Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 16 minutes ago, ttribe said: How convenient. 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. 1
Popular Post Calm Posted June 15, 2021 Popular Post Posted June 15, 2021 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You left out forklifts. The ideal family: Mom, Dad, and kids... 7
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: What is wrong with you? That is clearly a transgendered forklift. Gross!!!!!! How can you tell how it self-identifies? Who are you to question? 1
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2021 Author Posted June 15, 2021 5 minutes ago, Calm said: I believe Bernard would see polygyny as parallel marriages as opposed to a marriage with multiple partners. He can correct me if I am wrong. There is a difference. Well, as long as one partner is common to all the marriages, it seems more like a marriage with multiple partners than parallel marriages. But that’s just me. 3
ttribe Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 3 minutes 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. Clearly not at all what I meant.
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2021 Author Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: The ideal family: Mom, Dad, and kids... It looks more like a polyamorous relationship.😂 Edited June 15, 2021 by jkwilliams
The Nehor Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 7 minutes ago, Calm said: The ideal family: Mom, Dad, and kids... Well played. I tip my hat. 6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: How can you tell how it self-identifies? Who are you to question? I checked the manual. No one ever reads the manual. I spend half my life writing manuals and no one ever reads them. le sigh
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2021 Author Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Well played. I tip my hat. I checked the manual. No one ever reads the manual. I spend half my life writing manuals and no one ever reads them. le sigh That’s right, you and I share a masochistic career choice. Old joke: A technical writer dies, and St. Peter says he’s right on the line between heaven and hell, so he can choose where he goes. Peter first shows him hell, where rows and rows of writers are typing away in a burning inferno with devils flaying their skin. “Surely I’ll prefer heaven!” says the writer. Peter takes him to heaven, and it’s the same: writers typing in flames and devils flaying their skin. ”How is this better than hell?” he asks. Peter replies, “In heaven people read the manual.” Edited June 15, 2021 by jkwilliams 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 16 minutes ago, ttribe said: Clearly not at all what I meant. Clear to you?
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Then you misspoke when you said marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. Not at all. God clearly says unless He commands otherwise it is only between one man and one woman. Edited June 15, 2021 by Bernard Gui
ttribe Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Clear to you? Good grief...let me spell this out - You are against polygamy EXCEPT for the case(s) you believe meet the exception(s) noted in the referenced scripture. It is very CONVENIENT that those verses were inserted in the BoM and that you can point to them to justify your inconsistent positions.
jkwilliams Posted June 15, 2021 Author Posted June 15, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Not at all. God clearly says unless He commands otherwise it is only between one man and one woman. Huh. I always read that as specific to the Nephites. Certainly the Law of Moses didn’t proscribe polygyny. 1
Peacefully Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 3 hours ago, california boy said: Maybe I am not being very clear in what exactly I am saying. I actually am fully supporting the right of the Church to take the position they have taken. What I am asking for is to be even more clear on what this policy means to those that are LGBT. I personally think those that are hoping for and even advocating for a change on SSM are doing a disservice to those that are attracted to the same sex. The message I think should be framed in the same way Elder Holland views eternity that has already been quoted in this thread. Read this and similar quotes to those that have same sex attraction. "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." -Elder Holland Now sit them down and say, this is never going to be an option for you. You aren't going to have this kind of relationship with anyone in this earth life. If you stay in the Church and are expecting that to happen, don't. If having that human connection that Elder Holland speaks of ia important to you, then this is not the Church for you. You can find that kind of happiness in this life, but not if you stay a member of the Church. The Church is not going to change its position. 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. If we believe as Elder Holland does, that our feelings for our loved ones will continue in the next life, then you will probably still be attracted to your same sex partner if you choose to have one. Honestly, I can't see how a believing member could disagree with anything I have 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?
Popular Post Amulek Posted June 15, 2021 Popular Post Posted June 15, 2021 3 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I just see several posts that say even suggesting there are mixed messages is silly [...] Well, since I'm the one who used the word "silly," I should probably drive by and clarify that I was talking about the examples in the article which were used to exemplify the church's so-called mixed messaging. The author of the SLT article is, at least in my opinion, clearly engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. It would be like criticizing the church for its conflicting messages about (to pick a timely subject) fathers. I mean, on the one hand, the church deifies fathers by talking about our Father in Heaven and then turns right around and literally demonizes them by talking about Satan being the Father of Lies. No doubt the youth of today are confused by this message inconsistency. I'm sorry, but yes, I think that is a silly argument, and that's how the examples in the article read to me. Elder Callister's comment was clearly about "endorsement of same-sex marriage." But does anyone seriously think that the church has been sending mixed messages about its endorsement of same-sex marriage? Of course not. Which is why Mr. Winslow can't provide a quote from an official church source saying differently. Only he doesn't want you to focus on that obvious fact. Which is why he is so quick to pull the lens back in an effort to focus on comments "towards the LGBTQ+" instead. But even then, I remain unconvinced that the church's messaging with respect "towards the LGBTQ+" has been inconsistent or confusing at all. It's pretty run-of-the-mill 'love the sinner, not the sin' kind of stuff, and has been for years. Now, do I get the sense that the church has made an effort in recent years to emphasize the love side of that equation a bit more? Sure, but they have never abandoned the other side. Ever. 7
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Huh. I always read that as specific to the Nephites. Certainly the Law of Moses didn’t proscribe polygyny. We’ll have to agree to see it differently. The early Saints appealed to the Lord’s words in their defense. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Good grief...let me spell this out - You are against polygamy EXCEPT for the case(s) you believe meet the exception(s) noted in the referenced scripture. It is very CONVENIENT that those verses were inserted in the BoM and that you can point to them to justify your inconsistent positions. Well, yes they’re in the Book of Mormon. My position has always been consistent with Jacob 2 and 3. The Lord gives specific instructions with only one exception. I believe it is the word of God. I’m not sure what “those verses were inserted” means. They are in the first edition. Who inserted them and when? Edited June 15, 2021 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Well played. I tip my hat. I checked the manual. No one ever reads the manual. I spend half my life writing manuals and no one ever reads them. le sigh No manual can tell you how to self-identify. I am Itzhak Perlman.
ttribe Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, yes they’re in the Book of Mormon. My position has always been consistent with Jacob 2 and 3. The Lord gives specific instructions with only one exception. I believe it is the word of God. I’m not sure what “those verses were inserted” means. They are in the first edition. Who inserted them and when? Yeah...that's an old debate and is off topic from this thread.
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 1 hour 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? This is something we know. “Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.” Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints November 1909 1
Calm Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Well played. I tip my hat. I checked the manual. No one ever reads the manual. I spend half my life writing manuals and no one ever reads them. le sigh I read them...when things break. Ticked me off this week because my 18 year old Kenmore dryer manual did not show how to take it apart or part numbers to order. Great videos online thank goodness. Now just have to use some metal tape to ensure lint isn’t leaking into cabinet at the rate it was due to an offset seal leaving a wee gap and we are in the laundry business again (good thing because I am down to my last set of pjs and my husband is hand washing in the sink...but we saved hundreds of dollars probably)...I had to step in when my husband kept missing where the screws were because he does not read manuals nor retain what he sees in videos apparently...my vertigo meant he was the hands on guy and I was supervisor for most of it. I did get my son over to confirm which part was fried as electricity scares me. PS: I keep putting off putting the cover back on because I am having this vision of it exploding though nothing we did could cause that. PPS: we just had lift off. Strong burning smell and one loud popping spark of loose lint that must have fallen on the coil cover, but after a few minutes smell is gone and still running and everything sounds and looks like it should. Only moderately sick to my stomach...but I would be mildly sick to my stomach if a repair guy did it (I don’t fully trust repair people ever since my car fell apart on me a minute or so after I got done flying down a hill on a freeway right after a maintenance job. Apparently he overtightened a bolt. Thankfully by then I was on a side street and slowing down to stop). I suppose I ramble enough normally that perhaps you can’t tell I am really, really nervous about a fire now. I know too much now on what can go wrong due to my research. Ignorance is bliss. Edited June 15, 2021 by Calm 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 35 minutes ago, ttribe said: Yeah...that's an old debate and is off topic from this thread. It’s your thread. Who inserted the verses? Edited June 15, 2021 by Bernard Gui
ttribe Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: It’s your thread. Who inserted the verses? Not my thread and I'm not interested I'm that discussion. You'll fall back on "it's God's word" and I don't buy any of that anymore. There's no common ground to find.
Peacefully Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 56 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: This is something we know. “Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.” Joseph F. Smith John R. Winder Anthon H. Lund First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints November 1909 I’m not sure what this has to do with my question to CB.
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, ttribe said: Not my thread and I'm not interested I'm that discussion. You'll fall back on "it's God's word" and I don't buy any of that anymore. There's no common ground to find. 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, you should be able to defend that claim. Can you do it? Edited June 15, 2021 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 15, 2021 Posted June 15, 2021 8 minutes ago, Peacefully said: I’m not sure what this has to do with my question to CB. 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.”
Recommended Posts