Gray Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: ... and at the same time, let's not pretend that the Brass/Bronze plates didn't have the Leviticus scriptures on them or that their contents were unknown to the Lehites and their hangers-on. Or that in the XIXth Century American or British or Scandinavian Protestants weren't aware of what's in the OT and NT. A silly argument. That actually makes the absence of the subject in the Book of Mormon all the more significant.
california boy Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, USU78 said: ... and at the same time, let's not pretend that the Brass/Bronze plates didn't have the Leviticus scriptures on them or that their contents were unknown to the Lehites and their hangers-on. Or that in the XIXth Century American or British or Scandinavian Protestants weren't aware of what's in the OT and NT. A silly argument. Who said it was an argument. It was an honest answer to the question.
clarkgoble Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: That actually makes the absence of the subject in the Book of Mormon all the more significant. I'd actually say we haven't a clue what form the first 5 books of Moses took on the Brass Plates. I'm rather convinced what we have is the result of a lot of editing and redaction after the exile. I'm particularly curious about Deuteronomy. However the absence of discussion of the nuances of the law isn't terribly surprising. You don't see a lot of discussion in most of the non-legal texts of the Old Testament. 2
Gray Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I'd actually say we haven't a clue what form the first 5 books of Moses took on the Brass Plates. I'm rather convinced what we have is the result of a lot of editing and redaction after the exile. I'm particularly curious about Deuteronomy. However the absence of discussion of the nuances of the law isn't terribly surprising. You don't see a lot of discussion in most of the non-legal texts of the Old Testament. I think whatever they hypothetically had, the text demonstrates no concern at all with the issue of same-sex relationships.
Meerkat Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) On 1/27/2018 at 9:43 AM, ALarson said: Are there any changes that could be made which would help stop at least some of the suicides occurring among the gay members of the church? I'm not accusing anyone here, just asking others to be open minded and discuss. Maybe that's impossible to do on this topic. At the risk of being misunderstood by many who feel the Church is at fault or complicit in gay LDS suicides, I have an opinion. I believe the Church is doing what it can to extend the love of Christ to every person, including LGBTQ people. Acting on gay desires goes against the plan of Salvation as stated several places in the Scriptures. It is no more consistent with God's plan than acting on breaking any of the other commandments, no matter how strong our desire may be. Yet when we do break those commandments, the way to peace is repentance and not acting on those desires. God sent us a Savior for times such as those. I believe social pressure is a real problem, as is condescending judgmentalism. We must overcome it as a people or we are in sin, in my opinion. Who knows that people in our midst who suffer with a variety of issues were not given those challenges that we may learn the love of Christ, and that love may be manifest in us. Think of the Beatitudes: "When saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?" Can we deny that any who commit suicide are not experiencing a prison of sorts, and PTSD? Who knows that we, as parents, friends and loved ones, are not given this real life experience to teach us to "judge not, lest ye be judged by that same judgment?" How could we learn that important lesson if we had no opportunity to show love in difficult, hard to understand circumstances versus judging? Who knows but that God will reconcil the very real hell some have been given to pass through in this life? There is a video on www.mormonsandgays.org about the coming out of Andy, and how his parents responded. This, from his mother: "I don't think anyone who's straight could imagine the pain of somebody like Andy, who has a testimony, who can't connect the dots, and so how do I reconcile that? "I went to the Temple again and again and again and again and again and again... and again... and I left with mostly nothing. No, like, "Aha" moments. But my testimony is not going anywhere. And I think that was the main gift for me from that time." There is a lot to misunderstand in this life. For those experiences, I look to Job, who said in Job 13:15 and 16 "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him. He also shall be my salvation..." Maintaining his own ways meant trusting God, believing He would compensate for Job's suffering in the end, in my opinion. Edited January 30, 2018 by Meerkat 3
bluebell Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 15 hours ago, sunstoned said: With the November policy it was only one apostle that claimed it was a revelation, after the fact. Also this was after the "policy" was modified. So which version would be the revelation? The original version, or the one they modified after the public backlash. Also, we need to keep in mind that it was called a policy at first. If it was a revelation, then why didn't the prophet himself claim it as such? Instead it was slipped into the handbook. The Proclamation on the family was never claimed to be a revelation by the prophet. Why? In 2011, Boyd Packer’s gave a General Conference talk in which he made a reference to the Proclamation as “a revelation” over the pulpit. But this was later redacted in the official written and published version of the talk. So apparently it wasn't a revelation when it came out, and it wasn't a revelation at the time of the 2012 General Conference, but now it is because Dalian Oaks says it is? To me this seems to be a dubious history for something the is now claimed to have come from god. So you believe the apostles who call these things 'revelation' are lying? (Asking to make sure i'm understanding your correctly).
USU78 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 3 hours ago, california boy said: Who said it was an argument. It was an honest answer to the question. Are you seriously saying you weren't arguing that homosexual relations and homosexual marriage should be recognized because: There is no statement concerning homosexuality directly attributable to the Master during His earthly ministry; and There is no unambiguous statement in the BoM, D&C, or PoGP concerning homosexuality; notwithstanding There are plenty of statements both in the OT and NT and [presumably] Brass Plates? If not, what's the point of bringing up those inarguably true statements in the thread?
USU78 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: That actually makes the absence of the subject in the Book of Mormon all the more significant. Because ... ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence Edited January 30, 2018 by USU78
kllindley Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, USU78 said: Are you seriously saying you weren't arguing that homosexual relations and homosexual marriage should be recognized because: There is no statement concerning homosexuality directly attributable to the Master during His earthly ministry; and There is no unambiguous statement in the BoM, D&C, or PoGP concerning homosexuality; notwithstanding There are plenty of statements both in the OT and NT and [presumably] Brass Plates? If not, what's the point of bringing up those inarguably true statements in the thread? I know I can't actually speak for cb, but I was state that I didn't read him as stating that the facts he identified led to any sort of "should" statement. Just that said facts influence his personal understanding and decisions. 1
Guest Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 This may sound shocking, but our Church is probably more liberal toward the issue of Gay members than most. It is not "Mormon Doctrine", or even a Mormon teaching concerning issues concerning sexuality. It is instead a Biblical doctrine, taught and believed by all mainstream and fundamental Churches. So, such "open letters", would be more appropriately delivered to all "Biblically based faiths". What is being taught is scripture, not opinion, "Old Testament, New Testament", as these issues are not necessarily, anywhere in Latter-day Scriptures. The Proclamation on the Family, is based almost entirely on the Bible, not the Book of Mormon. 2
Calm Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 5 hours ago, USU78 said: Quaere: Why do the participants hereabouts have to endure 3 separate, very active threads on homosexuality at the same time. Overkill, n'est-ce pas? Because no one reported, they were significantly distinct, or mods were busy since someone reported the multiplicity.
USU78 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 43 minutes ago, Calm said: Because no one reported, they were significantly distinct, or mods were busy since someone reported the multiplicity. This place bugs me these days. Homosexuality is the only thing anybody ever talks about, it seems. 1-3% of the population controls 90% of the bandwidth. Sheesh. 2
ttribe Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 20 minutes ago, USU78 said: This place bugs me these days. Homosexuality is the only thing anybody ever talks about, it seems. 1-3% of the population controls 90% of the bandwidth. Sheesh. Are you being forced to participate?
kllindley Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 22 minutes ago, USU78 said: This place bugs me these days. Homosexuality is the only thing anybody ever talks about, it seems. 1-3% of the population controls 90% of the bandwidth. Sheesh. Try 10 to 20%. And up to 40-50% of youth under 20. Not to mention their loved ones. So talk about something else. You can start a new thread? 1
california boy Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Are you seriously saying you weren't arguing that homosexual relations and homosexual marriage should be recognized because: There is no statement concerning homosexuality directly attributable to the Master during His earthly ministry; and There is no unambiguous statement in the BoM, D&C, or PoGP concerning homosexuality; notwithstanding There are plenty of statements both in the OT and NT and [presumably] Brass Plates? If not, what's the point of bringing up those inarguably true statements in the thread? Yes, I have never stated that the church should change its position on gay marriage. EVER.
USU78 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 Just now, kllindley said: Try 10 to 20%. And up to 40-50% of youth under 20. CFR.
USU78 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, california boy said: Yes, I have never stated that the church should change its position on gay marriage. EVER. Then what's the point? You ignored my question.
USU78 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, ttribe said: Are you being forced to participate? Ah ... run off those who disagree with the direction the board has taken and continues to take. They have no business here. They have no business hoping for a venue in which to have a discussion on things Mormon. Is that your position? 3
kiwi57 Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, sunstoned said: CFR that it has been "effectively" rebutted. It was discussed in detail quite recently in another of the (multiplicity of) gay threads. Several citations from General Authorities, spanning the whole period from the date of the Proclamation till now. Edit: because I'm a nice fellow, I went back and found them again. On the doctrinal (and authoritative) status of the Proclamation, a quick search on LDS.org turned up the following: "I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 yearsand will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life." (Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," October 2017) "During this 20th anniversary year of the family proclamation, I would like to issue a challenge for all of us as women of the Church to be defenders of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.' Just as Marie Madeline Cardon courageously defended the missionaries and her newly found beliefs, we need to boldly defend the Lord’s revealed doctrines describing marriage, families, the divine roles of men and women, and the importance of homes as sacred places—even when the world is shouting in our ears that these principles are outdated, limiting, or no longer relevant." (Bonni L. Oscarson, "Defenders of the Family Proclamation", April 2015) M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," October 2005; whole talk. "That marvelous document brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene." (David B. Haight, "Be a Strong Link," October 2000) "One year ago the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a proclamation to the world concerning the family. It summarizes eternal gospel principles that have been taught since the beginning of recorded history and even before the earth was created.... So fundamental is the family unit to the plan of salvation that God has declared a warning that those 'individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God [their maker]. … The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.'" (Robert D. Hales, "The Eternal Family", October 1996) Note particularly that last one: Elder Hales, speaking just one year after the Proclamation was given, cited a portion of the Proclamation as what "God has declared." Edited January 30, 2018 by kiwi57 1
california boy Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, USU78 said: Then what's the point? You ignored my question. This is the question asked by Darren Quote 17 hours ago, Darren10 said: Sir, where is there any ambiguity in LDS doctrine that heterosexual marriage is required for exaltation? Where in all of LDS canon is homoseuxality not condemned? I answered his question. The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Do you find it unreasonable to answer a question posted on this forum???
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 9 hours ago, rongo said: If (and people will disagree on this if) there is true revelation on it, then we don't have to wait for scientific consensus to back us up. I think thinking that these two will ever align is a fool's errand. This is a pretty optimistic outlook for the potential and ability to realize the potential for scientific consensus. Do you really think that we can (or will ever be able to) know "whether same-gender attraction is as instinctive as opposite-gender attraction?" Sure, there are those who think most things can be settled so that Al Gore can bellow "The science is settled!," but this isn't actually how it works for most people or for most issues. Germ theory, etc., yes, but this complex issue of nature vs. nurture, and the complex factors of genetics, socio-familial dynamics, etc.? I think this will remain as controversial within and between scientists as all other scientific issues. Science journals will continue to debate and argue, ad infinitum . . . For non-scientists I have no doubt that such debates will go on ad infinitum. However, that is not how science works, and we have seen basic scientific consensus on a wide range of issues -- despite the reluctance of the hoi polloi to accept that. Most people will continue to do what they have always done: Believe whatever is convenient, or what fits their apriori notions of reality, not necessarily what is scientifically accepted (by scientists). That may tell us an uncomfortable truth about the status of STEM in our schools, which means that we must import scientists from other countries. 9 hours ago, rongo said: I think this is the extent of the closure we will be allowed to enjoy, with respect to the tension with surrounding culture. To expect more or better than this is to set ourselves up for disappointment. But this is exactly the anti-scientific nature of modern culture. Forfend that we should boldy do real science. It is simply to risky. We might find out what we don't want to know. And then we'll have to painfully wrench our minds around to deal with the new paradigm -- or turn into luddites.
Calm Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, USU78 said: Ah ... run off those who disagree with the direction the board has taken and continues to take. They have no business here. They have no business hoping for a venue in which to have a discussion on things Mormon. Is that your position? Another option is to go participate in other threads, start topics you are interested in. Your last 36 posts have 34 posts in LGBT threads. Seems to me you are choosing to surround yourself with the subject. Edited January 30, 2018 by Calm 4
Gray Posted January 30, 2018 Posted January 30, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Because ... ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence Because: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence#Convincing_applications This is used in biblical studies a lot
ttribe Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Ah ... run off those who disagree with the direction the board has taken and continues to take. They have no business here. They have no business hoping for a venue in which to have a discussion on things Mormon. Is that your position? Not at all. I just don't get making a stink in some post on an ad-hoc basis. If you want to have conversations on other topics, it seems the solution is to start those conversations yourself and don't participate in the ones you don't like. It's not hard. ETA: What Calm said. Edited January 31, 2018 by ttribe
USU78 Posted January 31, 2018 Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: Another option is to go participate in other threads, start topics you are interested in. Your last 36 posts have 34 posts in LGBT threads. Seems to me you are choosing to surround yourself with the subject. Most of the folks who I used so much to enjoy are long gone. Run off by Johnny One Note -ism on the preferred topic hereabouts. I'm about done. . 2
Recommended Posts