the logic behind the "God-created-me-perfect-just-as-I-am" argument, even if it did come from a 13-year-old, and-or from someone/those who largely (to be blunt) are pulling her strings for their own purposes. 

Yes, I'm willing to accept my brothers and sisters as they are which means, largely if not entirely, accepting them on their terms.  (But I should add here that I don't have a stewardship as an ecclesiastical leader or as a parent that dictates that I should do otherwise: "Yes, I accept you for who you are, but that doesn't mean you cannot and should not become better.") Yes, while I, along with others of my fellow Latter-day Saints (although, the more time passes, the more it seems as though that number is dwindling ) have certain deeply-held convictions about marriage, I cannot force anyone who sees the matter differently than I/we do to accept my/our paradigm.

All of that having been said, I have a disability.*  Yes, I have learned things from it that I doubt I could have learned in any other way.  Yes, it, perhaps more than any other single characteristic I possess, has made me who I am (more patient ... sometimes :; more articulate; more intelligent; more empathetic, along with, perhaps, imparting other positive (and perhaps some non-physical negative) characteristics.  But, honestly, some days, I feel like all of that is simply my/someone's feeble attempt to put lipstick, perfume, eye shadow, and rouge on a pig, to dress it up all pretty, to talk to it nicely, and to call it "Penelope": Even if you put make up on it, dress it up all pretty, talk nicely to it, and call it "Penelope," it's still a pig.

I'm reminded of a play I read in an advanced Spanish class once, by Antonio Buero Vallejo, called En La Ardiente Oscuridad.  Ardiente Oscuridad is a mixed metaphor combining two seemingly-incompatible terms: burning darkness.  It's about a group of students who attend a school for the blind.  Notwithstanding any limitations they might have, not only are they learning to cope with those limitations, seemingly, they are learning to transcend them, and to gain a perspective on life from loss (or lack) of sight that they could not gain in any other way.  (To understand what I'm talking about, think of the episode of M*A*S*H in which Hawkeye Pierce loses his sight after "offering a light to a temperamental gas heater": After describing all of the ways he has become more aware of the world through his other senses, he tells BJ, "I've never spent a more conscious day in my life.").

Then, along comes the newly-blind Ignacio.  Ignacio comes from the Latin verb, "to ignite."  He's the guy who lights the fire causing the darkness to burn.  Unlike his classmates, he does not want to accept this new reality, and, from his perspective, all of their "happy talk" is just that: it's simply a futile effort to put makeup, perfume, and pretty clothes on the "pig" of blindness.  He's the one who "upsets the happy little apple cart" that existed among the students prior to his arrival, as some of them start to think, "You know what?  Maybe he's right.  Maybe all we're doing here is dressing up a pig; in the end, it's still a pig."  So who's right? Well, since paradox, perhaps, is at the heart of all great literature (and at the risk of simply "copping out"), both Ignacio and the (formerly-)content students are.   Yes, as the formerly-content students believed, accepting one's disability means being able to see the world in new ways in which one could not before; but such acceptance is simply delusional if one refuses to confront the reality of his limitations. 

If God created me/us perfect just as I am/we are, then whence my/our incentive to become any better?  If, indeed, God created me/us perfect just as I am/we are, then, to be perfectly blunt, What am I ... what are ANY of us ... doing here? And if God created me/us perfect just as I/we are, doesn't that, in fact, devalue two of the greatest gifts one Being ever gave another in all of human history: the Atonement and the Resurrection?  Doesn't it, in fact, render those gifts useless, worthless, superfluous, and unnecessary?

Forget being disabled.  In the paradigm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps being gay is the biggest, ugliest pig there is.  To put it mildly and to vastly understate the case, it ain't fair.  Perhaps it's the biggest possible unfairness in an endless list of unfairnesses.  OK. The question becomes, then, what to do about it?  Do we toss out the Atonement and the Resurrection and say, "Forget all of that!  I don't need any of it!  God made me perfect just the way I am"?**  Please pardon my temerity, but I'm really, really afraid to toss out any solution to any earthly challenge/problem/unfairness which doesn't include the Atonement and the Resurrection.

As much as I wish I didn't have to wait for the Resurrection for my physical imperfections to be removed, I don't want to have to accept them for eternity.  But the flip side of that coin is, I don't want God to accept me the way I am: I want Christ's Atonement to change me into a New Creature, one who is fit for God's Kingdom.

*Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the perils of analogizing a disability to sexual orientation.  Alas!, I'm not gay, so I can only speak to what I know.  Only someone who, perhaps, is both gay and has a disability will be able to speak authoritatively to, and to make valid comparisons in, that circumstance, so we'll have to save that discussion for another day.

**I don't know exactly what's going to happen to gays who opt for the admittedly-very-difficult path of remaining faithful (which for the overwhelming majority of them means remaining celibate) in this life, but I refuse to believe that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God is going to have to tell any of us, "Sorry.   I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something different, but ... this is the best I could do."

Edited June 19, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah isn't that ironic?  Something that the scriptures including one of thee 10 commandments and Christ clearly taught as being sinful gets more leeway in the church than a gay marriage.  Something that rips families apart while the other creates families.  I have always felt that to be extremely odd.  Just another one of those hypersensitive gay policies.

Reality check here.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of excommunicated members I know of were excommunicated for adultery. In my part of town it would pretty much guarantee it.

I personally know of no one who has been excommunicated for practicing same sex marriage. I only hear about it from the internet.

[california boy]

Kenngo, I am not going to quote you in my response to what you bring up because I don't fully understand what you are saying and I don't want to offend you if I get something wrong.  But I will give you my perspective of what I think you are talking about.

 

It took me a long time to deal with the fact that I was gay.  It was something that I felt was so terribly unfair.  I pretty much did everything I could to get out of being gay.  But then, perhaps like the blind students you talked about, I realized that I was learning things that I may not have ever learned before.  For one thing, not all the explanations and beliefs seem to apply to my situation.  So I had to spend more time for myself figuring out where I might possibly fit in God's plan.   I also learned less in a theory way but in a very world way to be more aware of people around me. To be less judgmental.  To allow people to have their own perspective on things.  And my family learned a lot as well by having someone they loved deal with being gay.  Some of those lessons took years to learn.

I think when the Beehive says that God made her perfect just the way she is.  That freckles are ok  and anything else about her that makes her unique is ok.  Basically she has surrendered herself to how she believes God created her.  And she is ok with that. What took me years to deal with, she seems to have figured it out quite early in her life.  

At one time I would have done anything to be straight, like "i was suppose to be".  Now I not only want to finish my life here on earth being gay, I don't really want to suddenly not be gay in the next life.  I don't think of it as something God has to correct.  I think I understand why I am different. The human race is diverse.  We are not all suppose to be the same.  

Being with my partner is by far the thing that makes my life full, rich and happy.  Frankly I am not going to worry about what the church leaders think of my choices.  I am only going to worry about what God thinks of my choice.  While I think I know now, I will know for sure when I die.  And I am perfectly comfortable in Him dealing with me in a just and righteous way.

 

[Anijen]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah isn't that ironic?  Something that the scriptures including one of thee 10 commandments and Christ clearly taught as being sinful gets more leeway in the church than a gay marriage.  Something that rips families apart while the other creates families.  I have always felt that to be extremely odd.  Just another one of those hypersensitive gay policies.

Yes, adultery rips families apart, but after the adulterous affair I have seen new families created. However,  to address both sides, I know of three gay marriages that has "ripped" their previous "families apart."

So, implying that gay marriages creates a family and adultery rips apart families is partially true. However, you seem to imply in your statement that as adultery rips families apart (this is true part) a gay marriage creates a family without doing harm. This is not always the case and in every gay marriage, that I personally know of, did not start off that way. I personally know of three same-sex-couples; two couples are male and one couple are female. All three same-sex-couples, in every single case, each man and each woman were married previously (to the opposite sex), and in each and every case, each cheated on either their husband or wife before they got divorced. Thus you are correct adultery rips apart marriage, but you cannot compare adultery to getting married.

As far as hypersensitive gay policies, I guess that is a view from perspective. However, it is a view that has been around since recorded history and is still currently around. It is around, not just in the LDS Church. This hypersensitivity has been around in the Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish world for a long time.

 

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Reality check here.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of excommunicated members I know of were excommunicated for adultery. In my part of town it would pretty much guarantee it.

I personally know of no one who has been excommunicated for practicing same sex marriage. I only hear about it from the internet.

I agree with Danzo. However, I have seen a few adultery cases not result in excommunication, but with disfellowship. There is no set rule that you commit adultery you get excommunicated.  

I also can relate with Danzo, in that, I too know of no same-sex-couple who has been exed. I don't know of any where I currently live, and if I did the chances that they would be LDS is very remote). 

CB, I do know of a young man in our ward who has a gay mother. It was briefly discussed in a bishopric meeting about letting the son advance in the priesthood and our Bishop let him advance. 

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

How do your views fit in with the doctrine of being foreordained (Abraham 3) Or how does your views get in what patriotically blessings?  How does your view fit in with this incident in the Bible?

I don't see much connection between foreordination and what I discussed. Foreordination isn't Calvinistic determination. And a point of emphasis has always been part of our doctrine. Now I suppose one could argue that past arguments they were different don't work. But one would have to make that argument. My personal opinion is that foreordination is to a role in a vague sense but that we can always make choices that keep us from that. Foreordination can't trump free will.

Quote

It is sounding to me that the man was blind for a reason.  This all seems to get complicated.

Or simply we were born into a world with disease and weakness that manifests the power of God. It's standard Mormon philosophy that there's a purpose for all this pain and suffering. It doesn't logically follow that every particular situation was done for a purpose. It's that distinction between general and particular that I'm emphasizing. It might be important for bodies to be subject to things like deafness without that particular person at that particular time needing to be deaf.

None of this is to deny that in a certain way we have to accept the hand we've been dealt. As California Boy mentioned above, that often is healthy and important to accept. I'm not sure saying God made us this way makes any sense. It would imply, for instance, that someone who is deaf who has the opportunity through surgery or an implant to hear should not take it. I'd just note that in the example of the deaf man Jesus encountered, Jesus didn't leave him deaf. And lest people think this an inapt example, there actually is a movement that to accept deafness is to treat it not as a flaw. With some deaf parents wanting deaf children. 

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Johnnie Cake]

This is a tough one...In all honesty, this comes off as a pre planed gotcha moment orchestrated by the parent...I mean who videos their child's testimony and then posts it on youtube? While I'm sympathetic for this young girl and feel that once she had started her "cough cough" testimony...It probably would have been better for both her and the church had the gentleman conducting the meeting merely let her finish and then stand up and say what he did...which I also though was quite appropriate. But hind sight is 20/20

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

When I say God engineered something, I'm using that as a metaphor for evolution. Homosexuality seems to be an evolved phenomenon and not a harmful phenomenon in the way that genetic disease is. God of course does not have literal "purpose" - purpose is what humans have. God just IS.

My point would just be that all we're really saying is these things exist within the range of normal human manifestation. Some states we view negatively and some positively. Not to channel mfbukowski too much but I think here he's completely right that all we're doing is expressing the current cultural views of what is liked or disliked. That's why the deaf example is so interesting since most would say it's harmful but many would say it is not and really should be seen as akin to skin color.

To have this discussions, quickly the appeal to harm appears. But that ultimately is just begging the question since really what is at question is what constitutes harm. For the many high functional people on the autistic spectrum many would say they've not faced harm and may even have abilities others don't. This is not as simple a discussion as it appears at first glance.

Anyways, I originally raised this as most people who express what you did don't mean it metaphoric. But if you do that's fine. The question is really over what we should do and accepting a static view of our characteristics is often as unhealthy as not accepting who we are and moving off from that as best we can. As the old saying goes, give me the wisdom to accept the things I can't change and improve the things I can. And most importantly tell the two apart.

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

43 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yes, adultery rips families apart, but after the adulterous affair I have seen new families created. However,  to address both sides, I know of three gay marriages that has "ripped" their previous "families apart."

So, implying that gay marriages creates a family and adultery rips apart families is partially true. However, you seem to imply in your statement that as adultery rips families apart (this is true part) a gay marriage creates a family without doing harm. This is not always the case and in every gay marriage, that I personally know of, did not start off that way. I personally know of three same-sex-couples; two couples are male and one couple are female. All three same-sex-couples, in every single case, each man and each woman were married previously (to the opposite sex), and in each and every case, each cheated on either their husband or wife before they got divorced. Thus you are correct adultery rips apart marriage, but you cannot compare adultery to getting married.

I agree with your point. One of the most disastrous policies the church leaders have ever introduced was promising gay men in the name of God that if they only marry someone of the opposite sex, they will no longer be gay.  So many gay members, wanting to do the will of God fell for their false promise.  The results was a complete disaster for so many families.  Fortunately the church has abandoned that policy.  Too bad they couldn't quite apologize to all those gay men and those families that believed in their solemn promise.  

[Kenngo1969]

California Boy,

I'm not surprised you disagree.  Each of us sees the world less as it is, and more as each of us is. Vive le difference!  As I said, I certainly cannot (and would not want to) force anyone to accept my paradigm.  I certainly bear you no personal ill will.

-Ken