Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[Maestrophil]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well you did frame it as what such a God would offer to you.

Which isn’t much

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

From your perspective, yes. 

And you are halting or hindering their eternal potential for the sake of believing what some other people say is right. 

From our perspective. 

This is all known, of course, but the barrage of Socratic questions of "But why can't you just stop believing that?" would require us . . . to stop believing what we believe. You may not agree with our beliefs, but they are internally consistent, and we believe them. 

Would you have us not be true to our true selves?  

I didn't ask anyone to stop believing anything. I asked people explain why homosexual love and sex is a sin, without using the argument that it is because some people said it is. 

I am ultimately asking people to justify why they are asking others to suffer.

[Maestrophil]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well you did frame it as what such a God would offer to you.

Just like I don’t t think parents who parent that way offer much.  I see it all the time.  “Best friend” parents who tell their kids they love them but install no boundaries for fear of hurting or offending the kids.  Makes for entitled, lazy, selfish kids in my experience. 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

No it isn’t at all.  I/we are saying that we believe truly that GOD said it.  You don’t.  
So it’s a classic battle of “is not” vs “is too”.  Your position is just as valid AND invalid as mine.  But it is either disingenuous or ignorant or both to say my belief is only there because “other people said so”. That doesn’t take into account scriptural text, and personal spiritual experiences.   Otherwise your belief likewise is only there because other people said so. 

No it is not an equivalency. It's theory for one preventing another, while it is experience to the person being prevented.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

. That's consequences to real lives and happiness being dismissed, which is nothing compared to me dismissing your claims.

More arrogant assertions. Rather unpersuasive.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Makes for entitled, lazy, selfish kids in my experience. 

Also insecure. 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Just like I don’t t think parents who parent that way offer much.  I see it all the time.  “Best friend” parents who tell their kids they love them but install no boundaries for fear of hurting or offending the kids.  Makes for entitled, lazy, selfish kids in my experience. 

Standards of decency do not imply no boundaries. Secular values don't preclude aspirations or self discipline or generosity or profound beauty.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't ask anyone to stop believing anything. I asked people explain why homosexual love and sex is a sin, without using the argument that it is because some people said it is. 

I am ultimately asking people to justify why they are asking others to suffer.

Do you feel that we haven't done that? 

Everything we believe is because a) somebody said it, or b) we came to that belief on our own. Or a combination of both. All of your beliefs are arrived at the same way. 

We are asking people to suffer because we believe they are our actual brothers and sisters and have the potential to be exalted. We have these beliefs because we believe the scriptures, interpretations, and our own thoughts on this. 

Is it fair to say that if you believed the same things (with the same ramifications) that we believe, that you would also believe that homosexuality is a sin? Or, not even then, if you believed the same things in the same way.

If I believed the same things you believe in the same way, then I would completely agree with you. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So . . . infallibility?  That's your metric?

I believe the prophets and apostles have been, cumulatively, overwhelmingly correct in their prophetic counsel.  As for their errors, Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

I must forgive these folks for their mistakes and errors, because to receive mercy and grace I must mete it out.  And also because I don't think their errors in counsel come anywhere close to outweighing their sound and correct counsel.  And also because I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Lord expects us to listen to prophetic counsel, despite the occasional errors and weaknesses of the prophets.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're young enough that you may still be alive if the church accepts gays to be married, even in the temple. What would you think of that, if it were to ever happen? You don't have to answer me, it's a personal question. But I've read others on the board through the years that say they would no longer be a member, if I'm remembering right. 

Maybe the temple ceremony will change to accommodate the gays. Just like the blacks getting the PH and the discontinuing of polygamy, all outside pressures for change. 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No I didn't say the Atonement is too complicated. I'm saying that it applies no less or more to homosexual love as to heterosexual love. But you have to appeal to the Atonement in differentiating between them. Why is that? Why is homosexual love different from heterosexual love? Why can't both be equally consistent in the covenant path? 

I invite you review our conversation from page 4 onward concerning what you deem to be "complicated": Posted 22 hours ago 

Of course the Atonement of Christ applies to sexual love, and the covenant path applies to marriage between a man and a woman as the Lord's method of expressing sexual love. Why has He set it up that way? Many a thread discusses that; I don't feel the need to continue that here since the OP is about how LGBTQ+ can accept and access His Atonement to stay on the covenant path. Many have testified how they do that. Acting as if same-sex marriage is part of the covenant path, or arguing against marriage as we practice it on the path, are not among the ways they share.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

More arrogant assertions. Rather unpersuasive.

Why is that arrogance? Where is the humility in asking LGBT to suffer in a life without compatible relationships?

I think you've got this backwards here. There should be more reverence in the act of asking people to suffer. Is it wrong for me to hold you to that?

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Standards of decency do not imply no boundaries. Secular values don't preclude aspirations or self discipline or generosity or profound beauty.

But again I ask you - who makes the standards?  You?  The god you mentioned? How can there be standards without someone having to go without something they desire sometimes?  Almost every rule or law requires sacrifice of something.  Some want or desire.  Yes, God wants us to experience suffering in this life and to struggle to learn right from wrong.  That’s my belief. 

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Why is that arrogance? Where is the humility in asking LGBT to suffer in a life without compatible relationships?

I think you've got this backwards here. There should be more reverence in the act of asking people to suffer. Is it wrong for me to hold you to that?

I mentioned very clearly that I suffer personally because of this as do my children.  I have skin in the game and am trying to learn to be as kind and loving as I can.  I take it very seriously and reverently.  

[smac97]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You're young enough that you may still be alive if the church accepts gays to be married, even in the temple.

Theoretically, in a de minimis sort of way, I am open to that possibility.  I have seen zero indication that it will ever happen, though. 

Quote

What would you think of that, if it were to ever happen?

I need to be open to further light and knowledge.  Something of that magnitude will be given to us through revelation to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

But meanwhile, I cannot rely on a hugely speculative and highly unlikely hypothetical about what might happen in the future as a basis for disobeying the commandments given to us now.

Quote

You don't have to answer me, it's a personal question. But I've read others on the board through the years that say they would no longer be a member, if I'm remembering right. 

I haven't seen such a statement.

Quote

Maybe the temple ceremony will change to accommodate the gays. 

We'll see.  Meanwhile, however, we follow prophetic counsel.

Quote

Just like the blacks getting the PH and the discontinuing of polygamy, all outside pressures for change. 

Actually, I don't think "just like" works at all here.

The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance.  And polygamy is still part of our doctrine.  And the cessation of both matters was wrought through revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 15, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Where is the humility in asking LGBT to suffer in a life without compatible relationships?

Putting God’s Will before our own perhaps. 

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're young enough that you may still be alive if the church accepts gays to be married, even in the temple. What would you think of that, if it were to ever happen? You don't have to answer me, it's a personal question. But I've read others on the board through the years that say they would no longer be a member, if I'm remembering right. 

Maybe the temple ceremony will change to accommodate the gays. Just like the blacks getting the PH and the discontinuing of polygamy, all outside pressures for change. 

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.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Putting God’s Will before our own perhaps. 

If it was according to my will, gays and lesbians would be able to marry in the temple already.  But my (flawed, self righteous, proud, shortsighted) will is not the standard that I'm interested in living by.

[Maestrophil]

3 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.

Exactly.  It would be very hard for me to believe it came from God - but I would study, fast and pray with an open heart. But if it was given to me to know it came from God, I would adapt and rejoice.  

Edited May 14, 2021 by Maestrophil

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Priesthood Ban lacked any known revelatory provenance. 

And originally the Ban did not exist and even when it did, there were limited exceptions (their Priesthood was recognized for them and their male children, but no temple privileges).

This cannot be said for homosexual behaviour. 
 

Not saying this means it could never be revealed, just pointing out the significant differences between one example used to justify the prediction. 

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I invite you review our conversation from page 4 onward concerning what you deem to be "complicated": Posted 22 hours ago 

Of course the Atonement of Christ applies to sexual love, and the covenant path applies to marriage between a man and a woman as the Lord's method of expressing sexual love. Why has He set it up that way? Many a thread discusses that; I don't feel the need to continue that here since the OP is about how LGBTQ+ can accept and access His Atonement to stay on the covenant path. Many have testified how they do that. Acting as if same-sex marriage is part of the covenant path, or arguing against marriage as we practice it on the path, are not among the ways they share.

I already reviewed our conversation before I responded to you. 

Sharing can include how we might address important questions.

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

But again I ask you - who makes the standards?  You?  The god you mentioned? How can there be standards without someone having to go without something they desire sometimes?  Almost every rule or law requires sacrifice of something.  Some want or desire.  Yes, God wants us to experience suffering in this life and to struggle to learn right from wrong.  That’s my belief. 

You've already conceded to basic decency and secular values being rather accessible didn't you? Or did I misunderstand?

[Maestrophil]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You've already conceded to basic decency and secular values being rather accessible didn't you? Or did I misunderstand?

I conceded that I could come up with values of my own accord without needing a god who would not set those values for me.  But my values then would differ from yours, and yours from your neighbors, etc.   Each person would be a law unto themselves. 

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I mentioned very clearly that I suffer personally because of this as do my children.  I have skin in the game and am trying to learn to be as kind and loving as I can.  I take it very seriously and reverently.  

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?

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Maestrophil said:

I conceded that I could come up with values of my own accord without needing a god who would not set those values for me.  But my values then would differ from yours, and yours from your neighbors, etc.   Each person would be a law unto themselves. 

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.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Putting God’s Will before our own perhaps. 

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.