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

[california boy]

3 hours 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.

YEAH!!  YEAH!!  YEAH!!  Someone gets why this Plan of Happiness is no plan of happiness if you are gay.  Sorry not something I am excited about.  No one has every given me a single reason to be celibate and live a life alone and deny yourself the very thing that makes life worth living.  When members start shrugging off the "natural man" and choose to be celibate os they can spend eternity with the hope of being with someone of the same sex that they will be matched up with, then we can talk about how great the plan is for everyone.

[california boy]

3 hours 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.

You really aren't listening.  It is not the sacrifice that is the issue.  It is the lack of any kind of reward that sacrifice would receive?

Elder Oaks and Scott think that gays will be thrilled to be able to be heterosexual.  Do you think this is the message this young Beehive is delivering?  Do you think this is the message I am delivering?  How about Daniel.  How many gay people do you know dream of the day they can become heterosexual?  Perhaps there are some. And if they are, then they should go for it.  Quite honestly, I don't meet many gays that want to become straight.  

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess when I condescend it's different than when USU78 does. 

It is the "you're scared" theme I have being seeing much of lately that is personally bugging me.  If USU had used it at that time when it just got to me, I would have said the same to him.  Just a current pet peeve.  I generally find it more condescending than most other attributions of motive though, so yeah, it is different for me personally.

I actually skipped most of USU's post as I got interrupted, but yes...attributing any negative motive (whether it is one is scared, one likes drama, or whatever) is almost always condescending whoever does it.  His post would have been fine imo with just the first paragraph.  The second one wasn't helpful or needed, imo.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really aren't listening.  It is not the sacrifice that is the issue.  It is the lack of any kind of reward that sacrifice would receive?

Elder Oaks and Scott think that gays will be thrilled to be able to be heterosexual.  Do you think this is the message this young Beehive is delivering?  Do you think this is the message I am delivering?  How about Daniel.  How many gay people do you know dream of the day they can become heterosexual?  Perhaps there are some. And if they are, then they should go for it.  Quite honestly, I don't meet many gays that want to become straight.

No, I hear you and this line of reasoning just fine.
And I echo Brother Joseph.  "You talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.”

You are SO certain that homosexual attraction is eternal in nature.  That it is a permanent part of your makeup.

As a heterosexual I am not even certain that heterosexual attraction is eternal in nature.  I'm really not.  According to Eve prior to the fall they would not have had children and part of the curse is that her desire would be to her husband. 
What we call "sexual attraction" on earth may well end with redemption from the fall, although I personally believe the sexual function will continue (God having commanded it before the fall).
You may not be thrilled or dream of heterosexuality.  I may not approve of homosexuality.  I sincerely have no idea if such a thing even exists in the eternities from an attraction standpoint.

But I am certain that the heterosexual family structure and relationship is eternal.
So if all "sexual attraction" (both homosexual and heterosexual) were to end, were to stop completely, what should be our hoped for reward?


 

Edited June 21, 2017 by JLHPROF

[USU78]

39 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. 

I

Do

Not

Buy

The

Cute

Narrative

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is the "you're scared" theme I have being seeing much of lately that is personally bugging me.  If USU had used it at that time when it just got to me, I would have said the same to him.  Just a current pet peeve.  I generally find it more condescending than most other attributions of motive though, so yeah, it is different for me personally.

I actually skipped most of USU's post as I got interrupted, but yes...attributing any negative motive (whether it is one is scared, one likes drama, or whatever) is almost always condescending whoever does it.  His post would have been fine imo with just the first paragraph.  The second one wasn't helpful or needed, imo.

Wanna be my editor? The pays lousy, but the works unrewarding

[Calm]

Just now, USU78 said:

Wanna be my editor? The pays lousy, but the works unrewarding

Spend way too much time being my own, lol.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Last sentence, you know this about me?

I repeat: what did you have in mind?

[JLHPROF]

50 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.

What difference does "what she's like" matter to what she is saying?
A righteous man can be wrong and the devil can speak a truth.

 

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I repeat: what did you have in mind?

What do you have in mind, for what I have in mind?

I just want you to know or see that she wasn't conjoled into bearing her testimony. There is much more to the story than...

I

Do

Not

Buy

The

Cute

Narrative

 

[california boy]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I hear you and this line of reasoning just fine.
And I echo Brother Joseph.  "You talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.”

You are SO certain that homosexual attraction is eternal in nature.  That it is a permanent part of your makeup.

As a heterosexual I am not even certain that heterosexual attraction is eternal in nature.  I'm really not.  According to Eve prior to the fall they would not have had children and part of the curse is that her desire would be to her husband. 
What we call "sexual attraction" on earth may well end with redemption from the fall, although I personally believe the sexual function will continue (God having commanded it before the fall).
You may not be thrilled or dream of heterosexuality.  I may not approve of homosexuality.  I sincerely have no idea if such a thing even exists in the eternities from an attraction standpoint.

But I am certain that the heterosexual family structure and relationship is eternal.
So if all "sexual attraction" (both homosexual and heterosexual) were to end, were to stocompletely, what should be our hoped for reward?


 

From one corner of your mouth, you are saying that you are not certain that heterosexual attraction is eternal in nature. From the other corner of your mouth you are saying you are certain that heterosexual family structure and relationships are eternal.  So how exactly does that work.  Is God going to just match up random men and women where there is not attraction, but they will form a family?  Or do you envision being sealed and spending eternity with someone you love and are attracted to?

And can you then tell me what the great reward to being without the most important human connection on this earth is after a celibate gay man dies is?  Is the church now telling gay men that while our previous "from the mouth of God" if you only marry a woman then you will become straight.  Now we have changed that since that didn't really work out did it.  So now "from the mouth of God" you will marry a woman after you die, THEN you will become straight.

Fool me once . . . 

Edited June 22, 2017 by california boy

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What do you have in mind, for what I have in mind?

I just want you to know or see that she wasn't conjoled into bearing her testimony. There is much more to the story than...

I

Do

Not

Buy

The

Cute

Narrative

 

{gasp!}

The world began a week ago!

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

And can you then tell me what the great reward to being without the most important human connection on this earth is after a celibate gay man dies is?

Living in the presence of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost.

[Calm]

"So all that assertion that there must be a man and a woman to have eternal offspring is just nonsense after all?"

I think he is saying that it may not be sexual attraction that leads people to want to be together or procreate in the next life.  There may be another form of love.

I believe this myself.  I think we will be so aware of the other as an individual, that generic sexual attributes will have little to no impact on why we love another as they do now.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

And can you then tell me what the great reward to being without the most important human connection on this earth is after a celibate gay man dies is?

The traditional (Catholic) Christian heaven is quite different than the LDS one. Have you ever looked into it? There is no family and marriage, just souls purely united with God in the deepest happiness possible.  It's often struck me how LDS view heaven like an extension of life here, but it makes sense I guess if God is viewed as an exalted human.  Heaven, then, would be exalted earth life.

In any case, from the Catholic point-of-view, we're all going to be celibate in heaven. We're not even going to be thinking in terms of sexuality, so there will be no gay or straight among us, just souls united to God, the ground of being, in perfect happiness and joy.

[USU78]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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/

Couple things:

1. I don't give clicks to anti Mormons or their sponsors.

2. Before I analyze an evidentiary datum, I read the source of the datum, look at its provenance, and research the biases of the person(s) proposing consideration of the datum. I work on the assumption that the datum was well prepared and presented in such a way as to put the proposition for which it's proposed as evidence in the best possible light.

I

Did

Not

Buy

The

Cute

Narrative

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

From one corner of your mouth, you are saying that you are not certain that heterosexual attraction is eternal in nature. From the other corner of your mouth you are saying you are certain that heterosexual family structure and relationships are eternal.  So how exactly does that work.  Is God going to just match up random men and women where there is not attraction, but they will form a family?  Or do you envision being sealed and spending eternity with someone you love and are attracted to?

And can you then tell me what the great reward to being without the most important human connection on this earth is after a celibate gay man dies is?  Is the church now telling gay men that while our previous "from the mouth of God" if you only marry a woman then you will become straight.  Now we have changed that since that didn't really work out did it.  So now "from the mouth of God" you will marry a woman after you die, THEN you will become straight.

Fool me once . . . 

So, California Boy, this comment really confuses me. I guess I don't know whether you genuinely don't understand the LDS perspective or you are just so convinced your way of seeing things is the only valid one. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

9 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.

 

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

Sorry ... hadn't seen this when I responded to much the same effect.

No worries. I enjoyed your response and the vividness of your rhetoric. I always do.

And you know what they say: Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses. ...

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you calling it a revelation from God Himself?  Has anyone else called it a revelation from God??

My default assumption is that when the prophets and apostles speak and act with one accord as pertaining to the administration of and teaching within the Church of Jesus Christ, they do so under inspiration from Him whose Church bears His name.

If they were to send you a letter explicitly telling you it was a revelation from God, would it change your mind?

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

"So all that assertion that there must be a man and a woman to have eternal offspring is just nonsense after all?"

I think he is saying that it may not be sexual attraction that leads people to want to be together or procreate in the next life.  There may be another form of love.

I believe this myself.  I think we will be so aware of the other as an individual, that generic sexual attributes will have little to no impact on why we love another as they do now.

Brigham Young said that there need be no fear that in the next life the wife will be dissatisfied with the husband or the husband with the wife, that when souls attain divine exaltation they will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God.

Edited to add: I looked it up just now.

Quote

I think it has been taught by some that as we lay our bodies down, they will so rise again in the resurrection with all the impediments and imperfections that they had here; and that if a wife does not love her husband in this state she cannot love him in the next. This is not so. Those who attain to the blessing of the first or celestial resurrection will be pure and holy, and perfect in body. Every man and woman that reaches to this unspeakable attainment will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God. If you can, by faithfulness in this life, obtain the right to come up in the morning of the resurrection, you need entertain no fears that the wife will be dissatisfied with her husband, or the husband with the wife; for those of the first resurrection will be free from sin and from the consequences and power of sin. This body “is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” “And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”

It's in Journal of Discourses, so you'll likely tell me now that it was probably doctored up by George D. Watt or somebody else.

I still like the quote.

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

You really aren't listening.  It is not the sacrifice that is the issue.  It is the lack of any kind of reward that sacrifice would receive?

Elder Oaks and Scott think that gays will be thrilled to be able to be heterosexual.  Do you think this is the message this young Beehive is delivering?  Do you think this is the message I am delivering?  How about Daniel.  How many gay people do you know dream of the day they can become heterosexual?  Perhaps there are some. And if they are, then they should go for it.  Quite honestly, I don't meet many gays that want to become straight.  

Then why do so many deride as ignorant the notion that someone, given the choice between being gay and straight, would choose to be gay?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Brigham Young said that there need be no fear that in the next life the wife will be dissatisfied with the husband or the husband with the wife, that when souls attain divine exaltation they will be as beautiful as the angels that surround the throne of God.

Sexual attraction in this life does not always even involve the other person, we are often sexually attracted to people who are not even aware of our existence, might even be dead (think movie celebrities).  Many are attracted to those who are sexually repulsed by them.  And people can deceive about being sexually attracted themselves and manipulate others into being sexually attracted or deceive themselves that another desires them in the same way they are desired.  Even deeply loving couples are often not on the same page when it comes to sexual attraction and sexual desire and one may be clueless about what the other is actually experiencing.

It seems to me a pretty fallible method of finding the type of person we would find interesting enough to stay with for eternities.

What if the attraction that leads to eternal pairing is not only recognizing how our physical bodies can interact and create together (I am not only speaking of procreation), but is even more a response to knowing the heart and mind of the other and how that meshes, supplements, and exalts oneself while one's own self supplements and exalts the other?  Since we as mortals are incapable of mindreading and communication is generally pretty superficial, we would not be able to experience that kind of attraction in mortality and thus God would need to find something else that fits better with the natural man to draw couples together; solution---sexual attraction. 

Assuming that male-female eternal attraction is fundamentally based on sexual attraction seems to me a huge assumption given how much more expansive we believe God's awareness of others is than our own.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sexual attraction in this life does not always even involve the other person, we are often sexually attracted to people who are not even aware of our existence, might even be dead (think movie celebrities).  Many are attracted to those who are sexually repulsed by them.  And people can deceive about being sexually attracted themselves and manipulate others into being sexually attracted or deceive themselves that another desires them in the same way they are desired.  Even deeply loving couples are often not on the same page when it comes to sexual attraction and sexual desire and one may be clueless about what the other is actually experiencing.

It seems to me a pretty fallible method of finding the type of person we would find interesting enough to stay with for eternities.

What if the attraction that leads to eternal pairing is not only recognizing how our physical bodies can interact, but is also a response to knowing the heart and mind of the other and how that meshes, supplements, and exalts oneself while one's own self supplements and exalts the other?  Since we as mortals are incapable of mindreading and communication is generally pretty superficial, we would not be able to experience that kind of attraction in mortality and thus God would need to find something else that fits better with the natural man to draw couples together; solution---sexual attraction. 

Assuming that male-female eternal attraction is fundamentally based on sexual attraction seems to me a huge assumption given how much more expansive we believe God's awareness of others is than our own.

It's just that I have always imagined that an exalted woman -- any exalted woman -- would be so indescribably beautiful and perfect in every way, not just physically, that I would have no problem whatsoever being matched with her -- assuming I myself had attained exaltation.

You didn't really say what you think of the Brigham Young quote. Did you notice I looked it up and pasted it in verbatim as an addendum to my post? I don't believe Brother Brigham is referring merely, or even primarily, to sexual attraction here -- if he is referring to sexual attraction at all. That said, bear in mind that in the resurrection, all physical blemishes of mortality will be removed.

 

Edited June 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's just that I have always imagined that an exalted woman -- any exalted woman -- would be so indescribably beautiful and perfect in every way, not just physically, that I would have no problem whatsoever being matched with her -- assuming I myself had attained exaltation.

You didn't really say what you think of the Brigham Young quote. Did you notice I looked it up and pasted it in verbatim as an addendum to my post? I don't believe Brother Brigham is referring merely, or even primarily, to sexual attraction here -- if he is referring to sexual attraction at all. That said, bear in mind that in the resurrection, all physical blemishes of mortality will be removed.

 

I don't read the quote as about eternal sexual attraction at all.  To me it is evidence of something else.  And my comment was suggesting why it might be as BY described.

In our culture, symmetrical features are generally seen as more beautiful.  Does that mean asymmetry is a physical blemish even if perfectly functional and healthy and will be removed or will it be our perception of beauty that changes?  I lean heavily towards the latter, though I am hoping to gain a few inches to my 5'5" to balance the size of my skull (which follows my 6'2" father more than my 5'3" mother).

This interpretation is in part because BY was from a Protestant background and would have, imo, a natural disinclination to think of angels in terms of sexual beauty.  I may be assuming something I shouldn't, but perception of "beauty" certainly isn't restricted or even mainly a sexual experience.

[Calm]

"would be so indescribably beautiful and perfect in every way"

If this is based off physical appearance, then very few of us are going to look anything like we do in this life.

If, otoh, the source of the sensation of beauty is the entire being, physical appearance may matter little in the end.  If, for example, the impression of overwhelming beauty came from a light that issued from a being, the physical body of that being could be quite nondescript and yet we would perceive a being of beauty.  If our minds are so open that we could 'see' a person's wisdom and love or their personality, that might very well replace facial features in how we tell each other apart.