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

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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. 

Thanks for your perspective.  Much of it I also believe.  I don't know if God made me gay.  I don't know if I was born that way or if there were other factors.  But I have long quit caring how it happened. and try to consentrate on how I live with that fact.  

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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

Tanks Ken for sharing your perspective.  It is what makes this board interesting.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your perspective.  Much of it I also believe.  I don't know if God made me gay.  I don't know if I was born that way or if there were other factors.  But I have long quit caring how it happened. and try to consentrate on how I live with that fact.  

I think that's the healthiest approach. As humans we seek for whys when often there aren't any.

[JLHPROF]

8 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.

That's because most people in gay marriages have no intention of repenting of their sin.
And an unwillingness to repent is always more serious than a sin where forgiveness is being earnestly sought.

I don't think unrepentant adulterers are given any more leeway than unrepentant  members of a SS relationship.
And I am pretty sure that repentant former adulterers and repentant former homosexuals are both given similar requirements.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because most people in gay marriages have no intention of repenting of their sin.
And an unwillingness to repent is always more serious than a sin where forgiveness is being earnestly sought.

I don't think unrepentant adulterers are given any more leeway than unrepentant  members of a SS relationship.
And I am pretty sure that repentant former adulterers and repentant former homosexuals are both given similar requirements.

This is my experience as well, that it is the attitude of the sinner in regarding the sin and that persons desire to repent rather than the sin itself that is the most determining factor.

[juliann]

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your perspective.  Much of it I also believe.  I don't know if God made me gay.  I don't know if I was born that way or if there were other factors.  But I have long quit caring how it happened. and try to consentrate on how I live with that fact.  

I think that is good. 

I don't know what the solution is, but I am just as uncomfortable with "sin" being thrown at gays who are living good lives as I am with "homophobe" being thrown at those who support the doctrine of man/woman=god but are supportive of gay rights. 

 

[clarkgoble]

Sin is a difficult word. Partially because people in covenants simply have different requirements from those outside. I think for many people its difficult to keep that straight. So I don't think for instance coffee is a sin for the typical person. I don't drink it because I think I'd be violating my covenants if I did. But that doesn't make it an objective ethical lapse for people. Dealing with sexual issues gets more tricky since you have to deal with the issue of what would be ideal in some long term versus what their understanding now is. Paul I think struggles with that as well.  Never fully giving a satisfactory answer IMO. (I know people love Romans, but I think it ducks a lot of issues)

Overall while I don't mind sharing what my values are nor do I mind calling myself to repentance, I'm very uncomfortable doing so for others. At best I might talk about the practical consequences of actions I'd call sin.

Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[DemonsAway]

What is exactly wrong with being gay? What are the negative consequences? As I see it there is only one and that's that they have to put up with a lot of crap. Are they more malicious or evil-hearted? To say that an omnipotent, omniscient deity is concerned over what position you're having sex in or what gender you're attracted to over that person being kind, loving, positive members of society is an insult to anyone's intelligence. If I'm above such nonsense I have to conclude that any type of God would be too.

For there to be a sin there has to be a negative consequence, IMO. So if you're judging on the act itself, what is the negative consequence of that? Are they more prone to disease, or being unfaithful, something else? No, simple as that, what is the negative? If you're only argument is, “that's your belief”, it's not a good argument and any gay person deserves a better explanation than that.

When someone says “a gay person is living in sin”, even if you might not necessarily have malicious intent, it is very hurtful. Even more so when you don't really have a good explanation as to why. Labeling someone in that way is more of a sin in my eyes than any sexual act a gay person could do. They're not hurting anyone by their actions, not even themselves, but labeling someone as “living in sin” is quite hurtful. If it's more a matter of you're uncomfortable with the thought of seeing two guys walk into Sacrament Meeting holding hands, then that's says more about you than it does about them.  

If I were still a member I would be a strong advocate of allowing gays the full membership and benefits of the church because I'm yet to hear a good argument of why it's wrong. I've heard arguments, but not good ones. Keep in mind, that I'm sure they called interracial marriage as “living in sin” in the church's beginnings, but look at them now.

Let's me put it like this, if God was truly saying that you have to deny membership based on sexual positions, then I think everyone should be questioning God's morality and what type of God you're worshipping.  

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

 

For there to be a sin there has to be a negative consequence, IMO.

I don't think any of us have gone to Church to find out what DemonsAway thinks is a sin, but as a libertarian I appreciate your stab at a definition.  

But from an LDS/theological perspective, I would point out two things:

1. According to the scriptures and others who would speak for him, God doesn't necessarily define "sin" the same way.  It would seem, that being the case, that religious people would have to choose between the definition given in the scriptures and the definition given by DemonsAway on the internet.  If someone accepts that there is a God and such a thing as "sin", I'm not sure it's much of a choice.  And if they don't, then I'm not sure there's a choice to be made.

2. Even if we want to go by that definition ("there has to be a negative consequence"), we would have to ask who is in the best position to determine what actions will bring about "negative consequences"?  An eternal, omniscient being whose sole purpose is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", or our own judgement based on our limited knowledge and experience in a few decades of living in the late 20th and early 21st century?

It's an odd line of reasoning.  Presumably, you're an atheist (since God would have to be smarter than you and you apparently can't conceive of any being that could fill such a requirement), so if that's the case, just say "I don't believe in 'sin' because I don't believe in god."  I'm also not sure who is saying that God is more concerned with homosexuality than if we're "kind, loving and positive."  I've never heard it taught in LDS circles that you can get into the Celestial Kingdom if you're mean, hateful and negative as long as you're heterosexual.  Are you sure you're in the right forum?

Edited June 20, 2017 by cinepro

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

What is exactly wrong with being gay? 

Nothing.  Glad you asked.  Can I help you with anything else? https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

[california boy]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because most people in gay marriages have no intention of repenting of their sin.
And an unwillingness to repent is always more serious than a sin where forgiveness is being earnestly sought.

I don't think unrepentant adulterers are given any more leeway than unrepentant  members of a SS relationship.
And I am pretty sure that repentant former adulterers and repentant former homosexuals are both given similar requirements.

You are right of course.  The church can not look past what they view as sin and see the people for who they are.  I actually think however, there are some members that can still see goodness in gay couples.  Maybe that is all we can hope for.  Some examples are on this board.  

Edited June 19, 2017 by california boy

[DemonsAway]

58 minutes ago, cinepro said:

1. According to the scriptures and others who would speak for him, God doesn't necessarily define "sin" the same way.  It would seem, that being the case, that religious people would have to choose between the definition given in the scriptures and the definition given by DemonsAway on the internet.  

I would say the anyone should be able to realize that the Bible and BoM have their problems and hence aren't exactly reliable sources of morality. So the best we can do is use our own reasoning to figure out morality. Because the book says so isn't exactly a great argument. But I would say it's an error to claim anyone speaks for God. Yes, I know you believe otherwise, but it doesn't necessarily provide anything useful to an argument.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

2. Even if we want to go by that definition ("there has to be a negative consequence"), we would have to ask who is in the best position to determine what actions will bring about "negative consequences"?  An eternal, omniscient being whose sole purpose is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", or our own judgement based on our limited knowledge and experience in a few decades of living in the late 20th and early 21st century?

You could argue anything with this reasoning. Anyone could argue that we should still be stoning people to death for various reasons. Who's in a better position to know, you or God?  

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

 (since God would have to be smarter than you and you apparently can't conceive of any being that could fill such a requirement)

Sure, if there were a God he'd be smarter than me but I would hope his morality would be better than man's. 

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm also not sure who is saying that God is more concerned with homosexuality than if we're "kind, loving and positive."  I've never heard it taught in LDS circles that you can get into the Celestial Kingdom if you're mean, hateful and negative as long as you're heterosexual.  Are you sure you're in the right forum?

If that's not twisting what I said... 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I don't think any of us have gone to Church to find out what DemonsAway thinks is a sin, but as a libertarian I appreciate your stab at a definition.  

But from an LDS/theological perspective, I would point out two things:

1. According to the scriptures and others who would speak for him, God doesn't necessarily define "sin" the same way.  It would seem, that being the case, that religious people would have to choose between the definition given in the scriptures and the definition given by DemonsAway on the internet.  

2. Even if we want to go by that definition ("there has to be a negative consequence"), we would have to ask who is in the best position to determine what actions will bring about "negative consequences"?  An eternal, omniscient being whose sole purpose is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", or our own judgement based on our limited knowledge and experience in a few decades of living in the late 20th and early 21st century?

It's an odd line of reasoning.  Presumably, you're an atheist (since God would have to be smarter than you and you apparently can't conceive of any being that could fill such a requirement), so if that's the case, just say "I don't believe in 'sin' because I don't believe in god."  I'm also not sure who is saying that God is more concerned with homosexuality than if we're "kind, loving and positive."  I've never heard it taught in LDS circles that you can get into the Celestial Kingdom if you're mean, hateful and negative as long as you're heterosexual.  Are you sure you're in the right forum?

You are right of course.  I think it is up to God and not men.  My history with Church leaders is that they have yet to exhibit any sense that they have a definitive answer from God on this.  There may be an unanimous decision among them.  But that is not a guarantee that God agrees with their decision.  And on this matters, only His vote counts.  I know many of you disagree and feel that when the prophet speaks it comes from God.  And that is why you are willing to follow all that he says and I am not.

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are right of course.  The church can not look past what they view as sin and see the people for who they are.  I actually think however, there are some members that can still see goodness in gay couples.  Maybe that is all we can hope for.  Some examples are on this board.  

Your mileage varies, I'm sure, but I have never heard anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posit that because people are in gay marriages, that somehow negates the good that they do.  And even if a member of the Church of Jesus Christ does shake his head forlornly and say, "Tsk-tsk-tsk!  Notwithstanding the much good s/he does, it's all for naught.  Now, if only s/he weren't in a gay marriage ..."  If someone were to do that in my hearing, I would be quick to correct him or her.  Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that gay marriage is a sin, but only mortals are prone to keep the kind of tally you're hinting at (good deeds vs. bad deeds, or redeeming qualities versus not-so-redeeming qualities in relationships) and so on.  If someone asks me what the position of the Church of Jesus Christ on gay marriage is, I would have a ready answer.  However, judging actions is different than judging people.  Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle doesn't mean I cannot see the good they do or the redeeming qualities that they possess, and I'm sure the same is true of most members and leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and if it's not, they need to repent).  Motes and beams, and "Lord-have-mercy-on-me-a-sinner vs. Dear-Lord-I-thank-thee-that-I-am-not-as-other-men-are," and all that.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

What is exactly wrong with being gay? What are the negative consequences? As I see it there is only one and that's that they have to put up with a lot of crap. Are they more malicious or evil-hearted? To say that an omnipotent, omniscient deity is concerned over what position you're having sex in or what gender you're attracted to over that person being kind, loving, positive members of society is an insult to anyone's intelligence. If I'm above such nonsense I have to conclude that any type of God would be too.

For there to be a sin there has to be a negative consequence, IMO. So if you're judging on the act itself, what is the negative consequence of that? Are they more prone to disease, or being unfaithful, something else? No, simple as that, what is the negative? If you're only argument is, “that's your belief”, it's not a good argument and any gay person deserves a better explanation than that.

When someone says “a gay person is living in sin”, even if you might not necessarily have malicious intent, it is very hurtful. Even more so when you don't really have a good explanation as to why. Labeling someone in that way is more of a sin in my eyes than any sexual act a gay person could do. They're not hurting anyone by their actions, not even themselves, but labeling someone as “living in sin” is quite hurtful. If it's more a matter of you're uncomfortable with the thought of seeing two guys walk into Sacrament Meeting holding hands, then that's says more about you than it does about them.  

If I were still a member I would be a strong advocate of allowing gays the full membership and benefits of the church because I'm yet to hear a good argument of why it's wrong. I've heard arguments, but not good ones. Keep in mind, that I'm sure they called interracial marriage as “living in sin” in the church's beginnings, but look at them now.

Let's me put it like this, if God was truly saying that you have to deny membership based on sexual positions, then I think everyone should be questioning God's morality and what type of God you're worshipping.  

I believe it impossible within the strictures of this here board to answer this post  honestly, accurately and fully.

[Kenngo1969]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are right of course.  I think it is up to God and not men.  My history with Church leaders is that they have yet to exhibit any sense that they have a definitive answer from God on this.  ...

Not anything that you will accept as a definitive answer is different than no definitive answer.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I believe it impossible within the strictures of this here board to answer this post  honestly, accurately and fully.

If one premise in his argument fails, then, by definition, it cannot be a sound argument, as my previous reply to him demonstrates.

[DemonsAway]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I believe it impossible within the strictures of this here board to answer this post  honestly, accurately and fully.

Fair enough.

[DemonsAway]

17 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If one premise in his argument fails, then, by definition, it cannot be a sound argument, as my previous reply to him demonstrates.

Well I don't know that I'd say I was making too much of an argument and more asking questions.

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

Well I don't know that I'd say I was making too much of an argument and more asking questions.

OK.  The implicit assertion (and therefore the argument) in your question:

3 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

What is exactly wrong with being gay?  

Is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there is something "wrong" with being gay.  It does not, therefore, your argument/assertion/question is moot.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your mileage varies, I'm sure, but I have never heard anyone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posit that because people are in gay marriages, that somehow negates the good that they do.  And even if a member of the Church of Jesus Christ does shake his head forlornly and say, "Tsk-tsk-tsk!  Notwithstanding the much good s/he does, it's all for naught.  Now, if only s/he weren't in a gay marriage ..."  If someone were to do that in my hearing, I would be quick to correct him or her.  Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ teaches that gay marriage is a sin, but only mortals are prone to keep the kind of tally you're hinting at (good deeds vs. bad deeds, or redeeming qualities versus not-so-redeeming qualities in relationships) and so on.  If someone asks me what the position of the Church of Jesus Christ on gay marriage is, I would have a ready answer.  However, judging actions is different than judging people.  Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle doesn't mean I cannot see the good they do or the redeeming qualities that they possess, and I'm sure the same is true of most members and leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and if it's not, they need to repent).  Motes and beams, and "Lord-have-mercy-on-me-a-sinner vs. Dear-Lord-I-thank-thee-that-I-am-not-as-other-men-are," and all that.

I remember a member saying how disgusting she thought gay couples were that wanted to adopt. Right there in Gospel Doctine class. This was a few years ago where it was a new thing or going to be a new thing, with SSM being legal. Glad she's gone, it was disturbing the hatred that spilled out of her. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember a member saying how disgusting she thought gay couples were that wanted to adopt. Right there in Gospel Doctine class. This was a few years ago where it was a new thing or going to be a new thing, with SSM being legal. Glad she's gone, it was disturbing the hatred that spilled out of her. 

I'm not going to defend the indefensible conduct of an erstwhile member of your ward (as though you thought I might , or that, somehow, I'm obligated to do so?) I won't, and I'm not.

To reiterate:

Quote

And even if a member of the Church of Jesus Christ does shake his head forlornly and say, "Tsk-tsk-tsk!  Notwithstanding the much good s/he does, it's all for naught. Now, if only s/he weren't in a gay marriage ..." If someone were to do that in my hearing, I would be quick to correct him or her.  ...  However, judging actions is different than judging people.  Just because I disagree with someone's lifestyle doesn't mean I cannot see the good they do or the redeeming qualities that they possess, and I'm sure the same is true of most members and leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and if it's not, they need to repent).  Motes and beams, and "Lord-have-mercy-on-me-a-sinner vs. Dear-Lord-I-thank-thee-that-I-am-not-as-other-men-are," and all that.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Glad she's gone, it was disturbing the hatred that spilled out of her. 

More or less disturbing than the hatred you have for her?

[DemonsAway]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  The implicit assertion (and therefore the argument) in your question:

Is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there is something "wrong" with being gay.  It does not, therefore, your argument/assertion/question is moot.

I would say that answer is avoiding the question. It's like earlier in this thread where homophobic versus anti-gay was debated. You know what is meant by the way it's used. Clearly there is something wrong with it in LDS belief in the context I'm talking about.

I'll make it more simple. What's the sin in your eyes? Why is that so? You link to the Family Proclamation but it's really just stating the belief not the why. If it's the sexual act then why? What is wrong with it? Something more than “that's our belief”. What's immoral and why? Because you can't reproduce that way? No you can't, but still, why is it immoral? What's the logic and reasoning behind it.

You believe the family dynamic involves a mother and father, but why? Why is two men or two women with adopted children not in God's plan? Again what's the logic and reasoning behind it.

USU78 may be right and some of what I'm asking can't be answered within the rules on this board. 

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

More or less disturbing than the hatred you have for her?

She moved out, but I see what you mean, my bad.