Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Any answers you don't like you simply label as not being "real" answers, then proceed to insist that nobody is providing answers at all.  That is not the case.

So far the only answer to their place/role in eternity I have heard besides “trust in God that you will be happy” is “God will change you so that you can love someone if the opposite sex and be happy with them” or the variation of “your feelings of attraction to the same sec aren’t really you, they are just an artifact of mortality, so once you are dead you will of course want to be married to someone of the opposite sex”.

I assume you are partly referencing FAIR's compilation of apostolic quotes (here).  How are these not "answers"?

See also CO2's comment here:

Quote

The same way as everyone else does.  Gay people are not special.  They don’t get exemptions from any law of God.  They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to.  They might have to make some sacrifices to do that but so what.  We all have to make sacrifices in various aspects of our lives to come into compliance.  The are not many paths to the plan of salvation.  One for the heterosexual.  One for the bisexual.  One for the gay.  One for the polygamist.  One for the swinger and one for all the unmentionables.  The is just one plan of salvation all must walk the same path to find their eternal destiny.

Though blunt, this is pretty spot-on.  How is this not an "answer"? 

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

When someone cannot conceive of loving someone of the opposite sex and is instead very disturbed by the thought and can only imagine it if they are no longer who they actually are, the uniqueness that makes them an individual having been in part destroyed by having to become a certain ideal in order to progress according to God’s rules…that isn’t a real answer for them, it is an answer for the creature God has created out of the remnants of them.

"{T}hat isn't a real answer for them" exemplifies the No True Scotsman fallacy.

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

In essence, how much of a person can be changed into something seen as fundamentally different and still the person remains?

I think sexual attraction is nowhere near as big a slice of the overall pie as some of us in the hear-and-now make it out to be.

As far as relationships go (in the Hereafter, that is), D&C 132 provides substantial "answers" about those as well.  And yet some folks act as if it does not exist.  That just does not work for me.  It is one thing to reject or be dissatisfied with an answer, it is quite another to assert that - due to such rejection/dissatisfaction - the answer does not exist at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Quote

I also question the notion that sexual attraction is a state of being

If you were the one that was asking the question, that would matter. 
 

It is the beliefs of the person asking the questions that need to be taken into account and not be just dismissing them as irrelevant if you want someone to believe they have been given an answer. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is one thing to reject or be dissatisfied with an answer, it is quite another to assert that - due to such rejection/dissatisfaction - the answer does not exist at all.

 

Are you not doing the same though with the answers that are being given to you, maybe not explicitly but implicitly by discounting the assumptions that they are bringing to the discussion and dismissing them as unrealistic or nonexistent (sexual attraction is not part of one’s eternal nature).

From what I am seeing I hear California Boy and others saying “you are not listening” and you and others responding by saying “no, you are not listening”.

Edited January 4, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

"Horrific sacrifice" here means . . . what?

Not having romantic love and companionship, the ability to believe you can become “one flesh” with your spouse and not anticipating ever being able to have that chance…so no promise of future happiness in an eternal marriage to console for the absence of such in this life. 

D&C 132 addresses this:

Quote

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?
10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?
11 And will I appoint unto you, saith the Lord, except it be by law, even as I and my Father ordained unto you, before the world was?
12 I am the Lord thy God; and I give unto you this commandment—that no man shall come unto the Father but by me or by my word, which is my law, saith the Lord.
13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by thrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall not remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.
14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

All relationships ("covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations") are "of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead," except those which are "made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed."

To date, there is no provision in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ for same-sex relationships in the eternities.

I view the promise of eternal marriage as a tremendous gift.  I cannot characterize the natural and foreseeable loss of a relationship at death to be a "horrific sacrifice."  I appreciate that there are strong feelings at play here.  The loss of a relationship at death is, it seems, the natural state of things.  The Lord has given us guidance as to how we can preserve a marital/familial relationship in the eternities.  The parameters of of the promise of eternal marriage are determined by the Lord.  Those parameters were established "before the world was," and are defined "by law."

In 1 Cor.2:9, we are told: 

Quote

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For me, perhaps the pinnacle of faith is to declare, as the Savior did, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."  (Luke 22:42.)  To overcome and "put off" the "natural man" and "and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19.)  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen."  (D&C 22:4.)  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  (Isaiah 55:8.)

This is why I cannot disparage the promised blessings of the Restored Gospel because they do not comport with my blinkered and finite expectations and preferences at a point where I am not situated to see, or where I reject limited glimpses of, the larger picture, or because I condition my obedience on the Lord conforming Himself and the Plan of Salvation to those blinkered/finite expectations/preferences.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

There is a time and place and manner for hashing out concerns, complaints, grievances, etc. 

Where is this done effectively? Not just giving voice to concerns to those who can do nothing about it, but actually having a chance at resolving them?

In the main, I think personal study, pondering, prayer, attendance at the temple, etc. is the best and primary way to go.

Also, I see nothing wrong with privately sharing concerns with trusted friends and family, and requesting their input.

Local ecclesiastical leaders can be a good resource.

I know I cite this a lot, but Elder Oaks' 1987 article, Criticism, provides some excellent guidance on how to proceed in some ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

I interpret this as a tacit admission that the "difficult issues" which Pogi wants to hash out during Sunday services are thinks aptly described as "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" (which is likely why Pogi thinks such topics would be "perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive").

I don’t interpret it in the same way. I can think of many questions that are not controversial at all, but are very difficult to answer besides “just trust God will work it out”, such as a man wondering about his eternal relationship with his children and his wife if they are sealed to his wife’s first husband.

My comment contemplated Pogi's comment here: "The difficulty is that even bringing up difficult issues to be reasoned about, it is often perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive.   It is a delicate tight rope to walk with lots of risks.  It doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together.  It feels more like a place to sustain the narrative, period."

While "a man wondering about his eternal relationship with his children and his wife" is indeed a difficult issue, I don't see anything potentially "subversive" about it.  The things that are more likely to be "perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive" are, well, "controversies, dissensions, criticisms."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Perhaps someone will say he will receive other children of his own because no blessing will be lacking, but how does that address the pain of not believing he gets to be a part of their “forever family”, that he will be an outsider and not their father as that is promised to another man.   Or a woman who can’t imagine being happy when her husband has another wife because she imagines celestial marriage as something you give your all to (all you have and all you are) and how can you do that if there is another who also is looking for that kind of connection with your husband?

This is kind of a good example of why Sunday services are not really a good venue for airing or hashing out concerns/questions/criticisms.  Those providing feedback will likely not be very prepared to provide an off-the-cuff-and-yet-still-informed response.  And such feedback would likely be speculative, or intermix speculation and personal opinion in with doctrine.  Sometimes we're better off addressing such imponderables with 2 Nephi 2:24: "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things."  We need to trust the the Lord will work out all such things.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately I have seen even simple, straightforward dissatisfaction with being told they have to trust and grieving because they anticipate eternal loss of their families as asking more than they should from God and the Church and therefore it gets interpreted as complaining about the Church and wanting to change the rules (subversive).

I don't see it as subversive.  But I also think there are plenty of things we don't know, that we need to be humble and patient enough to wait on the Lord regarding such matters, and that during the interim we obey him and keep our covenants to the best of our ability.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

The Lord also revealed in D&C 130:2, "And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."

Why can't the "same sociality" that exists for homosexuals here exist in the next life? and "coupled with eternal glory"? 

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

It is one thing to reject or be dissatisfied with an answer, it is quite another to assert that - due to such rejection/dissatisfaction - the answer does not exist at all.

Are you not doing the same though with the answers that are being given to you,

What "answers" are you referencing here?  

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

maybe not explicitly but implicitly by discounting the assumptions that they are bringing to the discussion and dismissing them as unrealistic or nonexistent (sexual attraction is not part of one’s eternal nature).

I am not "discounting" assumptions (as in "{to} regard (a possibility, fact, or person) as being unworthy of consideration because it lacks credibility").  I am disagreeing with some of them, or questioning their validity in the paradigm of the Restored Gospel.

And i didn't say that "sexual attraction is not part of one’s eternal nature."  I think it is or can be, but in the way the Lord's way:

Quote

Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing. ^[1]

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. ^[2]

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. ^[3]

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.” ^[4]

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

The Lord also revealed in D&C 130:2, "And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."

Why can't the "same sociality" that exists for homosexuals here exist in the next life? and "coupled with eternal glory"? 

I suspect because that eternal sociality "will be coupled with eternal glory," and that such "eternal glory" requires obedience to God, and acting on same-sex desires is not that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 4, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

On 1/4/2024 at 12:32 PM, Calm said:

Quote

"Since they don't anticipate" being the operative phrasing here.  I think this presupposition needs to be examined.  Absent revelation, what we blinkered, finite beings "anticipate" will happen in the next life is not going to amount to much.  I think we ought not predicate Big Decisions based on our own suppositions, guesses and mortal preferences / desires / concerns

When the Church proselytes the value of membership in part on anticipation, then it seems inappropriate to me to just dismiss such as not amounting too much in reality and consider that an answer for others even if it’s your answer. 

I think you misunderstand me. 

First, if someone's "anticipation" is incorrect, or incompatible with revealed truths, then I think it ought to be examined.

Second, you omitted an important part of my comment: "Absent revelation, what we blinkered, finite beings 'anticipate' will happen in the next life is not going to amount to much."

I remember having a conversation with a fellow who said he refuses to have faith in or accept Jesus Christ because, in his words (paraphrased): "Spending eternity sitting on a cloud and strumming a harp sounds boring."  He then paraphrased Billy Joel's lyric (speaking of it in a heaven/hell context) “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun.”  See, I think this fellow's "anticipation" about the eternities was shortsighted, facile and unserious.  And even then, though, I did not "dismiss" his comments, I "examined" them, which is what I was proposing we do here, particularly when such anticipations arise "absent revelation."

On 1/4/2024 at 12:32 PM, Calm said:

Does not the Church teach as an eternal reward for sacrifice an eternal family composed of father, mother, and children?

It does.

On 1/4/2024 at 12:32 PM, Calm said:

Is not the Church telling people to make a Big Decision based in part on this anticipation?  

It does.  

Note that our anticipation of these things is based on "revelation," whereas I was speaking of anticipation of things "absent revelation."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 13, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I listened to this podcast a few days ago. I think many women are facing faith crisis over feeling like the leaders of the church aren't willing to make changes to give women some authority,

Do you think the Brethren are disobeying revelation on this issue?

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

or even give it back to when they actually once had authority.

Could you elaborate?  What "authority" are you referencing here?

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Even to be included in councils such as worthiness or disciplinary ones.

"Membership Councils" are, alas, a priesthood function.  If and when the Brethren receive revelation on this, or otherwise make a decision regarding it, I will support them.

For the life of me, though, I can't imagine why someone would want to participate in a membership council, or be angry about not participating.  IMO, participating in them is, by a country mile, the most unpleasant duty in the Church.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Can you imagine men, if you had to sit among only women every time to get judged?

Yes.  I appear before female judges all the time.  

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Imagine a woman having to deal with being in front of a bunch of men and having to explain something very personal that many men may not comprehend?

Men have to do that in front of female judges all the time.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Our young women see what's going on, they may have been brain washed to think it's all good, like I was, but really...women do not need the priesthood necessarily, they just need power to make decisions that affect them and their families lives.

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-168-revisiting-what-women-dont-get-in-our-church/

Made me think back to a time when my RS president, I was her secretary, couldn't even get a food order done because the bishop was always on business trips. She was frustrated. Why couldn't the RS make those decisions! 

I served as first counselor in my ward's bishopric for about 3.5 years.  The last 3 months or so I was functionally in charge, as the bishop had moved out of state.  I was able to handle everything (including food orders) but worthiness interviews via delegation from the bishop.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

So far the only answer to their place/role in eternity I have heard besides “trust in God that you will be happy” is “God will change you so that you can love someone if the opposite sex and be happy with them” or the variation of “your feelings of attraction to the same sec aren’t really you, they are just an artifact of mortality, so once you are dead you will of course want to be married to someone of the opposite sex”.

When someone cannot conceive of loving someone of the opposite sex and is instead very disturbed by the thought and can only imagine it if they are no longer who they actually are, the uniqueness that makes them an individual having been in part destroyed by having to become a certain ideal in order to progress according to God’s rules…that isn’t a real answer for them, it is an answer for the creature God has created out of the remnants of them. 
 

In essence, how much of a person can be changed into something seen as fundamentally different and still the person remains?

It's always a little dicey to analogize same-sex attraction to something else, but I'm gonna risk it.  Because this analogy at least moves me a little closer to understanding the issues that gays members of the Church must be facing.

My brain is ADHD, even well into adulthood.  I'm not medicated, because I've found a number of non-medical coping strategies (and for one other important reason that will become evident shortly).  I'm told that ADHD is caused by a chemical imbalance in my brain (a dopamine deficiency, as I understand it).  

If my physical body is perfected in the resurrection, will that include a correction to the dopamine deficiency in my brain?  On the one hand, I'm not looking forward to an eternity of grappling with the same kinds of ADHD challenges my mortal life has thrown at me.  But on the other hand, I am scared to death about losing all those little quirks and personality nuances that stem from that chemical imbalance.  Without those quirks, am I really me?

I can therefore understand the concerns that others may have, when an important part of their identity is labeled as a "consequence of mortality," that may or may not carry forward into the eternities.  I don't have any good answers, which is really the only environment in which faith can be chosen.  So, I choose faith in Christ, hope for the eternities, and charity for my brothers and sisters who are grappling with a similar, though much more monumental, question of identity.  

Edited January 4, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect because that eternal sociality "only it will be coupled with eternal glory," and that such "eternal glory" requires obedience to God, and acting on same-sex desires is not that.

Thanks,

-Smac

You suspect? would you bet "eternal glory" on a suspicion? besides of which the Lord didn't say "eternal sociality" he said the same sociality that exists here, implying in mortality. Then God says that same sociality will exist in the next life, if it's true for us heterosexuals why wouldn't it be true for homosexuals? the verse doesn't rule out eternal glory for homosexuals, it seems it's for everyone.  Would someone want to be obedient to a God that knew, in pre-mortality, that someone would be gay or have SSA attraction in this life and yet after this life, according to LDS leaders won't be gay anymore? He knew ahead of time? That seems callous.  What was the point of them being gay in this life? Would anyone want have their sexuality for being obedient? 

I can assure you I wouldn't want to have my sexuality changed in the next life and I wouldn't want to be obedient to a God that would change my sexuality, that seems absolutely crazy to me and what a waste of time sexuality was in this life.  You be obedient and then die and all of sudden I am sexually attracted to men? is absolutely crazy

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

I suspect because that eternal sociality "only it will be coupled with eternal glory," and that such "eternal glory" requires obedience to God, and acting on same-sex desires is not that.

You suspect?

Yes.  Or, if you prefer, "I surmise..." or "It is my understanding that..." or "From the scriptures and prophetic counsel I construe D&C 130:2 and from it extrapolate that...").

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

would you bet "eternal glory" on a suspicion?

I think you are misconstruing my use of the word "suspect."

My "eternal glory" will not, I think, hinge on me having a perfect and complete understanding of D&C 130:2.

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

besides of which the Lord didn't say "eternal sociality" he said the same sociality that exists here, implying in mortality.

And yet the "sociality" here will be "eternal," not "mortal" (because, I think, it is "coupled with eternal glory").

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Then God says that same sociality will exist in the next life, if it's true for us heterosexuals why wouldn't it be true for homosexuals?

First, I reject the notion of sexual orientation as a state of being.

Second, there is no daylight between what is "true" for people with heterosexual orientation versus those with same-sex orientation.

Third, my previous comment stands: "{E}ternal sociality 'will be coupled with eternal glory,' and {} such 'eternal glory' requires obedience to God, and acting on same-sex desires is not that."

Fourth, I think our "sociality" will change much in the way that our physical bodies will change.  Our bodies will not be literally and precisely "the same" as they exist now.  See, e.g., here: What are resurrected bodies like?

Quote

According to the scriptures and modern prophets, resurrected bodies are:

Physical. A resurrected body has flesh and bones (see Luke 24:36–39).

Immortal. “This mortal body is raised to an immortal body, … that they can die no more” (Alma 11:45).

Perfect. “The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form” (Alma 11:43). “Deformity will be removed; defects will be eliminated, and men and women shall attain to the perfection of their spirits, to the perfection that God designed in the beginning” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 23).

Beautiful. “There is nothing more beautiful to look upon than a resurrected man or woman” (The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 99).

Beyond Satan’s power. “If the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to … the devil, … to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself” (2 Nephi 9:8–9). But because Jesus Christ brought about the resurrection of our bodies, this will not happen.*

Capable of receiving a fulness of joy. Without resurrection, the joy of celestial glory is not possible. “Spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:33).

The Lord communicates with us by giving revelation to His servants "in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24.)  So I think taking an overly literal interpretation of "same" for the purposes of this discussion is unsound.  In my view, just as our physical bodies will not be exactly the "same" as they are now, neither will our sociality be exactly the "same."  In both matters, there will be an infusion of "eternal glory."

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the verse doesn't rule out eternal glory for homosexuals, it seems it's for everyone.

Yes.  We all have the same opportunity to obey God and obtain blessings from him.

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Would someone want to be obedient to a God that knew, in pre-mortality, that someone would be gay or have SSA attraction in this life and yet after this life, according to LDS leaders won't be gay anymore? He knew ahead of time? That seems callous.  What was the point of them being gay in this life?  Would anyone want have their sexuality for being obedient? 

I can't speak to such imponderables, or to your judgment of them.

There are many trials and difficulties that the Lord gives His children during this life.  Some of them, I respectfully submit, are as or more difficult than keeping the Law of Chastity.

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I can assure you I wouldn't want to have my sexuality changed in the next life and I wouldn't want to be obedient to a God that would change my sexuality, that seems absolutely crazy to me and what a waste of time sexuality was in this life.  You be obedient and then die and all of sudden I am sexually attracted to men? is absolutely crazy

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As long as we're speaking in conspicuously vague generalities, the conversation is not going to progress very far.

My ward is great at having candid discussions in church meetings, but that does not typically include commentary centering on patent (and, obviously, public) criticism / disparagement / rejection of the Church, its doctrines, history, practices, leaders, etc.  Such sentiments are inimical to the purpose of Sunday services.  If this is what is being proposed as the sort of "difficult issues" being vaguely referenced here, then I object to that. 

Pogi noted that Church "doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together."  I interpret this as a tacit admission that the "difficult issues" which Pogi wants to hash out during Sunday services are thinks aptly described as "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" (which is likely why Pogi thinks such topics would be "perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive"). 

Sunday services as a "safe place" are precisely what I have in mind, but not for hashing out controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc.  Again, I think most Latter-day Saints want Sunday services to be "a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc."  

There is a time and place and manner for hashing out concerns, complaints, grievances, etc.  The two-hour block ain't it.

Again, as long as we're speaking in conspicuously vague generalities, the conversation is not going to progress very far.  I don't know what "want help" and "bring up their concerns mean in this context, but I suspect it's code for "I want to be able to stand up in Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School and publicly condemn or reject this or that doctrine, or Church practice/policy, or criticize Joseph Smith, etc."  If that is what is being proposed, then I disagree with it. 

Board guidelines say "Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing". 

Don't question my sincerity and please don't break it all apart and throw in a bunch of definitions to show you are not questioning sincerity.  I don't do code. When I said "want help" I was talking about people who want help. Want help fitting in.  Want help understanding why doctrine is what it is.  Want help when answers to prayers are different than what church says despite trying to do everything the church says. Want help when they feel their family is coming apart because they no longer believe. I could go on and on. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I am in error, then what are we talking about here?

We are talking about having a clinic for the spiritually ill...you know for all of us, not just the ones who sin the same way we do. 

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

By publicly hashing out "concerns," criticisms, etc. in Sunday School?  Why choose that venue?  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are many places, and times, and manners, that are better suited than Sunday services.

Maybe. But maybe, sometimes, a 5th Sunday Sunday School or a combined RS/Priesthood is a perfect time when done with love and understanding. 

I sat in a Gospel Principles class one day when an investigator asked a very awkward question. I loved the feeling in that room as person after person answered that question with such love. I don't think there was a single person in that room who felt their respite had been taken away. 

The concerns are not the problem with respite.  It is how we act toward each other that takes it away.  When you chose to talk about the news to see how your children felt you were bringing in an outside of your family trouble out of curiosity.  When people bring in concerns they are asking for eternal salvation help. That's the difference 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I noted previously: "{Sunday services are} a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

the main, I think personal study, pondering, prayer, attendance at the temple, etc. is the best and primary way to go.

Also, I see nothing wrong with privately sharing concerns with trusted friends and family, and requesting their input.

I so totally agree.  But for me that means it isn’t the Church that gives the answers, but God.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Board guidelines say "Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing". 

I don't think I have done this.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Don't question my sincerity and please don't break it all apart and throw in a bunch of definitions to show you are not questioning sincerity. 

Please don't accuse me of things I have not done (like "question" your "sincerity").

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't do code. When I said "want help" I was talking about people who want help. Want help fitting in.  Want help understanding why doctrine is what it is.  Want help when answers to prayers are different than what church says despite trying to do everything the church says. Want help when they feel their family is coming apart because they no longer believe. I could go on and on. 

We are talking about having a clinic for the spiritually ill...you know for all of us, not just the ones who sin the same way we do. 

Okay.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

Quote

There are many places, and times, and manners, that are better suited than Sunday services.

Maybe. But maybe, sometimes, a 5th Sunday Sunday School or a combined RS/Priesthood is a perfect time when done with love and understanding. 

I sat in a Gospel Principles class one day when an investigator asked a very awkward question. I loved the feeling in that room as person after person answered that question with such love. I don't think there was a single person in that room who felt their respite had been taken away. 

That sounds great.  But a single incident of an awkward question from someone who doesn't know better is a fair distance from turning Sunday services into a weekly forum for airing or hashing out concerns/questions/criticisms from people who do know better.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

The concerns are not the problem with respite. 

Again, as long as we're speaking in conspicuously vague generalities (like "concerns"), the conversation is not going to progress very far.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is how we act toward each other that takes it away. 

With respect, I disagree.

Imagine if I said this about political discussions at Church.  Would you go along with "Advocating for Donald Trump is not the problem with Church being a respit.  It is how we act toward each other that takes it away"?  

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

When you chose to talk about the news to see how your children felt you were bringing in an outside of your family trouble out of curiosity.

The topics I wanted to discuss were important and relevant to us as citizens and people.  And yet the time and place for discussion of those topics was, it seems, not Sunday Night Dinner.

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

When people bring in concerns they are asking for eternal salvation help. That's the difference 

The time, place and manner in which such "concerns" are raised is important.  And Sunday services is, in my view, generally not the proper venue for that.

Moreover, I think many (most?  all?) of the "concerns" have little impact on "eternal salvation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

I so totally agree.  But for me that means it isn’t the Church that gives the answers, but God.

Let us embrace the healing power of "and."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The same way as everyone else does.  Gay people are not special.  They don’t get exemptions from any law of God.  They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to.  They might have to make some sacrifices to do that but so what.  We all have to make sacrifices in various aspects of our lives to come into compliance.  The are not many paths to the plan of salvation.  One for the heterosexual.  One for the bisexual.  One for the gay.  One for the polygamist.  One for the swinger and one for all the unmentionables.  The is just one plan of salvation all must walk the same path to find their eternal destiny.

So there you go @california boy.  The only way for a LBGT person to fit is OBEY the commandments and "law of chastity."  The answer is plane and simple.  Gay members will do fine so long as they ignore the way an alleged god made them and stay essentially celibate their entire life and hope it will work out in the end.  Really the message ought to be that it is really hard for a gay person to be LDS and they likely will have a happier more fulfilling life outside of Mormonism, hard as that may be for some of them.  

By the way I have been thinking a lot about the utility of religion, stories and myths for humans trying to find a way in life.  And while I am certainly seeing that religious myths and stories (because that is what they all are) have benefits for human beings finding meaning and purpose they also have the other side of the sharp sword that we see in @carbon dioxide's post above. See when myths and stories are treated as literally the only path to some unknown eternal reward and the way one obtains such reward, or receives a punishment, is for following, or not, the myth or story as if it is literal, well then it is not a beneficial story.  It does more harm then good and I think humans are learning and should learn to find meaning and purpose without the religious myths, stories and almost always the dogma that goes along with it.  We would be better off. 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

  It does more harm then good and I think humans are learning and should learn to find meaning and purpose without the religious myths, stories and almost always the dogma that goes along with it.  We would be better off. 

The fallacy there is that scientific paradigms change all the time and tell new stories which are still not "true" , but the product of social construction of a "reality" which only exists in the minds of the human race until another paradigm/theory works better than the last one.

Show me what whales find as their "purpose"

IF that is even possible, we will never be able to understand it.

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

The real thing:

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf

 

PLUS:

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Moreover, I think many (most?  all?) of the "concerns" have little impact on "eternal salvation."  

Thanks,

-Smac

If those concerns lead people to struggle with their relationship with God, and to doubt the trustworthiness of prayer and scripture study, and to feel turmoil when attending the temple rather than peace, then they actually have a huge impact on eternal things.

Small rudders turn big ships.

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

The fallacy there is that scientific paradigms change all the time and tell new stories which are still not "true" , but the product of social construction of a "reality" which only exists in the minds of the human race.

 

Science is based on empirical evidence and takes the position that theories can be overturned, changed and modified as new evidence is discovered.  Your religion says if one does not to a b or c they won't be in the highest heaven with their family.  It does not base it on anything other than, well "We says so and what we say is what god says."

 

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Show me what whales find as their "purpose"

If I could communicate with a whale I would be happy to try.  But we are talking about humans here.

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

IF that is even possible, we will never be able to understand it.

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

The real thing:

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf

 

 

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you are misconstruing my use of the word "suspect."

My "eternal glory" will not, I think, hinge on me having a perfect and complete understanding of D&C 130:2.

that's true or anyone's interpretation of it, mine for you or you for mine

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the "sociality" here will be "eternal," not "mortal" (because, I think, it is "coupled with eternal glory").

meaning if you are say involved in a SSM here or "sociality" here this verse says you would be SSM in the next life or have "eternal glory" it's the same here as it is the same over. Or as it says in the Book of Mormon, Alma 34:34 the same spirit that you die with will have "power to possess" you in the next life" besides arguing against temple work why wouldn't this apply to sexuality?

 

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I reject the notion of sexual orientation as a state of being.

as opposed to what? a state of non being like asexuality?

 

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I think our "sociality" will change much in the way that our physical bodies will change.  Our bodies will not be literally and precisely "the same" as they exist now.  See, e.g., here: What are resurrected bodies like?

I get that, as God is the father of billions if not more spirits but sexuality isn't your body either, you could make someone a eunuch and they would still sexually desire someone

 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  We all have the same opportunity to obey God and obtain blessings from him.

true, as 99.9% of people who have never heard of the church, in this life, or who have a negative opinion of it will find out the truth in the next life, Wonderful "opportunity" for almost everyone, it is like God doesn't think too much of his plan for his children, or his children choosing his plan, it's offered to hardly anyone, ever really. It's like you're gay here, die, go to the next world and be told

 

well, there's a test you need to see if you would be obedient but the same sociality you had there or the same spirit you possessed there exists here, so you've failed it and so your punishment is having your sexuality changed, good luck!

 

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't speak to such imponderables, or to your judgment of them.

but let's give it a go because "eternal glory" hangs in the balance but actually you do "speak to such imponderables", see below

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are many trials and difficulties that the Lord gives His children during this life.  Some of them, I respectfully submit, are as or more difficult than keeping the Law of Chastity.

even the Lord said it isn't good for man to be alone but apparently he told his church something else

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The fallacy there is that scientific paradigms change all the time and tell new stories which are still not "true" , but the product of social construction of a "reality" which only exists in the minds of the human race.

Off topic, but:

I've been listening to a 3-part lecture series from The Great Courses on the History of Science. Part 1 covered scientific inquiry from antiquity to 1700, Part 2 from 1700 to 1900, and Part 3 (where I'm at now) covers scientific developments of the 20th century.

Long story short, these lectures have really opened my eyes about changing paradigms and the ways in which we construct our reality. In other words, through these lectures, I've come to understand (and appreciate) your unque point of view. Thank your for continuing to share.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

Quote

While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing.

CFR on those “many” who through individual effort and faith and changed their sexuality.

Also it is not deeply satisfying to be told that the righteous desires you don’t actually have will be fulfilled.

Quote

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. [2]

Again, CFR on all of this. We can’t talk about how we know very little about the Spirit world but just hypothesize that it will all be miraculously “fixed” at death. You know, just like how all other ‘sinful’ desires vanish at death and everyone goes on to exaltation automatically. Why is this situation special? You don’t have an explanation so it must be miracle cured?

Is this revelation or are you just trying to make people feel better?

Also how do we know what did and did not exist in the premortal world? You admit you have no idea why it is allowed to happen on Earth but then assume it must only apply here even when you have no idea why it exists at all. Such hubris.

Also they assume everyone wants to be cured. I don’t. This just convinces me that whatever lives on after my death it quite possibly isn’t me. I wish him the best but when I die it will be a real death.

Quote

 

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty.

 

Then why is it even a sin? The whole point is that we are supposed to be perfecting ourselves. If something will be fixed automatically what is the harm in it? How would it have eternal significance? How would it degrade the spirit if the spirit will throw off the effects automatically?

Quote

 

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.”

 

HOORAY! Normality! That is what the gospel is all about right? Making everyone normal!

Yuck! i thought the gospel was about becoming extraordinary. This seems like a pathetic promise.

He said it MUST be true because otherwise the gospel wouldn’t work perfectly? That is building your house on the sand. I’ve thought there were all kinds of things God wouldn’t do since it wouldn’t be fair or reasonable by any logic I can see but God does them anyways.

Again, HUBRIS! It has to be this way logically so it must be. Just STOP IT! Either declare actual revelation or shut up. The people dealing with this don’t want your rationalizations as to how things must be. That is how we got President Kimball insisting that being gay was a choice and that God would never allow anyone to naturally be that way. Then we all found out he was wrong. We built our house on the sand before and it fell but this patch of sand seems much nicer. I am sure it won’t happen again.