Kenngo1969 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, DemonsAway said: I would say that answer is avoiding the question. ... Why? Quote What's the sin in your eyes? There is no sin in simply being gay. That's what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches. Edited June 20, 2017 by Kenngo1969 1
california boy Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 6 hours 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 was referring to the church policy of calling every gay couple apostates and excommunicating them based not on their total understand and belief in the church, but on this one issues, whether they are married or not. The criteria is not even whether they are having sex. It is based solely on whether they are married. The church can't see past that. A gay couple may very well want to embrace the gospel and have strong disagreements with the church on the goodness of their marriage. Many straight members may share those views. But only gay couples get the label apostate. Of course the church can set any criteria it wants for membership. From my point of view, whether they are married or not is not the only criteria that should be the deciding factor. Before the Nov policy, local church leaders could evaluate and make a prayerful consideration. Now it is church policy. Whether they are good or bad becomes irrelevant.
california boy Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: 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 I totally understand the Church's position. I am just not convinced it is God's position. It is this little voice inside my head that keeps saying that gay people need a path back to God as well that also fits in with the importance of family and being able to share a full and complete life with someone they can love and cherish. It is precisely because I think family is important that sets up this conflict. Just because you are gay doesn't change this inherent desire to be connected by family bonds. We humans long for that. Even those that don't have family yet, still long for it. Edited June 20, 2017 by california boy
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted June 20, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) Maybe someone posted it here already, but CNN picked up the story, which includes this: Quote A church leader stood up and made a small speech as Savannah was sitting down, in part saying, "I also want to recognize that we are all children of God. And that we are loved by our heavenly Father. And I have no doubt that heavenly Father has made us all unique in different ways. For that, I am grateful." Isn't that what people were saying someone should have said? Looks like it was said. Edited June 20, 2017 by MiserereNobis 5
Gray Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 23 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: 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) This is a story, not a historical account. These stories about God represent how people feel about God. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, Gray said: This is a story, not a historical account. These stories about God represent how people feel about God. You're not real. 4
Anijen Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You're not real. Ha, I see what you did there.
Bobbieaware Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Gray said: This is a story, not a historical account. These stories about God represent how people feel about God. I wonder how many board participants would think it's worthwhile discussing Mormonism with someone who claims to be a member of the Church if they fully realized they've been dialoguing with a person who believes the scriptures are nothing but pure fiction and that the theophanies recorded in the scriptures -- like Moses' encounter with God, the visitation of the resurrected Christ to the Nephites, Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, and (especially) Joseph Smith's First Vision -- are nothing less than a pack of lies? Edited June 20, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You're not real. Seriously, he's just totally divorced from the LDS perspective, wholly rejects our tenets, and presently lacks capacity even to appreciate the mythic and ritual power in those "just stories." Pity that. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: This is a story, not a historical account. These stories about God represent how people feel about God. 48 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You're not real. Careful, Hamba Tuhan. Gray might come back with, "You're still talking to me, Soldier!" —Parcher to John Nash, when Nash told Parcher the same thing in A Beautiful Mind (2001) Sorry; couldn't resist! Carry on! Edited June 20, 2017 by Kenngo1969
JLHPROF Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html?sr=fbCNN062017coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd0230PMStoryLink&linkId=38885947 The story has now made it to CNN (little wider audience than Huffpost etc). Oddly enough, the original video is now showing as private on Youtube. 1
Tacenda Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html?sr=fbCNN062017coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd0230PMStoryLink&linkId=38885947 The story has now made it to CNN (little wider audience than Huffpost etc). Oddly enough, the original video is now showing as private on Youtube. It was taken down, maybe because of some legality issues. FYI: Here is a Mormon Stories interview with Savannah and her mother. https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin
JLHPROF Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Tacenda said: It was taken down, maybe because of some legality issues. FYI: Here is a Mormon Stories interview with Savannah and her mother. https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin I think the only reason that NNN would take it down would be either because the Church sued him or Savannah's family requested it. And since the video is now on CNN's site I am not sure which is more likely.
california boy Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd/index.html?sr=fbCNN062017coming-out-as-mormon-and-gay-trnd0230PMStoryLink&linkId=38885947 The story has now made it to CNN (little wider audience than Huffpost etc). Oddly enough, the original video is now showing as private on Youtube. I have seen this story pop up on several more news sites including two sites in the UK.
Gray Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You're not real. I'm probably a bit of undigested beef
Gray Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: I wonder how many board participants would think it's worthwhile discussing Mormonism with someone who claims to be a member of the Church if they fully realized they've been dialoguing with a person who believes the scriptures are nothing but pure fiction and that the theophanies recorded in the scriptures -- like Moses' encounter with God, the visitation of the resurrected Christ to the Nephites, Paul's encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, and (especially) Joseph Smith's First Vision -- are nothing less than a pack of lies? I refect the notion that in order to embrace Mormonism you also have to embrace Christian fundamentalist notions about scripture 2
Gray Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 4 hours ago, USU78 said: Seriously, he's just totally divorced from the LDS perspective, wholly rejects our tenets, and presently lacks capacity even to appreciate the mythic and ritual power in those "just stories." Pity that. I would counter that it's much more difficult to appreciate the symbolic power of scripture when you are wedded to post-enlightenment literalism
stemelbow Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: It was taken down, maybe because of some legality issues. FYI: Here is a Mormon Stories interview with Savannah and her mother. https://www.facebook.com/johndehlin I think we're all in for a big surprise in the coming future as it pertains to the Church and how it has handled this issue. I think that was in part why she did it. She said she wants people to understand what it's like to be Mormon and gay. I mean she's young, sure, and it's obvious she has had many a discussions with her parents about it (which I think is a good thing) as they've helped support her in life. I really do wish we were a more accepting and loving people. I think for the most part we all try, but we fail and the failure is often systemic--or failure brought on by the system, it's teaching, practice or history. We can fix that.
blueglass Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) On 6/15/2017 at 1:18 PM, HappyJackWagon said: Those things aren't being stated as doctrine. She is expressing her hope for a happy life. That seems pretty reasonable for a testimony. There is no doctrine stating that God erred in his creation of certain people. The only possible area of disagreement is when she states that God wouldn't want her to live her life alone or with someone she's not attracted to. If one conflates the church with God, then it is definitely clear that the church wants people to remain alone or in a marriage to someone she is not attracted to. But that really seems like more of a policy than a doctrine. From what I understand on mormon theology from the Wickman/Oaks interviews - http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction they are saying that no one is gay in heaven(s). Wickman was asked in the interview if I struggle with same-gender-attraction "when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?” "Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life." So I would call this a mortal hell theology - which has the horrible effect of thrusting people to take their own lives to escape this hell. Oaks also says later in the interview that "There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage". So it looks like the theology is equating gayness with physical deformities and saying that there are no gays in heaven is the same as saying there are no blind, deaf, or paraplegics in heaven. Contrary to this, the book of mormon teaches more of a continuing hell theology, in Alma 34, "that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world." This would mean that if you are gay here, you will be gay there unless you let god reprogram your mind/soul? One scripture which gave me hope that many different relationships will be restored in the eternities was D&Cov 130:2 which says "that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy." This is a hopeful view that our loving relationships can endure in the afterlife. Since the vast majority of all people will go to the telestial kingdom (D&Cov76:109) , what do we know about the loving relationships of everyone who goes there? If we continue evolving like we are now, we can assume they will travel to other stars, and become transhuman, immortal/AI cybernetic lifeforms, so what can we then say about gender, attraction spectrum, or loving relationship networks? Like in "Her" will we be asked to post signs in our yard and VR spheres that we are opposed to organic/AI relationships and marriages? Edited June 20, 2017 by blueglass colors
MiserereNobis Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I'm probably a bit of undigested beef More likely a fragment of underdone potato. 1
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 58 minutes ago, Gray said: I would counter that it's much more difficult to appreciate the symbolic power of scripture when you are wedded to post-enlightenment literalism Hard to take this very seriously. Though I imagine it's comforting to be free to ignore the obvious and pervert the pure to get one's jollies at the expense of the despised. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I would counter that it's much more difficult to appreciate the symbolic power of scripture when you are wedded to post-enlightenment literalism For me the issue is there is no point to scripture without the literal. If scripture is reduced to fable, then it is fiction. And a fictitious Christ has no power to save me from anything. Either angels and God spoke directly to men or they didn't. If they didn't, religion is a pointless endeavor. 4
MiserereNobis Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: I would counter that it's much more difficult to appreciate the symbolic power of scripture when you are wedded to post-enlightenment literalism There is a long history in Catholicism of viewing things in the Bible allegorically. St. Augustine, in 415, thought it was disgraceful when Christians used a literal interpretation of Genesis to try to show that the scientists/naturalists of his day were wrong. With the size of the Catholic Church, there have obviously been many people who have taken scripture literally, but once one delves into the saints and academics, one finds much room for metaphor. For me, this is quite important, because Genesis speaks more to me as an allegory for my life unfolding minute-by-minute than as some sort of quasi-historical record as to what happened billions of years ago. If I see myself as Adam in this moment, being created pure, turning from God, falling away, dealing with my sin, and then add the New Testament, and find salvation, the scripture become quite meaningful to me. 3
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: For me the issue is there is no point to scripture without the literal. If scripture is reduced to fable, then it is fiction. And a fictitious Christ has no power to save me from anything. Either angels and God spoke directly to men or they didn't. If they didn't, religion is a pointless endeavor. I quite like this. And just because something is objectively true doesn't mean it is devoid of mythic or ritual significance. The Utah State Capitol is at the head of the valley: the Utah State prison is at its foot. There's profound truth there about the human condition, man's place in the universe, the essential brotherhood of all men of all conditions, and more if we want to take the time. But if everyone participating in the conversation isn't playing fairly and in good faith, we cannot make much headway. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Maybe someone posted it here already, but CNN picked up the story, which includes this: Isn't that what people were saying someone should have said? Looks like it was said. Yes. There's a link to the video in the OP.
Recommended Posts