SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 15 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm not sure what amulek is trying to say there so I'm not sure what you are trying to say by bringing it to my attention. He is contrasting the love that leads people to accept SSM with ‘authentic’ love.
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: So it’s okay for the church to tell self described happy people that they aren’t really truly happy. But it’s not okay for California Boy to tell self described loving people that they aren’t really loving? The church isn't using the term happiness in that way. It doesn't teach that people who aren't members or who aren't "being obedient" can't experience true happiness during mortality. That would be dumb. 1
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: He is contrasting the love that leads people to accept SSM with ‘authentic’ love. Ok, take that up with him.
Teancum Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Should the Church be expected not to take a position on other aberrant marriages or just ssm? You mean like polygamy? 1
Teancum Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 3 hours ago, bluebell said: You can see it as pretend if you want to, I'm o.k. with that. I pretty much have to be since I can't do anything about it. You already judge me for being a believing member so what's one more thing for your list? In the end though I'm not going to let the opinion of some random angry-at-the-church stranger on the internet dictate what "love and compassion" have to mean for me. Sigh... First I retract my comment. After thinking about it I disagree with it myself. Second I don't judge you at all. Believe what you want. But I do think practicing Latter-day Saints are among some of the most judgmental people around. Where you get the idea I judge you for believing I have no idea.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: The church isn't using the term happiness in that way. It doesn't teach that people who aren't members or who aren't "being obedient" can't experience true happiness during mortality. That would be dumb. If ‘true’ happiness only comes the church’s way, any alternative happiness can’t be ‘true’ happiness. Just the same as ‘true’ love means acceptance of SSM. Edited June 14, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) On 6/14/2021 at 12:08 PM, Teancum said: You mean like polygamy? Yes. The church has taken a strong stand on that in conformity with the scriptures. There are other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia [marrying an animal], multiple partners, etc. Should the Church be forbidden to take a stand on those? Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I believe he said that if church leaders wanted to be loving and compassionate then they should change what they believe. Specifically "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 should be telling its LGBT members, if you are unable to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, walk away. " I get that you disagree with his take, but 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. Elder Holland said "I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me." For a church built on relationships, that describes Heaven in terms of those relationships, it seems to me (from my limited mortal perspective) an especially difficult path to walk for a faithful gay latter-day saint. I know others who have walked the church's path, and though difficult, have led happy productive lives and served faithfully in callings. That is not intended to discount CB's experiences and feelings. Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I get where you are coming from to a point and mostly agree, but will point out a belief in an afterlife can justify any behavior. As a relatively mundane example, back in the good old days when the board has lots of evangelicals coming on and telling members they were all going to hell, I wonder how many here felt and thanked said evangelicals for all their love and compassion. For me, it depended on how they expressed their love and compassion. Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui 1
Amulek Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 38 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: He is contrasting the love that leads people to accept SSM with ‘authentic’ love. If it helps to clarify, what I'm saying is that the criticism about the church both preaching and condemning "love" is silly. It's a denunciation founded on little more than equivocation. 2
ttribe Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes. The church has taken a strong stand on that in conformity with the scriptures. There are other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc. Should the Church be forbidden to take a stand on those? The fact you refer to SSM as "aberrant" and then equate it with those other behaviors (in bold), is why there is absolutely no reason to take seriously anything you have to say in this discussion. 2
Calm Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: If ‘true’ happiness only comes the church’s way, any alternative happiness can’t be ‘true’ happiness. Just the same as ‘true’ love means acceptance of SSM. I think a better term than “true” would be full and eternal happiness. And I don’t believe anyone has a fullness of joy in mortality. And I very much hope they get away from using “counterfeit families”. Non eternal, less perfect, or less effective, or whatever if they feel the need to compare what potential fulfillment is possible in a familial relationship, but even there I would prefer more detail oriented on what behaviour or attribute is seen as lacking rather than comparing some families to a category of family (mom, dad, kids) that can be abusive as much as any so-called counterfeit family. Edited June 14, 2021 by Calm 3
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right? 2
Popular Post Calm Posted June 14, 2021 Popular Post Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right? No. Mixed messages are most frequently a result of different assumptions of the speaker and the receiver, imo. It can often be a result of the speaker not taking the time to figure out the assumptions of the hearers, but may also be the result of fundamentally different world views. Edited June 14, 2021 by Calm 8
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 Just now, Calm said: No. I’ve been busy today, but that’s how I read this thread.
Calm Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I’ve been busy today, but that’s how I read this thread. I am not part of that consensus if it is happening. I figure you are reading the thread that way because your assumptions are different than mine
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes. The church has taken a strong stand on that in conformity with the scriptures. There are other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc. Should the Church be forbidden to take a stand on those? I suppose this comparison has to be inevitable in these threads.
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right? I'm with Cal on the reasons for most mixed messages.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 Just now, Calm said: I am not part of that consensus if it is happening. I figure you are reading the thread that way because your assumptions are different than mine Maybe. I just see several posts that say even suggesting there are mixed messages is silly or is masking a desire for the church to abandon its beliefs. Certainly I’m not suggesting you agree with that. I just don’t know how to have a conversation when my thoughts are either dismissed out of hand or are said to be motivated by something I don’t actually believe. No, I’m not trying to make this about me, but I see this conversation going nowhere, at least with some posters.
Peacefully Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I suppose this comparison has to be inevitable in these threads. It always seems to end up there. 😔
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: If ‘true’ happiness only comes the church’s way, any alternative happiness can’t be ‘true’ happiness. Just the same as ‘true’ love means acceptance of SSM. Like Cal said, the church is dealing with eternal things, happiness included. True happiness is another way to say lasting or eternal happiness. Are there other kinds of happiness? Sure. 1
CV75 Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right? That might be the consensus you see, but I'm seeing the suggestion of mixed messages as evidence of an easy way to argue against another's' opinion on an emotional level rather than support one's own opinion on its own merits. 2
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 38 minutes ago, Calm said: And I very much hope they get away from using “counterfeit families”. Non eternal, less perfect, or less effective, or whatever if they feel the need to compare what potential fulfillment is possible in a familial relationship, but even there I would prefer more detail oriented on what behaviour or attribute is seen as lacking rather than comparing some families to a category of family (mom, dad, kids) that can be abusive as much as any so-called counterfeit family. I agree. That's a horrible thing to say.
jkwilliams Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 Just now, CV75 said: That might be the consensus you see, but I'm seeing the suggestion of mixed messages as evidence of an easy way to argue against another's' opinion on an emotional level rather than support one's own opinion on its own merits. So, it’s just a cheap shot?
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right? Of course not. They are just disingenuous, stupid, and wrong. To be clear that is a joke. 2
Recommended Posts