Pres. Oaks devotional to Young Married Couples

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I have no reason to believe that same sex marriages are not sinful.  What scriptural passage can I find the remotely suggests that same sex marriage would be ok.  I find as much scriptural support for gays being married as a man being able to be married and sealed to his favorite microwave oven.  Perhaps I am missing something.  What is the passage.

There are plenty of reasons, you just don't believe the reasons.  I would venture to say that you value the appeal to church authority highly.  I would also venture to say that you probably don't have any close friends or family members who are gay. 

Scriptures are typically used as poc hoc justifications and proof texts, I don't see any point in trying to prove it to you by the scriptures.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

And I disagree with that.

Yes.  Overwhelmingly.

That's way too simplistic for me.  That's like saying the Rodney King jury "caused" the deaths of 63 people, 2,383 injuries, 12,000 arrests, $400 million in damages to Korean business owners, and so on.

Perhaps you could give some consideration to the concept of "intervening causation."  See here.

But the source of that conflict matters.  A lot.  

The perpetuation of that conflict matters.  A lot.

I'm curious as to what you make of John 6, in which large numbers of the Savior's followers rejected Him specifically because of his "Bread of Life" sermon.  By your reckoning, Jesus Christ was not prophetic in that sermon because it caused "conflict."  That really doesn't make sense to me.  

Abinadi caused "conflict" by preaching in King Noah's court.  Does that mean he wasn't "prophetic?"

There are dozens of examples of prophets prophesying something that is not well-received by the audience.  Something that causes "conflict."  

Since when is prophecy determined by how popular it is?  By how well it's received?  Where did you get such an idea?

Being a prophet is often not a fun gig.  "For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country."  (John 4:44).  So "Hey, X is unpopular, ergo X is wrong" doesn't seem like a workable formula.

Thanks,

-Smac

d

I think with this post you jumped the shark in this discussion.  This is really simple---the policy came, conflict arose in response.  That is what I said.  The stated purpose of the policy change, at least in part, was to avoid conflict.  Thus, there was nothing prophetic about the change.  

I suppose I can continue to repeat the obvious while you respond with distractions about Rodney King.  It doesn't matter at all if Jesus' sermon caused conflict, or if Abinadi did.  That is all irrelevant to the point I raised.  In the end all you really did was support the point I raised--due to the policy change conflict arose, yet the claim was the policy change was instituted to avoid or temper conflict.  Thus, again, there was nothing prophetic about the change that was claimed to be revelation.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

"correlated church theology" is not my marker on this one. It's come from careful thought, study, and prayer about the issues at hand. I say it has a perpetual question mark about its overall dynamics, but I've received personal answers and comfort to questions I needed answered the most. I don't need to find a new definition to have all my concerns answered. For that matter I don't need all of my concerns answered. 

If you have concerns that you're just holding back on, perhaps you're not ready to address them.  I just wanted to make the point that the concern may be in the church's theology, and I would encourage you to consider that.  

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm sure you're sincere....but you are also projecting your problems onto me. I never had the problems you describe here. This journey your describing isn't my journey. It never has been and never will be. I value my individuality, generally am non-authority oriented anyways and chafe at people telling me what to do, I never did church for others....at least not since I was very young. I go because I believe. But at the same time what you describe is still not appetizing because it means I'm spinning of into my own little universe of thought. I do not believe in that either. I believe that I need others for my exaltation and salvation. That zion is a community transformation that means I need to share my perspectives and views, but also listen to others and respect our varying calls. That I need to be humble enough to know that the direction I assume we should make may not be best or even right at times. And I believe in consecrating all that I have to building up the kingdom of God on earth. I believe it with all my soul and without a shadow of doubt.

What you are describing may seem liberating and wonderful to you. For me, it would be limiting and a loss in truth/the potential to see truth. Obviously I don't expect you to agree....I'm just explaining why it seems you're projecting your experiences with the church, God, or even basic ideas onto me. They are by no means the same.

I'm sorry, my comments were with the best of intentions in mind.  I didn't mean to suggest your journey is the same as mine or anything like that.  I saw some themes that I thought would be useful to build on.  The overarching sentiment I meant to communicate is that we all bring assumptions to the table that for different seasons of our lives might not work as well as they did previously.  I would encourage you to question your assumptions about what you believe, but I'm not suggesting you should abandon what you feel strongly convicted about.  You sound like a wise person, and I appreciate the interaction.  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not speaking of accolades.  I'm speaking of usurping authority that doesn't belong to you.

Surely you see how utterly untenable your expectations are.  You are one of 16 million members of the Church.  You apparently want the Church to "change" and administer things in accordance with your demands/expectations.  May I gently suggest that this is manifestly unreasonable?  Who are you to dictate policy for the Church?  Who are you to presume to demand that prophets and apostles hop to and dance to the tune you're calling?  Who elected you?

And if "all the gory" is really going "to God," wouldn't that mean that God - through His appointed servants - are the ones to formulate policies for the Church?

Sounds great.  But you are setting yourself up for failure.  One person's "my way or the highway" demands to a 16-million member church that declares it is guided by revelation to living prophets and apostles is never going to work.  Ever.  You are setting yourself up for disappointment and failure if you do that.

I hope you reconsider your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Don't worry I'm not having unrealistic expectations.  I think most of the changes I'm hoping for likely won't happen in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop hoping for them.  The church has moved slowly on many issues in the past, but faster on some.  Anything is possible with God.  

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think with this post you jumped the shark in this discussion. 

I don't think so.

Quote

This is really simple---the policy came, conflict arose in response.  That is what I said. 

That is facile and unreasonable.  That is what I have been saying.

If I said "This is really simple--Jesus Christ preached his 'Bread of Life' sermon, conflict arost in response," and if I then used that to criticize and find fault with Jesus Christ, how would you respond?

Quote

The stated purpose of the policy change, at least in part, was to avoid conflict.  Thus, there was nothing prophetic about the change.  

Sigh.

"Jesus Christ is the 'Prince of Peace' (Isaiah 9:6).  The stated purpose of 'peace' is to avoid conflict.  But then Jesus preached the 'Bread of Life' sermon, which caused conflict.  Thus, there was nothing prophetic about that sermon."

Would you find that reasoning persuasive?

Quote

I suppose I can continue to repeat the obvious while you respond with distractions about Rodney King.  It doesn't matter at all if Jesus' sermon caused conflict, or if Abinadi did. 

Actually it does.  It matters a lot.  You are the one trying to claim that a prophecy is not a prophecy if it creates conflict.  Prophecies create conflict all the time.  That is the natural and anticipated consequence of God sending prophets to declare His will to a fallen and sinful world.

But here you are, trying to claim that a prophetic statement that causes conflict cannot be prophetic.

Well, good luck with that.  Noah caused conflict.  So did Abinadi.  So did Moses.  So did Joseph Smith.  So did Nephi.  So did Lehi.  So did . . . Jesus Christ.

Your position makes no sense to me.  A statement is prophetic based on its origins, not on whether the audience likes it or dislikes it.

Quote

In the end all you really did was support the point I raised--due to the policy change conflict arose, yet the claim was the policy change was instituted to avoid or temper conflict. 

And again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy, which involved much more than only "avoid[ing] or temper[ing] conflict."  Here they are again:

  Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

Quote

Thus, again, there was nothing prophetic about the change that was claimed to be revelation.  

Right.  And by your reckoning, we must also declare that "there was nothing prophetic about Jesus Christ's 'Bread of Life' sermon that was claimed to be revelation."

Because it wasn't popular at the time.

Popularity is the metric by which prophecies are to be gauged.  Not their content.  Not their originating from God.  Their popularity.

You've nuked the fridge on this, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.

That is facile and unreasonable.  That is what I have been saying.

If I said "This is really simple--Jesus Christ preached his 'Bread of Life' sermon, conflice arose in response," and if I then used that to criticize and find fault with Jesus Christ, how would you respond?

Sigh.

"Jesus Christ is the 'Prince of Peace' (Isaiah 9:6).  The stated purpose of 'peace' is to avoid conflict.  But then Jesus preached the 'Bread of Life' sermon, which caused conflict.  Thus, there was nothing prophetic about that sermon."

Are you saying that Jesus' stated purpose for the sermon was to avoid conflict?  You continue to miss the point here.  it seems to me Jesus expected conflict to arise due to his sermons.  he said as much.  On the flip side the Church stated expressly a purpose of the policy change was to avoid the very conflict that arose from the policy change.  Thus there was nothing prophetic about the change.  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Would you find that reasoning persuasive?

Actually it does.  It matters a lot.  You are the one trying to claim that a prophecy is not a prophecy if it creates conflict.

Not true.  Again, you've missed my point.  I'm saying it's not prophetic all because it was said the purpose was to avoid conflict.  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

  Prophecies create conflict all the time.  That is the natural and anticipated consequence of God sending prophets to declare His will to a fallen and sinful world.

Then they shouldn't have said a purpose of the change was to avoid conflict.  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

But here you are, trying to claim that a prophetic statement that causes conflict cannot be prophetic.

Well, good luck with that.  Noah caused conflict.  So did Abinadi.  So did Moses.  So did Joseph Smith.  So did Nephi.  So did Lehi.  So did . . . Jesus Christ.

Your position makes no sense to me.  A statement is prophetic based on its origins, not on whether the audience likes it or dislikes it.

Well you've clearly misunderstood and hopefully the clarification I've offered has made things clear for you.  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

And again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy, which involved much more than only "avoid[ing] or temper[ing] conflict."  Here they are again:

  Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

I'm not ignoring anything, other than your many deflections.  I commented on what President Oaks said.  You took issue with what I said.  But in the end, I was right.  The policy came, conflict arose.  The Church said the policy was by revelation and was said to be instituted to avoid conflict.  

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Right.  And by your reckoning, we must also declare that "there was nothing prophetic about Jesus Christ's 'Bread of Life' sermon that was claimed to be revelation."

Because it wasn't popular at the time.

Popularity is the metric by which prophecies are to be gauged.  Not their content.  Not their originating from God.  Their popularity.

You've nuked the fridge on this, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I've not introduced anything relating to what's popular in this discussion.  I have no idea why you keep running down any rabbit trail seemingly desperately trying to avoid the very clear point I raised and you inadvertently confirmed.  

[carbon dioxide]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are plenty of reasons, you just don't believe the reasons.  I would venture to say that you value the appeal to church authority highly.  I would also venture to say that you probably don't have any close friends or family members who are gay. 

Scriptures are typically used as poc hoc justifications and proof texts, I don't see any point in trying to prove it to you by the scriptures.  

I am sure you have your reasons but critical evaluation requires something more than just personal preferences and wants.  When it comes to issues of sin and what is considered valid for temple issues, what other sources should I go to than scripture and church authority?    I don't take issue with your support of same sex marriage.  I just take issue with the charge that it is not sinful and not only should the church recognize it but even eventually allow gays to be sealed in the temple.  That I do take great exception to.

You are correct in the point that it is its a futile exercise to prove that same sex marriage is not sinful by the scriptures because that would be an impossible task.  So we do agree that scriptural teaching does not allow for a good argument on the legitimacy of same sex marriage being valid or not sinful. 

As to close members or family you assume too much.    I know of one gay person in my extended family.  The sister of my adopted son birth mom is in a gay marriage.  Does it change my position?  Absolutely not.  Why would it change it?  I believe in certain standards and they don't change because someone I know does not comply with those standards.  I believe in agency and people have a right to live their lives as they choose.  If I had a drug dealing uncle it would not change my perspective on the issue. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[BlueDreams]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If you have concerns that you're just holding back on, perhaps you're not ready to address them.  I just wanted to make the point that the concern may be in the church's theology, and I would encourage you to consider that.  

I'm not. Not in the sense that I get you're meaning. I have priorities and some are far more important to me when studying them out. 

Quote

I'm sorry, my comments were with the best of intentions in mind.  I didn't mean to suggest your journey is the same as mine or anything like that.  I saw some themes that I thought would be useful to build on.  The overarching sentiment I meant to communicate is that we all bring assumptions to the table that for different seasons of our lives might not work as well as they did previously.  I would encourage you to question your assumptions about what you believe, but I'm not suggesting you should abandon what you feel strongly convicted about.  You sound like a wise person, and I appreciate the interaction. 

As I mentioned, I don't hold any assumption that your intentions are poor. I rarely do until proven otherwise.  I just don't think you fully see how strongly your own journey colors what you're saying to me. For example the bold. I already do that, fairly regularly. For you it may have been a fundamental changing experience. For me, it's a normative exercise integrated in my life and my faith. It still feels as though your projecting your experience into a universal one. And though I understand, by listening to many, the basic build up and experience of a faith crisis and even the mormonism they describe as being apart of beforehand....a lot of it is simply not within my paradigm of existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying that Jesus' stated purpose for the sermon was to avoid conflict? 

I'm saying that your argument is facile and unreasonable.  The validity of a prophetic statement is not determined by how popular it is.

We all have our agency.  I don't think Jesus Christ intended for His "Bread of Life" sermon to drive many of His followers away.  But it did.  Is that an indictment on the sermon?  Of course not.

Don't you see the absurdity of that?

Quote

You continue to miss the point here.  it seems to me Jesus expected conflict to arise due to his sermons.  he said as much. 

And His prophets and apostles today, I think, expect some conflict to arise due to their actions.

That does not negate the prophetic nature of those actions, though.

Quote

On the flip side the Church stated expressly a purpose of the policy change was to avoid the very conflict that arose from the policy change. 

And some people reacted poorly.  So what?  The intent of a prophecy is not always going to play out.  Very often the intent is frustrated by disobedience/rebellion, by inattention, and so on.  But a prophecy is still a prophecy, even if its intended purpose is not fully effectuated.  That's just the way of things in this fallen state.  We all get to make choices.

Noah's intention in preaching repentance to his people was to persuade them to repent.  They didn't.  Instead, conflict arose.  Does that negate the prophetic nature of Noah's message?  Of course not.

Quote

Thus there was nothing prophetic about the change.  

Yes, there was.  The policy arose from revelation given to the Presiding High Priests.  It was sustained by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

You can't get much more "prophetic" than that.

Quote

Not true.  Again, you've missed my point.  I'm saying it's not prophetic all because it was said the purpose was to avoid conflict.  

I get your point.  I just find it facile and unreasonable.  Surely you understand that when the children of men exercise their agency in response to prophetic counsel, there will be times when that counsel is unpopular?  Not followed?  Rejected?  That there will be times when the intended purpose of the prophecy will not play out?

Moreover, the purpose of the policy change was about much more than just "avoid[ing] conflict."  

Moreover, I think there have been plenty of instances where coflict has been avoided, such that the intended purpose of the policy change has been effectuated.

Moreover, the policy only came out three years ago.  We need to give it time.

Quote

Then they shouldn't have said a purpose of the change was to avoid conflict.  

And again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy (which involve quite a bit more than just "avoid[ing] conflict").  Here they are again:

  Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Again, why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

Quote

I'm not ignoring anything, other than your many deflections.  I commented on what President Oaks said.  You took issue with what I said.  But in the end, I was right.  The policy came, conflict arose. 

No, you are not right.  The policy came, hysterics and overwrought reactions ensued, conflict arose.

Intervening causality.  Give it some thought.

Quote

The Church said the policy was by revelation and was said to be instituted to avoid conflict.  

And again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy (which involve quite a bit more than just "avoid[ing] conflict").  Here they are again:

  Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Again, why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

Quote

I've not introduced anything relating to what's popular in this discussion. 

Yes, you have.  

Quote

I have no idea why you keep running down any rabbit trail seemingly desperately trying to avoid the very clear point I raised and you inadvertently confirmed.  

Who's avoiding?  Here I am, addressing your point, which is neither clear nor confirmed by me.  It is, instead, facile and unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Since you're asking I'll try to answer.  For me personally, I've gone back and forth in the last few years attending regularly and taking a sabbatical.  One theme that continues to come up for me when I'm feeling like I can't attend is this idea that I constantly question what my motivations are for attendance.  Is it because I think I'm more enlightened than others and I want to share with them some sense of what a different perspective looks like? 

When I first took a break from church I told the bishop I wanted to make sure I would attend for the right reasons.  Peer pressure and keeping up appearances was something that I wanted to make sure to eliminate.  So I'm past that part, I don't care what anyone else thinks of me or my family.  We've been on the project list for a while now thanks to my inactivity, and I'm past being motivated in that way.  

I guess now, I just want to attend for the social aspects, and also because I have similar shared values that are very Mormon.  Like my adherence to the WoW, even though I don't believe it was necessarily inspired by God, I do believe in healthy living and I live it because I recognize value there.  I'm also very conservative personally, even if my views on social issues are pretty liberal in many ways.  So in that sense I fit in well.  And whenever I'm attending activities or helping the Elders on a project I get along well with the other guys in the ward. 

Its the messages from HQ that disturb me most, and the idea that those people I'm interacting with hold bigoted views because of their desire to show allegiance to church leaders who are letting them down and leading them astray.  This kills me inside.  These are good people who otherwise probably wouldn't hold these prejudices, but this is institutionally mandated prejudice, and members are loyal to their leaders.  It makes me very upset, precisely because I was a victim of this institutional prejudice in that I perpetuated it myself because of my perceived loyalty to God.  Couple that with the family members and friends that are LGBTQ and how real and hurtful the current church policies and practices are, and we have an environment that is very challenging for me to personally navigate right now.  

But it seems the members are still welcoming you despite their views. So, it seems that the difficulty or challenge is in reacting to their beliefs, not your interactions with them personally. I don’t think reading an article constitutes an “interaction” but I can see how it can remind you of what your friends believe that evidently is not part of your normal conversation with them.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This kind of doesn't even need to be said.  All of our preconceive ideas and beliefs influence how we perceive EVERYTHING.  

If someone is making statements of fact that aren't actually facts but are opinions, then it does need to be said. And if someone's bias is causing them to misinterpret something, then it does need to be said.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Start my apologizing and disavowing the Nov 2015 policy.  Make all LGBTQ people welcome and equally valued in the religion.  That means accepting same sex married couples.  Even if they restrict SSM couples from temple sealings at first, they could slowly approach that topic in the future.  

It looks like you didn't understand the question so i'll clarify.

If the the Nov. policy is God's will (or if our leaders sincerely believe it's God's will) then what do you purpose they do?  If God condemns SSM, then what do you purpose they do?  Asking someone to do something that they believe is wrong isn't reasonable.   What reasonable changes would you like our leaders to make?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This kind of doesn't even need to be said.  All of our preconceive ideas and beliefs influence how we perceive EVERYTHING.  

Even physics?  And chairs and tables and all of "reality"?

If you really meant EVERYTHING, then great.

How do we disagree in our perceptions of physics- as I see it?

You think it is about "reality" and I think it is about someone's theory that predicts how experiments will come out and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "reality" at all.  In short it documents how we SEE what we erroneously call "reality" when in fact EVERYTHING is based on - your words- " All of our preconceive ideas and beliefs"

Hope that advances understanding a bit.   There are no "facts"- only interpretations of experience that really say nothing about anything but experience.  There is no practical distinction between "appearance" and "reality".

"Objective evidence" devoid of preconceived notions and man made theories does not and cannot exist. 

Even physics tells us more about the human tendency to create theories than it tells us about "reality as it is"

We look out at the universe and see our own perceptions of the universe smiling back at us- a mirror of our own theories.   Physics teaches us more about human psychology than what is "out there".

I am now including references to "my" stuff so you have some respect for the origin of what I present- it never was nor will be "Bukowski's crazy ideas"

And so we see that religion is not really all that different than science- both are based on theories about human experience and not on "things as they are".  Objective and subjective become one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature

Quote

 

Rorty argues that philosophy has unduly relied on a representational theory of perception and a correspondence theory of truth, hoping our experience or language might mirror the way reality actually is. In this he continues a certain controversial Anglophone tradition, which builds upon the work of philosophers such as Quine, Sellars, and Donald Davidson. Rorty opts out of the traditional objective/subjective dialogue in favor of a communal version of truth. For him, "true" is simply an honorific knowers bestow on claims, asserting them as what "we" want to say about a particular matter.

Rorty explains how philosophical paradigm shifts and their associated philosophical "problems" can be considered the result of the new metaphors, vocabularies, and mistaken linguistic associations which are necessarily a part of those new paradigms.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski
clarifications

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The falling short I see demonstrated here in this talk is church leaders falling short of principles of the gospel goodness.  I'm just pointing out where the church is falling short.  Hatting the sin and not the sinner is a flawed theological concept to start with and is another example of falling short.  We can do better than this as Mormons and as a culture. 

Well, what I was saying is that you(or many leftists) seem to think that hating the sin is equivalent to hating the sinner. Simply because the Church speaks out against various sins doesn't mean it hates those people or is prejudiced against them. Nevermind - this will just end up going round in circles.

[carbon dioxide]

10 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, what I was saying is that you(or many leftists) seem to think that hating the sin is equivalent to hating the sinner. Simply because the Church speaks out against various sins doesn't mean it hates those people or is prejudiced against them. Nevermind - this will just end up going round in circles.

Perhaps loving the sin and the sinner is the better theological concept or even better "there is no sin therefore there are no sinners" is best. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am sure you have your reasons but critical evaluation requires something more than just personal preferences and wants.  When it comes to issues of sin and what is considered valid for temple issues, what other sources should I go to than scripture and church authority?    I don't take issue with your support of same sex marriage.  I just take issue with the charge that it is not sinful and not only should the church recognize it but even eventually allow gays to be sealed in the temple.  That I do take great exception to.

You are correct in the point that it is its a futile exercise to prove that same sex marriage is not sinful by the scriptures because that would be an impossible task.  So we do agree that scriptural teaching does not allow for a good argument on the legitimacy of same sex marriage being valid or not sinful. 

As to close members or family you assume too much.    I know of one gay person in my extended family.  The sister of my adopted son birth mom is in a gay marriage.  Does it change my position?  Absolutely not.  Why would it change it?  I believe in certain standards and they don't change because someone I know does not comply with those standards.  I believe in agency and people have a right to live their lives as they choose.  If I had a drug dealing uncle it would not change my perspective on the issue. 

This could get a little complicated, but the way that Paul talks about sin in the NT is very different than how correlated modern Mormonism talks about sin.  Its more of a state of being that everyone is in as a result of our mortality, rather than individual choices about rules the church has set.  For a faithful Mormon's perspective on this I recommend Adam Miller's book "Grace Is Not God's Backup Plan: An Urgent Paraphrase of Paul's Letter to the Romans".  And no, I don't believe gays or their relationships are sinful.  

People in close relationships to LGBTQ individuals statistically are much less likely to harbor prejudices views towards them.  Once you find out that they are just as moral and good and normal as anyone else, its kind of hard to believe they are broken.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not. Not in the sense that I get you're meaning. I have priorities and some are far more important to me when studying them out. 

As I mentioned, I don't hold any assumption that your intentions are poor. I rarely do until proven otherwise.  I just don't think you fully see how strongly your own journey colors what you're saying to me. For example the bold. I already do that, fairly regularly. For you it may have been a fundamental changing experience. For me, it's a normative exercise integrated in my life and my faith. It still feels as though your projecting your experience into a universal one. And though I understand, by listening to many, the basic build up and experience of a faith crisis and even the mormonism they describe as being apart of beforehand....a lot of it is simply not within my paradigm of existence. 

 

With luv,

BD

You're right that I do think that questioning assumptions is a universal principle that is important, not just in a religious context, but in just about every aspect of life.  Its a helpful process and is a principle of critical thinking.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

I'm glad to hear that you also find questioning assumptions an important skill to practice, and I agree with you on that.  I'm not sure why you seem to feel like my recommendation that you question your religious assumptions is necessarily me applying my life's journey directly onto you.  However, I think we all do this to some extent and I'm not sure how it can be completely avoided.   Aren't you also doing the same thing to me, using your views of the world, the paradigm of your personal experience to interpret what you think I'm doing? 

You just sound a little sensitive on this for some reason.  I already apologized for any misunderstanding and tried to explain my intentions.  I guess thats the best I can do here.  Best of wishes to you, and thanks again for the exchange.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But it seems the members are still welcoming you despite their views. So, it seems that the difficulty or challenge is in reacting to their beliefs, not your interactions with them personally. I don’t think reading an article constitutes an “interaction” but I can see how it can remind you of what your friends believe that evidently is not part of your normal conversation with them.

For the most part, yes.  I said the majority of my experiences have been positive and they have.  I also said its complicated and it is.  Unless you've gone through this experience, its difficult to explain.  I try not to be too sensitive on the subject.  There are many different competing elements at play that make my relationship with the church complex.  Thanks for the encouragement though.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If someone is making statements of fact that aren't actually facts but are opinions, then it does need to be said. And if someone's bias is causing them to misinterpret something, then it does need to be said.

Not sure what statements you're referring to.  Could you please clarify.  

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It looks like you didn't understand the question so i'll clarify.

If the the Nov. policy is God's will (or if our leaders sincerely believe it's God's will) then what do you purpose they do?  If God condemns SSM, then what do you purpose they do?  Asking someone to do something that they believe is wrong isn't reasonable.   What reasonable changes would you like our leaders to make?

If the Nov. policy is God's will, then tell God to get a clue. 

If God condemns SSM, then let God know its his fault for creating these people in the first place, and tell him to fix it. 

Asking someone to do something they believe is wrong is a challenge for that person, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask it, especially if what is being asked is reasonable and will result in the best ethical decision for all parties involved.  

Reasonable changes you can refer to my last post. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Oaks: "Brothers and sisters, we know much more than you suppose"

I know he means well, but I always roll my eyes when someone needs to tell me that they know something.  Sorry, but if I can't figure it out on my own, then it's more likely you know less than I suppose, and you are hoping I'll take your word for it and not think about why you need to say you know something instead of it being obvious.

 

I addressed a comment similar to this earlier in this thread, but perhaps he feels the need to say that because of the continual carping about the Church leaders being "out of touch," living "in a bubble," and other such nonsense. Would you insist that they let it go unchallenged? That hardly seems fair.

This really is a case of damned-if-they-do-and-damned-if-they-don't.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I said I can't support it with strong objective evidence.  I would love to have some counter evidence, and I would be happy to change my opinion.  The public words of Michael Otterson aren't directly addressing my concern, they seem to be more directed towards people that feel like the PR team had a completely independent agenda.  I don't think that.  I also don't think they are a rubber stamp on the brethren. 

I think there is probably some ground in between those two positions, but I also suspect that certain leaders who don't always agree with each other within the Q15 have some back and forth struggles going on that we don't see on the outside.  This is based on my reading of history and the evidence we have of these power plays in years past and I have no reason to believe that has stopped today.  

The Public Affairs Department of the Church exists to serve at the will and pleasure of the leaders of the Church. You have nothing to support any conclusion to the contrary.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying that your argument is facile and unreasonable.  The validity of a prophetic statement is not determined by how popular it is.

Well that's the problem then.  I haven't said anything about the validity of a prophetic statement having anything to do with popularity.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We all have our agency.  I don't think Jesus Christ intended for His "Bread of Life" sermon to drive many of His followers away.  But it did.  Is that an indictment on the sermon?  Of course not.

Don't you see the absurdity of that?

All I see is you continually evading my argument and throwing in distractions that don't relate.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And His prophets and apostles today, I think, expect some conflict to arise due to their actions.

That does not negate the prophetic nature of those actions, though.

And some people reacted poorly.  So what?  The intent of a prophecy is not always going to play out.  Very often the intent is frustrated by disobedience/rebellion, by inattention, and so on.  But a prophecy is still a prophecy, even if its intended purpose is not fully effectuated.  That's just the way of things in this fallen state.  We all get to make choices.

Noah's intention in preaching repentance to his people was to persuade them to repent.  They didn't.  Instead, conflict arose.  Does that negate the prophetic nature of Noah's message?  Of course not.

Yes, there was.  The policy arose from revelation given to the Presiding High Priests.  It was sustained by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

You can't get much more "prophetic" than that.

Do you even know what I'm saying was not prophetic?  I'm guessing you cannot.  Remember you responded to me challenging what I said.  It seems to me you have misunderstood from the start and haven't listened as I've tried to clarify, then you repeat the same mischaracterization of my whole point.  What was not prophetic?  The notion that the change was implemented to avoid conflict, as President Oaks put it.  That was the hwole point of my comment.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I get your point.  I just find it facile and unreasonable.  Surely you understand that when the children of men exercise their agency in response to prophetic counsel, there will be times when that counsel is unpopular?  Not followed?  Rejected?  That there will be times when the intended purpose of the prophecy will not play out?

Moreover, the purpose of the policy change was about much more than just "avoid[ing] conflict."  

Moreover, I think there have been plenty of instances where coflict has been avoided, such that the intended purpose of the policy change has been effectuated.

Moreover, the policy only came out three years ago.  We need to give it time.

And again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy (which involve quite a bit more than just "avoid[ing] conflict").  Here they are again:

  Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Again, why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

No, you are not right.  The policy came, hysterics and overwrought reactions ensued, conflict arose.

Yes. You continue to support the very point I made.  Thanks.  That is what I'm saying.  The policy came and conflict arose. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Intervening causality.  Give it some thought.

And again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy (which involve quite a bit more than just "avoid[ing] conflict").  Here they are again:

  Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Again, why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

You just keep missing my point.  This has nothing to do with my point.  That's why I haven't gone over it.  I've already told you that and you still quote it and complain that I'm ignoring them.  Well, sir, they simply weren't what I was addressing.  I addressed President Oaks' comment and that was it.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, you have.  

Who's avoiding?  Here I am, addressing your point, which is neither clear nor confirmed by me.  It is, instead, facile and unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree.  You haven't done much other than misrepresent my argument and offer all sorts of .distractions.

I'll put it simply for you again.  The policy came.  Conflicts came.  The Church claimed they produced the policy to avoid conflicts.  There was nothing prophetic about that claim.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Even physics?  And chairs and tables and all of "reality"?

If you really meant EVERYTHING, then great.

How do we disagree in our perceptions of physics- as I see it?

You think it is about "reality" and I think it is about someone's theory that predicts how experiments will come out and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "reality" at all.  In short it documents how we SEE what we erroneously call "reality" when in fact EVERYTHING is based on - your words- " All of our preconceive ideas and beliefs"

Yes, they are "influenced" by our perceptions.  Even physics.  Hence the need in science to setup very strict rules to eliminate as much of personal bias as possible.  This is what the whole scientific method is all about, and the results of this method has fueled the most incredible advances in human well being in the history of our earth.  Is the method perfect?  No.  Is it possible to eliminate every bias imaginable, I don't think so.  But the better we get at this process, the more we replicate studies and get the same results and more people continue to repeat these things over time, the stronger and stronger our understanding gets and our confidence levels increase.  Its really amazing. 

Religions base their ideals on tradition and authorities (human and written).  Sometimes these things make some sense, as many of the religious ideas that survive the test of time are ones that have worked well for different groups in history.  But other religious ideas are antiquated and detrimental, yet they persist in spite of strong practical evidence to the contrary.  This is one of the flaws of religious tradition, an allegiance to irrational thought based on logically fallacious thinking.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"Objective evidence" devoid of preconceived notions and man made theories does not and cannot exist. 

Even physics tells us more about the human tendency to create theories than it tells us about "reality as it is"

We look out at the universe and see our own perceptions of the universe smiling back at us- a mirror of our own theories.   Physics teaches us more about human psychology than what is "out there".

I am now including references to "my" stuff so you have some respect for the origin of what I present- it never was nor will be "Bukowski's crazy ideas"

And so we see that religion is not really all that different than science- both are based on theories about human experience and not on "things as they are".  Objective and subjective become one.

You can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that the philosophical idea that objective evidence cannot exist, may be true in an ultimate perfect sense.  However, in a practical, this works for 99.9% of everyday application sense, these objective pieces of evidence are the foundation of all our wonderful advances in the human enterprise.  I believe the philosophical debates can be valuable, but while people are debating the meaning of life and the limits of our perceptions, the hard sciences are curing diseases and discovering new ways of living that have significant practical value for the human race.  So I guess it rubs me a little wrong when you seem to want to dismiss the hard sciences or say that they are clueless when it comes to philosophy, when they are producing so much value to our species.  Show me the money! 

I would agree that what we see about the universe is partially a reflection of human psychology, but I'm not sure I would go as far as what you're stating.  

I also don't think this makes religion at all the same as science.  I mentioned in the other thread, two elements that I think separate religious evidence from scientific evidence.  Quoting myself: "Two primary ways are first that this evidence is measurable using agreed upon standards of science and mathematics, and second through the peer review process it is reviewed and the experiments are replicated over and over again with precision." 

How can religious evidence possibly be evaluated using that same criteria?  I gave the example of how answers to prayer cannot be evaluated using those two criteria.  Can you think of any way that religious evidence could be evaluated in the same way that scientific evidence is?  

Edited August 29, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, what I was saying is that you(or many leftists) seem to think that hating the sin is equivalent to hating the sinner. Simply because the Church speaks out against various sins doesn't mean it hates those people or is prejudiced against them. Nevermind - this will just end up going round in circles.

Funny to be called a leftist as I've never self identified that way, always considered myself conservative, I was even an ultra conservative for most of my life, and I'm still quite conservative fiscally (more so than the so called conservative republicans - they waste money just as bad as the democrats).  

Anyway, I digress.  I do have a problem with the hate the sin love the sinner because it makes no sense, its not scriptural, and its not even possible to do.  If you say you hate the sin, and you define sin as homosexual sex, and you know people exist for which this is the sexual identity, not a choice, and they couldn't change it if they tried.  How can you reconcile that?  What if the tables were turned and the sin was heterosexual sex, yet people like myself and I'm assuming you too (heterosexuals) existed in the world.  How would it feel if the church considered our very identity sinful?  Would you live a celibate life?  Would you marry another man?  Would you envision eternity married to a man, hoping all your life that your broken identity would change to what your church says God's view of sexual identity should be? 

Its not possible to realistically hate the sin and love the sinner on this topic to me.   Its a broken, non-scriptural construct, just like the many theories about race that have been disavowed.  

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not sure what statements you're referring to.  Could you please clarify.  

You made a general statement about how there is never a reason to point out that osmeone's perspective is coloring their interpretation of someone's words.  I provided to equally general times when it there is a reason to point it out.

Quote

 

If the Nov. policy is God's will, then tell God to get a clue. 

If God condemns SSM, then let God know its his fault for creating these people in the first place, and tell him to fix it. 

Asking someone to do something they believe is wrong is a challenge for that person, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask it, especially if what is being asked is reasonable and will result in the best ethical decision for all parties involved.  

Reasonable changes you can refer to my last post. 

 

So, you've got nothing.  You are angry that our church leaders believe something about God that you don't agree with and you're going to stay angry until they change their minds.  There's nothing else to discuss under those circumstances.