Jump to content

Queer member speaking at byu women's conference


Recommended Posts

 

Starts at the 26 minute ish mark

She is queer, she is on stage for about 6 minutes, very interesting

  • Like 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Starts at the 26 minute ish mark

She is queer, she is on stage for about 6 minutes, very interesting

Very interesting indeed.  I actually don’t like the phrase “perfect the way I am” because that dismisses the need and aim of eternal progression.  I don’t think the choices need to be either broken or perfect.  I am not getting how to say it in a way that works for me, maybe it will come to me later.  Outside that, it was a great segment, IMO.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

So, some of us don't need the Atonement then?  None of us do?  I guess I'm in the minority, then, but the Atonement is the only thing that's going to make me into anything resembling a Godly creature.  To each, his or her own, I suppose. :unknw: :huh:

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, Duncan said:

 

Starts at the 26 minute ish mark

She is queer, she is on stage for about 6 minutes, very interesting

This was beautiful! Kudos to the women leaders! And for the other inclusive lessons they are teaching!! I'll listen to the rest of this conference hopefully tomorrow. Thanks Duncan!!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
21 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe they are using the “perfect the way I am” in a different way than “God is perfect”. More along the lines of I have value the way I am, I am who I am supposed to be, and progression means taking the good or even the great that I am now and allowing the Gospel to sanctify me so I can become one with God as he desires me to be. 

Perhaps; but the trouble is that such a broad definition becomes essentially meaningless.  Is there anyone in the Church, in the grocery store, or down at the state penitentiary that these statements wouldn’t apply to?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
51 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Perhaps; but the trouble is that such a broad definition becomes essentially meaningless.  Is there anyone in the Church, in the grocery store, or down at the state penitentiary that these statements wouldn’t apply to?

That guy who cut me off earlier.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

Perhaps; but the trouble is that such a broad definition becomes essentially meaningless.  Is there anyone in the Church, in the grocery store, or down at the state penitentiary that these statements wouldn’t apply to?

Perhaps the pendulum needs to sway further on the accepting side for awhile in order to overcome past cultural habits of emphasizing negatives.  

Even though my parents were great at understanding the principles for the Gospel and discussed things of acceptance of ourselves as children of God, that we were wonderful individuals, etc., they both had the habit (most likely picked up from their parents) of relating to us through problem solving.  You got their attention for the things that went wrong in their view and of course if one looks, there are always problems.  Unfortunately the negatives turned out at times stronger than the positive messages, because the positives were nice words to hear, but the negatives had action attached to them so we knew they were committed to that viewpoint....not sure if I am saying it clearly.  They gave attention to primarily the negatives, so they ended up to a certain extent nurturing the negatives because the balance wasn't there.  

My dad's mom used to come over and tell us we should be more like our cousins who were popular at school and involved in  school government, sports, cheerleading.  Turns out when she visited them, she didn't gush about how great they were like she did to us, instead it was the reverse.  Why couldn't they be more like their cousins who got As and were in honors classes, etc.  We didn't discover this until after her funeral when we got together and started to compare notes.  She didn't tell us how wonderful it was that we got good grades, apparently she was worried we would assume we would rest on our laurels.  It was rather sad because it had a different result than she wanted, we disliked each other rather than being motivated to push ourselves in our weak areas and we felt Grandma saw us as "not quite good enough".  We never knew how it pleased her when we did well until it was way too late.

From what I have seen my parents and grandparents were pretty typical of their generation.  If I am right, gushing about how great everyone is for a couple of decades may help us eventually get to where we really need to be emotionally healthy, but also have realistic views of who we are.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

 If I am right, gushing about how great everyone is for a couple of decades may help us eventually get to where we really need to be emotionally healthy, but also have realistic views of who we are.

I love how you said this. To a lot of people "gushing"  is a turn off and I can understand why. You can probably tell in a lot of my post I gush over my wife and kids a lot. I do it even more when I'm around them. I'm not the smartest man, but one thing I've realized in life is that if you go out of your way to tell your family members how great they are in an overly excessive way, it will help combat any natural negative feelings people have about themselves. I've told my girls even before they were born that they were my queens, the love of my life, insanely beautiful, the most intelligent women on the face of the Earth. I chose to do this because it was the exact opposite of what my parents did. 

    I'll compliment them anywhere, just last week I was at home Depot with my youngest daughter and while in line I told the cashier that I have the most beautiful daughter on the face of the earth. Was it awkward, yes, was it weird, yes, did it embarrass my daughter, yes, did it embarrass the cashier, yes, did it embarrass me, no😁, but for the next 30 or so minutes after that my daughter had a smile on her face and I could tell it made her feel good. 

Positive reinforcement in my opinion is sorely lacking in today's society, I think that's probably what your talking about, yes/no? 

Link to post
6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, some of us don't need the Atonement then?  None of us do?  I guess I'm in the minority, then, but the Atonement is the only thing that's going to make me into anything resembling a Godly creature.  To each, his or her own, I suppose. :unknw: :huh:

I believe the comment is tantamount to someone saying ‘I’m perfectly happy to be a woman’, or ‘I’m perfectly happy to a man.’ In other words, it’s like someone saying ‘at least insofar as my sexuality is concerned, I don’t need any fixing.’ So it’s simply an expression of “gay pride” or ‘gay affirmation.’ I’m sure if you pinned this person down she would say, ‘oh I believe in eternal progression alright, but I don’t believe I have to progress beyond being gay until I’m heterosexual because I believe I’m fine just as I am. It’s the oft heard, ‘why should I be ashamed of the way God made me because I’ve been this way since I was a little child and therefore being gay for me is as natural for you to be straight.’

As for Yours Truly, I believe it’s likely the tendency for some to have an attraction toward those of the same sex is a manifestation of the fallen nature that will naturally fade and eventually pass away completely when resurrection of glory renews and purifies the constitution and processes of the human mind and body, bringing the souls of those thus redeemed into a greater alignment with the nature and mind of the Holy Spirit; for even those who  inherit the telestial glory will receive a remission of their sins and a tremendous outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Minister of Righteousness.

It’s for this reason that all of today’s lobbying and pining away for gay temple sealings is an exercise in futility because after the resurrection there won’t be anyone left who will have the desire to be married eternally to someone of the same sex. The only problem is that openly teaching this today would be considered a cruel and insensitive disaffirmation of homosexuality that would cause widespread despair, outrage and vicious condemnations from those who stand at the windows of “the large and spacious building.’ Till the dawn of the millennium, be prepared for a rocky and tumultuous ride.

Edited by teddyaware
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Quote

I’m sure if you pinned this person down she would say, ‘oh I believe in eternal progression alright, but I don’t believe I have to progress beyond being gay until I’m heterosexual because I believe I’m fine just as I am.

Did you listen to her?  If not, you should. 
 

She only said that she was queer in regards to her sexual identity, which has a broad meaning that may mean simply not traditional heterosexual.  She also said she was YW Pres for her ward and she referred to times she had been single, implying she was now married. She also, assuming the screen wasn’t reversed, had a wedding ring on. I cannot imagine she was in a homosexual marriage and holding that calling and being used as an example of by the General Relief Society Presidencies in the way they were.  Which means her sexual identity nor her expression of it likely is along the lines you are thinking.  

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s for this reason that all of today’s lobbying and pining away for gay temple sealings is an exercise in futility because after the resurrection there won’t be anyone left who will have the desire to be married eternally to someone of the same sex.

Interesting idea I have never heard before.  What I have heard inferred is that the only Kingdom with married person with be the Celestial.  I really do not know that.  What I really know is that all persons in the three Kingdoms will be happy.  They will settle for what God will grant them. I believe the Scriptures about the three Kingdoms in the D&C point to this.

Edited by Metis_LDS
Spelling
Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe they are using the “perfect the way I am” in a different way than “God is perfect”. More along the lines of I have value the way I am, I am who I am supposed to be at this time, and progression means taking the good or even the great that I am now and allowing the Gospel to sanctify me so I can become one with God as he desires me to be. 

Okay.

Link to post
5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I believe the comment is tantamount to someone saying ‘I’m perfectly happy to be a woman’, or ‘I’m perfectly happy to a man.’ In other words, it’s like someone saying ‘at least insofar as my sexuality is concerned, I don’t need any fixing.’ So it’s simply an expression of “gay pride” or ‘gay affirmation.’ I’m sure if you pinned this person down she would say, ‘oh I believe in eternal progression alright, but I don’t believe I have to progress beyond being gay until I’m heterosexual because I believe I’m fine just as I am. It’s the oft heard, ‘why should I be ashamed of the way God made me because I’ve been this way since I was a little child and therefore being gay for me is as natural for you to be straight.’

As for Yours Truly, I believe it’s likely the tendency for some to have an attraction toward those of the same sex is a manifestation of the fallen nature that will naturally fade and eventually pass away completely when resurrection of glory renews and purifies the constitution and processes of the human mind and body, bringing the souls of those thus redeemed into a greater alignment with the nature and mind of the Holy Spirit; for even those who  inherit the telestial glory will receive a remission of their sins and a tremendous outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Minister of Righteousness.

It’s for this reason that all of today’s lobbying and pining away for gay temple sealings is an exercise in futility because after the resurrection there won’t be anyone left who will have the desire to be married eternally to someone of the same sex. The only problem is that openly teaching this today would be considered a cruel and insensitive disaffirmation of homosexuality that would cause widespread despair, outrage and vicious condemnations from those who stand at the windows of “the large and spacious building.’ Till the dawn of the millennium, be prepared for a rocky and tumultuous ride.

I can't disagree more with this. I hope the day doesn't come when there is gay marriage in the temple, like the blacks getting the PH in the church. Because IMHO it may rock your testimony and it's no fun to lose one, believe me. I just disagree that God doesn't accept His gay children, I believe they are not going to change, and the thought of that would be like telling you that you're going to be gay in the hereafter. How does that feel? 

Link to post
15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Starts at the 26 minute ish mark

She is queer, she is on stage for about 6 minutes, very interesting

In the context of “belonging” – belonging to the family of God, her earthly family, the Church, the ward, etc. – gay members acting in good faith certainly belong and the majority must help them feel they belong.

I take her comments about being perfect, and Sister Eubanks’ questions and comments in relation to that, to have to do with being perfectly eligible to belong, and with understanding rather than judging, focusing on common ground (such as ways to serve, fellowship, socialize) rather than on limitations (such as not allowing same-sex marriage) or sins (immorality as the case may be).

I think this is the same message Elder Oaks has conveyed, only in a different voice: showing the love of God while upholding His laws.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 4/30/2021 at 3:54 AM, teddyaware said:

It’s for this reason that all of today’s lobbying and pining away for gay temple sealings is an exercise in futility because after the resurrection there won’t be anyone left who will have the desire to be married eternally to someone of the same sex. 

And how do you know this?  Did you get some revelation from God that the prophet is not aware of?  

I personally plan to spend eternity with my beloved partner.  And I don't really care where.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 hours ago, california boy said:

And how do you know this?  Did you get some revelation from God that the prophet is not aware of?  

I personally plan to spend eternity with my beloved partner.  And I don't really care where.

Becoming "Heavenly Parents" is a sacred trust.  It requires covenants and sealings.  It means taking on the responsibility and work that God is doing.  Which is to invite the Intelligences to become spirit children and enter into the First Estate.  If they are faithful, they will obtain the opportunity to experience the Second Estate where they grapple with the fallen nature of mortality (the Plan of Redemption).

There is absolutely no meaning for associating Celestial Marriage with telestial "marriage".  You can have any kind of relationships in the telestial kingdom (assuming freedom of association and consent) but they will NOT involve the sacred work of God that will continue throughout the Eternities.  All of these precepts are amplified and affirmed by an actual revelation given to the Church in 1995, namely the Proclamation on the Family.

Link to post
1 hour ago, longview said:

Becoming "Heavenly Parents" is a sacred trust.  It requires covenants and sealings.  It means taking on the responsibility and work that God is doing.  Which is to invite the Intelligences to become spirit children and enter into the First Estate.  If they are faithful, they will obtain the opportunity to experience the Second Estate where they grapple with the fallen nature of mortality (the Plan of Redemption).

There is absolutely no meaning for associating Celestial Marriage with telestial "marriage".  You can have any kind of relationships in the telestial kingdom (assuming freedom of association and consent) but they will NOT involve the sacred work of God that will continue throughout the Eternities.  All of these precepts are amplified and affirmed by an actual revelation given to the Church in 1995, namely the Proclamation on the Family.

you need to keep reading the POF if you think it says that

ever wonder the Church hasn't said it was a revelation? Where do you get that idea? Pres. Packer said it was in his Oct. 2010 GC talk but then it was excised from the printed version

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
54 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you need to keep reading the POF if you think it says that

ever wonder the Church hasn't said it was a revelation? Where do you get that idea? Pres. Packer said it was in his Oct. 2010 GC talk but then it was excised from the printed version

 

Quote

Proclamations of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

 
Author: Matthews, Robert J.

In performance of their calling as apostles, prophets, seers, revelators, and spokesmen for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have from time to time issued formal written proclamations, declarations, letters, and various public announcements. These have been addressed sometimes to the members of the Church (as a type of general epistle) and sometimes to the public at large. All such declarations have been solemn and sacred in nature and were issued with the intent to bring forth, build up, and regulate the affairs of the Church as the kingdom of God on the earth. Subject matter has included instruction on doctrine, faith, and history; warnings of judgments to come; invitations to assist in the work; and statements of Church growth and progress.

Only a few of the many formal declarations have been labeled "Proclamations." Others have been characterized "Official Declarations," "Doctrinal Expositions," or "Epistles." Some have the signature of the First Presidency, some of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and some of the Twelve only. 


https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 4/30/2021 at 4:54 AM, teddyaware said:

 

As for Yours Truly, I believe it’s likely the tendency for some to have an attraction toward those of the same sex is a manifestation of the fallen nature that will naturally fade and eventually pass away completely when resurrection of glory renews and purifies the constitution and processes of the human mind and body, bringing the souls of those thus redeemed into a greater alignment with the nature and mind of the Holy Spirit; for even those who  inherit the telestial glory will receive a remission of their sins and a tremendous outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Minister of Righteousness.

It’s for this reason that all of today’s lobbying and pining away for gay temple sealings is an exercise in futility because after the resurrection there won’t be anyone left who will have the desire to be married eternally to someone of the same sex. The only problem is that openly teaching this today would be considered a cruel and insensitive disaffirmation of homosexuality that would cause widespread despair, outrage and vicious condemnations from those who stand at the windows of “the large and spacious building.’ Till the dawn of the millennium, be prepared for a rocky and tumultuous ride.

Or "sexual attraction" itself is a manifestation of "fallen nature" and because it is hormonal, is only a function of mortality. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Or "sexual attraction" itself is a manifestation of "fallen nature" and because it is hormonal, is only a function of mortality. 

Booooo!!!!!

More seriously: BOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Also, I doubt it. I find it hard to believe that God would make such a big deal about it if it is just part of an animal nature that vanishes at death. You must learn to control this urge that will eventually go away! I have no idea if sex as we know it exists in the eternal realms but if it doesn't there is something better there. I don't expect God to take away my love of swimming and floating in water or my love of high winds in my face. Sensual experiences are not bad. They might be less than other experiences but the lesser has its place. Then again I expect those other enjoyments have higher expressions as well.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...