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

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Jesus WAS a real person. There's no doubt about that.

As far as the atonement goes, there are various theories on that, and the penal substitution theory comes somewhat late. If I have to hold to a theory of atonement, moral exemplar works best for me. But I don't think the historical Jesus' mission (that is to say, his intention) had to do with atonement - I think his mission was ushering in the kingdom of God.

 

When it comes to my thoughts on the historical Jesus, I to go with what seems to be the best, most reasonable/critical historical conclusion. I've found this to be a joyful experience.

 

But do you believe Jesus Christ (who you believe to be a real person) was actually the biological son of God?
Or just some historical moral leader?

 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

The issue is how does a 12-year-old go about "knowing" she is homosexually inclined.  What is the process by which this happens?  Are we simply to accept what may well be self-congratulatory or self-aggrandizing or self-seeking pronouncements uncritically?  Especially where the whole thing is so politicized?

And how can we not suspect the hand of the tweener's elders, one way or another, moving the whole nasty business towards a desired outcome?

Because she likes girls in that way. Did you not watch her and her mother's interview I posted? Here it is again below, hopefully you're open to watching and forming a more informed opinion. In the interview she told her dad she wanted to kiss a girl and worried what he may think. He reacted perfectly. And didn't make her feel horrible for it. 

I chased the boys around in 2nd grade, I was boy crazy, but not girl crazy. She was not chasing boys, but girls (in theory). See the difference? I dare you to watch, I know it's scary, because it's John Dehlin. But if you don't want to sound clueless, which wouldn't go well for an attorney, here's the link. http://www.mormonstories.org/savannah/

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

But do you believe Jesus Christ (who you believe to be a real person) was actually the biological son of God?
Or just some historical moral leader?

 

No, I don't believe that Jesus was the biological son of God - neither of our nativity stories seems to have any basis in history. I think that's just something the Christian community eventually came to believe about Jesus. I'm fine with it as a metaphor of course - perhaps some in the ancient world viewed it that way as well.

There's a little bit of a political flavor to that doctrine too - Caesar was also called "son of God."

Edited June 21, 2017 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I don't believe that Jesus was the biological son of God - neither of our nativity stories seems to have any basis in history. I think that's just something the Christian community eventually came to believe about Jesus. I'm fine with it as a metaphor of course - perhaps some in the ancient world viewed it that way as well.

There's a little bit of a political flavor to that doctrine too - Caesar was also called "son of God."

Withdrawn...

Edited June 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I seem to recall that you have stated you are a recommend holder.

How do you get round those questions, or does your Bishop/SP just give you a free pass?
It seems to me that belief in Christ as the Son of God and in the atonement are requisites.  In fact, it seems to me that this brings into question the validity of any baptismal covenant you may have entered into.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.  I'd love to know how a member can not believe that Christ is the son of God and the atonement is a literal act?

This whole line of questioning would seem like a topic more appropriate for a bishops office than  a public internet message board.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This whole line of questioning would seem like a topic more appropriate for a bishops office than  a public internet message board.

You are correct.  I withdraw the questions.
I am still curious how the contradiction is reconciled, but that is no reason for me to get personal.

Edited June 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

One interesting thing about this whole Savannah thing is how certain groups are crafting it to fit some sort of anti-Mormon narrative about her microphone being switched off for saying she was gay.

But here's a very important point that is obvious to people who understand the concept of linear time and math:

In this video, Savannah's speech starts at :26.

She first "comes out" at :55, about 30 seconds into the speech ("[My heavenly parents] did not mess up when they gave me freckles or when they made me to be gay.")

The mic is cut off at 2:24.  That's about 1:30 after she "came out", and only after she had said she wanted to get married (presumably to a woman) and that she thought God was okay with that (implying Church leaders are wrong about that).

Savannah's mic was not cut off for saying she was gay or "coming out."  The leaders sat there and let her talk for another minute and a half after that.  If someone says something, and you sit there quietly and let them continue for another 90 seconds, you are not censoring them or shutting them up about what they said 90 seconds earlier.  Seriously.  Look at the wall right now for 90 seconds.  It's a really long time.

Now that I have pointed it out to you, it will sound like nails on a chalkboard when people complain that she was "shut up" or "censored" for "coming out" or "being gay."

Edited June 21, 2017 by cinepro

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

But do you believe Jesus Christ (who you believe to be a real person) was actually the biological son of God?

Non-LDS Christians don't believe that Jesus was the biological son of God, so you can't hold that against Gray's Christianity.  Jesus as the biological son of God is a unique LDS belief.

Edited June 21, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

One interesting thing about this whole Savannah thing is how certain groups are crafting it to fit some sort of anti-Mormon narrative about her microphone being switched off for saying she was gay.

But here's a very important point that is obvious:

In this video, Savannah's speech starts at :26.

She first "comes out" at :55, about 30 seconds into the speech ("[My heavenly parents] did not mess up when they gave me freckles or when they made me to be gay.")

The mic is cut off at 2:24.  That's about 1:30 after she "came out", and only after she had said she wanted to get married (presumably to a woman) and that she thought God was okay with that (implying Church leaders are wrong about that).

Savannah's mic was not cut off for saying she was gay or "coming out."  The leaders sat there and let her talk for another minute and a half after that.

Now that I have pointed it out to you, it will sound like nails on a chalkboard when people complain that she was "shut up" or "censored" for "coming out" or "being gay."

Has anyone wondered here if maybe the mic being shut off had anything to do with both what she was talking about and maybe someone on the stand noticing that it was being recorded? 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

This has happened time and time again throughout the history of the church.  An apostle or even the prophet himself says something that is his opinion.  That opinion gets printed somewhere, and faithful members who believe that general authorities speak for God embrace the  opinion but now, attribute that opinion to God Himself.  The statement gets picked up by another publication which only gives credibility to the the theory expressed by the general authority.  All the sudden people are embracing that idea and no longer call it an opinion but now it is a revelation from God.  Anyone who doesn't consider it as such is now just being a critic of the church and not a faithful member willing to follow the prophet.  

It seems so easy to make that jump between a statement from someone in authority in the church to become a revelation from God.  Sadly, this kind of logic has caused a lot of bitterness and grief in the church.  Yet it continues.  The church is doomed to continue this destructive pattern as long as members put general authorities on a pedestal and take every statement they make as a revelation from God.  This in spite of the long sad history the church has for doing this exact thing in the past.

This was not expressed as an opinion. It was placed on an internet web site to which news media are invited to go to ascertain the positon of the Church of Jesus Christ on current issues. 

The Wickman-Oaks Q and A has remained on the Mormon Newsroom site for years now. it has never been repudiated or contradicted by the Church. It does not carry a disclaimer about it being only the speakers' opinion, as Mormon writings often do, including some written by General Authorities. 

You are free to dislike or dispute what they say. But it won't do to maintain the fiction that the Church has not expressed itself on the matter of whether SSA is eternal, when it clearly has by way of these two leaders. 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Has anyone wondered here if maybe the mic being shut off had anything to do with both what she was talking about and maybe someone on the stand noticing that it was being recorded? 

True, and Cinepro had a good point also. I wish the SP would make a statement. The church is so silent it's deafening. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Non-LDS Christians don't believe that Jesus was the biological son of God, so you can't hold that against Gray's Christianity.  Jesus as the biological son of God is a unique LDS belief.

They don't?
What do they think "only begotten son" means?

Of the 10 uses of the word beget in the KJV Old Testament all 10 refer to the siring of a child.
So do ALL (but one I think) of 139 uses of the word begat and several of the 24 uses of begotten.

Would the writers of the NT who lived in a society based on the OT have understood begat/beget/begotten to mean something else when they said Jesus was the Only Begotten?

I John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Edited June 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Tacenda said:

True, and Cinepro had a good point also. I wish the SP would make a statement. The church is so silent it's deafening. 

There is nothing they could say.
The bleeding hearts have made up their minds.  The TBM's have made up their minds.
The Church isn't going to give this thing any more attention than it deserves.  Which is none.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

True, and Cinepro had a good point also. I wish the SP would make a statement. The church is so silent it's deafening. 

The Church has no obligation to take part in this media dog-and-pony show. 

[MiserereNobis]

Catholics avoid this issue by only having those who have been properly formed (trained, i.e. priests and deacons) speak during Mass.  Of course there have been rogue priests (the protestant revolt is full of them!) but overall it avoids all the complaints and scandals I've heard here about testimony meeting.

We do share our "testimonies" with each other, just in informal settings. I had a priest a few years back who ran what he called "theology on tap." We'd meet at a local brewpub and discuss God. There was lots of testimony sharing (though we wouldn't use that term).

If you want to have an open mic meeting, you're going to have to accept all that goes with it, including heretical testimonies.

Edited June 21, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They don't?
What do they think "only begotten son" means?

 

From the Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father"

Notice how Only Begotten is explained: Jesus was "born" (metaphor) before all ages, before time and space, before creation.  Begotten means He is of the same substance as the Father from all eternity -- He was not created.  It does not mean He was biologically sired by God (which would require God to have a biological body, which non-LDS Christians do not believe).

For Catholics and other mainstream Christians, Only Begotten refers to the divine nature of Jesus, not to His biological creation.

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of the 10 uses of the word beget in the KJV Old Testament all 10 refer to the siring of a child.
Would the writers of the NT who lived in a society based on the OT have understood beget/begotten to mean something else when they said Jesus was the Only Begotten?

For Catholics, we believe that Christ taught His Apostles, who then taught the Bishops they ordained, and those teachings constitute the Tradition of the Catholic Church, which we hold on equal footing with the Bible and the authority of the current Magisterium.  So, from the Catholic point-of-view, the Apostles would have had the direct teachings from Christ as to His nature, and would not be relying on the Old Testament understandings.  Christianity took the ideas from the Old Testament and applied them in new/more correct ways.

Obviously, LDS disagree with this, and I don't want to derail this into a discussion of the nature of God and Christ.  But I did want to point out that mainstream Christians don't believe that Jesus is God's biological son.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholics avoid this issue by only having those who have been properly formed (trained, i.e. priests and deacons) speak during Mass.  Of course there have been rogue priests (the protestant revolt is full of them!) but overall it avoids all the complaints and scandals I've heard here about testimony meeting.

We do share our "testimonies" with each other, just in informal settings. I had a priest a few years back who ran what he called "theology on tap." We'd meet at a local brewpub and discuss God. There was lots of testimony sharing (though we wouldn't use that term).

If you want to have an open mic meeting, you're going to have to accept all that goes with it, including heretical testimonies.

It has never been a serious problem up to now. And I'm not sure it is even now. It may be that antagonists and apostates (or apostates-in-training) will now start an epidemic of hijacking Mormon worship services. I suppose it will have to be addressed if and when it happens. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Non-LDS Christians don't believe that Jesus was the biological son of God, so you can't hold that against Gray's Christianity.  Jesus as the biological son of God is a unique LDS belief.

I am at least one LDS who does not generally accept the departure from Luke regarding the conception of Yeshua. Whether it was biological or not tho I confess I do not know. I imagine Yeshua's body grew from an egg and was thus "created" just like the rest of us. I believe that he was born through the birth canal just like most of us, so in that sense was "begotten naturally" as BY said. I suspect Catholicism would react negatively to that just because of the use of the word created, but I certainly believe Yeshua preexisted His birth. 

I think the whole issue is a little moot though because I don't believe Jesus was the "begotten Son" by virtue of a physical means. I believe it refers to Yeshua becoming the Son in a covenantal relationship:

Hebrews 1:5

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my ^aSon, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a ^bFather, and he shall be to me a Son?

This strongly implies Yeshua became the Son of the Father from other than biological means. He was made the Son through the Word of the Father when He said to Him "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee."

I'm sure that this all seems heretical to Catholics, but it is scriptural - unlike the Nicene Creed.  

Edited June 21, 2017 by RevTestament

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/20/2017 at 1:03 AM, california boy said:

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.

Gay people do have a path back to God.  It is the same path everyone else has.  That includes putting off the natural man.  Sacrificing our will to God.  If that means a gay person must be celibate than that is the sacrifice that needs to be made.  We all have our issues and we can't justify ourselves that God will make make allowances for our unique challenges.  Gays are not that special. God is not going to make a special allowance for them but those with other issues whether being attracted to young children or porn or something else he will not make allowances.  One narrow path back to God and we all have to humble ourselves to that path rather than finding loopholes.

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I had a priest a few years back who ran what he called "theology on tap." We'd meet at a local brewpub and discuss God. There was lots of testimony sharing (though we wouldn't use that term).

Well, that would solve the problem of dull testimony meetings!  I bet the testimonies got more and more interesting as the night wore on...  I think a lot more people would bear their testimonies that way, after loosening up some of their social inhibitions.  If we could only convince our leaders that beer really is a mild barley drink sanctioned by the WoW!

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

True, and Cinepro had a good point also. I wish the SP would make a statement. The church is so silent it's deafening. 

I would imagine that anything they say could be used by critics to make the church look bad.

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Gay people do have a path back to God.  It is the same path everyone else has.

I wish we would actually teach this then... that marriage, sealing, family, etc is not a necessary part of the plan of salvation.  Unfortunately, it isn't what we teach.  Savannah is representative of our youth who have learned (from us) the great blessings of marriage and family and she wants that, just as her parents and church taught her.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Because she likes girls in that way. Did you not watch her and her mother's interview I posted? Here it is again below, hopefully you're open to watching and forming a more informed opinion. In the interview she told her dad she wanted to kiss a girl and worried what he may think. He reacted perfectly. And didn't make her feel horrible for it. 

I chased the boys around in 2nd grade, I was boy crazy, but not girl crazy. She was not chasing boys, but girls (in theory). See the difference? I dare you to watch, I know it's scary, because it's John Dehlin. But if you don't want to sound clueless, which wouldn't go well for an attorney, here's the link. http://www.mormonstories.org/savannah/

I guess that's the difference between you and me.  I accept nothing uncritically where the speaker is making unverifiable, self-serving claims for himself  ...  especially when the claims involve (a) politics and (b) establishment of protected class status.  There's just too much money involved.  Lots of reason$, therefore, to fudge.  You desire to believe a pretty (trite, tendentious, and hackneyed to me) yet unverifiable tale told by a pretty speaker.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

True, and Cinepro had a good point also. I wish the SP would make a statement. The church is so silent it's deafening. 

When are people going to understand that when there's neither motivation nor duty to respond to media speculation, there's going to be no response except in the most narrow category of cases.

Just because you like the issue and want the drama of putting up tweener vs mean old white men in suits in the public slop trough doesn't mean the Church, at any level, will be inclined to add to the story.

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wish we would actually teach this then... that marriage, sealing, family, etc is not a necessary part of the plan of salvation.  Unfortunately, it isn't what we teach.  Savannah is representative of our youth who have learned (from us) the great blessings of marriage and family and she wants that, just as her parents and church taught her.

CFR it isn't so taught.