Pres. Oaks devotional to Young Married Couples

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Its not that I have nothing, its that you disagree with me, which is fine, two people can respectfully disagree.  Try not to act all haughty about your position though, that would go a long way towards mutually respectful dialogue.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

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.

You said I'm making statements of fact, but you haven't pointed out any statements of fact that I made here. 

And you are right I'm angry.  I'm angry because of how these policies and teachings hurt so many beautiful people that I love and the ones I don't know that are also impacted I'm angry about that too.  This isn't God's will, not for me, not for these people.  It's evil and its being perpetuated by the church of my heritage and the church I've dedicated so much of my life too.  You bet I'm angry. 

I'm also angry at Trump and the republican party and I'm going to be angry at them probably until he's not longer the President and until they get their act together.  Please feel free to be offended that I shared some raw emotion about my frustrations.  That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion though.  I'll always attempt to treat you and other participants with respect.  

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not that I have nothing, its that you disagree with me, which is fine, two people can respectfully disagree.  Try not to act all haughty about your position though, that would go a long way towards mutually respectful dialogue.  

You have not presented anything meaningful to support the notion that the Public Affairs Department of the Church free-lances independent of the leadership of the Church. The immediate past managing director of the department has directly stated that they do not. 

And it's not being haughty to say so.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

That is fine.  My basic point is we do not decide for God what is sinful.  If it is sinful to God then that is a big problem and I don't see how one can say its not sinful based on the what has been revealed. 

My wife and I have a relationship with our the sister of my adopted son's mom.  We get Christmas cards from them and we see them once or twice a year.  Its a great open adoption we have with the birth family.  We get along great.  She is a good person and overall a moral person.  However we are all sinners.  We all fall short and we all have our issues.  I have my issues even though I believe I am a good, moral person.  However I still have to repent.  I still have to do better.  I still have to overcome stuff.  People can be good, moral and normal and still be unclean before the Lord.  Celestial inheritance is not obtained by living a moral, clean, and good person according to the standards of the world but according to a higher standard by God.  So yes gay people can be good, moral people.  They still have to comply with the standards of God like everyone else and if they have to sacrifice things in their life (like everyone else) to obtain a good inheritance in the eternities.  Gays are not special.  They don't get exempt from eternal laws that the rest of us have to comply with. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You said I'm making statements of fact, but you haven't pointed out any statements of fact that I made here. 

And you are right I'm angry.  I'm angry because of how these policies and teachings hurt so many beautiful people that I love and the ones I don't know that are also impacted I'm angry about that too.  This isn't God's will, not for me, not for these people.  It's evil and its being perpetuated by the church of my heritage and the church I've dedicated so much of my life too.  You bet I'm angry. 

I'm also angry at Trump and the republican party and I'm going to be angry at them probably until he's not longer the President and until they get their act together.  Please feel free to be offended that I shared some raw emotion about my frustrations.  That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion though.  I'll always attempt to treat you and other participants with respect.  

Rather than do the work of going back through your first OP I'll just bold them in this post.

I'm not offended by your raw emotions, I just don't enjoy discussions that are lead by raw emotion.  I'm rarely rational when I'm emotionally raw and most other people aren't either and discussions with people who aren't being all that rational just don't work out that well.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have not presented anything meaningful to support the notion that the Public Affairs Department of the Church free-lances independent of the leadership of the Church. The immediate past managing director of the department has directly stated that .

And it's not being haughty to say so.

Only if you privilege the quote of Otterson to such a high status that you assume it’s categorically true.  Seems a little naive from my vantage.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

That is fine.  My basic point is we do not decide for God what is sinful.  If it is sinful to God then that is a big problem and I don't see how one can say its not sinful based on the what has been revealed. 

My wife and I have a relationship with our the sister of my adopted son's mom.  We get Christmas cards from them and we see them once or twice a year.  Its a great open adoption we have with the birth family.  We get along great.  She is a good person and overall a moral person.  However we are all sinners.  We all fall short and we all have our issues.  I have my issues even though I believe I am a good, moral person.  However I still have to repent.  I still have to do better.  I still have to overcome stuff.  People can be good, moral and normal and still be unclean before the Lord.  Celestial inheritance is not obtained by living a moral, clean, and good person according to the standards of the world but according to a higher standard by God.  So yes gay people can be good, moral people.  They still have to comply with the standards of God like everyone else and if they have to sacrifice things in their life (like everyone else) to obtain a good inheritance in the eternities.  Gays are not special.  They don't get exempt from eternal laws that the rest of us have to comply with. 

What are the standards of God?  Everyone has their own ideas.  Its an appeal to an unseen authority.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Rather than do the work of going back through your first OP I'll just bold them in this post.

I'm not offended by your raw emotions, I just don't enjoy discussions that are lead by raw emotion.  I'm rarely rational when I'm emotionally raw and most other people aren't either and discussions with people who aren't being all that rational just don't work out that well.

All of those statements constitute opinion, my whole OP started with the premise that I explicitly was sharing my opinions about the talk.  Think of statements of fact as things a person could CFR me on.  Like where I pointed out that just bearing your testimony to someone who has questions about the church is something Elder Ballard counseled against.  Someone could issue a CFR asking me to provide the reference to substantiate my claim.  

When I say this isn’t God’s will for me, that’s clearly a statement of opinion.  Impossible to CFR because there is no way we can get God to weigh in on our thread, last time I checked, God hasn’t registered for an account, unless he’s already on the board posting under a pseudonym.  😆

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What are the standards of God?  Everyone has their own ideas.  Its an appeal to an unseen authority.  

You know what?  No one even knows...know one even knows for sure...and if they do..it will change and change again. 

Ideas??? Something to think about:  "What happens when you open yourself to fresh thinking, different perspectives, opposing points of view?  Your outlook starts to take a shift, bright ideas come t light, and the way you see the world can be thrillingly, gloriously .  And be changed".

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

You know what?  No one even knows...know one even knows for sure...and if they do..it will change and change again. 

Ideas??? Something to think about:  "What happens when you open yourself to fresh thinking, different perspectives, opposing points of view?  Your outlook starts to take a shift, bright ideas come t light, and the way you see the world can be thrillingly, gloriously .  And be changed".

Nice, I like the quote, who are you quoting?  

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Nice, I like the quote, who are you quoting?  

I put those quotes in..so that you guys would know that I was not copying...it is what i do... and darn it..I tear quotes out and put them on my refrigerator...and never sure where i got it.  I can tell you that it was from an Oprah magazine..I keep things that touch no matter what.  I am sorry!🙁

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I put those quotes in..so that you guys would know that I was not copying...it is what i do... and darn it..I tear quotes out and put them on my refrigerator...and never sure where i got it.  I can tell you that it was from an Oprah magazine..I keep things that touch no matter what.  I am sorry!🙁

It’s cool I like it, thanks for sharing 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s cool I like it, thanks for sharing 

You should see my refrigerator...it is mess...a regular newstand!!

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I don't like people telling me what to do or where I should go with my spiritual journey if I haven't asked for such advice. But I don't think it's totally about sensitivity as much as your tone seemed a little patronizing. Like let me show you this amazing journey you'll go on if you just keep following the course I've seen. Go and try this!...without gauging whether I'd want the advice to begin with. It's done with the best intentions I'm sure, but it still comes off weird for me. I'm not one who enjoys unsolicited advice. And there's an irony of telling me what would be good for me and trying to explain what is good from your paradigm... when you don't like Elder Oaks doing the same when it doesn't fit your conclusions. Which again also seems a little ironic to describe me as "a little sensitive" considering that  in the OP you start by describing the response as a little raw and end by asserting this is why you maybe don't belong in the church. From one report on one area conference. Kinda a little pot-kettle

 

But you're fine really. I didn't have much to say beyond what I already did. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Only if you privilege the quote of Otterson to such a high status that you assume it’s categorically true.  Seems a little naive from my vantage.  

Not being able to deal with his statement, you dismiss it by in effect calling it a lie. Not impressive. It only makes it clearer that you have nothing substantive to support your logically incoherent suppositions. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not being able to deal with his statement, you dismiss it by in effect calling it a lie. Not impressive. It only makes it clearer that you have nothing substantive to support your logically incoherent suppositions. 

I don’t dismiss it neither do I accept it uncritically.  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t dismiss it neither do I accept it uncritically.  

Too bad you are not viewing it both critically and <responsibly> which would entail giving substantive, if not persuasive, reasons for your skepticism. 

But I’m satisfied that you cannot, so I’m ready to move on now. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

.  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.....  

 

Possibly because there appears to be an assumption in the way you say this that she is not doing this, at least not in the way you think she should by considering how you keep giving her advice.  You don't appear to be registering her own descriptions of her life, but superimposing some sort of construct of your own on her and responding to that.

If someone was very nutritionally minded and had been since they started cooking for themselves, someone else spending much of the conversation telling them they needed to put more effort into choosing good food because that was the best way to be healthy would seem rather odd, especially if they had mentioned how that eating well was a part of their normal everyday life. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

The way you phrase this seems to imply you can't conceive of God actually disagreeing with you on this, you don't believe God actually exist but is just a construct for people's own desires, or you have a very different idea on what God is then most Christians I know (the most intelligent, compassionate being in existence).

[Calm]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not that I have nothing, its that you disagree with me, which is fine, two people can respectfully disagree.  Try not to act all haughty about your position though, that would go a long way towards mutually respectful dialogue.  

I definitely agree haughtiness/arrogance interferes with discussion, but I also think part of arrogance includes not being able to imagine oneself can be wrong.

For example, in your interaction with God post I quoted above, there was never any hint of you asking God "where have I gone wrong in understanding your purpose?" in a scenario where God disagrees with you (if God really did inspire the Nov. 2015 policy).  If that is not just an affectation for writing, how is that not arrogance?

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What are the standards of God?  Everyone has their own ideas.  Its an appeal to an unseen authority.  

Then there is no reason I can see at this point to assume your interpretation is the correct idea if this is your default.  Not much point to discuss "what is God's favourite color" when you believe it boils down to "what's my favourite color".

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You know what?  No one even knows...know one even knows for sure...and if they do..it will change and change again. 

Ideas??? Something to think about:  "What happens when you open yourself to fresh thinking, different perspectives, opposing points of view?  Your outlook starts to take a shift, bright ideas come t light, and the way you see the world can be thrillingly, gloriously .  And be changed".

That looks impressive until it appears that someone is actually telling everyone else to do this, but isn't applying the same effort himself.

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Too bad you are not viewing it both critically and <responsibly> which would entail giving substantive, if not persuasive, reasons for your skepticism. 

But I’m satisfied that you cannot, so I’m ready to move on now. 

I approach things differently than you do, so satisfying your standard is not my objective.  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Then there is no reason I can see at this point to assume your interpretation is the correct idea if this is your default.  Not much point to discuss "what is God's favourite color" when you believe it boils down to "what's my favourite color".

This goes pretty much across the board with all conversations about what God wants though, don't you think.  Its really just like the kindergarten aged my dad can beat up your dad kind of conversation that some kids engage in.  Unless both dads show up to the playground and actually battle it out, we'll never know who's correct, or if the kids even have a dad.  

[stemelbow]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I definitely agree haughtiness/arrogance interferes with discussion, but I also think part of arrogance includes not being able to imagine oneself can be wrong.

For example, in your interaction with God post I quoted above, there was never any hint of you asking God "where have I gone wrong in understanding your purpose?" in a scenario where God disagrees with you (if God really did inspire the Nov. 2015 policy).  If that is not just an affectation for writing, how is that not arrogance?

At some point there's little doubt we all think we are correct about something, whatever that is for each may vary of course.  I'm not sure that qualifies as arrogance.  At some point after all we do in trying to figure out what's right or what's wrong, we fall back on our original intuition, our gut, our feelings, our spiritual insights and decide God has helped us there.  I'm not sure there's any reason to assume hope_for hasn't asked, at some point, "where have I gone wrong?"  It seems more likely he's made his decision after years of trying to figure out his best course.  If all we're trying to do is prove the other is arrogant, it seems the height of arrogance to assume you really understand another's walk, drawing a caricature of what it is.  I think we all benefit once we start interacting with each other with a bit more charity and far less assumption and intention accusing.  

But that is just me, as I've found myself very much appreciating hope_For's passionate participation in this thread.  I share similar feelings on this very important topic.