The Elder Holland I Know

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Hold up. 

Lots of controversy...over the COVID-19 vaccine?

The Brethren issue an statement encouraging people to get a life-saving vaccine...and you choose to see this as evidence that the Brethren are agents provocateur?!

Please tell me how to interpret this charitably, because right now it looks like manifest evidence that @Teancum will look at a First Presidency mandate to save lives and see in it only "controversy." Make of that fact what you will. 

If you have not followed the complaints by LDS persons of right wing influence who have been complaining about the recommendation to be vaccinated I can't help you with that. I am sure if you want you could find a plethora of examples.  I don't think they intended controversy but it has created it. I see it in my own ward and stake.  That was my point.  That even something like that recommendation can create controversy.  But back to Holland.  He had to know his remarks were going to stir things up.  And that is not necessarily a bad thing depending on your point of view.  But some here want to paint him as some innocent fellow whose words are being misconstrued. I don't  buy that.  Not for a second.  So I don't feel bad for him and I bet he does not feel to bad about this either.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

@Teancum can speak for himself, but it seems to me that he misread Pogi, and you are misreading him. Teancum is saying the brethren have no issues stirring up controversy when they want to. (I.e. they say what they want to say regardless of the controversy it may cause - for example, I’m sure the brethren know a significant portion of the membership in the United States is anti mask and anti vaccine). This could still be true even if Pogi is correct (on the fact that the brethren do their best not to stir up controversy on this issue). 

Correct.

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

do you really want to go down the road about section 132?! it's problematic to put it mildly. Let's say though, for argument sake, what has God said what will happen to gay people in this section? again, nothing, he has said nothing. Why? he doesn't seem to want to reveal anything about what will happen to them. What purpose does homosexuality even serve? If God will fix gay people in the next life, as we have been shared without any scripture to back it up, what the vitriol against them here and why not let them be who they are if it will out come out in the wash anyways?

131 and 132 are the elephants in the room. I believe my analysis is correct. Proponents of change must eliminate them to achieve their objectives. Sounds like you agree with them?

All things will come out in the wash…of the blood of Christ. What God has said is that Jesus descended below it all and because of that all will be made whole. I have that hope.

One of my dearest friends who is a faithful Latter-day Saint (far more than I), gay with AIDS, who has suffered profoundly in body and spirit has this precise hope. He trustfully awaits whatever it is that God chooses to do in compensation. 

I have expressed no vitriol. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It certainly does. Plural marriage, and the church’s stance on its members of African descent come to mind. What did the church do in the face of persecution for those?

Sought further instruction from God on how to proceed.

[Nofear]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

D&C 131:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

How is it possible for a gay person ever enter into celestial glory?  Did God decide in the pre existence that spirit will not be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom, so He made them gay?  Is that the narrative?

Just as a technical note, it's not the Celestial Kingdom that is prohibited, it's the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom where we would eventually be allowed the opportunity to be as our Father and Mother in Heaven and do the works they do. I am not privy to all that entails, but it apparently entails a companionship of a male and female. Though, that clarification just kicks the can down the road as it were and doesn't really answer your question.

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It certainly does. Plural marriage, and the church’s stance on its members of African descent come to mind. What did the church do in the face of persecution for those?

In the case of polygamy, the Church and its members suffered mightily in the practice - even unto death and efforts of dissolution. I believe plural marriage  served its scriptural purposes and for the sake of survival it was suspended. Changing the practice, however, did not change the definition of marriage as between men and women, which is the object of the current efforts.

The Priesthood race issue is not comparable, but for argument’s sake, there were scriptural, doctrinal, and prophetic promises of relief. I believe it served its brief purposes and when the time was right, it was ended.

In today’s belligerent climate with regards to persecution, I see a future for the Church more like polygamy than Priesthood restriction if the Church does not capitulate. It seems to me that Elder Holland was taking a stand that the Church can only go so far in accommodation even if it faces some harsh consequences. Worse things have happened in the past.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sought further instruction from God on how to proceed.

Which led to changes in its practice for both. Today the church is even agnostic on whether the priesthood ban and it’s surrounding doctrinal justifications (based on at least as many scriptures as the justification for its anti lgbtq stance) were just man made mistakes imported from society at large. 

[Rain]

On 8/27/2021 at 10:20 AM, Chum said:

A powerful tool of the adversary is to portray one uncharacteristic remark as if it represents the person. It is the nature of this method to be evil.

 

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

And a powerful example of how quickly we fall into 'the natural man' is how easily we accept such ideas, when someone says something we don't like.

This has become so clear to me this last week as I have talked with a number of people.  In a great portion of my conversations with them if I used those conversations as characteristic of them I could describe the people as impatient, short, and rude.

But the Spirit kept reminding me of their fear and pain and helped me be patient and empathetic beyond my means. I now treasure the words some of them said as we ended our conversations.  I saw in them characteristics of such great gentleness.  

There is so little we usually see of people in short moments without looking deep inside.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

D&C 131:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

How is it possible for a gay person ever enter into celestial glory?  Did God decide in the pre existence that spirit will not be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom, so He made them gay?  Is that the narrative?

It is if you choose to see it that way. I believe we can trust in his word that all will be made right, whatever the situation we find ourselves in. 

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

One of my dearest friends who is a faithful Latter-day Saint (far more than I), gay with AIDS, who has suffered profoundly in body and spirit has this precise hope. He trustfully awaits whatever it is that God chooses to do in compensation. 

How sad for your friend. I am afraid that he will have ended up wasting his life for something that is likely never to be.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

How sad for your friend. I am afraid that he will have ended up wasting his life for something that is likely never to be.

One of the worst things about religion is its ability to convince people to live a life of suffering and pain in the hope of some eternal reward. Suffering and pain come for us all, but to choose it seems so sad. 

[Bernard Gui]

Repetitious. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Which led to changes in its practice for both. Today the church is even agnostic on whether the priesthood ban and it’s surrounding doctrinal justifications (based on at least as many scriptures as the justification for its anti lgbtq stance) were just man made mistakes imported from society at large. 

Yep.

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How sad for your friend. I am afraid that he will have ended up wasting his life for something that is likely never to be.

I don’t know how this comment could be more heartlessly uninformed.

He does waste away his life…….in service of others, especially widows and seniors, at great financial and physical costs when his health and means allow. He exhibits more faith and endurance through excruciating trials than anyone I have ever known. My hat is humbly removed and my head is bowed in his presence. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t know how this comment could be more heartlessly uninformed.

He does waste away his life…….in service of others, especially widows and seniors, at great financial and physical costs when his health and means allow. He exhibits more faith and endurance through excruciating trials than anyone I have ever known. My hat is humbly removed and my head is bowed in his presence. 

And yet he is denied companionship. Elder Holland had previously stated that Heaven could not be Heaven without that companionship. Look at your item life. What has that companionship with Sister Gui meant for you?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

examples of...?

Ummm….a statement, a policy, a change, an accommodation, a resolution around which we could build consensus…..

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And yet he is denied companionship. Elder Holland had previously stated that Heaven could not be Heaven without that companionship. Look at your item life. What has that companionship with Sister Gui meant for you?

Again heartless and uninformed. No, he is not denied companionship. I have relatives and friends who are companionless by choice or by situation. I’m sure you do too. They have found other ways to compensate. Companionship does not necessarily involve sexual relationship. 

My personal life is none of your concern. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t know how this comment could be more heartlessly uninformed.

He does waste away his life…….in service of others, especially widows and seniors, at great financial and physical costs when his health and means allow. He exhibits more faith and endurance through excruciating trials than anyone I have ever known. My hat is humbly removed and my head is bowed in his presence. 

Well let me expand.  Certainly your friend can do that and find happiness.  and can serve and find meaning  in life. I agree with that.

 

Yet your friend is denying himself one of the most important and possibly satisfying relationships a human can have.  And for what?  The hope (without evidence) that God is going to somehow fix him and make it all right?  Ad further that view lends him to some how view his very being as flawed and broken and in need of repair.  That somehow this is a trial he is called to suffer.  Yet you cheer his faith as if this is somehow the pinnacle of nobility and goodness?  I think your world view is much more heartless than mine.  You cheer him on in denying a large part of who he is.  You raise him for denying himself an an emotional and physically intimated relationship.  For what?  Because your God says this how he should live?  Based on what?  Faith?  With no evidence other than your own faith and emotional experiences and feelings that you think is God telling you what you believe it right and true?  Yes I think that part is sad for him.  Very sad. And your cheering him on is more heartless than anything I have said because you cheer him on because he conforms to YOUR beliefs of what is right and wrong.

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Again heartless and uninformed. No, he is not denied companionship. I have relatives and friends who are companionless by choice or by situation. I’m sure you do too. They have found other ways to compensate. Companionship does not necessarily involve sexual relationship. 

My personal life is none of your concern. 

So tomorrow there is a revelation stating we have it all wrong.  Homosexual marriage is God's way. Heterosexual marriage is a sin.  You now cannot have a meaningful heterosexuals' relationship.  How do you feel  Ready to give it up?   Further your comparison to an intimate relationship that can include marriage to relatives and friends is ludicrous.  Certainly those are important and fulfilling but nothing like what I have with my spouse.  But I think  you know that.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Teancum

[BlueDreams]

16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Ummm….a statement, a policy, a change, an accommodation, a resolution around which we could build consensus…..

I’m saying the opposite in my post. That it’s nearly impossible to find a solid consensus of the majority beyond “we’re all god’s children” or something really really basic. The further on talks about beliefs and concerns around LGBT issues in the church With members the harder it is to find general consensus. I’m not sure why you’d want examples of what we agree with when my main point is that we still quite often don’t 

 

with luv, 

BD 

[OGHoosier]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet your friend is denying himself one of the most important and possibly satisfying relationships a human can have.  And for what?  The hope (without evidence) that God is going to somehow fix him and make it all right?  Ad further that view lends him to some how view his very being as flawed and broken and in need of repair.  That somehow this is a trial he is called to suffer.  Yet you cheer his faith as if this is somehow the pinnacle of nobility and goodness?  I think your world view is much more heartless than mine.  You cheer him on in denying a large part of who he is.  You raise him for denying himself an an emotional and physically intimated relationship.  For what?  Because your God says this how he should live?  Based on what?  Faith?  With no evidence other than your own faith and emotional experiences and feelings that you think is God telling you what you believe it right and true?  Yes I think that part is sad for him.  Very sad. And your cheering him on is more heartless than anything I have said because you cheer him on because he conforms to YOUR beliefs of what is right and wrong.

People like Bernard's friend make their choice because they see evidence, believe in it, and believe fervently in a better world which far surpasses the best this world has to offer. Heartless? No. The outlook of such a view extends far beyond this life and embraces the highest hopes and nobility of mankind. 

I prefer to leave the assessment of whether or not I am heartless in the hands of He who ponders the heart. 

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: But the LORD pondereth the hearts." - Proverbs 21:2, KJV.

Quote

Further your comparison to an intimate relationship that can include marriage to relatives and friends is ludicrous.

He's not making a comparison to relatives and friends, he's saying he has relatives and friends who have gone companionless. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

People like Bernard's friend make their choice because they see evidence, believe in it, and believe fervently in a better world which far surpasses the best this world has to offer. Heartless? No. The outlook of such a view extends far beyond this life and embraces the highest hopes and nobility of mankind. 

I prefer to leave the assessment of whether or not I am heartless in the hands of He who ponders the heart. 

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: But the LORD pondereth the hearts." - Proverbs 21:2, KJV.

He's not making a comparison to relatives and friends, he's saying he has relatives and friends who have gone companionless. 

Or they are clinging to traditions that they may have been indoctrinated with from a young age.  
 

Why is a view of something which extends beyond this life that has to be based on faith and a testimony based on feelings and emotions the "highest hope and nobility of mankind?"  What is noble about it?  Just because we say so and we imply values to it?  Because religion and faith based decisions are so much a part of what humans are and have become over the past 8000 years that we find it very difficult to wrench ourselves away from superstition and myths? Or is it more noble to confront the lack of anything if substance to back up our faith and admit we are basing major lives decision on something that more likely than not is a fantasy?

 

[Peacefully]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So tomorrow there is a revelation stating we have it all wrong.  Homosexual marriage is God's way. Heterosexual marriage is a sin.  You now cannot have a meaningful heterosexuals' relationship.  How do you feel  Ready to give it up?   Further your comparison to an intimate relationship that can include marriage to relatives and friends is ludicrous.  Certainly those are important and fulfilling but nothing like what I have with my spouse.  But I think  you know that.

The scary part is I think some members would abandon their husbands or wives if this happened. 

[OGHoosier]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or they are clinging to traditions that they may have been indoctrinated with from a young age.

Fun fact: the counter-traditions which you cling to are also traditions in which you were indoctrinated from a young age. We are all dependent on things we accept uncritically in youth, and even those who assert that they are "critical thinkers" and "view the world clearly" can only do so through the lenses which they were handed by their teachers. 

For the life of me I do not understand how anybody sees the "indoctrination" angle as anything more than particularly weak New Atheist punchline fodder. 

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why is a view of something which extends beyond this life that has to be based on faith and a testimony based on feelings and emotions the "highest hope and nobility of mankind?"  What is noble about it?  Just because we say so and we imply values to it?

Nobility itself is a recognition of values. I'm sure there are things that you find noble, and it's because you recognize value in them which resounds with you. Otherwise, why would you argue so passionately? 

I find it grimly ironic that your main attack on us is our confidence in "feelings and emotions" (which adopts an outdated Cartesian separation of the "heart" and "mind" that conflicts with recent science, and further ignores the cognitive aspects of religious experiences)...when your whole purpose in engaging this thread is to attack us for not giving "feelings and emotions" the due you think they deserve. "Feelings and emotions" for me but not for thee, eh? If somebody's "feelings and emotions" drive them to desire a life in Heaven, and to live with this hope, more than romantic companionship, who are you to pass judgement on that? 

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Because religion and faith based decisions are so much a part of what humans are and have become over the past 8000 years that we find it very difficult to wrench ourselves away from superstition and myths?

Boilerplate secular eschatology. If you seriously think that superstition and myth are going down in our rational age, I have some horoscope data to show you. 

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or is it more noble to confront the lack of anything if substance to back up our faith and admit we are basing major lives decision on something that more likely than not is a fantasy?

Except we don't think that there's a lack of substance so to "confront" such would be a breach of integrity. 

We just see the world differently. Sorry it bothers you. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

131 and 132 are the elephants in the room. I believe my analysis is correct. Proponents of change must eliminate them to achieve their objectives. Sounds like you agree with them?

All things will come out in the wash…of the blood of Christ. What God has said is that Jesus descended below it all and because of that all will be made whole. I have that hope.

One of my dearest friends who is a faithful Latter-day Saint (far more than I), gay with AIDS, who has suffered profoundly in body and spirit has this precise hope. He trustfully awaits whatever it is that God chooses to do in compensation. 

I have expressed no vitriol. 

our temple president, his brother is/was also gay with AIDS but died from it in the 1980's