Gay Man Pleasantly Surprised Over Acceptance in Provo and Ward

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Joseph Smith was acquitted over the charges of seeking treasure. Just because he was "dragged into court" did not make him "bad".

"it’s a breach of Church doctrine" - Except when the Church does it I guess. Though, granted the church sets a very high standard in this regard and does a remarkable job setting an example.

No, he wasn’t acquitted of glass looking. He was released before a decision was made. It is generally accepted he was a glass looker, which was against the law of the day. Even the Church confirms Joseph was a glass locker in one of the essays on the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Being dragged into court because he was pretending to be able to (illegally) find buried treasure through glass looking may not make JS look bad in your eyes. But others mileage may vary.

I don’t understand the relevance of your second paragraph.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

 

However, a gay couple cannot perform sex with a same sex partner in the same way as heterosexuals should.  Ideally, children should have both a Father and Mother figure. Only the events in a sinful world produce other possibilities. However, when the government sanctions such anomalies, it's undermining the family ideal as policy. 

I’ll make you move your goal posts again. Can you not envisage a single parent family produced by circumstances other than sin?

 

[Darren10]

15 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, he wasn’t acquitted of glass looking. He was released before a decision was made. It is generally accepted he was a glass looker, which was against the law of the day. Even the Church confirms Joseph was a glass locker in one of the essays on the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Being dragged into court because he was pretending to be able to (illegally) find buried treasure through glass looking may not make JS look bad in your eyes. But others mileage may vary.

I don’t understand the relevance of your second paragraph.

He was acquitted and not released before the decision was made.

You'll have to download the PDF: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/joseph-smiths-1826-trial-legal-setting

"Joseph was a glass locker" - No, he was not. Nor was he a foot locker.

 

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

He was acquitted and not released before the decision was made.

You'll have to download the PDF: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/joseph-smiths-1826-trial-legal-setting

"Joseph was a glass locker" - No, he was not. Nor was he a foot locker.

 

“The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”18 As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.19”

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

Your penchant for pedantry is duly noted.

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’ll make you move your goal posts again. Can you not envisage a single parent family produced by circumstances other than sin?

 

NO, by sin death entered into this world. The wages of sin is death but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Jesus the Messiah, and God hates divorce.  So, if the husband or wife is killed or dies, that too is the direct or indirect result of sin. And self-fulfillment through a surrogate is selfish --- self servicing at best.  Children are not things. AND unless there are absolutely no ideal married couples (husband & wife), orphan children should not be given to a single person.  You may have to move your goals.

Edited September 11, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Kenngo1969]

Little Nipper,

An Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taught:

Quote

 

... [L]aws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.

In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.

 

In that same address, he also said: 

Quote

On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s Golden Rule: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, (October 2013) "No Other Gods," address delivered at the 183rd Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, available on line at the following address (this and all other links last accessed September 9, 2017): https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/no-other-gods?lang=eng.

You will find broad agreement (but even some disagreement) among Latter-day Saints respecting your views on the meaning and purpose of marriage.  See The Family: A Proclamation to the World, (September 23, 1995), issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and available on line at this address: https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true.

Elder Oaks endorsed civility between those on opposite sides of the debate over same-sex marriage at the 2016 Religious Freedom Conference held at Claremont Graduate University in his address, "Religious Freedom in a Pluralistic Society." Section V is where he talks about civility.  See the following address: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-oaks-claremont-graduate-university-religious-freedom-conference.  I would never suggest that one stifle any sincere, good-faith attempt to impart Living Water to another whom he perceives to be in need of it, but I also think that how one goes about doing so can make a tremendous difference: It's probably best to avoid trying to impart Living Water through a firehose set at full blast.

Just sayin'!  

Edited September 11, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Minor edits for clarity

[Marginal Gains]

11 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

NO, by sin death entered into this world. The wages of sin is death but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Jesus the Messiah, and God hates divorce.  So, if the husband or wife is killed or dies, that too is the direct or indirect result of sin. And self-fulfillment through a surrogate is selfish --- self servicing at best.  Children are not things. AND unless there are absolutely no ideal married couples (husband & wife), orphan children should not be given to a single person.  You may have to move your goals.

Wow!

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

... "Joseph was a glass locker" - No, he was not. Nor was he a foot locker.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

“The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”18 As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.19”

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng

Your penchant for pedantry is duly noted.

Whoosh!!!  

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, he wasn’t acquitted of glass looking. He was released before a decision was made. It is generally accepted he was a glass looker, which was against the law of the day.

Was it against the law?  Cite the law that says "glass looking" was illegal

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:26 AM, LittleNipper said:

Everyone wants to be accepted but not everyone's behavior is acceptable. And frankly, if you live to be 80 or 90 or 100, if the most important thing to you is your homosexualiy, you will be a pretty sour old dud. PS> I don't consider propaganda the truth.

If I live to 80, 90, 100, or beyond, and the most important thing in my life is the loving relationship I share with the beautiful, kind-hearted, selfless, handsome man that is my husband... I will consider myself, my family, and my life blessed beyond measure.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Daniel2

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Was it against the law?  Cite the law that says "glass looking" was illegal

In a strict reading of Marginal's post, you are correct ot challenge her on "glass looking" as illegal. In and of itself, it was not. It was illegal to use it to seek treasure. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

If I love to 80, 90, 100, or beyond, and the most inmportant thing in my life is the loving relationship I share with the beautiful, kind-hearted, selfless, handsome man that is my husband... I will consider myself, my family, and my life blessed beyond measure.

Love this post.  You and your husband (and family) sound very happy.  I'm sure it's not always been easy either, but worth it.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

If I love to 80, 90, 100, or beyond, and the most inmportant thing in my life is the loving relationship I share with the beautiful, kind-hearted, selfless, handsome man that is my husband... I will consider myself, my family, and my life blessed beyond measure.

I'd much rather be identified as a Christian that by my sexual appetite. That would be a blessing.

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I'd much rather be identified as a Christian that by my sexual appetite. That would be a blessing.

It is a shame that you have turned a thread about love and inclusion of someone who is gay into a thread about bashing gays and making absolutely false accusations against gays and refusing to answer CFR's challenging those false accusations.   

Calling yourself a Christian certainly doesn't make you one    It is how you live and how you treat others that makes one a follower of the teachings of Christ.  

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by california boy

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

It is a shame that you have turned a thread about love and inclusion of someone who is gay into a thread about bashing gays and making absolutely false accusations against gays and refusing to answer CFR's challenging those false accusations.   

Calling yourself a Christian certainly doesn't make you one    It is how you live and how you treat others that makes one a follower of the teachings of Christ.  

 

It is far far sadder that you take the truth and bend it to make yourself seem some poor victim.

Being a Christian is harder than being gay in this day and age. I suppose I consider the CFR better than you regard our President Trump.

You perceive anyone who disagrees with the "gay" agenda is your enemy. Actually, I want the very best for you. I'm simply not a yes man. I see the handwriting on the wall. If you were a drunk, I would not sell you a whiskey. If you were a drug addict or panhandler, I wouldn't give you money. If you were a  gambler, I would not bet you. And if gay, I'd sell you cake but not bring a wedding cake to your affair. Sorry, I make enough mistakes myself without assisting others in theirs!

Edited September 11, 2017 by LittleNipper

[california boy]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

It is far far sadder that you take the truth and bend it to make yourself seem some poor victim.

Being a Christian is harder than being gay in this day and age. I suppose I consider the CFR better than you regard our President Trump.

You perceive anyone who disagrees with the "gay" agenda is your enemy. Actually, I want the very best for you. I'm simply not a yes man. I see the handwriting on the wall. If you were a drunk, I would not sell you a whiskey. If you were a drug addict or panhandler, I wouldn't give you money. If you were a  gambler, I would not bet you. And if gay, I'd sell you cake but not bring a wedding cake to your affair. Sorry, I make enough mistakes myself without assisting others in theirs!

i don't consider anyone my enemy.  But that doesn't mean I will put up with the kind of nonsense you are dishing out. And you still won't answer the formal request for the CFR's because you know your statements are just rubbish and you can't back them up.   What does that say about your character?

Edited September 11, 2017 by california boy

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 6:28 PM, Darren10 said:

I am very pleased you and your husband have had a very good experience with your local ward's members. You two seem like vey decent ad respectable people.

Out of curiosity, is your refusal to participate in the ward's choir out of protest or more out of you cannot participate in good conscience due to the November 2015 policy?

Good question, Darren... I'm not sure my answer can be summed up so easily by either statement.  We decline to participate because the thought of participating in the church no longer feels safe, but instead leaves us with a sickening feeling--like having the air kicked out of me... or a sinking pit in my stomach.  I suppose it's a feeling of having been betrayed, and not wanting to 'hang out' with the person (or, in this case, the church) that I feel has hurt me.  To us, it feels like going and participating with the best of intentions and good faith would be like a victim of abuse returning again and again and hanging out with their abuser...  eventually, there's going to be an aversion to returning.  (For the record: I know active members of the church feel entirely and diametrically differently.  I realize they would object in the strongest of terms that the church could be compared to an abuser... And I realize that they feel that not only is the policy perfectly justified to protect the church itself from homosexuals who they feel could sue the church, but they truly believe it's the result of revelation--so I'm not trying to convince anyone that my view is right here, so much as just share the emotional reaction that I felt after the policy).  I still love and respect my LDS family members and friends, and we're still happy to support them individually as they commemorate certain milestones in their lives, even at church...  but I just no longer have a desire to participate in any of their services anymore.  They joy that singing in the Christmas Choir no longer is joyful--it's sorrowful and painful.  So now, we just listen to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas music at home.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Daniel2

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Being a Christian is harder than being gay in this day and age.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. When it becomes common for kids to commit suicide because they are rejected by friends and family for being Christian, you may have a point. 

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'd much rather be identified as a Christian that by my sexual appetite. That would be a blessing.

There's your problem: reducing what it is to be gay to simple sexual appetite. 

[Daniel2]

15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'd much rather be identified as a Christian that by my sexual appetite. That would be a blessing.

I don't feel as though I define myself by my sexual appetite. 

But when it comes to how I define myself in relation to my husband,  I certainly am grateful for the most cherished self-defining labels as his husband, as a father to our children, and a grandfather to our grandkids. 

And I don't use those labels generically, where they would be interchangeable with any other spouse, or any other kids, or any other grandkids.  I am the husband of MY husband, the father of OUR children, and the grandfather to OUR grandkids. 

Each of those relationships defines, gives meaning, and enhances me and my life in uniquely wonderful and purposeful ways.

And while I certainly support your ability to define yourself however you see fit, my most cherished self-defining terms are how and who I relate to my spouse and members of my family, rather than by a label about which religion/mythology I may subscribe to (but yes, I'm well aware that according to The Bible, Jesus taught that if your loyalty is to your family instead of him, you aren't worthy of him.  It's one of the reasons I don't classify myself as his follower).

Edited September 11, 2017 by Daniel2

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Good question, Darren... I'm not sure my answer can be summed up so easily by either statement.  We decline to participate because the thought of participating in the church no longer feels safe, but instead leaves us with a sickening feeling--like having the air kicked out of me... or a sinking pit in my stomach.  I suppose it's a feeling of having been betrayed, and not wanting to 'hang out' with the person (or, in this case, the church) that I feel has hurt me.  To us, it feels like going and participating with the best of intentions and good faith would be like a victim of abuse returning again and again and hanging out with their abuser...  eventually, there's going to be an aversion to returning.  (For the record: I know active members of the church feel entirely and diametrically differently.  I realize they would object in the strongest of terms that the church could be compared to an abuser... And I realize that they feel that not only is the policy perfectly justified to protect the church itself from homosexuals who they feel could sue the church, but they truly believe it's the result of revelation--so I'm not trying to convince anyone that my view is right here, so much as just share the emotional reaction that I felt after the policy).  I still love and respect my LDS family members and friends, and we're still happy to support them individually as they commemorate certain milestones in their lives, even at church...  but I just no longer have a desire to participate in any of their services anymore.  They joy that singing in the Christmas Choir no longer is joyful--it's sorrowful and painful.  So now, we just listen to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas music at home.

Thank you for that very open and honest response. God bless you and yours. 

[Alan]

On ‎08‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 3:06 PM, Marginal Gains said:

Even nicer would be accounts of Wards and Bishops welcoming married gay men with children to their wards in similar fashion.

We have two married gay men with kids in our ward.

They are married to women.