The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 55 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said: Yes, we heterosexuals are lucky we don't have to be celibate. Speak for yourself. It is looking like it may end up that way for me.
The Nehor Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 52 minutes ago, cinepro said: It might be time to retire the idea "any two people living the gospel can be happy in marriage." Maybe there are marriages where people are living the gospel yet still totally miserable. Let's chalk it up to fallible leaders. We can just change it to “perfectly live the gospel” and since no one is doing that it still works. 2
Calm Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 5 hours ago, kllindley said: Here is the text from one message I received: It is bizarre that some actually consider this appropriate in their defense of love. I don't know how I could handle such a disgusting attack on my family. It is just so wrong. 1
Calm Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 5 hours ago, rongo said: I thought his mention of a planned "partner's compound" (my phrase --- he mentions buying a "homestead" where both he and Lolly can live with future "partners" together) to be kind of weird. Okay, very weird. It sounds like they are just trying to think of the best solution for their children, not much different than buying homes very close to each other so there is minimal disruption in children's life as they spend time with each parent and their new family which the children are also part of. 3
Calm Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: He was also inclined to sealings of one man with another... CFR If you are thinking "Law of Adoption", those didn't start until 2 years after his death.
ttribe Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 31 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Not literally killing people but they give an implication that Church views are causing people to kill themselves. The argument is nonsense. All Churches have views and standards. If a lot of people guilty of adultery were to commit suicide, would the Church be somewhat to blame for these people killing themselves and should the church change its position on adultery so that fewer people who commit adultery would kill themselves? He works in the mental health profession. He, himself, is gay. He is reporting what he, himself, feels and what other people are reporting to him in their crises. You are welcome to turn a blind eye to that, but acting defensive and casting doubt on the veracity of these peoples' stories and claims only further poisons the dialogue. 3
rongo Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Calm said: It sounds like they are just trying to think of the best solution for their children, not much different than buying homes very close to each other so there is minimal disruption in children's life as they spend time with each parent and their new family which the children are also part of. And that is a noble goal, but living together with exes and partners is tough to envision. Stranger things have happened. I know a family where the young wife had an affair with her father-in-law (her husband's father). They divorced their spouses, and married each other. After making it through the long repentance process (excommunication, rebaptism, and restoration of blessings), both households are happier. They live next door to each other, and sit together at church . . . But this would very, very rarely work, in practice for most people. ETA: to be honest, it sounds to me like he will be publicly turning away from the Church in a manner similar to california boy or Daniel2. That is, cordial and respectful towards the Church, but expressing complete loss of belief in its authority and alignment with God's will. Edited January 26, 2018 by rongo 1
hope_for_things Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 2 hours ago, cinepro said: President Oaks has, in the past, made a point about how the General Authorities and the Church must focus on teaching "the rules", and not "the exceptions." So I think it is safe to say that the "rule" is that marriages between a heterosexual and homosexual spouse are a terrible idea and should be avoided. We may cling to the idea of there being an "exception", but that seems more like a bit of self-delusion for people trying to make sense of a situation that doesn't fit their pre-formed notions of how every man and woman on the planet should be in a heterosexual, child-bearing marriage. This should be painfully obvious if you think about it. Basically, it is a marriage between two people, one of whom is going into the marriage with no desire for a physical/sexual relationship for the other. I suppose it is conceivable (no pun intended) that a marriage between two people with zero sexual desire might work. But if one partner has the need for that kind of affection, and the other partner is totally unable to sincerely offer it, that is a sandy foundation for a marriage. Even the Church acknowledges (usually through the use of awkward metaphors) the incredible power of the human sex drive. Human history is filled with countless stories of people who thought they were more powerful than this desire, and in the end they found out they were wrong. The Weeds are just another story added to that list. These are good points. Another point I would make, and this is coming from a person that has been married for 18 yrs now, and I plan on staying married to my spouse for the rest of my life, is that people grow and change over time. I certainly am not the same person that I was when we first got married and neither is my spouse. We've learned to continue to work on our marriage and find things that we enjoy doing together, but I think its reasonable to consider that sometimes growth could take two individuals apart in spite of any efforts on their part to continually rebuild their relationship. Some people view any marriages that end as a result of people growing apart, as a failure of some kind. Thinking in such terms of failure or sin is unfortunately much too simplistic and not helpful or accurate.
Rain Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 2 hours ago, MorningStar said: I've met both of them multiple times and they are very kind people. Praying for the best for them. Each time I have heard of them, Josh's name was familiar. I finally looked him up to see if I knew him. He and his family lived in one of my wards and lived at the end of my street. I think we only overlapped by 2-3 years and then they moved. I don't remember Josh, but then it has been at least 15 years ago. I do remember his parents well though. Funny thing with connections. I discovered his dad is a Facebook friend with one of my mission companions. 1
Jeanne Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: CFR If you are thinking "Law of Adoption", those didn't start until 2 years after his death. That is what I meant. I had thought that there were sealings with brethren while Joseph was alive. This is what I have understood and open to correction. Edited January 26, 2018 by Jeanne
Calm Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: That is what I meant. I had thought that there were sealings with brethren while Joseph was alive. This is what I have understood and open to correction. Does this mean you are retracting your comment because you were wrong or you are waiting to see evidence?
Jeanne Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Does this mean you are retracting your comment because you were wrong or you are waiting to see evidence? I really already retracted in when I told Nehor that I would back up and ponderize...
clarkgoble Posted January 26, 2018 Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: Joseph Smiths eternal family will contain wives with children and more than one husband, how do you anticipate that will work? People joke about this but I think it's worth considering. The typical assumption is that people married to multiple husbands will simply have to pick one. (Many Mormon feminists like to think same of all polygamous marriages like Pres. Nelson who is sealed to two women even though he wasn't married to two living wives at the same time) Joseph was unique in that he was married polandrously. Zina Huntington is the most famous example. Further she was later married for time to Brigham Young. However Zina was only sealed to Joseph and not her husband Henry. So there's no examples of sealed polandry, although in work for the dead the process is typically to seal them all and let God sort it out in the Millennium. That means that while most don't take them seriously, there is polyandry now in terms of temple work. This offers I think an obvious solution. It wouldn't justify of course homosexual acts. But it would let in theory two men to be sealed to a wife just as right now two women were married to a single husband. While this doesn't resolve the issue of sexual attraction in the least it does suggest a way out. Now to be clear I'm not saying this is right. That's the sort of thing the the President would have to have a pretty clear, direct and unambiguous revelation for. Further there are lots of reasons to think this wouldn't happen. I don't think the Church wants to open up the pandora's box of polygamy again, even if there still is de facto polygamy when one wife dies and a man remarries. (For the record if my wife died I can't imagine wanting to remarry let alone be sealed to someone else) This does seem to only possible solution to SSM that is in even theory possible. Further it does have problems. Polygamy isn't a group marriage. People are only married to a person of the opposite sex. So Pres. Nelson was married to his first wife. He was then married to his second wife. His two wives aren't sealed to each other. Although some might say that's a difference without a difference it might potentially matter. The issue of homosexuality in polygamous marriages is of course a touchy subject. I know Quinn suggested a bit on that in his book on homosexuality in Mormonism years ago. The Manti polygamous apostate movement in the 90's split in two as I recall over the issue. So things are not quite as simple as some might portray. It's quite possible that even if sealings were permitted homosexual acts would continue to be seen as a sin. Edited January 26, 2018 by clarkgoble 2
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said: Who are the children of Horace Whitney & Helen Mar Kimball sealed to for eternity? In what way is a woman being sealed to two husbands for eternity different to a man being sealed to two wives? 1) Don’t know. Who are they? 2) Except for desth there are no sealings to more than one man that I know of. Do you? And in these cases the woman will end up with one man. Josh seems to advocate an eternal family between himself and at least one other man, his ex wife, and a new man for her. When did God teach that to man? Or maybe Josh is a new prophet.
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: The offer was not to you. You are not my type. You’ve no idea what you’re missing. /Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, ALarson said: Those will be their own decisions to make. There will be all kinds of eternal families. They may remain sealed even after a civil divorce depending on what they do in the future. This is what one of our Prophets did when he went through a legal divorce from his first wife (Joseph F. Smith when he was an Apostle and a Counselor in the First Presidency). So divorce can happen to anyone. And, as has already been pointed out to you, what you describe above is not much different than how many polygamous families will be in the eternities. Do you have a problem with that too? No problem with polygamous families. That’s established doctrine. When did two men get to be sealed? What what role does the priesthood have in Josh’s view to achieve eternal families? Edited January 27, 2018 by Darren10
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Darren10 said: You’ve no idea what you’re missing. /Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr You do not want to play gay chicken with me. 1
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 8 hours ago, Jeanne said: I am thinking that the greater power is the love that they have for one another...not the priesthood. EXACTLY! And The Beatles would concur.
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 8 hours ago, Jeanne said: Do you absolutely know that Joseph Smith did not live a gay lifestyle?
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 7 hours ago, ttribe said: That's a stretch to the extreme from what was said in that blog. From the article: Quote These were good people, former pastors, youth leaders, relief society presidents, missionaries, bishops, Elder’s Quorum presidents, and they were . . . there’s no other way to say this. They were dying. They were dying before my eyes. And they would weep in desperation—after years, decades, of trying to do just as they had been instructed: be obedient, live in faith, have hope. They would weep with me, and ask where the Lord was. They would sob. They would wonder where joy was. As a practitioner, it became increasingly obvious: the way the church handled this issue was not just inconvenient. It didn’t make things hard for LGBTQIA people. It became more and more clear to me that it was actually hurting them. It was killing them. Bold mine.as supporting evidence: Quote Around this time, a dear friend of mine—a lesbian I adore—called me. Her voice was clipped and panicked. “Josh, I, uh . . . I need your help. I’m thinking of killing myself. I want to die. I can’t do it anymore . . .” Guys, this person is an incredible human being. This person’s faith was rock solid. If you knew her, you would see a pillar of strength, of will, of resolve. She is one of the strongest people I know. This is not someone who is easily offended, or was not trying, or who “didn’t have an eternal perspective.” Think of the strongest person you know: that’s who this is equivalent of. Lolly and I went to see her immediately. When we got there, she played with my girls for a while, and then she and I went on a walk. She was so physically weak, she could barely stand. I will never forget the feeling of physically holding this strong woman up as we walked around a yard. This is what the church’s current stance does to LGBTQIA people. It actually kills them. It fills them with self-loathing and internalized homophobia, and then provides little to no help when the psychosomatic symptoms set in, instead reacting to this unexpected by-product (after all, living the gospel isn’t supposed to bring misery and death! It’s supposed to bring immeasurable joy! Right?) with aphorisms like “have more faith,” or “have an eternal perspective” or “be grateful.” And the LGBTQIA person is left even further alone, now having been shamed by having it implied that their unhappiness and lack of health is their own fault because they aren’t being righteous enough, or trying hard enough. And so, they try harder. And they get sicker. And the cycle continues. It is a sick, pathological spiral. Worst of all, and what amount to the very crux of the problem: the church also deprives them—us—of attachment, and a natural, verified, studied reaction to attachment blockade is suicidality. Again bold mine. It’s very clear Josh proclaims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guilty of killing gay people.
Darren10 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You do not want to play gay chicken with me. Hubba hubba!
JulieM Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Darren10 said: 1) Don’t know. Who are they? 2) Except for desth there are no sealings to more than one man that I know of. Do you? And in these cases the woman will end up with one man. 1. Their children would be sealed to Joseph Smith, correct? 2. We don’t know that. I think some women have been given permission to be sealed to more than one man. Others can correct me on either of these if I’m wrong. The bottom line is that there will be all kinds of families and combinations. As Clark posted about, much will be sorted out. People will have choices or a voice about it too. Edited January 27, 2018 by JulieM
Bob Crockett Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 59 minutes ago, Darren10 said: From the article: Bold mine.as supporting evidence: Again bold mine. It’s very clear Josh proclaims that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is guilty of killing gay people. Yeah, his post is very problematic. What alternative does his propose? Ignore sin? I wonder if fornicating heteros are driving to suicide because of church teachings. 1
Calm Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: 2) Except for desth there are no sealings to more than one man that I know of. Do you? And in these cases the woman will end up with one man. Yes. They removed the commentary that the woman needs to choose from the manuals and handbook. Whether this was trying to be diplomatic or because it was one of the many speculations not backed up by scriptures that have been deleted in recent years, I don't know.
The Nehor Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: Hubba hubba! I have had to kiss two guys to win before. If you want to come over here with that kind of talk just be prepared.
Recommended Posts