Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[smac97]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You made this claim

Quote

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Yet there is no revelatory provenance concerning gay marriage.  

Yes, there is.  

3 hours ago, california boy said:

When asked to show us all the revelation that you claim has occurred,

Revelation as to the Law of Chastity, right?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

you are unable to document that revelation.  

Yes, I can.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Because it does not exist.  

Yes, it does.

You are really channeling the Sovereign Citizen mindset here.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This has NOTHING to do with my beliefs.  

Kinda seems like this has a lot to do with your beliefs.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Is all you have to do is show us the revelation that you claim has occurred.  

Revelation as to the Law of Chastity, right?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you seem to want to sidestep this simple request, I will now ask for a CFR.  

CFR for what?

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Show us all the revelation from God that prohibits same sex marriages

Again, you are emulating Sovereign Citizens.  Big time.

Here's a hint: Could a Latter-day Saint legitimately claim that there is no revelation prohibiting the use of meth?  Pornography?  What about rape?  Securities fraud?

I could go on all day.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

or acknowledge the claim that this policy against same sex marriage is just like the Priesthood Ban, lacking any known revelatory provenance.

I won't acknowledge that because it's not correct or accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

i'm sorry but we believe profoundly different things about the Church and the Gospel, I can't help you or you me. 

Well, I think we can.  If I am wrong in my perspective, I'd like to be corrected.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there is.  

Revelation as to the Law of Chastity, right?

Yes, I can.

Yes, it does.

You are really channeling the Sovereign Citizen mindset here.

Kinda seems like this has a lot to do with your beliefs.

Revelation as to the Law of Chastity, right?

CFR for what?

Again, you are emulating Sovereign Citizens.  Big time.

Here's a hint: Could a Latter-day Saint legitimately claim that there is no revelation prohibiting the use of meth?  Pornography?  What about rape?  Securities fraud?

I could go on all day.

I won't acknowledge that because it's not correct or accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Once again.  Simple question.  Where is the revelation that a same sex marriage is against the Law of Chastity.  CFR.

Edited May 19, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Once again.  Simple question.  Where is the revelation that a same sex marriage is against the Law of Chastity.  CFR.

Again, I invite you to study this out for yourself.  You and I don't get along, so I don't think you would accept what I have to say.

Stop channeling the Sovereign Citizen reasoning.  It doesn't work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I invite you to study this out for yourself.  You and I don't get along, so I don't think you would accept what I have to say.

Stop channeling the Sovereign Citizen reasoning.  It doesn't work.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is just like the Priesthood Ban.  There is no revelation on same sex marriage.

[ttribe]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So unmarried gays cannot affirm what I did above?  Is that your point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow.  You really are that tone deaf.  I gave you too much credit.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I agree with all of that, but I don't see how one necessarily gets from there to "same sex marriage is forbidden by God."

 

If you say so, but I'm still not understanding why "opposition in all things" means "complementarianism is eternal" means "same sex marriage is forbidden by God."

Where does your quote, "same sex marriage is forbidden by God" come from? I’m not one to approach or frame the topic in those terms. This is how the Church frames it: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng

One way “opposition in all things” is expressed is with gender, one way complementarianism is expressed is marriage, and marriage is instituted of God as a specifically defined union as the link above explains.

Calling any of the many ways we can deviate from what God has established “forbidden” doesn’t change the one thing He did establish to fulfill His purposes.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

This is just like the Priesthood Ban.  

Nothing like.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

There is no revelation on same sex marriage.

Sovereign Citizen reasoning doesn't work well.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nothing like.

Sovereign Citizen reasoning doesn't work well.

We can keep this up forever.  Is all you can do is call me names which you do quite well.  What you can't do is point to a revelation that revealed God is opposed to same sex marriage.  It is a made up position taken by Church leaders.

[Meadowchik]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

There is no case for singlehood in the sense of it being the highest attainment the Atonement of Christ is designed to deliver. The same with same-sex relationships and marriage. Personal attributes are another thing. You'd have to keep my previous examples in mind.

The Atonement of Christ brings any temporal “-hood” (state, condition, character, nature, class, etc.) and any temporal “-ness” (personal attribute, trait, quality, etc.) into alignment with God’s design. Its purpose goes well beyond our resurrection and seeing each other after death.

All are welcome to belong to and attend Church, but as with any society, contrary behavior can affect these privileges and even membership. Recognizing all the good a single person or same-sex couple might bring to the table, and recognizing that they are welcome to belong and attend, behavior which runs contrary will affect their privileges and membership. The same goes for married couples.

In addition, same-sex relationships are not “provisional” – they are not temporary arrangements on the path to advancement. There is no such thing as "provisional" in the doctrine of Christ (see 3 Nephi 11: 31 through 12:2); every ordinance remains in full effect while additional ordinances are received. For example, one’s baptism and confirmation are not “provisional” to be replaced when they receive their temple endowment.

In terms of relationships, the highest attainment the Atonement delivers comprises marriage, yes?

[CV75]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

This is just like the Priesthood Ban.  There is no revelation on same sex marriage.

While superficial similarities can be drawn, the crucial point where same-sex marriage is not like the priesthood ban for blacks is that gay men are ordained to the priesthood.

If the comparison is to “pray away” the revealed marriage structure by expanding it to same-sex unions, Alma 13 establishes that the priesthood order was set “from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God” for “all nations.” So, OD2 simply restores our practices to that standard.  The scriptures establish that marriage was set in Eden between man and woman, so praying to change its practice would corrupt the standard, not restore it.

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

In terms of relationships, the highest attainment the Atonement delivers comprises marriage, yes?

No. In terms of covenant, the highest form of eternal life the Atonement delivers entails marriage.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

We can keep this up forever.  

Which is why I keep encouraging you to study this matter rather than argue with me.  We don't get along, and you wouldn't accept what I have to say anyway.

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is all you can do is call me names which you do quite well.  

I haven't called you names.  I have critiqued your reasoning, such as it is.  You are demanding evidence of "revelations" despite a priori rejecting that any such things have ever occurred.  This is akin to Sovereign Citiziens who show up in court, present demands about "standing" and "jurisdiction" and "admiralty law" and flag fringe and other such things, only to reject out-of-hand any effort by the court to address those things.  

See, for example, this exchange:

The key bits are at about 1:00 and then 2:40 and 4:00.  The defendants just keep saying stuff like "show me the law" and "prove jurisdiction, because I come in under the common law."  At about 4:50 the judge says "All of our laws are codified in the Kentucky Revised Statutes," to which the defendant says, again, "show me jurisdiction, show me the law."  The judge then pulls out a big thick paperback book, presumably the Kentucky Revised Statutes, at which point the defendant says "That doesn't prove that you have jurisdiction."

The judge and the defendant could, as you say "keep this up forever."  Not because there is a jurisdictional problem, but because the "sovereign citizen" defendant lacks a common frame of reference with the judge.  The defendant doesn't agree that the court has any law-giving authority.  Similarly, you have previously said:

Quote

I no longer believe that Church leaders have some special revelation connection with God.  ...   I think Church leaders are men, like the rest of us, trying their best to guide an organization that they head.  But there is no evidence that what they say comes from God. ... Why would I ever be angry about the Proclamation on the Family?  I don't think it comes from God.  And I no longer care what the Church teaches.  It doesn't affect my life one bit. 

See?  We lack a common frame of reference.  I acknowledge things pertaining to the Church that you do not.  So you asking me to explain something that you have already categorically rejected is an exercise in futility.  Not because the information is unavailable, but because you are not situated to accept it.  That's your privilege and right, and I respect it.

The Law of Chastity is not a specifically codified thing.  Its precepts are found throughout the scriptures.  And like so many other commandments (such as the Word of Wisdom), the Law of Chastity requires some measure of interpretation in its application.  Authoritative interpretation falls to, well, those who are in authority.  

You don't believe any of this, so you will reject out of hand any further elaboration or explanation.  So further efforts to communicate with you would be futile.  Instead, if you are well and truly interested in this matter, I encourage you to study it on your own.

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

What you can't do is point to a revelation that revealed God is opposed to same sex marriage.  It is a made up position taken by Church leaders.

Hint: The Word of Wisdom doesn't prohibit the use meth and cocaine.  By your reckoning, then, recreational use of these substances is just hunky dory.  And yet no serious-minded person would go along with that reckoning.  Why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

There is no case for singlehood in the sense of it being the highest attainment the Atonement of Christ is designed to deliver. The same with same-sex relationships and marriage. Personal attributes are another thing. You'd have to keep my previous examples in mind.

The Atonement of Christ brings any temporal “-hood” (state, condition, character, nature, class, etc.) and any temporal “-ness” (personal attribute, trait, quality, etc.) into alignment with God’s design. Its purpose goes well beyond our resurrection and seeing each other after death.

All are welcome to belong to and attend Church, but as with any society, contrary behavior can affect these privileges and even membership. Recognizing all the good a single person or same-sex couple might bring to the table, and recognizing that they are welcome to belong and attend, behavior which runs contrary will affect their privileges and membership. The same goes for married couples.

In addition, same-sex relationships are not “provisional” – they are not temporary arrangements on the path to advancement. There is no such thing as "provisional" in the doctrine of Christ (see 3 Nephi 11: 31 through 12:2); every ordinance remains in full effect while additional ordinances are received. For example, one’s baptism and confirmation are not “provisional” to be replaced when they receive their temple endowment.

Very well said.  I am too verbose.  I wish I could write like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

While superficial similarities can be drawn, the crucial point where same-sex marriage is not like the priesthood ban for blacks is that gay men are ordained to the priesthood.

If the comparison is to “pray away” the revealed marriage structure by expanding it to same-sex unions, Alma 13 establishes that the priesthood order was set “from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God” for “all nations.” So, OD2 simply restores our practices to that standard.  The scriptures establish that marriage was set in Eden between man and woman, so praying to change its practice would corrupt the standard, not restore it.

SMAC said this:

Quote

 

I think there's quite a significant difference.  The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I am only pointing out that both lack any known revelatory provenance. What SMAC said is simply not true.  At some future date, Church leaders could make the same exact claim about not allowing same sex marriage as just being the opinion of Church leaders at the time because it is currently based on their interpretation of the Law of Chastity and not upon a revelation from God.  You and others may agree on how they currently interpret the Law of Chastity, but since there is no revelation on this issue,  it is at this time,  just their opinion. 

You might also remember that for over a century, the Church did insist that the Priesthood Ban was based on revelation.  It is only recently that position has changed.

I might also point out that just like the Priesthood Ban, a gay married couple can not hold the priesthood.  

I also might add that I am not advocating for a change in policy, I am only advocating being truthful about it.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which is why I keep encouraging you to study this matter rather than argue with me.  We don't get along, and you wouldn't accept what I have to say anyway.

I haven't called you names.  I have critiqued your reasoning, such as it is.  You are demanding evidence of "revelations" despite a priori rejecting that any such things have ever occurred.  This is akin to Sovereign Citiziens who show up in court, present demands about "standing" and "jurisdiction" and "admiralty law" and flag fringe and other such things, only to reject out-of-hand any effort by the court to address those things.  

See, for example, this exchange:

The key bits are at about 1:00 and then 2:40 and 4:00.  The defendants just keep saying stuff like "show me the law" and "prove jurisdiction, because I come in under the common law."  At about 4:50 the judge says "All of our laws are codified in the Kentucky Revised Statutes," to which the defendant says, again, "show me jurisdiction, show me the law."  The judge then pulls out a big thick paperback book, presumably the Kentucky Revised Statutes, at which point the defendant says "That doesn't prove that you have jurisdiction."

The judge and the defendant could, as you say "keep this up forever."  Not because there is a jurisdictional problem, but because the "sovereign citizen" defendant lacks a common frame of reference with the judge.  The defendant doesn't agree that the court has any law-giving authority.  Similarly, you have previously said:

See?  We lack a common frame of reference.  I acknowledge things pertaining to the Church that you do not.  So you asking me to explain something that you have already categorically rejected is an exercise in futility.  Not because the information is unavailable, but because you are not situated to accept it.  That's your privilege and right, and I respect it.

The Law of Chastity is not a specifically codified thing.  Its precepts are found throughout the scriptures.  And like so many other commandments (such as the Word of Wisdom), the Law of Chastity requires some measure of interpretation in its application.  Authoritative interpretation falls to, well, those who are in authority.  

You don't believe any of this, so you will reject out of hand any further elaboration or explanation.  So further efforts to communicate with you would be futile.  Instead, if you are well and truly interested in this matter, I encourage you to study it on your own.

Hint: The Word of Wisdom doesn't prohibit the use meth and cocaine.  By your reckoning, then, recreational use of these substances is just hunky dory.  And yet no serious-minded person would go along with that reckoning.  Why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Like I said above, I am not advocating for changing the Church's position on same sex marriage.  I am not even claiming a revelation is necessary.  I am only advocating for the truth about your position.  Your claim was "The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity."  It is not.   There are no revelation claims on same sex marriage being against the Law of Chastity.

[smac97]

Just now, california boy said:

Like I said above, I am not advocating for changing the Church's position on same sex marriage.  

And yet here you are, declaring that A) there has been nothing revealed about same-sex marriage, while simultaneously declaring that B) no revelations of any sort have ever been given to the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Can you see the futility of trying to communicate given these parameters?

Just now, california boy said:

I am not even claiming a revelation is necessary.  I am only advocating for the truth about your position.  

Sure doesn't feel like it.

Just now, california boy said:

Your claim was "The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  We can't say the same about the Law of Chastity."  It is not.   

It is.  There are ample and substantial revelatory origins for the Law of Chastity.

Just now, california boy said:

There are no revelation claims on same sex marriage being against the Law of Chastity.

Again: The Word of Wisdom doesn't prohibit the use meth and cocaine.  By your reckoning, then, recreational use of these substances is just hunky dory.  And yet no serious-minded person would go along with that reckoning.  Why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, declaring that A) there has been nothing revealed about same-sex marriage, while simultaneously declaring that B) no revelations of any sort have ever been given to the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Can you see the futility of trying to communicate given these parameters?

Sure doesn't feel like it.

It is.  There are ample and substantial revelatory origins for the Law of Chastity.

Again: The Word of Wisdom doesn't prohibit the use meth and cocaine.  By your reckoning, then, recreational use of these substances is just hunky dory.  And yet no serious-minded person would go along with that reckoning.  Why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

Rolls eyes.  You are tone deaf.

Edited May 19, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Rolls eyes.  You are tone deaf.

What "tone" is it that we should be affecting here?  One where critics of my faith endlessly rail against and mischaracterize my beliefs, and I'm just supposed to stand by and let such calumnies go unanswered?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 19, 2021 by smac97

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Rolls eyes.  You are tone deaf.

He compared same sex marriage to the use of meth and cocaine...and doesn't get why that might be a problem...you're engaged in a hopeless exchange.

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "tone" is it that we should be affecting here?

Thanks,

-Smac

You are so quick to write some convoluted comment that you think has relevance to what I and others are saying that I don't think you even bother to try and understand or even listen to my position.  You think the more you pick a persons comments down to individual sentences without a bit of concern for context that you have somehow answered with some kind of brilliance.  

Picking a persons answers apart sentence by sentence does not bring better understanding.  It brings endless arguing about what is actually being said.   It is something that happened frequently with your responses you have with everyone.  It is annoying, which is why I rarely respond to any of your comments.  

I am sure you will be able to once again dissect this response as well into some unrecognizable diatribe.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are so quick to write some convoluted comment that you think has relevance to what I and others are saying that I don't think you even bother to try and understand or even listen to my position.  You think the more you pick a persons comments down to individual sentences without a bit of concern for context that you have somehow answered with some kind of brilliance.  

Picking a persons answers apart sentence by sentence does not bring better understanding.  It brings endless arguing about what is actually being said.   It is something that happened frequently with your responses you have with everyone.  It is annoying, which is why I rarely respond to any of your comments.  

I am sure you will be able to once again dissect this response as well into some unrecognizable diatribe.

You do know attorneys bill by the hour, right? 😉

[kllindley]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "tone" is it that we should be affecting here?  One where critics of my faith endlessly rail against and mischaracterize my beliefs, and I'm just supposed to stand by and let such calumnies go unanswered?

Thanks,

-Smac

Interestingly, I came across these verses in this week's come follow me lesson, from Doctrine and Covenants section 56:

"14 Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my people—you have many things to do and to repent of; for behold, your sins have come up unto me, and are not pardoned, because you seek to counsel in your own ways.

   15 And your hearts are not satisfied. And ye obey not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness."  

 

Of course, like any scripture or quotation, people can disagree about the meaning and/or interpretation assigned to the actual words. I'm not trying to make the claim that the interpretation I felt impressed upon me is the correct interpretation. It just felt very fitting to this discussion.

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

No. In terms of covenant, the highest form of eternal life the Atonement delivers entails marriage.

If you like we can word it that way, though I will do so under protest because LDS teachings certainly frame covenants in terms of relationships. 

Anyway, the temple covenant of sealing involves one spouse making promises specific to the other spouse who is named. Neither spouse, however, can control whether the other keeps their covenants. One may fail to do so and reject repentance and thus not remain married for the eternities. However, such a failure of one spouse does not negate the promised blessings to the spouse who kept their covenants. 

Therefore, the covenant one spouse makes involving the other is subject to change. The spouse who has kept their covenants will not be married to the same person in the eternities, but they will be married.

 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are so quick to write some convoluted comment that you think has relevance to what I and others are saying that I don't think you even bother to try and understand or even listen to my position.  

Mind-reading is not your strong suit.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

You think the more you pick a persons comments down to individual sentences without a bit of concern for context that you have somehow answered with some kind of brilliance.  

More mind-reading.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Picking a persons answers apart sentence by sentence does not bring better understanding.  It brings endless arguing about what is actually being said.   

There are parts of things that are said that I agree with, some to which I am indifferent, and some with which I disagree.

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is something that happened frequently with your responses you have with everyone.  It is annoying, which is why I rarely respond to any of your comments.  

I am sure you will be able to once again dissect this response as well into some unrecognizable diatribe.

Oh, the irony.

Thanks,

-Smac