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

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

I don't mind the quotation marks there, because it is clear you are imagining a hypothetical scenario and quoting imagined dialogue from that scenario. That wasn't clear in blueglass's post. At least two of us (ksfisher and I) were confused.

But my preference would be to have it expressed in this way:

What if he said he is a genius?

The meaning it totally clear written in the third-person and we don't risk the message being unclear because of questionable use of quotation marks.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Put it this way: Given what has been expressed in an authoritative venue 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.

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 the clear statements by prophets and apostles.

It's not said to be revelation.  I can't really accept it as such because of that.  But rest assured there are many things claimed to be revelation by leaders, particularly in the past, that I don't see as revelation.  It seems like in too many cases leaders have spoken presumptuously.  I'm honestly not even all that concerned about that, and would expect it.  But that means we get some pretty sad doctrines (like the explanations for the priesthood ban being preached as from God). 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's not said to be revelation.  I can't really accept it as such because of that. 

It is not self-evident to me that, as they function as a unified body in administering the affairs of the Church, they need to identify every single instance of revelation as such for it to be regarded as revelation. If you think they do, then you and I don't have enough common ground on this matter to make further dialogue worthwhile.

Quote

But rest assured there are many things claimed to be revelation by leaders, particularly in the past, that I don't see as revelation. 

Then it really wouldn't make any difference to you if they did say it was revelation, would it? You are, in short, in an unbelieving mindset.

 

[cinepro]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't mind the quotation marks there, because it is clear you are imagining a hypothetical scenario and quoting imagined dialogue from that scenario. That wasn't clear in blueglass's post. At least two of us (ksfisher and I) were confused.

But my preference would be to have it expressed in this way:

What if he said he is a genius?

The meaning it totally clear written in the third-person and we don't risk the message being unclear because of questionable use of quotation marks.

I agree your way is more clear. 

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What do you think about the scriptures that state the ages of individuals such as Noah, to have lived to be 950 years old?

I take that literally, but with a semi-scientific/semi-spiritual backing.
I believe it is related to numerous items:
- the Fall (of the earth AND of mankind)
- the faith of the early men and their closeness to God
- the physical purity of Adam, their mortal father
and probably other things.

Prophecy tells us that lifespans will be extended again in the Millennial reign as the earth moves closer to God again.  That people will live to the age of a tree or not taste of death etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm probably a bit of undigested beef.

There you go, trying to materialise and reify your inherent non-reality. I'm not buying it...unless the non-you was speaking metaphorically.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

More likely a fragment of underdone potato.

There's more of gravy than of grave about me.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

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. 

The words that stick out here are "pervert" "jollies" and "despise". If you're trying to convince me your spiritual framework is higher than mine, I'm less than impressed by your example.

[Gray]

4 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.

 

There is little to no meaning at the literal level. But when we fixate on the literal level, we often stop looking for the meaning.

An example - the story of the loaves and fishes. What's the literal meaning? Jesus can work culinary miracles. Good for Jesus?

But what's the symbolic meaning? I'd argue (and I didn't come up with this on my own) that the meaning of the parable of the loaves and fishes is that Jesus has charged the leaders his movement with feeding the hungry. He works the miracle through the disciples and charges them with distributing the food.

 

Quote

Either angels and God spoke directly to men or they didn't.  If they didn't, religion is a pointless endeavor. 

Religion is deeply meaningful to me, with or without direct communication from God or angels.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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.

This is, I believe, a more mature approach to scripture.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

The words that stick out here are "pervert" "jollies" and "despise". If you're trying to convince me your spiritual framework is higher than mine, I'm less than impressed by your example.

Are you somehow under the impression that impressing you with saintly passivity was my intention? What I was doing was describing what I take from your offerings.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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...

This is greatly appreciated!

 

 

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 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? 

Let's not confuse "true" with "historical." But personally I don't doubt that Joseph had a transformative visionary experience.

 

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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?

Not necessarily. In my case I separate the historical Jesus from the theological Jesus, and find more the former more inspiring in my spiritual question.

 

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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?

 

Not necessarily. But potentially!

 

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 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?

Here's where I have to object - "literal" is not the same as real or true. A myth is “a story about the way things never were, but always are.” So, is a myth true? Literally true, no. Really true, yes.* We should not confuse scripture with history or scientific literature. They are very different genres.

 

* http://www.pietisten.org/winter0405/heart.html

 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is little to no meaning at the literal level. But when we fixate on the literal level, we often stop looking for the meaning.

An example - the story of the loaves and fishes. What's the literal meaning? Jesus can work culinary miracles. Good for Jesus?

But what's the symbolic meaning? I'd argue (and I didn't come up with this on my own) that the meaning of the parable of the loaves and fishes is that Jesus has charged the leaders his movement with feeding the hungry. He works the miracle through the disciples and charges them with distributing the food.

But if scripture isn't literal, then there is no reason for us to care what Jesus did.  There is no more reason to care what Jesus said in the Bible than to care what Harry Potter said in the 4th book.
Without the reality of the gospel, the figurative elements have no anchor.

Quote

Religion is deeply meaningful to me, with or without direct communication from God or angels.

It is completely powerless without direct communication.  Little more valuable than Aesop or Bunyan.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

What fundamental LDS notions do you accept?

Depends on what you personally consider fundamental. Points of convergence with typical LDS "orthodoxy":

 

• We are all a part of the divine kingdom of God, or should strive to be
• The two great commandments are love God and love your neighbor.
• The scriptures, including the BOM, are true (true is not the same thing as factual histories).
• Joseph Smith was a prophet
• Jesus was one "anointed by God" (ie Messiah)
• The teachings of Jesus Christ will bring heaven on earth
• We have an obligation as saints to love and serve our neighbors

 

Whether or not this aligns with any of your fundamentals, I cannot say.

[Gray]

46 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There you go, trying to materialise and reify your inherent non-reality. I'm not buying it...unless the non-you was speaking metaphorically.

I'm quite literal about my metaphors, except in cases where I'm metaphorical about my literalism.

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you somehow under the impression that impressing you with saintly passivity was my intention? What I was doing was describing what I take from your offerings.

Yes, you've said quite a lot.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But if scripture isn't literal, then there is no reason for us to care what Jesus did. 

What makes you think that?

 

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There is no more reason to care what Jesus said in the Bible than to care what Harry Potter said in the 4th book.
Without the reality of the gospel, the figurative elements have no anchor.

If Harry Potter says "love your neighbor", is that less true than when Jesus says it?

 

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is completely powerless without direct communication.  Little more valuable than Aesop or Bunyan.

I've found the opposite is true. As I've given up on the way I used to read scripture the text gains more power.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes you think that?

If Harry Potter says "love your neighbor", is that less true than when Jesus says it?

I've found the opposite is true. As I've given up on the way I used to read scripture the text gains more power.

Taking away literal communication between God and man negates the need for repentance.
If there is no deity send down laws to follow, there are no laws that can be broken, no forgiveness that needs to be sought, no need for baptism or the sacrament, no need for a Christ.
If God didn't speak in holy writ, the words of holy writ are nothing more than good suggestions.  Breaking a commandment is of no significance, nor is breaking a covenant made in God's name.

In order for ANY of the gospel to be of any significance, God has to literally communicate his will to his children.  Otherwise the entirety of the gospel is nothing more than playacting.
It is the very definition of denying the power of God.

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is, I believe, a more mature approach to scripture.

Naturally...

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have no trouble taking literally those passages of scripture that mirror my own lived experiences. It would appear that some people's personal experiences are -- by choice? -- a bit fuzzier than I'm used to.

[ttribe]

11 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.

 

6 hours ago, USU78 said:

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. 

Is this what passes for LDS Apologetics these days? Thinly-veiled vitriol and contempt wrapped in passive-aggressive nonsense?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

This is greatly appreciated!

 

 

Let's not confuse "true" with "historical." But personally I don't doubt that Joseph had a transformative visionary experience.

 

Not necessarily. In my case I separate the historical Jesus from the theological Jesus, and find more the former more inspiring in my spiritual question.

 

Not necessarily. But potentially!

 

Here's where I have to object - "literal" is not the same as real or true. A myth is “a story about the way things never were, but always are.” So, is a myth true? Literally true, no. Really true, yes.* We should not confuse scripture with history or scientific literature. They are very different genres.

 

* http://www.pietisten.org/winter0405/heart.html

 

Did you ever think about looking into Christian Science? It seems what you've created for yourself is a kind of LDS/Christian Science hybrid religion. I'm being quite serious when I say it very well could be that you'll find much validation for your approach in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. I'm hoping you'll look into Christian Science a bit (if you haven't already done so) and let me know what you think. In Eddy's version of Christian theology, there is no need for a bleeding, suffering and dying Savior -- no atonement necessary.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Okrahomer]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

Depends on what you personally consider fundamental. Points of convergence with typical LDS "orthodoxy":

 

• We are all a part of the divine kingdom of God, or should strive to be
• The two great commandments are love God and love your neighbor.
• The scriptures, including the BOM, are true (true is not the same thing as factual histories).
• Joseph Smith was a prophet
• Jesus was one "anointed by God" (ie Messiah)
• The teachings of Jesus Christ will bring heaven on earth
• We have an obligation as saints to love and serve our neighbors

 

Whether or not this aligns with any of your fundamentals, I cannot say.

Those seem like good fundamentals to me!  For what it's worth:  I'm really glad you are in the Church.

[JAHS]

Here's an excerpt from a rather aggressive counter response to this whole fiasco in an article by Peter LaBarbera, Lifesite News:

"Gay activists ‘sexualize and exploit’ young girl after ‘coming out’ as lesbian in Mormon church service"

“So here we have a prepared speech, a carefully thought-out exploitation of a sacred religious meeting for selfish reasons in order to persuade the unwitting captive audience (they didn't come to church to hear that kind of thing) toward an opposing worldview, all about something that everyone else keeps very private, all with the encouragement of her parents,”

“Does this young, physically undeveloped girl know anything about human sexuality or the sex act and what it is for? Does she know anything about being a wife and mother? What gender roles and attitudes toward marriage and motherhood have been modeled?” she notes. “She is obviously a precocious, impertinent, presumptuous, and curious adolescent. Why are her mother and father, and why is everyone else, so eager to sexualize and exploit this vulnerable young girl in this way?” 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-activists-sexualize-and-exploit-young-girl-after-coming-out-as-lesbian

[Calm]

Who is Peter Labarbera?  Just curious.

Looking at the articles on the site, not surprised by his opinion.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm