What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If it only exists to perpetuate itself then yes. If it is there for use and enjoyment than the situation changes. My disagreement was that the reason we have bodies is to make more bodies. Who cares? Why would we need bodies if there was not some greater reason to have them? And there is.

Ah, you got 3 of us at least!  😜

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

He does not believe in God anymore, however I suppose if he did, he would describe God as homophobic.

Oh yeah, God just quivers in the corner at the mere sight of an LGBGT+ person.

I wouldn't believe in that God either 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe  that having "biological" babies is the whole point for Gods having physical bodies.

But it is just speculation, not something that is built on revelation

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why is it important that Jesus is the "only Begotten" child created physically with Father AS the biological father?  Why didn't he just make Jesus miraculously instead of making him the "only Begotten "?

We actually don't know how Jesus was created.  Did God actually have physical relations with Mary?  Is that what you believe?  And if he didn't have physical relations with Mary, then Christ was created in an entirely different way than how children are created on earth.  Which would mean that it is just as likely that spirits are created an entirely different way in the afterlife.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Why is that even important?

Why is it important to know how Christ was created?  Evidently it is not important at all since there is no information give to us on exactly how Christ was created.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This whole concept is apparently essential to the creation of human Gods, with physical bodies and is apparently why sealing between a man and woman is essential to become Gods with physical bodies.

Where did this belief come from?  What is it based upon?

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And you are saying that we puny god embryos have to know how it all works NOW for it to be a "reactor" in a process we do not yet know?

That's poor logic. 

So because we don't know how resurrection works, it is a "nonreactor" in exaltation? ?

No I am not saying any of that.  I am saying the opposite.  You are only making assumptions that it is necessary to have only male/female relationships in the next life and you don't really have any basis to make that assumption.  It is just speculation.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Why then explore ANY question we don't understand now?

Why must one then be resurrected at all to be exalted?  Obviously a physical body is important for things we do not yet understand

Exactly.  We don't understand.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Denying that Gods don't really need physical bodies denies the importance of resurrection 

I didn't say that we don't need physical bodies.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If Christ could have done "all he saw his Father doing" without having a body, why must we do actual proxy baptisms and other ordinances here while WE are embodied for those who are not? As someone once suggested why don't we simply baptize a roll of microfilm ?

I never said a physical body isn't necessary for baptism.  What does this have to do with anything I am saying.

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There is obviously a central reason for us seeing God as embodied  that is essential to exaltation, and as you say the ONLY difference is having biological babies.

That is apparently THE key to needing to postulate that God has a physical body, because all other relationships work fine without that postulate.

So yes, you are right the only difference is making biological babies.  It is, I believe the only reason God HAS TO have a physical body to create spirit babies.

Why don't we just go with a disembodied God as a paradigm then?

We'd all be Catholic!

 

You are speculating that the sole reason for having a physical body after the resurrection is because they are necessary for physically making spirit children.  Just how do physical bodies produce billions of spirits?  Everything you brought up does not dispute what I wrote because either belief is possible.  You asked for some  genius to show how an alternative view of gender does NOT blow up the paradigm of an embodied God. While I am not a genius, I did show you a paradigm on how that is possible.  I even gave you scripture that would support how gods of either gender did create the world.  You are hanging your ENTIRE belief on the idea that physical bodies are essential in creating spirit children, yet you can not explain how a male/female relationship could create billions of spirit children.  Until you can do that, you actually have nothing to support your belief.

Do I know if the paradigm I presented is true?  Of course not. But what I did present fits all of the knowledge that we have been given on this subject just as much as the paradigm you have presented.  The bottom line is, the current policy on LGBT exclusion from the Church is built on speculation that, like the priesthood ban may be completely false.   There is no revelation from God.  Until that happens, if it ever does, then your speculation has no more possibility of being true than what I presented.  I'm not trying to change your mind.  I am only giving you something to think about.

Edited September 27, 2021 by california boy

[california boy]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well "factual" information that is justified empirically of course is impossible in theology, and I agree that their place in the plan of salvation is really difficult to comprehend.  For the record I do feel that many LGBT+ folks,  or possibly all, were "born" that way, so it is a real puzzlement.

I also think MANY of God's children have various trials they are "born" with; I don't think we will ever know why.

Again I see every philosophical problem the same way- it's not about what is "true" since that word is undefinable, it's about constructing a consistent story or "paradigm" to make a theory that works to give us something that makes sense until a better paradigm  comes along

 But as it is, I am not seeing any paradigm that could show how LDS theology could be made compatible with gay marriage 

YOu haven't really poked any holes in the paradigm I presented.  You can't really explain why male/female relationships are required to create spirit children.  What seems completely ridiculous is to assume billions of spirit children will be created in the same way they are here on earth.

I am only hoping that I am giving you something to think about.  But what you can't say is that no one has given you and alternative view of gender does NOT blow up the paradigm of an embodied God,

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

And if he didn't have physical relations with Mary, then Christ was created in an entirely different way than how children are created on earth

I have nieces and nephews who were created by in-vitro fertization.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

To populate the world with spirits. Empty worlds without end are not going to amount to much if God’s work is to bring joy and eternal life to humankind. 
 

I get the challenge there could be a division of labor, the above can easily be challenged with that…much depends I am guessing on how oneness occurs at the level of exaltation and whether there are necessary attributes that come only through creating human life and that is not something we have detailed revelation about, imo.

I believe it will end up being dependent on what makes one able to create in the sense of being able to organize elements into something new. This may or may not be tied into what attributes are developed through being able to birth children together (I need to use birth because parenting includes more than reproduction).  

I agree with this.  But how that happens has never been revealed.  I remember reading an article about how it may very well be possible for same sex couples  to create a child hear on earth.  The only thing needed is an artificial womb.  So with that very real possibility that a same sex couple could produce children here on earth, what does that say about the possibilities in the next life?  Do you really think that a god who could create the universe would be entirely without the power to create billions of spirit children without impregnating a female god?

 

Edit:  I see that Nehor has posted such an article. https://medium.com/neodotlife/same-sex-reproduction-artificial-gametes-2739206aa4c0

Edited September 27, 2021 by california boy

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have nieces and nephews who were created by in-vitro fertization.

Exactly.  A new way of conceiving children here on earth that just a few decades away seemed far fetched and against the "natural" process God has ordained.  Do you remember those protests about in-vitro fertilizationbeing against God's will?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you really think that a god who could create the universe would be entirely without the power to create billions of spirit children without impregnating a female god?

Creating the universe in LDS theology is not an action based on simple desires and fantasies such as we think of a god simply speaking and something is created out of nothing.  Instead, God is a God of Laws and all forms of creations must follow those laws even if it is the hand and will of God that sets creation in motion somehow.  He does not create elements out of nothings, but works with what is present in the universe, he organizes.  Creation is an organization process (not only like organizing a library, but also like organizing water by putting into a certain relationship 2 diatomic hydrogen molecules and one diatomic oxygen molecule). Elements as we are aware of them will only combine in certain ways and with certain other elements and the results are limited by the attributes of those elements.  God won’t break laws, he won’t create the uncreatable even if he could, he won’t create beings with attributes that do not match their structure.

Speculation follows….which means lots of rambling….feel free to skip.  I need to figure out how to explain the below using much less effort.  Sorry, hope it makes sense.  I know sometimes adding details for clarification ends up just confusing more because the word picture started out cluttered.

When I speak of “like” here, I am speaking in the limited biochemical sense or perhaps better phrased as bioanimachemical (“anima” is Latin for “spirit, assuming there is a spiritual aspect in the elements and structure of organisms), not about similarities of personality or social categories such as nations or tribes or clubs.  They are alike in relevant structure first, which leads to identical behaviour/reactions between structures, not a variety of organisms who may function in similar ways.

 Thus one possibility is there may be elements needed to form a soul that can only come from a male exalted body and some that can only come from a female exalted body, which when combined with other necessary elements produce a full, natural new and independent soul that is capable of first imitating their parents and then becoming one with their parents…’sex-related’ elements that cannot be substituted and still produce a god in embryo.

Another possibility is only a male is able to place elements in one configuration of the spirit organizing process and only a female is able to place them in another configuration and then the two configurations combine to form the whole, similar but not identical to sperm and egg…configurations that exist at a level where they can’t be manipulated by the ‘wrong’ one without fundamentally changing them (unlike how it appears eggs and sperm can be manipulated, an analogy might be how large, bulky 18th century locks may be opened by keys that are mostly matching and made of a strong material, but a much more complicated biometric lock may require a very precise key, perhaps fingerprints and a security code or an iris scanner or eventually DNA scan combined with a process that accepts only living tissue as a dna source….maybe dna plus brain wave patterns if they are unique to an indivual for some brain functions…anyway you get the idea…a refined, precise, complicated process intending to produce a specific product generally requires specific ingredients combined in specific ways and variation from the requirement means incompletion.

And maybe exaltation being available to only a male-female couple comes down to like can only bind with like and still stay the same unit at the highest level…to become one with God the Father—who is the Father because he first became a new organization/unit with the Mother and then joined or formed the Council of Gods or whatever is the organization of Gods with others who choose the same path, we two must first be a divine pair and only then is our divine pair able to be one in fullness with other divine pairs.  Perhaps like needs like to bind at that level because the required understanding and acceptance leads to a form of interaction that shares elements as well as ideas, elements that to connect must be structures that only a divine pair is capable of constructing or emitting.  Or think of how our mouths and ears are constructed so we can easily, if imprecisely communicate; our ears hear a variety of sounds so that we can use other things besides our mouths to produce communication successfully.  What, however, if communication at the exalted level is so precise and information laden only one biomechanism can produce those sounds accurately, a biomechanism only present in the organism/organization of a divine pair?

But to become a divine pair, to become a different organization capable of new functions, unlike must bind with unlike first…because adding like to like in this process does not create a new form, but at most a variation of the old form:  combine hydrogen to hydrogen and one has the potential to get different forms of hydrogen, bind hydrogen to oxygen and one has the potential of water .  

Maybe eternal divine pairs must only consist of male and female humans because male humans have at least one unique element in their original  intelligence state that stays as they evolve to spirit, mortal body and spirit or soul, resurrected soul (body and spirit)….and then who knows….and females have other unique elements and eternal marriage is not just having a relationship, but achieved somehow not only through a social interaction, but also through the combining of their souls that include these different elements into something new.  It is that combination that allows exaltation to occur…exaltation not just being a ‘position’, but a transformation…a transformation that can only occur when all elements from both participants are present.  Water can only exist if there is both hydrogen and oxygen; take away one, it is no longer water.  Water can also only exist when those elements react in a certain way.  Even just a difference of a spin between the hydrogen atoms results in a variation., if they are spinning together in one direction they are a different form of water whose hydrogen atoms are spinning in opposite directions.

Quote

However, by using an innovative process developed by Professor Jochen Küpper from the Hamburg Center for Free-Electron Laser Science, researchers were able to carry out controlled reactions that allowed them to measure these slightly different properties. They found that para-water reacts about 25% faster than ortho-water — probably because the spin influences the rotation of the water molecules — and this affects how quickly they interact with other molecules. As a result, para-water is able to attract its reaction partner more strongly than the ortho-form, which leads to increased chemical reactivity. The experimental results were also confirmed by computer models.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/two-types-of-water-30052018/
 

For the kinds of chemical reactions mortals are currently ‘organizing’ and creating consciously using water, this difference of spin in water makes no difference at this time.  But it should be easy to imagine that as our skill grows and our control becomes more precise and delicate and our creations become things that take proper form by manipulating a few atoms or electrons or quarks, a minute difference in speed or strength of a reaction may be crucial to the desired outcome.  As our creations become more refined, small differences in contributions of material or the process (think of how differences in temperature will produce different things in a chemical reaction) become very important, substitutions or minor adjustments end in misfires only.

Pure speculation that there is at least one crucial material (spiritual-physical elements) difference between male and female and both are needed to produce whatever biochemical-whatever reaction that is the organization of a new spirit or soul.

Pure speculation obviously, but it does provide a paradigm that explains the need for a male-female bond for the purpose of organizing new human beings and why a male-male bond would not be able to function this way…there exists as part of the salvation and exaltation a process produced by a male-female divine pair whose end result is a spirit or maybe a soul…maybe resurrection is achieved by another form of birth through our heavenly parents…baptism that we say produces the mortal “new man” is a foreshadowing of the birth process that is resurrection that produces the glorified, truly new man and woman…a process that requires a specific set of chemicals, no substitutions allowed to be successful, perfect forms.

Have I mentioned I am speculating enough by now so no one will feel driven to ask me to find a scripture or chemistry reference or expect me to explain how or why?

Because I have one more pure speculation…that we probably shouldn’t be using the term male and female for the two categories of original eternal intelligence,  Rather I see it likely that the intelligence being ‘fits into’, meshes with, expands into spiritual matter in some fashion.  Maybe our intelligence is something similar to DNA in terms of how the DNA structure copies itself into RNA strands, which then eventually ends up a body.  Since the divine pair, God the Father and God the mother are causing the transcription, no errors are made and thus the spirit is a perfect expansion of the intelligence and thus what makes an intelligence “male” and “female” is manifested in a perfected expanded form in the spirit as well and thus a spirit is either “male” or “female”.

But when it comes to a mortal body, the expansion is done by imperfect mortal parents with organizing bodies and processes which means variations may occur for the same spirit “dna” expansion (expansion meaning physical elements are added to the spiritual elements, possibly resulting in the ‘same’ body with identical except for being physical elements or an expansion of form and function like what I speculated occurred with intelligence and spirit (more like giving a brain a body than putting a glove on a hand).  This means maleness and femaleness for a physical body is ‘fuzzier’.  Not only may there be mismatches between spirit and body elements, but elements may be left out or ‘alien’ elements added.  Instead of a perfectly formed sculpture of perfect marble made from perfect blueprints made by a perfect artist, the sculpture that is the mortal body made with mortal elements by mortal parents is closer to a mix of marble, quartz, clay, playdoh, and mud and due to the weaker materials, its form is more lumpy blob than Michelangelo’s David.  Now some of the quartz, clay, playdoh, and mud were attracted by the male or femaleness of the spirit body, not just the marble, so the sexual physical aspect is not a perfect translation of the spiritual attribute we label “male” or “female”, but rather a combination of correction translations or elements which express male or femaleness as the spirit would; missing elements meaning absent expected behaviour; additional, unnecessary elements and thus unnecessary behaviours ; and mismatches that result in wrong behaviour.  This means many aspects and behaviours we think of as “male” right now are not actually a manifestation of the eternal male structure, but additions or ‘mistranslations’….mortal attributes that will be corrected or dropped or if missing restored in the resurrected male form, same with the female form.  Think of those messy, fuzzy sexual attributes as similar to cultural ones that are passed on through traditions…but sometimes get lost, get added to, or get misunderstood.  
 

Not an issue in mortality because life is meant to be messy to provide a sandbox for a baby god to play in, but mature gods will have changed their baby fat to toned muscles and dropped the snot, spit up (my family calls it “urp”), dirt, and occasional poop while having grown back into the height of their matured prebirth spirits .

So I expect what we think of as male and female in mortal perspective only overlaps some with our eternal nature.  What is now a hodgepodge of important, trivial, unnecessary, and wrong attributes will be a well defined, precisely structured collection of essential, perfect attributes.  What makes a divine pair therefore may be minimally connected to what makes a married couple in mortality.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Exactly.  A new way of conceiving children here on earth that just a few decades away seemed far fetched and against the "natural" process God has ordained.  Do you remember those protests about in-vitro fertilizationbeing against God's will?

You have changed your argument.  You just claimed that Christ had to be created differently than the rest of mortals if God didn’t have sex with Mary, but sex isn’t the only option to create babies even now for just mortals.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

need to figure out how to explain the below using much less effort.

I think I may have…

Think of the male/female attribute as a type of tool, female being a knife and male being clamps.  The tool form an intelligence being possessed would be the equivalent of flaked flint or obsidian and catgut for tying stuff together.
 

 A spirit being would have expanded and improved their tools, metal replaced stone for the knife.

Catgut has been replaced with some sort of clamps (have to do some searching to see what works for the image best).

Then we get to mortality, the tools not so much improvements, but might be said instead to be almost in the ballpark to mix metaphors….the tool that symbolizes the female aspect is now a saw…a variety of saws in fact.  The tool that symbolizes the male aspect is glue, ranging from school paste to superglue…both tools can be quite useful for other things even if not terribly focused on or great for the original purpose.
 

When we become exalted, the knife turned saw and catgut/clamp turned glue have been exchanged for the precision and versatility of robotic surgical equipment.  Will look for futuristic proposals later…

And what is required of the Divine Pair now is not just cutting and clamping, but complicated surgery…both scalpels and clamps are needed, using just one or the other…surgery will fail.  Because being male or female is the only way to get both of these tools, only Divine Pairs can be therefore be successful surgeons.  Only Divine Pairs are therefore chosen as surgeons.  They have become so adept at using all their tools, every surgery is now perfect and a success.

hope this analogy more easily conveys what I was speculating, but I am phrasing out, so maybe it makes it more confusing.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Homophobia and transphobia are among the most overused and misplaced words I know.  A phobia is an irrational fear of something.  Simply not liking or agreeing with something does not constitute a phobia. 

Might want to consult a dictionary:

ho·mo·pho·bi·a

/ˌhōməˈfōbēə/

noun

 

1. dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 9/25/2021 at 12:06 PM, bluebell said:

I think we want to be welcoming but we don't know how.  We don't know what we have to offer them exactly.

I think you're right that many members feel that way.

I believe that illustrates a lack of leadership on this issue.

[Canadiandude]

This thread is 🔥

Gives me hope.

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Might want to consult a dictionary:

ho·mo·pho·bi·a

/ˌhōməˈfōbēə/

noun

 

1. dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

That's an interesting way to use phobia.  I dislike beets, but I wouldn't say it was a phobia. 

phobia

noun

a type of anxiety disorder (= a mental illness that makes someone very worried and affects their life) that involves an extreme fear of something:

 an extreme fear or dislike of a particular thing or situation, especially one that is not reasonable:

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/phobia

 

I guess the meaning of phobia been changed.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

guess the meaning of phobia been changed.

Like many words, its nontechnical usage has been broadened. Kind of like how “nazi” started getting applied to anyone who is seen as strict about something, like grammar nazi.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-casually-throwing-the-word-phobia-around_n_5b51eef5e4b0fd5c73c4a98a

I would be interested to see any other phobia described as “dislike or prejudice”.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

36 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's an interesting way to use phobia.  I dislike beets, but I wouldn't say it was a phobia. 

phobia

noun

a type of anxiety disorder (= a mental illness that makes someone very worried and affects their life) that involves an extreme fear of something:

 an extreme fear or dislike of a particular thing or situation, especially one that is not reasonable:

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/phobia

 

I guess the meaning of phobia been changed.

I understand. Language is complicated. Interesting that you didn’t object to the use of homo (which means man as in homo sapiens). What about the compound word understand? What am i standing under? I guess under and stand have changed meanings too?

Edited September 27, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe  that having "biological" babies is the whole point for Gods having physical bodies.

Why is it important that Jesus is the "only Begotten" child created physically with Father AS the biological father?  Why didn't he just make Jesus miraculously instead of making him the "only Begotten "?

Why is that even important?

This whole concept is apparently essential to the creation of human Gods, with physical bodies and is apparently why sealing between a man and woman is essential to become Gods with physical bodies.

And you are saying that we puny god embryos have to know how it all works NOW for it to be a "reactor" in a process we do not yet know?

That's poor logic. 

So because we don't know how resurrection works, it is a "nonreactor" in exaltation? ?

Why then explore ANY question we don't understand now?

Why must one then be resurrected at all to be exalted?  Obviously a physical body is important for things we do not yet understand

Denying that Gods don't really need physical bodies denies the importance of resurrection 

If Christ could have done "all he saw his Father doing" without having a body, why must we do actual proxy baptisms and other ordinances here while WE are embodied for those who are not? As someone once suggested why don't we simply baptize a roll of microfilm ?

There is obviously a central reason for us seeing God as embodied  that is essential to exaltation, and as you say the ONLY difference is having biological babies.

That is apparently THE key to needing to postulate that God has a physical body, because all other relationships work fine without that postulate.

So yes, you are right the only difference is making biological babies.  It is, I believe the only reason God HAS TO have a physical body to create spirit babies.

Why don't we just go with a disembodied God as a paradigm then?

We'd all be Catholic!

 

A lot of good questions here. Seems like prophets, seers and revelators would be seeking answers to these questions.

Maybe there's more to having a physical exalted body than creating little spirit babies. We don't know do we? We (the church and leaders) just make assumptions that it must need physical bodies to be able to procreate new little spirits. The church seems so sure of this assumption that it's willing to alienate the LGBTQ population because that couldn't possibly create little spirits in a non-sxual way.

The cliche of "seeing through a glass darkly" only seems to apply to refute the supposition of another's claim yet there is simultaneous certitude about the purpose of a physical exalted body to create spirits. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're right that many members feel that way.

I believe that illustrates a lack of leadership on this issue.

I think our leadership are probably wearing themselves out trying to figure out the answer to this problem.  It's also my opinion that the answers will come.  

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, bluebell said:

I think our leadership are probably wearing themselves out trying to figure out the answer to this problem.  It's also my opinion that the answers will come.  

I see no evidence of this. If they are doing something to wear themselves out trying to figure this out maybe they could share a little.

I agree that some day there will be answers and IMO the church will be embarrassed and have to disavow current/past teachings on this topic. It will be said they were looking through a glass darkly. It will be said that they were only speaking as men. Doesn't inspire much confidence.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I understand. Language is complicated. Interesting that you didn’t object to the use of homo (which means man as in homo sapiens). What about the compound word understand? What am i standing under? I guess under and stand have changed meanings too?

understand (v.)

Old English understandan "to comprehend, grasp the idea of, receive from a word or words or from a sign the idea it is intended to convey; to view in a certain way," probably literally "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand (v.)).

 

If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from Old English under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (source also of Sanskrit antar "among, between," Latin inter "between, among," Greek entera "intestines;" see inter-). Related: Understood; understanding.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/understand

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see no evidence of this. If they are doing something to wear themselves out trying to figure this out maybe they could share a little.

I agree that some day there will be answers and IMO the church will be embarrassed and have to disavow current/past teachings on this topic. It will be said they were looking through a glass darkly. It will be said that they were only speaking as men. Doesn't inspire much confidence.

Elder Holland said as much in his talk at BYU.  

And yes, I know that for some infallible leaders don't inspire much confidence.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

understand (v.)

Old English understandan "to comprehend, grasp the idea of, receive from a word or words or from a sign the idea it is intended to convey; to view in a certain way," probably literally "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand (v.)).

 

If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from Old English under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (source also of Sanskrit antar "among, between," Latin inter "between, among," Greek entera "intestines;" see inter-). Related: Understood; understanding.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/understand

So under doesn’t mean under, but among. And that’s okay. Homo as a stand in for gay and lesbian. That’s okay. But phobic as a stand in for dislike or prejudice, that’s where the line must be drawn. Okay. 
 

https://youtu.be/Jln3mi0vfJU

Edited September 27, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think our leadership are probably wearing themselves out trying to figure out the answer to this problem.  It's also my opinion that the answers will come.  

I think this is a good conclusion.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I see no evidence of this. If they are doing something to wear themselves out trying to figure this out maybe they could share a little.

I agree that some day there will be answers and IMO the church will be embarrassed and have to disavow current/past teachings on this topic. It will be said they were looking through a glass darkly. It will be said that they were only speaking as men. Doesn't inspire much confidence.

Even if I believed the same way, it does not negate or counter the belief that the keys of the kingdom have been restored and point to the promises fulfilled in Christ. No one has ever been able to really explain the connection.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I understand. Language is complicated. Interesting that you didn’t object to the use of homo (which means man as in homo sapiens). What about the compound word understand? What am i standing under? I guess under and stand have changed meanings too?

Is phobia often used as dislike or prejudice though?

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But phobic as a stand in for dislike or prejudice, that’s where the line must be drawn. Okay. 
 

If it is the only case where phobia means dislike or prejudice instead of anxiety disorder, etc., can you see why its use may be confusing and come across as an overstatement?

added:  if one of “phobia’s” meanings is “dislike or prejudice”, I would be interested to see when it was first used that way. 

 I should be going to sleep though, will save that research for later

Edited September 27, 2021 by Calm