Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I disagree. Look around the world. Despite the differences, there is a remarkable level of shared values and standards of decency. The Golden Rule or one similar has been around for centuries.

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, that would because of the light of Christ.  So, God would get the credit for those shared values and standards of decency, even when they are championed by atheists. 

From a philosophical perspective, maestrophil's argument has merit.  If there is no ultimate standard or authority for what is right and what is wrong, then no standard is wrong.  Everyone gets to decide themselves what standard they want to live by and no one has the authority to tell them they are wrong.

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Then why do you say homosexual love and sex is prohibited by ancient scripture? Have you had occasion to present that argument to your loved ones? If so, what scriptures did you use?

I say it because I have read it. And have received a personal witness it is true. I do not engage in scriptural beating or bashing with anyone, let alone my children. 

And even if I produce scripture that I read as condemning homosexual sexual sex, will you accept them, or is your goal just to keep arguing and turning the issue round and round?

 

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But that is putting your idea of God's will before the happiness of real people. It's not the same as God's actual will.

Unless it is

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But that is putting your idea of God's will before the happiness of real people. It's not the same as God's actual will.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I see no reason to assume you are correct and I am wrong that God is inspiring me to believe what I believe is his Will.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, that would because of the light of Christ.  So, God would get the credit for those shared values and standards of decency, even when they are championed by atheists. 

From a philosophical perspective, maestrophil's argument has merit.  If there is no ultimate standard or authority for what is right and what is wrong, then no standard is wrong.  Everyone gets to decide themselves what standard they want to live by and no one has the authority to tell them they are wrong.

From a philosophical perspective, the standards are there either way as we now witness, be they sourced in God or the human conscience.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Unless it is

The difference is, though, between what has been made plain to the human mind and what is sourced esoterically. Either way could be the receipt of God's will. 

So will you say to your loved ones that you favour inscrutable rules over what is plainly good?

[Jamie]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

From a philosophical perspective, the standards are there either way as we now witness, be they sourced in God or the human conscience.

What I witness are different sets of standards.  There is no total consensus among all in all societies on this planet.  Lawmakers make laws and lawbreakers break the ones some lawmakers make when they don't like them, making their own laws in their stead.

Voting doesn't solve anything either because voters are opposed to what others vote when they don't vote for what they want.  Separation or execution is our only recourse and not everybody is happy with that situation either.

You can suggest a solution but not everyone will go along with it.  It is a wonder when we have any peace at all on this planet, and there is never a time when everyone is in agreement with each other about anything.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

you favour inscrutable rules over what is plainly good?

Since I believe what I believe is the “plainly good”, I do not have to tell anyone I favor inscrutable rules. 

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I say it because I have read it. And have received a personal witness it is true. I do not engage in scriptural beating or bashing with anyone, let alone my children. 

And even if I produce scripture that I read as condemning homosexual sexual sex, will you accept them, or is your goal just to keep arguing and turning the issue round and round?

 

I ask because I genuinely don't think there is scriptural support against it. Against pedophilia, fornication, and rape afaik there is scriptural opposition. Against loving committed homosexual partnerships? No. 

It is a vital question because so much is at stake, yes? That question was posed because you elevated scriptural support above things some people say.

If scriptural support existed, that would amount to things many people have said over time and which many believers had accepted. But even there, my original question remains unanswered. 

A spiritual impression is not reason. My question is about the reason it is a sin, not why you believe it is a sin.

I think we owe our loved ones reason.

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I already reviewed our conversation before I responded to you. 

Sharing can include how we might address important questions.

I can appreciate that. How do you think LGBTQ+ can accept and access Christ's Atonement to stay on the covenant path and participate in Church activity?

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Jamie said:

What I witness are different sets of standards.  There is no total consensus among all in all societies on this planet.  Lawmakers make laws and lawbreakers break the ones some lawmakers make when they don't like them, making their own laws in their stead.

Voting doesn't solve anything either because voters are opposed to what others vote when they don't vote for what they want.  Separation or execution is our only recourse and not everybody is happy with that situation either.

You can suggest a solution but not everyone will go along with it.  It is a wonder when we have any peace at all on this planet, and there is never a time when everyone is in agreement with each other about anything.

We don't need total consensus to achieve a general common set of standards. 

Esoterically-sourced religious beliefs, taken all around the world don't achieve consensus either. 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can appreciate that. How do you think LGBTQ+ can accept and access Christ's Atonement to stay on the covenant path and participate in Church activity?

They can do so just like everyone else once they are allowed to participate including their same-sex relationships.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since I believe what I believe is the “plainly good”, I do not have to tell anyone I favor inscrutable rules. 

How is it plainly good to say homosexual love and sex is sinful?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How is it plainly good to say homosexual love and sex is sinful?

You should stop long enough in your assertions about what others believe to maybe ask what they believe. 
 

I don’t believe such is inherently sinful. It depends on the law God has given to individuals and communities.  There are many things that aren’t inherently sinful that will not be part of exaltation because of what they can or cannot contribute to progression. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

You should stop long enough in your assertions about what others believe to maybe ask what they believe. 
 

I don’t believe such is inherently sinful. It depends on the law God has given to individuals and communities.  There are many things that aren’t inherently sinful that will not be part of exaltation because of what they can or cannot contribute to progression. 

Maybe you could have simply chosen to answer that question instead of responding to other comments which were parts of other conversations.

With that in mind, what position about homosexual relationships, if any, do you espouse and support in your familial and communal circles?

[Jamie]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

We don't need total consensus to achieve a general common set of standards. 

Esoterically-sourced religious beliefs, taken all around the world don't achieve consensus either. 

I agree.  Which leaves separation and execution as the only recourse for those who will not go along with what the general majority or those who represent the general majority sets as a standard. 

Violators banished to some other area outside of public domain, or executed.  Maybe with different classes of violators, banished to distinct and separate areas outside of public domain.  What some people think of as heaven.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Jamie said:

I agree.  Which leaves separation and execution as the only recourse for those who will not go along with what the general majority or those who represent the general majority sets as a standard. 

Violators banished to some other area outside of public domain, or executed.  Maybe with different classes of violators, banished to distinct and separate areas outside of public domain.  What some people think of as heaven.

Seriously? That does not seem to be the case, generally.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Maybe you could have simply chosen to answer that question instead of responding to other comments which were parts of other conversati

It doesn’t change in the least how I view you expecting us to favour your assertions over our personal experiences and perceptions of what is plain and what is God’s Will. 

Added:  I teach my family love and the Law of Chastity and other covenants we can choose to take on or not and what the choice of submitting one’s own will to God’s means as he knows us in ways we cannot at this point, including our potential as his children that we can’t even imagine. As far as the future, I teach this mortal  life is about learning what is most important to us and even that we won’t really understand until God helps us to do so.  So the future is about trusting God is absolutely good. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

From a philosophical perspective, the standards are there either way as we now witness, be they sourced in God or the human conscience.

Yes, but the ones sourced in human conscience are no more "good" or "correct" than the other ones sourced in human conscience that contradict them.  There is no wrong, because there is no authority on what is right.  Consensus on what is wrong or right does not matter.    

[InCognitus]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

How is it plainly good to say homosexual love and sex is sinful?

I think the hardest part of this discussion is in the understanding of what "sin" really means.   The basic meaning of "sin" (in both Hebrew and Greek) is to "miss the mark".  If we understand the "mark" (or goal) to be the inheritance of eternal life, exaltation and eternal increase, the very life that God has, then anything that takes us away from that goal is "sin".  

With that in mind, it should be a lot easier to understand why some behaviors would not lead us to that "mark", and why they are considered to be "sin".  And what is "plainly good" would be all that leads us to the very life that God has.

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I ask because I genuinely don't think there is scriptural support against it. Against pedophilia, fornication, and rape afaik there is scriptural opposition. Against loving committed homosexual partnerships? No. 

It is a vital question because so much is at stake, yes? That question was posed because you elevated scriptural support above things some people say.

If scriptural support existed, that would amount to things many people have said over time and which many believers had accepted. But even there, my original question remains unanswered. 

A spiritual impression is not reason. My question is about the reason it is a sin, not why you believe it is a sin.

I think we owe our loved ones reason.

I don't think we owe our loved ones anything but our unconditional love.  My reason is not their reason either - they need to find their own reason and use their own judgment, and come to whatever conclusion they wish with their agency, just as I do - then I am to love them and leave judgement to God in His way and His time.  If they chose to do that outside of the church, I understand why and still love and accept them. I don't love them because they are gay or not gay, I love them because they have great worth to me for who they are.

And I did not elevate scripture the way you said - I feel you are leading things in an untenable way by creating false dichotomies.  I believe the "things some people say" when it is a prophet of the restored church to BE scripture that is MORE applicable to me and my day than ancient scripture.  Again - you obviously don't, which is fine.  But what you are not admitting/allowing is that that paradigm has any validity, you are simply implying your set of measurements and discerning 'good' is better than mine - fair enough, but arbitrary. I never asserted you owed anything to anyone, or that your view is errant, just that we differ in our views.  

To restate - for ME.  My reason - spirituality/testimony/scripture as support = agnosticism bordering on atheism as my only real choice that would remain true to my experiences thus far.  In that case - why on earth would I care if anyone had any kind of consenting sex with anyone else? I wouldn't really care about much unless I decided it was somehow important to me and mine - that doesn't;t mean I wouldn't do some things out of kindness for others, but it does mean I would only do it if I felt like it or if it made sense to me.  

Is polygamous sex sinful? Swinging? Orgies? Open marriages? One night stands?  Is there even such thing as sin?  Not really if you follow letting the changing mores of society dictate morality.  It shifts and changes with the times and will of the majority. 

 

EDITED TO ADD:  I submit as support for my statements that pedantry between men and boys was very accepted as OK in Ancient Greece, to the point where is was almost abnormal to NOT do it.  Was that wrong?  Not at all if the standard is societal acceptance through the reasoning of the day.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Maestrophil

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They can do so just like everyone else once they are allowed to participate including their same-sex relationships.

Ha-ha, you know this avoids answering the specifics of my question.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think the hardest part of this discussion is in the understanding of what "sin" really means.   The basic meaning of "sin" (in both Hebrew and Greek) is to "miss the mark".  If we understand the "mark" (or goal) to be the inheritance of eternal life, exaltation and eternal increase, the very life that God has, then anything that takes us away from that goal is "sin".  

With that in mind, it should be a lot easier to understand why some behaviors would not lead us to that "mark", and why they are considered to be "sin".  And what is "plainly good" would be all that leads us to the very life that God has.

I wonder why no one wants to discuss how the word homosexual was added to the Bible in the 1980's and that the wording changed from a man lying with a young boy to a man lying with a man. Did you see the post I made? Well, I'll post it again if you feel inclined to read through. https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-“homosexual”-always-been-in-the-bible/

 I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If it came from God, I would celebrate.

I think when members say they would leave, it's because they don't believe that it ever could be from God, so to them it would be a sign that the church is in apostasy.

You and many others in the younger generation!  That's why I think the church will have to make changes because the membership will dwindle and a big reason will be because of the lack of inclusion of gay members, IMHO. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I ask because I genuinely don't think there is scriptural support against it. Against pedophilia, fornication, and rape afaik there is scriptural opposition. Against loving committed homosexual partnerships? No. 

It is a vital question because so much is at stake, yes? That question was posed because you elevated scriptural support above things some people say.

If scriptural support existed, that would amount to things many people have said over time and which many believers had accepted. But even there, my original question remains unanswered. 

A spiritual impression is not reason. My question is about the reason it is a sin, not why you believe it is a sin.

I think we owe our loved ones reason.

You don't seem to accept the concept of spiritual reason, only that explanations on this subject must be either faith-based (which you summarily reject) or reason-based (which, given this is a religion we're talking about, are secondary, for which reason you try to engage in the infinite regress). These tenets are both spiritual and reasoned, you simply aren't willing or able to integrate the two.