blueglass Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) On 6/15/2017 at 1:13 PM, cinepro said: The bolded lines in the summary above are probably the part that would be considered "false doctrine." What's interesting is that other apostate class hopes and desires pertain to polygamy even though it is true doctrine and taught in our scriptures to not be a sin D&Cov 132. Elder Oaks could bear his testimony in 1999 about how he hopes to find another partner and have a great job and that he hopes to get sealed to another wife again and have a family, he could testify that [I know I can have June and Kristen as a polygamist and be happy in heaven]. That He believes that if God is there, He knows he is perfect, just the way he is as an eternal polygamist, and that [God would never ask me to live my life alone with one wife in heaven, if I can have two by being sealed again.] Edited June 20, 2017 by blueglass theoretical construct 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, blueglass said: 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? Just FYI, this might be a sore point with Happy Jack Wagon. He kept claiming there is nothing in Mormon teaching that indicates same-sex attraction is not forever. Time after time, I would refer him to what you just did here, the Wickman and Oaks Q and A on Mormon Newsroom. Always, he would come back later with the same claim, as though I had not already responded to it with this documentation. Finally, I lost patience and told him in effect to stop making a claim I had already responded to as though there had been no response made. He got huffy and told me he can't be expected to read everything I write. The funny thing is, the last time I responded to him, it was immediately after he had repeated the claim. I wondered aloud whether he was in the habit of spewing out assertions or challenges and then riding off into the sunset, never checking back to see if anyone had responded to him. I think you are misapplying the Book of Mormon passage. It refers to those who sin and are unrepentant. The Church teaches that there is no sin involved in merely having same-sex attraction unless one acts on it. If we accept that same sex attraction is a malady -- congenital or not -- that pertains only to mortality, it is only reasonable to believe that it will be removed in the hereafter, especially if one has lived faithfully in accordance with the laws and commandments of God. This is consistent with the doctrine of the resurrection as taught in Alma, that "not one hair of their heads shall be lost," but that the body will be restored in its full and perfect frame. I know there are some who don't like hearing this in reference to same-sex attraction, but I believe there are at least as many who derive hope and strength from the knowledge that they will not be stuck with the condition for eternity. They deserve to have that assurance. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
stemelbow Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Just FYI, this might be a sore point with Happy Jack Wagon. He kept claiming there is nothing in Mormon teaching that indicates same-sex attraction is not forever. Time after time, I would refer him to what you just did here, the Wickman and Oaks Q and A on Mormon Newsroom. Always, he would come back later with the same claim, as though I had not already responded to it with this documentation. Finally, I lost patience and told him in effect to stop making a claim I had already responded to as though there had been no response made. He got huffy and told me he can't be expected to read everything I ride. The funny thing is, the last time I responded to him, it was immediately after he had repeated the claim. I wondered aloud whether he was in the habit of spewing out assertions, challenges and then riding off into the sunset, never checking back to see if anyone had responded to him. I think you are misapplying the Book of Mormon passage. If we accept that same sex attraction is malady -- congenital or not -- that pertains only to mortality, it is only reasonable to believe that it will be removed in the hereafter, especially if one has lived faithfully in accordance with the laws and commandments of God. This is consistent with the doctrine of the resurrection as taught in Alma, that "not one hair of their heads shall be lost," but that the body will be restored in its full and perfect frame. I can't speak for HappyJack, but I question whether the comments from these brethren are their best guesses or are by revelation or what. THese kind of statements come off more like many of the long condemned comments from past leaders who were speaking as men. So, how are we to put any stock in it? How is anyone who doesn't feel like this issue is resolved going to hear this and feel that they know from which they speak? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 58 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: More likely a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave in him, whatever he is. 2
Bobbieaware Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: I refect the notion that in order to embrace Mormonism you also have to embrace Christian fundamentalist notions about scripture I ask the following questions with all due deference and sincerity because I believe you, and others who might think as you do, are beloved children of God... I'm wondering if this aversion to the Christian fundamentalist notion of scripture, of which you speak, might prevent a member of the LDS Church from believing Joseph Smith's First Vision account in the Pearl of Great Price is true and that what he so solemnly testified to did not, in fact, actually occur? I'm also wondering if this aversion to the Christian fundamentalist notion of scripture could cause a member of the LDS Church to feel justified in denying Jesus of Nazareth was the literal Son of God who shed his blood and suffered infinitely and eternally for the sins of the world? Finally, I'm wondering if this aversion could cause a member to believe there is no life after death, there won't be a resurrection of the physical body, and there will be no final judgement when, as the scriptures testify, all who have ever lived will see God face to face and know for a surety he lives and is a very real glorified human being? If the answer to any or all of these questions is yes, I'm wondering what the net benefit of Church membership might be for someone who believes virtually nothing about the scriptures and history of Church is real and true? Edited June 20, 2017 by Bobbieaware
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I know there are some who don't like hearing this in reference to same-sex attraction, but I believe there are at least as many who derive hope and strength from the knowledge that they will not be stuck with the condition for eternity. They deserve to have that assurance. The hope of a glorious Resurrection, if nothing else, is the greatest and most certain center of our faith. Just because we cannot see clearly into that certain future doesn't mean we must assume today's concerns will be concerns then. We don't even have to address our self deceptions. As it says in the German, "Wir sind Gottes Geschlecht!" His literal offspring. What we know or can infer about Him, that is our heritage, that and so much more 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I can't speak for HappyJack, but I question whether the comments from these brethren are their best guesses or are by revelation or what. THese kind of statements come off more like many of the long condemned comments from past leaders who were speaking as men. So, how are we to put any stock in it? How is anyone who doesn't feel like this issue is resolved going to hear this and feel that they know from which they speak? As I have pointed out before, the statement was made by a General Authority Seventy (he has since been given emeritus status) and sustained by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who was also involved in the conversation. It was and is published on an official Church venue (LDS Newsroom) that is the go-to source for outside news media wishing to know the position of the Church on same-sex attraction and other issues. Furthermore, the same position was reflected on the Mormons and Gays website. That website has since been revamped, so I don't know if it's still there or not. But even if it isn't, the Wickman-Oaks interview is still up on LDS Newsroom. Now you can be dismissive of what they said and try to rationalize it away, but given the persons and the venue, and given the fact that there has been nothing whatsoever in any official Church discourse to contradict them, you have to be concerned about looking foolish in doing so. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
CV75 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I can't speak for HappyJack, but I question whether the comments from these brethren are their best guesses or are by revelation or what. THese kind of statements come off more like many of the long condemned comments from past leaders who were speaking as men. So, how are we to put any stock in it? How is anyone who doesn't feel like this issue is resolved going to hear this and feel that they know from which they speak? The idea is not to put stock in them, but in the Lord. This enables us to discern and hold to that which is most essential/expedient for our spiritual happiness, which in turn enables us to deal with things with the potential to unsettle and disquiet us with charity and faith. Once He is known, the Lord will always provide something more edifying than the immediate or even life-long challenges and circumstances at hand. Until He is known, Human nature satisfies herself one way or another, or acclimates to the challenges and circumstances. Edited June 20, 2017 by CV75 1
Calm Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: I refect the notion that in order to embrace Mormonism you also have to embrace Christian fundamentalist notions about scripture What fundamental LDS notions do you accept? 2
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, Calm said: What fundamental LDS notions do you accept? {Pulling up a chair} 1
ksfisher Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, blueglass said: What's interesting is that other apostate class hopes and desires pertain to polygamy even though it is true doctrine and taught in our scriptures to not be a sin D&Cov 132. Elder Oaks could bear his testimony in 1999 about how he "hopes to find another partner and have a great job" and that he "hopes to get sealed to another wife again and have a family", he could testify that "I know I can have June and Kristen as a polygamist and be happy in heaven". That "He believes that if God is there, He knows he is perfect, just the way he is as an eternal polygamist, and that "God would never ask me to live my life alone with one wife in heaven, if I can have two by being sealed again." CFR on the quotes you've attributed to Elder Oaks. 1
CV75 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Calm said: What fundamental LDS notions do you accept? I like the really, really, "hard" [not] questions! Hopefully he'll answer yours! Edited June 20, 2017 by CV75
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 53 minutes ago, blueglass said: What's interesting is that other apostate class hopes and desires pertain to polygamy even though it is true doctrine and taught in our scriptures to not be a sin D&Cov 132. Elder Oaks could bear his testimony in 1999 about how he "hopes to find another partner and have a great job" and that he "hopes to get sealed to another wife again and have a family", he could testify that "I know I can have June and Kristen as a polygamist and be happy in heaven". That "He believes that if God is there, He knows he is perfect, just the way he is as an eternal polygamist, and that "God would never ask me to live my life alone with one wife in heaven, if I can have two by being sealed again." Are you quoting Elder Oaks directly here? If not, you should not be using quotation marks, which would amount to putting words in his mouth, a deceptive and unethical practice.If you are, please link us to the source(s).
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: CFR on the quotes you've attributed to Elder Oaks. Ah, I see you had the same suspicion I did.
cinepro Posted June 20, 2017 Author Posted June 20, 2017 56 minutes ago, blueglass said: What's interesting is that other apostate class hopes and desires pertain to polygamy even though it is true doctrine and taught in our scriptures to not be a sin D&Cov 132. Elder Oaks could bear his testimony in 1999 about how he "hopes to find another partner and have a great job" and that he "hopes to get sealed to another wife again and have a family", he could testify that "I know I can have June and Kristen as a polygamist and be happy in heaven". That "He believes that if God is there, He knows he is perfect, just the way he is as an eternal polygamist, and that "God would never ask me to live my life alone with one wife in heaven, if I can have two by being sealed again." Polygamy is taught "to not be a sin" when God commands it. If you're just now figuring out that the Mormon history with polygamy is different than the history with gay marriage, that's awesome. Keep up the good work. 1
cinepro Posted June 20, 2017 Author Posted June 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Are you quoting Elder Oaks directly here? If not, you should not be using quotation marks, which would amount to putting words in his mouth, a deceptive and unethical practice.If you are, please link us to the source(s). I think the word "could" makes it pretty clear that he's presenting a hypothetical.
ksfisher Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, cinepro said: I think the word "could" makes it pretty clear that he's presenting a hypothetical. If that's the case it was expressed in a way that completely confused me. Still not sure as to intent or meaning after the editing.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, cinepro said: I think the word "could" makes it pretty clear that he's presenting a hypothetical. It's not clear. Quotation marks mean one thing and one thing only: You are directly quoting a person or source. If he's not doing that, he should not use them. In fact, his intended meaning would have been far clearer had he simply left out the quotation marks and written in third- rather than first-person. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: If that's the case it was expressed in a way that completely confused me. Still not sure as to intent or meaning after the editing. Yeah, I was confused too, until I read Cinepro's post and then visualized blueglasse's post as though he not used the quotation marks. Suddenly blueglass's meaning was much clearer. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
blueglass Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: Polygamy is taught "to not be a sin" when God commands it. If you're just now figuring out that the Mormon history with polygamy is different than the history with gay marriage, that's awesome. Keep up the good work. What are your thoughts on the "doctrinal footholds" presented by Aviram and Leachman, The Future of Polyamorous Marriage: Lessons from the Marriage Equality Struggle. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485853 mormon polygamy is dead in the courts especially with the strong overturn of the Waddoups ruling in utah, but if a bisexual woman seeks marriage to both the man and woman she loves, it might have a chance. Why do you think Utah should not become the first state to legalize polyamory marriage? I think it's difficult to discern the origin of this angel with the drawn sword, and we all know joseph didn't follow the marital prescriptions of sec 132.
cinepro Posted June 20, 2017 Author Posted June 20, 2017 30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's not clear. Quotation marks mean one thing and one thing only: You are directly quoting a person or source. If he's not doing that, he should not use them. In fact, his intended meaning would have been far clearer had he simply left out the quotation marks and written in third- rather than first-person. Sorry, I don't agree. What if he said "I'm a genius"? When you read that, are you saying that you don't understand my meaning and you think I'm saying he actually said that? Or that you would want the first line typed this way: Sorry I don't agree. What if he said I'm a genius? That kind of changes the meaning. 2
blueglass Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) On 6/15/2017 at 1:10 PM, cinepro said: I believe God would tell me if I was wrong. I hope someday to go on dates, go to school dances, to hold hands, to go off to college. I hope to find a partner and have a great job. I hope to get married and have a family. I know these dreams and wishes are good and right. I know I can have all of these things as a lesbian and be happy. I believe that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am. and would never ask me to live my life alone or with someone I am not attracted to. He would want me to be happy. I want to be happy. I want to love myself and not to feel shame for being me. Here's another theoretical construct - and i know these have severe limitations for framing the environment, culture, and doctrine opposing same sex marriage. Let's say it's 1956 only 20 years before I was born, and an African man gets up on fast and testimony meeting, and walks up to the pulpit and says that he hopes some day to go to the same school as Caucasians, and to find a partner where it won't matter if she is from Denmark or Kenya and have a great job anywhere I want to work if i'm qualified, to be ordained, hold the priesthood and give blessings, to get married in the temple and have an eternal family. If he says, I know that I can have all of these things as an African man, and be happy. That he believes that if God is there, he knows I am perfect, just the way I am, and would never ask me to live an eternity alone in heaven. If this occurred in Utah would the presiding authority turn off the mic for teaching false doctrine? Edited June 20, 2017 by blueglass
stemelbow Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I have pointed out before, the statement was made by a General Authority Seventy (he has since been given emeritus status) and sustained by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who was also involved in the conversation. It was and is published on an official Church venue (LDS Newsroom) that is the go-to source for outside news media wishing to know the position of the Church on same-sex attraction and other issues. Furthermore, the same position was reflected on the Mormons and Gays website. That website has since been revamped, so I don't know if it's still there or not. But even if it isn't, the Wickman-Oaks interview is still up on LDS Newsroom. Now you can be dismissive of what they said and try to rationalize it away, but given the persons and the venue, and given the fact that there has been nothing whatsoever in any official Church discourse to contradict them, you have to be concerned about looking foolish in doing so. I'm sure its the best the Church has in addressing this issue, fi that's what you're saying. I'm just saying I can't take it as revelation. As I said, I'm not speaking for HappyJack. Just commenting.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm sure its the best the Church has in addressing this issue, fi that's what you're saying. I'm just saying I can't take it as revelation. As I said, I'm not speaking for HappyJack. Just commenting. Put it this way: Given what has been expressed in an authoritative venue aimed at outside media by two leaders of the Church who, in this instance, are authorized to speak for the Church, there is substantial cause to believe that there will be no same-sex attraction in the hereafter. On the other hand, there is zero cause to believe that same-sex attraction will continue into the hereafter. The latter is a vain (pointless) belief, considering what has and has not been said by prophets and apostles, those who are authorized to speak for God. Furthermore, the understanding that the tendency will be removed along with all other earthly maladies fits nicely within the doctrinal and theological paradigm of Mormonism (i.e. the Plan of Salvation); the converse understanding does not fit at all. You can reject it as revelation if you like, but to do so, you have to do a lot of stretching and distorting and explaining away of clear statements by prophets and apostles. Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Tacenda Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours 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. What do you think about the scriptures that state the ages of individuals such as Noah, to have lived to be 950 years old? Edited June 20, 2017 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts