USU78 Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The Church has no obligation to take part in this media dog-and-pony show. Sorry ... hadn't seen this when I responded to much the same effect.
blueglass Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 44 minutes ago, pogi said: 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! As Peterson said in his MS Thesis at byu, "[Joseph] did not always refuse the wine that maketh the heart glad." "no evil had been done, and gave them a couple of dollars, with directions to replenish the bottle" I just don't know how it would work with a bishop temple recommend interview to say "i try to live the word of wisdom", if once in awhile you had a glass of wine, beer, or whiskey like joseph and jesus did. If you drink monster, red-bull, or sodalicious daily no one cares. I don't think the dietary laws of the old testament were given for purely health reasons, more for setting apart a people as peculiar and under covenant for a special mission. Also arrington says brigham wanted more cash to help with the perpetual emigration fund and the saints were wasting money on importing fine wines.
JLHPROF Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. 26 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. Rockpond, that's not what Carbon meant and I think you know that. Marriage/Sealing/Family IS a necessary part. And it is open to gay people the same as everyone else. It just requires them to marry someone of the opposite sex in accordance with God's design for marriage. There are no special laws created for gay people excusing them from the same laws everyone has to follow. As California Boy is quick to point out this causes problems and challenges and he considers it very bad advice. However, the plan is the same for everyone. If you want to be in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom living as God lives, you have to follow the same laws. And that requires a Celestial heterosexual eternal marriage sealing. An option for everyone if they are willing to sacrifice their own will in favor of God's. 1
Calm Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I dare you to watch, I know it's scary, because it's John Dehlin. Such comments that engaging with ideas or people one disagrees with are scary or intimidating for some reason are extremely condescending. And imo rather clueless about actual reasons for distaste in most cases. Perhaps you personally feel that way or perhaps you were making a joke. Whatever reason, try to imagine how you would react if someone said that to you and it was contrary to what was really going on. Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm 4
RevTestament Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 Re: family and marriage as necessary in the Plan of Salvation 59 minutes ago, USU78 said: CFR it isn't so taught. 35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Marriage/Sealing/Family IS a necessary part. And it is open to gay people the same as everyone else. It just requires them to marry someone of the opposite sex in accordance with God's design for marriage. There are no special laws created for gay people excusing them from the same laws everyone has to follow. For the benefit of the reader it seems to me that this is a common conflation of the plan of salvation. It is not necessary to be married or have a family to be saved. I would like to see the Church stop doing that. It is necessary for exaltation or is at least a pattern for exaltation. People who do not get married will still in all likelihood be saved. So the temple technically does not offer saving ordinances imho. A person with SSA who never marries, and lives righteously will be saved even if not sealed in the temple - lest the reader get the wrong idea. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 Just now, RevTestament said: For the benefit of the reader it seems to me that this is a common conflation of the plan of salvation. It is not necessary to be married or have a family to be saved. I would like to see the Church stop doing that. It is necessary for exaltation or is at least a pattern for exaltation. People who do not get married will still in all likelihood be saved. So the temple technically does not offer saving ordinances imho. A person with SSA who never marries, and lives righteously will be saved even if not sealed in the temple - lest the reader get the wrong idea. Correct. It is not necessary to have an eternal family to be saved. It is necessary to have one to be saved in the highest kingdom, where the Gods dwell. If we are happy with a lesser glory, there are several options to choose from. Unfortunately they almost all involve no family unit such as we are familiar with here. 1
bluebell Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Rockpond, that's not what Carbon meant and I think you know that. Marriage/Sealing/Family IS a necessary part. And it is open to gay people the same as everyone else. It just requires them to marry someone of the opposite sex in accordance with God's design for marriage. There are no special laws created for gay people excusing them from the same laws everyone has to follow. As California Boy is quick to point out this causes problems and challenges and he considers it very bad advice. However, the plan is the same for everyone. If you want to be in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom living as God lives, you have to follow the same laws. And that requires a Celestial heterosexual eternal marriage sealing. An option for everyone if they are willing to sacrifice their own will in favor of God's. I get what people are saying when they say that the plan is different for homosexual and heterosexual people. When phrased one way, it does appear to be the same for everyone, but if it's phrased in a different way, it appears in a different light. For heterosexuals, the plan involves a celestial marriage to someone they are sexually attracted to. For homosexuals, the plan involves a celestial marriage to someone they aren't sexually attracted to. In some ways, that might be an issue of semantics but I think that in other ways, it's definitely not. The plan is built to support heterosexual wants and needs and to deny homosexual wants and needs. Even if i support the church's teachings about the plan, I can't deny that the same thing is not required for heterosexuals and homosexuals to access salvation. All a heterosexual person has to do is to image the toll it would take if them being in a homosexual relationship was mandatory for salvation, to see the differences. 3
ksfisher Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, blueglass said: I just don't know how it would work with a bishop temple recommend interview to say "i try to live the word of wisdom", if once in awhile you had a glass of wine, beer, or whiskey like joseph and jesus did. Joseph and Jesus were not under commandment to abstain from wine. The temple recommend questions are pretty much either yes or no, either you abstain from alcoholic beverages or you don't. 1
USU78 Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Re: family and marriage as necessary in the Plan of Salvation For the benefit of the reader it seems to me that this is a common conflation of the plan of salvation. It is not necessary to be married or have a family to be saved. I would like to see the Church stop doing that. It is necessary for exaltation or is at least a pattern for exaltation. People who do not get married will still in all likelihood be saved. So the temple technically does not offer saving ordinances imho. A person with SSA who never marries, and lives righteously will be saved even if not sealed in the temple - lest the reader get the wrong idea. Thnx for clarifying post. As has been discussed hereabouts ad infinitum hoc nauseum, if one doesn't marry in this life, one may well be sealed post-mortem without missing a beat towards exaltation. It is a very sad thing, yet how can we help but feel monstrous gratitude that this sort of earth-life vicissitude is accounted for by an all-loving Father in Heaven. 1
RevTestament Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Correct. It is not necessary to have an eternal family to be saved. It is necessary to have one to be saved in the highest kingdom, where the Gods dwell. If we are happy with a lesser glory, there are several options to choose from. Unfortunately they almost all involve no family unit such as we are familiar with here. I just want it be clear that such a person does not even necessarily go to hell although they may be limited to the terrestrial kingdom - I am not sure because I am not sure of the three degrees of glory in the celestial. Sec 76:67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn. Seems to imply that there are angels in the celestial kingdom. So it seems they could be in the celestial kingdom as single angels. Edited June 21, 2017 by RevTestament
JLHPROF Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: I get what people are saying when they say that the plan is different for homosexual and heterosexual people. When phrased one way, it does appear to be the same for everyone, but if it's phrased in a different way, it appears in a different light. For heterosexuals, the plan involves a celestial marriage to someone they are sexually attracted to. For homosexuals, the plan involves a celestial marriage to someone they aren't sexually attracted to. In some ways, that might be an issue of semantics but I think that in other ways, it's definitely not. The plan is built to support heterosexual wants and needs and to deny homosexual wants and needs. Even if i support the church's teachings about the plan, I can't deny that the same thing is not required for heterosexuals and homosexuals to access salvation. All a heterosexual person has to do is to image the toll it would take if them being in a homosexual relationship was mandatory for salvation, to see the differences. I agree with everything you said here. I just don't think it is a valid excuse for not following God's law. You say that " the same thing is not required for heterosexuals and homosexuals to access salvation". I agree. The same thing wasn't required of Joseph Smith that was required of Lorenzo Snow. The same thing wasn't required of Moses that was required of Abraham. And nobody had to endure what the Savior did. Not everyone will have the same trials or paths placed upon them. And for those with a same sex attraction they have a much harder path in one area of the gospel than those with a heterosexual path. Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. (LoF 6). In all cases, the laws were the same even if the paths weren't. Some just say I will sacrifice this far and no further - this is too much a part of me to give up if God asks. 1
USU78 Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I agree with everything you said here. I just don't think it is a valid excuse for not following God's law. You say that " the same thing is not required for heterosexuals and homosexuals to access salvation". I agree. The same thing wasn't required of Joseph Smith that was required of Lorenzo Snow. The same thing wasn't required of Moses that was required of Abraham. And nobody had to endure what the Savior did. Not everyone will have the same trials or paths placed upon them. And for those with a same sex attraction they have a much harder path in one area of the gospel than those with a heterosexual path. Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. (LoF 6). In all cases, the laws were the same even if the paths weren't. Some just say I will sacrifice this far and no further - this is too much a part of me to give up if God asks. Let me disagree, at least in a single particular: There are many who never marry, and not necessarily because they suffer from SSA. It is a sad and lonely thing to endure. It is also unfair that these many never get the chance in life to be spouses and parents/grandparents. I wish I could remember who addressed this situation in a conference talk: if such remain faithful, they will be eligible for all of the blessings, including exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. This applies both to those with conventional sexual orientation, and those without: the path is the same for them all regardless. If they remain true to their covenants they have the same promise.
blueglass Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Joseph and Jesus were not under commandment to abstain from wine. The temple recommend questions are pretty much either yes or no, either you abstain from alcoholic beverages or you don't. why do you think joseph disregarded the revelation he received knowing full well that the saints were watching him as an example? "behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father," As Lyman said regarding the word of wisdom, "Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities".
bluebell Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I agree with everything you said here. I just don't think it is a valid excuse for not following God's law. You say that " the same thing is not required for heterosexuals and homosexuals to access salvation". I agree. The same thing wasn't required of Joseph Smith that was required of Lorenzo Snow. The same thing wasn't required of Moses that was required of Abraham. And nobody had to endure what the Savior did. Not everyone will have the same trials or paths placed upon them. And for those with a same sex attraction they have a much harder path in one area of the gospel than those with a heterosexual path. Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life. (LoF 6). In all cases, the laws were the same even if the paths weren't. Some just say I will sacrifice this far and no further - this is too much a part of me to give up if God asks. I agree that we are all asked to make different sacrifices. I suppose I just bristle a little when people imply (not saying you were doing so) that homosexuals and heterosexuals sacrifice the same thing when it comes to following the gospel. 3
bluebell Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, blueglass said: why do you think joseph disregarded the revelation he received knowing full well that the saints were watching him as an example? "behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father," As Lyman said regarding the word of wisdom, "Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities". When JS was alive, the WoW was not viewed as a commandment, but more just a list of guidelines that would be a good idea to follow if one wanted the blessings attached to it. That's probably one of the reasons that JS did not strictly observe it. It wasn't until BY that it became a commandment.
ksfisher Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, blueglass said: why do you think joseph disregarded the revelation he received knowing full well that the saints were watching him as an example? "behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father," As Lyman said regarding the word of wisdom, "Joseph Smith tried the faith of the Saints many times by his peculiarities". I did not say that "joseph [sic] disregarded the revelation." I said that he was "not under commandment." It was given to Joseph "not by commandment or constraint" (D&C 89:2). 2
JLHPROF Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, USU78 said: Let me disagree, at least in a single particular: There are many who never marry, and not necessarily because they suffer from SSA. It is a sad and lonely thing to endure. It is also unfair that these many never get the chance in life to be spouses and parents/grandparents. I wish I could remember who addressed this situation in a conference talk: if such remain faithful, they will be eligible for all of the blessings, including exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. This applies both to those with conventional sexual orientation, and those without: the path is the same for them all regardless. If they remain true to their covenants they have the same promise. Lorenzo Snow. "This life" isn't over until the final judgment. All will have the opportunity to accept or reject God's laws. 1
california boy Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. Are you calling it a revelation from God Himself? Has anyone else called it a revelation from God??
california boy Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. Are you just ignoring the point of my post on purpose? 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. Sorry. Not the same path that everyone else has as you are claiming. 1
Tacenda Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 3 hours ago, USU78 said: 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. Last sentence, you know this about me? I just thought you might need to see/hear her for yourself, you're painting a different picture than what Savannah is saying/doing. I'm not tweening vs. mean old white men in suits at all.
Tacenda Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Calm said: Such comments that engaging with ideas or people one disagrees with are scary or intimidating for some reason are extremely condescending. And imo rather clueless about actual reasons for distaste in most cases. Perhaps you personally feel that way or perhaps you were making a joke. Whatever reason, try to imagine how you would react if someone said that to you and it was contrary to what was really going on. I guess when I condescend it's different than when USU78 does.
USU78 Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Last sentence, you know this about me? I just thought you might need to see/hear her for yourself, you're painting a different picture than what Savannah is saying/doing. I'm not tweening vs. mean old white men in suits at all. My apologies then. What did you have in mind?
california boy Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Rockpond, that's not what Carbon meant and I think you know that. Marriage/Sealing/Family IS a necessary part. And it is open to gay people the same as everyone else. It just requires them to marry someone of the opposite sex in accordance with God's design for marriage. There are no special laws created for gay people excusing them from the same laws everyone has to follow. As California Boy is quick to point out this causes problems and challenges and he considers it very bad advice. However, the plan is the same for everyone. If you want to be in the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom living as God lives, you have to follow the same laws. And that requires a Celestial heterosexual eternal marriage sealing. An option for everyone if they are willing to sacrifice their own will in favor of God's. No. That is the plan for heterosexuals. It is not a plan for someone who is gay. The Celestial Kingdom is not suppose to be a place of eternal torture and torment. Someone who has no interest or desire to suffer through a heterosexual marriage for their entire life on earth is not looking forward to a marriage with someone of the opposite sex for eternity. This issue is a major reason why I specifically decided that there was no real reason to choose to be celibate for life. What does it get you? Where is the reward? Is it so hard for a straight person to understand that is not reward at all any more than if someone attracted to the opposite sex would be promised the great reward to spend eternity with someone of the same sex. What makes the Celestial Kingdom sound wonderful is spending eternity with someone you have shared life on earth with and now want to spend eternity with them. You take the spouse out of the equation and give you someone of the same sex to spend eternity with and all the sudden the Celestial Kingdom becomes a much less desirable place to be. 1
Tacenda Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: My apologies then. What did you have in mind? What do you mean? I just thought you might want to hear/see what she's like before you say things like you did. Are you against watching because of John Dehlin? I apologize for how I said you were afraid to.
Jane_Doe Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tacenda said: What do you mean? I just thought you might want to hear/see what she's like before you say things like you did. Are you against watching because of John Dehlin? I apologize for how I said you were afraid to. Speaking personally: I would greatly prefer to listen to an interview that didn't involve John Dehlin. I have a very negative opinion of Mr Dehlin and how he conducts things (including interviews), so every time I try to listen to one of his pieces, the interviewer gets in the way of me listening to the interviewee. Hence a different interviewer would be much perferred. 1
Recommended Posts