Jump to content

Mixed messages and the future of the church


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. It’s not your thread, but you said those verses were inserted into the Book of Mormon to make a convenient excuse for polygamy. Whether or not you believe in the BoM, I you should be able to defend that claim. Can you do it?

It's my opinion and I have no interest in sharing why I believe that with you.  You are welcome to write off what I said. Your behavior in this thread, and others, gives me no confidence you will participate in a good faith discussion. So, I will not defend my OPINION and I don't jump at your command. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry. I should have explained. I was responding to this comment by CB. I thought it might relate to your question. 


“As far as what happens after you die?  Well we have NO revelation on how God will deal with you and your partner if you choose to have one.  We have NO revelation on whether your feelings of same sex attraction will continue in the next life.”

No worries. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have never thought plural marriage was convenient. I thing it was maybe one of the hardest things the early Saints did. I don’t know if I would have the faith and perseverance. 

It was called the new and everlasting convenient.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

It was called the new and everlasting convenient.

And….

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

It's my opinion and I have no interest in sharing why I believe that with you.  You are welcome to write off what I said. Your behavior in this thread, and others, gives me no confidence you will participate in a good faith discussion. So, I will not defend my OPINION and I don't jump at your command. 

None of us is without bad behaviors in discussions like this.  Speaking of which, 
please answer this CFR regarding your statement- as a fact  

“It is very CONVENIENT that those verses were inserted in the BoM and that you can point to them to justify your inconsistent positions.

Who inserted the verses and when?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

edit

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

None of us is without bad behaviors. 
would you please answer the CFR regarding your statement- as fact , not opinion.

“It is very CONVENIENT that those verses were inserted in the BoM and that you can point to them to justify your inconsistent positions.

Who inserted the verses and when?
 

It's my opinion. Report me if you want, but you're using the CFR thing as a blunt instrument. 

Still not jumping at your command. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's my opinion. Report me if you want, but you're using the CFR thing as a blunt instrument. 

Still not jumping at your command. 

No, I’m asking for clarification on a false statement you made. CFRs are a well-established feature of this board. Do you wish to retract the claim?

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

It was called the new and everlasting convenient.

Circumcision is called an everlasting covenant in the Bible, but it appears to be limited to a particular group and possibly time (circumcision was not a covenant with God until Abraham, Adam and his descendants until then did not need it apparently)

The fullness of the Gospel is The New and Everlasting Covenant.  My guess is covenants made in the gospel carry that name.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
16 hours ago, california boy said:

David Archuletta's journey in how hie is going to handle his life has just begun.  We have had other poster boys (Josh Weed for example) who seem to have figured out a way to navigate an acceptable church path.   
...
We each have our own journey through life.  And we each have our own definition of what our plan of happiness looks like. We also each have our own relationship with God who can guide us to make the best choices for each of our lives.

California boy also said:

Quote

If the Church really wanted to be loving and compassionate with their LGBT members, they would be up front and tell them, this is not the Church for you.
...
Church leaders certainly understand the importance and value in living a life with someone you love, to share the burdens and trials and joys of life.  You will never find that love and joy in this Church.  Walk away and find the happiness that you deserve but can never have as a member of our church.  It would end this battle of those that want the Church to change.  This is the counsel I wish bishops and stake presidents would and should give those that are LGBT.   Wish them well and send them on their way. Sometimes the most compassionate and loving thing you can do is to be honest and tell people the truth about what the Church believes and the implications of that belief.  The Church shouldn't and won't change.  Move on.

 

🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I’m asking for clarification on a false statement you made. CFRs are a well-established feature of this board. Do you wish to retract the claim?

Nope. Just my opinion. Report me if you wish. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand your position, but I hope you would also understand mine. I believe marriage of between one man and one woman. Anything else including ssm is an aberration, meaning different than the norm, hence my question. Unless we agree on what marriage is we will constantly be at odds, and I won’t be silenced if and when the topic comes up again. 

I remember a few threads back where you were being compared to a pervert for fixating on how short teenage girls dresses were.  Scott even decided to create an expectation on modesty and being compared to a pervert.  Since you and perverts both fixated on the length of teenage dresses, are you ok with that comparison as well? 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I really can’t be concerned with those who dismiss my position because it is faith based. So is theirs.

No many persons position is not faith based. It is not based on because my God says so. Yours is.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, bluebell said:

You can pull the dictionary definition if you want.  I did.  There are a ton of definitions for that word.  I especially liked the one that defined 'true' in the phrase 'true north'.  There are actually three types of north (I only thought there were two so that was interesting).  All are considered to be 'genuinely' north, but only one is considered to be 'true'.  I thought that was intriguingly symbolic to the discussion at hand.

Look, it's fine if you want to define true happiness as it's used by the church to imply that church leaders sincerely believe that no one in a SSM has ever or will ever experience genuine happiness.  I don't think there's any way to logically argue that's what our leaders believe (especially if we assume that they actual know some couples who have SSM personally, which is very likely), but your interpretation of the church's use of that term isn't a hill I think is worth dying on.

But please acknowledge that I don't believe that's what the church is saying.

So, CB stated the church should do "xyz" if they wanted to be loving. It's my position that the church makes similar prescriptive statements all the time that you don't find offensive. 

Quote

Have we reached the point in the discussion where we act like we can speak for the other poster because we are so wise?  It's ok to just admit it if we have.  ;) 

Haha! Sorry!

Quote

If CB is doing the exact thing the church is doing, then does that mean the church is sharing their honest beliefs based on their personal experiences which are valid and we should think twice before we tell them they are wrong?

Because that's what you said CB was doing. 

For my part, for sure I think almost all church members are sharing their honest beliefs. That doesn't make them right or less damaging. And as for thinking twice? You realize that most critics on this board thought about them much more than twice before calling them wrong, right? As in agonized over them for years in some instances?

Quote

Or, have you changed your mind and now believe that CB was actually just using a rhetorical tactic?  Or have I completely misunderstood what you are saying and am completely lost?

I guess from my perspective I don't understand the difference. We all have our honest beliefs. We can share those honest beliefs. When we share them we use rhetorical tactics that we feel will be most effective in communicating or persuading or whatever. I wasn't using the term in a pejorative way. 

Quote

I feel like the goal posts moved a bit with this statement and I'm not sure where we are on the field anymore.  (I realize that might sound snarky but I'm trying to fix dinner, have to run, and am going to request that you assume I'm not trying to be a jerk).

That's fine! I've never thought you have come across as a jerk on this board anywhere. Most of the time I try not to be a jerk too, but I certainly fail sometimes. As for the moving goalposts, I believe this was my first response to you (where in I stated that CB wasn't telling church leaders to lie):

The follow-up post was here:

In this post I made a (feeble) attempt to say that the rhetorical "tactic" used by California boy saying the church should do "xyz" if they want to be loving is not different in my mind than the rhetorical "tactics" used by the church in saying things like:

"Just like Elder Callister is able to frame SSM as a thing from Satan, and just like church leaders can call certain types of relationships sinful and counterfeit, California Boy can certainly express his hard earned opinion that the church *should change. "

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I remember a few threads back where you were being compared to a pervert for fixating on how short teenage girls dresses were.  Scott even decided to create an expectation on modesty and being compared to a pervert.  Since you and perverts both fixated on the length of teenage dresses, are you ok with that comparison as well? 

Your memory is incorrect. The above description is false. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

“I personally think those that are hoping forand even advocating for a change on SSM are doing a disservice to those that areattracted to the same sex.”

Since I am one of those who would welcome a change, could you explain how I am doing a disservice? 

For years, I prayed and fasted and pleaded with God to make me straight.  I was praying and fasting for the wrong thing.  What I should have been focusing on is praying for God to show me how to live a full and happy life as I am, not as I may or may not ever become.  I found both that happiness and that relationship with God that has giving me both peace and a loving and caring person to go through life with.  

Praying and fasting for the Church to change is like pleading with God to make me straight.  It would be much more healthy to pray to God to help us understand that there may be another path that is much more fulfilling and healthy that God will help them find.  It is not dependent on the Church changing.  It is dependent on changing one's relationship with God, relying on Him rather than Church leaders.  That actually should be what the Church encourages every member to find.

If at some distant future, the Church changes its position on gay marriage, then that is the time to once again ask God for guidance on the best path to take.

 "Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not" (D&C 6:36)

 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No many persons position is not faith based. It is not based on because my God says so. Yours is.

Faith does not have be faith in a god. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And as for thinking twice? You realize that most critics on this board thought about them much more than twice before calling them wrong, right? As in agonized over them for years in some instances?

This was my clumsy and shorthanded way of coming back to what you said earlier concerning CB--

"California Boy has walked the church's path in a way that I will never be able to understand. I'm certainly not going to tell him he is wrong." 

...and wondering if you believed the same applied to our apostles and prophets. Since they have walked the church's path in a way that you (and I, and most of us) will never be able to understand, are you also not going to tell them that they are wrong?

I asked this in conjunction with the idea that church was only doing what CB was doing.  If that was true, I was wondering if the church leaders deserved the same considerations that you were giving to CB.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Your memory is incorrect. The above description is false. 

You don't remember the thread that some posters accused you perving on the length of teenage girls dresses at Church dances before deciding to let them in?  Maybe you should ask Scott why he tags this Gui's Law comment in bold at the bottom of every single post.

Gui's Law: In an online discussion of modesty, the probability that a defender of modesty is called a pervert approaches 1.

I am sure someone more adept at finding past threads would be glad to find that particular thread for you if you would like.  

You didn't answer my question though.  Are you just as ok with being compared to a pervert because you look at the length of teenage girl's skirts at Church dances to determine if they should get into the dance as you are with comparing gay marriage to someone who rapes children and has sex with animals?

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
On 6/15/2021 at 8:19 AM, california boy said:

You don't remember the thread that some posters accused you perving on the length of teenage girls dresses at Church dances?  Maybe you should ask Scott why he tags this Gui's Law comment in bold at the bottom of every single post.

Gui's Law: In an online discussion of modesty, the probability that a defender of modesty is called a pervert approaches 1.

Your memory is incorrect and the narrative you are giving is false. What is your point?

 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

edit

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

It's interesting that the word "aberrant" is illustrated with abusive and nonconsensual behaviors, such as child abuse and bestiality. Grouping same-sex marriage in with these behaviors is intended to be pejorative; otherwise, why not use more benign examples of "aberrant behavior," such as writing with your left hand or wearing white after Labor Day? Heck, before 1967, marriage between a white person and a black person was considered aberrant. That's a more apt analogy to same-sex marriage, and it doesn't carry the obvious moral disgust of the person making the analogy.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that the word "aberrant" is illustrated with abusive and nonconsensual behaviors, such as child abuse and bestiality. Grouping same-sex marriage in with these behaviors is intended to be pejorative; otherwise, why not use more benign examples of "aberrant behavior," such as writing with your left hand or wearing white after Labor Day? Heck, before 1967, marriage between a white person and a black person was considered aberrant. That's a more apt analogy to same-sex marriage, and it doesn't carry the obvious moral disgust of the person making the analogy.

M3ZskG.jpg

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that the word "aberrant" is illustrated with abusive and nonconsensual behaviors, such as child abuse and bestiality. Grouping same-sex marriage in with these behaviors is intended to be pejorative; otherwise, why not use more benign examples of "aberrant behavior," such as writing with your left hand or wearing white after Labor Day? Heck, before 1967, marriage between a white person and a black person was considered aberrant. That's a more apt analogy to same-sex marriage, and it doesn't carry the obvious moral disgust of the person making the analogy.

And since it isn't used in Callister's or Wilson's opinion pieces, it doesn't contribute to the mixed message some people see. The mixed message is a function, i think, of paradigms affecting the application of semantics.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

And since it isn't used in Callister's or Wilson's opinion pieces, it doesn't contribute to the mixed message some people see. The mixed message is a function, i think, of paradigms affecting the application of semantics.

Pretty sure he's referring to the poster known as Bernard Gui's use of the term in this thread.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...