Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[webbles]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

It is a quote from a booklet published by the church in 2007, God Loveth His Children ( https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=ase ).  Interestingly, the pamphlet has no disclaimer but the publishing notification at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2007/12/news-of-the-church/god-loveth-his-children-booklet-released?lang=eng does have a disclaimer saying it was discontinued in 2020 and to go to https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay?lang=eng for "find current teachings and guidance on same-sex attraction".

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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?

That interview was done just before the 2007 pamphlet came out - https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

smac got it all from Fair (he did provide the link) which had old links to lds.org and mormonnewsroom.org.  Those should be updated with new links.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you think the Brethren are disobeying revelation on this issue? Yes, in a way they are. How long did it take for the blacks to hold the Priesthood? Maybe women would like their own organization back, huh?

Could you elaborate?  What "authority" are you referencing here? Authority, say to sign a food order, be amongst the men or other women, with a woman that might feel totally vulnerable in a disciplinary council. Or a worthiness interviews with a young woman, instead of the male bishop. 

"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. President Hinckley mentions that women haven't agitated for the PH so that's why nothing's been done. Well, need to break it to you, women want representation in the church, more than they're given currently. If you'd listen to the podcast or other women in the church. It's not that they need the PH, just more say and decision making. They at one time didn't go to the bishop on which lessons to have in RS, or they controlled the budget, they even gave blessings and anointed other women. This was discontinued why??

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. Who said angry? Women may think they also have ideas, or have intuition, or even revelation, and better understanding as well. Especially in a disciplinary council with a woman perhaps. The RS president should be allowed to be there with her, I believe. 

Yes.  I appear before female judges all the time.  Oh, are you saying something behind these words, why not just come right out and say it. 

Men have to do that in front of female judges all the time. Oh, are you talking about in the secular world, or even in other churches that are more equal?

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.  Oh, you're a man, how does this even help, lol. Not to be rude. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Smac: black Tacenda: purple

Do you think the Brethren are disobeying revelation on this issue? Yes, in a way they are. How long did it take for the blacks to hold the Priesthood? Maybe women would like their own organization back, huh?

Could you elaborate?  What "authority" are you referencing here? Authority, say to sign a food order, be among the men as a RS president, with a woman that might feel vulnerable in a disciplinary council. Or a YW's president or leader for worthiness interviews with a young woman, instead of the male bishop. 

"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. President Hinckley mentions that women haven't agitated for the PH so that's why nothing's been done. Well, need to break it to you, women want representation in the church, more than they're given currently. If you'd listen to the podcast or other women in the church. It's not that they need the PH, just more say and decision making. They at one time didn't go to the bishop on which lessons to have in RS, or they controlled the budget, they even gave blessings and anointed other women. This was discontinued why??

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. Who said angry? Women may think they also have ideas, or have intuition, or even revelation, and better understanding as well. Especially in a disciplinary council with a woman perhaps. The RS president should be allowed to be there with her, I believe. Since that woman being with a bunch of males by herself would feel uncomfortable, perhaps. 

Yes.  I appear before female judges all the time.  

Men have to do that in front of female judges all the time. Oh, are you talking about in the secular world, or even in other churches that are more equal?

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.  What's wrong with a woman being in charge of a food order, or making the decision about it?

Also, is there ever a time a woman's say can't be overruled by the PH in the church ? Ever? 

Please read or listen to what Jana says here. You take all sorts of time answering posters on the board. I sometimes feel guilt for the time spent with me.  https://religionnews.com/2018/07/17/its-good-for-girls-to-have-clergywomen-study-shows/

Hoping to revisit this again, with an essay by one of the podcasters, it is very eyeopening. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

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

Right on the money Duncan! 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I have done this.

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

Okay.

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.

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

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"?  

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.

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

I gave the example in my dad's ward where a member of the high counsel stated how the quote from President Nelson in conference didn't sit well with him and he asked for other people to weight in and give their insights.   It was relevant to the lesson (President Nelson's talk), not a derail.   Do you think bringing up his concern about the prophet's conference talk was inappropriate for the venue?  

Quote

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." 

Perhaps you should stop trying to read code.  It never seems to end up well when you try to read between the lines with me.  I am being sincere in my desire to feel like I belong at church and am exploring how to proceed and behave at church, how open to be, what my code of conduct should be given the current culture, how safe am I, how hopeful is change etc. 

A friendly reminder:

Quote

Again, some really useful stuff here.  Some excerpts:

• Quote

   

  • "When someone close to you shares their questions or concerns about the Church, it’s normal to feel anxious or worried. Try to set aside these emotions and respond with kindness and compassion. You may not fully understand the other person’s experience, but you can follow Jesus Christ’s example and always show love."
  • "Sometimes people hesitate to share their struggles because they fear they might lose their relationships with those who are close to them. If someone reaches out to you, they’re looking for support. Respond with love, even if you don’t know what to do or say. Look for ways to show compassion and kindness, even when they make choices you do not agree with."
  • "Preserve your relationship. It is more important to cultivate a relationship of love and trust than to provide quick answers. A good goal may be just to keep the conversation going. Maintaining your relationship while keeping your covenants is the best way to continue having a positive influence."
  • "Love them without compromise. When someone we love decides to believe differently than we do or makes decisions we don’t understand, we should respect their agency and continue to love them. We can do this without abandoning our own deeply held beliefs. President M. Russell Ballard taught: 'We can love one another without compromising personal divine ideals. And we can speak of those ideals without marginalizing others.'"
  • "Seek first to understand. We often think we know how to resolve others’ concerns. We want to just answer their questions and tell them to stop worrying. This impulse is often centered on us rather than on their needs. Spend time listening to the story of how they arrived where they are today."
  • "Acknowledge their experience. Even though we may not understand or agree with another’s concerns, we can acknowledge their sincerity and the pain they might be feeling. In an effort to show empathy, we sometimes draw comparisons between their experiences and our own. It’s important to remember that everyone’s experience is different."
  • "Avoid being dismissive or judgmental. By the time a friend or loved one has decided to talk to you about their questions, they have most likely spent time privately researching and thinking. Be careful not to shut down the conversation by dismissing their questions or making judgments."
  • "Keep your emotions in check. It’s normal to feel anxious or concerned when a loved one approaches you with questions about their faith. Try not to let these emotions get in the way of a productive conversation. If you feel angry, it’s probably better to ask if you can take a break and continue the conversation a little later."
  • "Ask open-ended questions. Open-ended questions encourage others to share their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. They don’t necessarily have a right or wrong answer. For example: 'Can you tell me more?' 'How do you feel about that?' 'Can you help me understand?' 'What can I do to help?' Asking good questions shows that you care and will help you avoid misunderstanding."
  • "Continue cultivating your testimony. It’s important to keep doing the things that helped you build your testimony of the gospel. These could include reading the scriptures, praying, partaking of the sacrament, worshipping in the temple, and serving others."
  • "Become better informed. You don’t need to be an expert on an issue to be a good supporter. But it can be very positive to learn about a topic you don’t have context for. Pursue a thoughtful study of the Church’s doctrine and history."
  • "Be a safe source for discussion. When a friend or family member brings their questions to you, they probably aren’t looking for someone to fix a problem but rather a loved one who is willing to walk beside them on their journey."

   

   

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Let us embrace the healing power of "and."

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Except it is often the case it’s not “and” for me, but something that contradicts the current teaching of the Church.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What "answers" are you referencing here?  

The posts where people are reacting negatively to your posts and telling you why.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Smac:  I appear before female judges all the time.  

 

Were there other men present in the room or only women?  Was it something very personal to you or for your job representing others?  Was she making a judgment about your moral right to be a lawyer?  Questioning whether you had done something unworthy of a lawyer?  Asking or discussing embarrassing, personal to you, not your client intimate details of your life?

Edited January 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Fine…let’s say you are dismissing them after examining them as unrealistic or invalid, which is telling the person they are wrong to think like that, correct?

Edited January 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

But not in a way that starts from a position of it being correct and what that must feel like and how it influences what they thinks, do and feel and how to deal with it….which means if they don’t accept that they are incorrect, they would see you as providing no answers, of not listening to them.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Where is the revelation for those who desire a same sex relationship along with desiring to become one with God, to have exaltation?

Where is the revelation for the man who wants his mortal family to be his eternal family and yet cannot be sealed to them as their father?

serious questions, not rhetorical

Edited January 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

o 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

You keep coming at this from your perspective, telling us how you view things as if you expect this to actually matter to others.  My guess is you reassuring someone who feels the opposite that you do about the narrative the Church teaches about the afterlife is only going to make them feel worse about how they feel rather than reassure them at all, unless they have been looking at you for guidance over a long period of time for many things.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

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.  

Let me give you a better analogy.  Without any actual revelation from God a church leader tell you that his opinion is you will not be with your wife after you die.  Sorry buddy, wrong kind of marriage.  But you will be perfected and want to fall in love and be with a man for all eternity.  In fact your love and your relationship with your wife is immoral and the only reason you want to be with your wife in this life is because you don't love God. Now, cast off that immoral love for your wife and follow what I think God wants you to do.  If you are not willing to do that, then clearly you are rebelling against God because my opinion is just as valid as any revelation from God.  Maybe you need to spend more time in the temple, because you probably haven't really spent any time trying to find out what God wants you to do.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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.

This is were everything falls apart.  The Church lived with excluding priesthood and temple blessings from blacks based on the personal opinion of Brigham Young.  Now the Church is building an entire paradigm for LGBT people based on what exactly???  Oh yeah, opinion of fallible leaders.  Do you realize what that means?  Just because you are LGBT, the whole purpose of one of the most significant choices we make in this life, finding someone to love and forming a family is taken away from them based on exactly what?  Guesses?  Suppositions?  

When I was told to marry someone of the opposite sex and my being gay would just magically disappear, it to was based guesses and suppositions.  Now church leaders are asking me to trust their guesses once again.  Seriously?  Fool me once....  Would any of you trust the opinion of Church leaders again after being burned so badly the first time? If so, tell me why.

[Stormin' Mormon]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Let me give you a better analogy.  Without any actual revelation from God a church leader tell you that his opinion is you will not be with your wife after you die.  Sorry buddy, wrong kind of marriage.  But you will be perfected and want to fall in love and be with a man for all eternity.  In fact your love and your relationship with your wife is immoral and the only reason you want to be with your wife in this life is because you don't love God. Now, cast off that immoral love for your wife and follow what I think God wants you to do.  If you are not willing to do that, then clearly you are rebelling against God because my opinion is just as valid as any revelation from God.  Maybe you need to spend more time in the temple, because you probably haven't really spent any time trying to find out what God wants you to do.

I'm not sure that's what an analogy is...

Edited January 5, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I'm not sure that's what an analogy is...

Wait.  You think that having ADHD is a good analogy, but comparing sexual orientations is not???

[Stormin' Mormon]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

Let me give you a better analogy.  Without any actual revelation from God a church leader tell you that his opinion is you will not be with your wife after you die.  Sorry buddy, wrong kind of marriage.  But you will be perfected and want to fall in love and be with a man for all eternity.  In fact your love and your relationship with your wife is immoral and the only reason you want to be with your wife in this life is because you don't love God. Now, cast off that immoral love for your wife and follow what I think God wants you to do.  If you are not willing to do that, then clearly you are rebelling against God because my opinion is just as valid as any revelation from God.  Maybe you need to spend more time in the temple, because you probably haven't really spent any time trying to find out what God wants you to do.

On a less flippant note...

My analogy was meant to elicit empathy over a very specific part of being a gay person in the Church, that is, being told that a core aspect of one's identity will be "fixed" in the eternities, and how that might make someone feel. My analogy is not about commandments, relationships, or revelation; just identity.

I made the analogy about identity because that's what the post I was responding to was addressing. I also made the analogy because ADHD is morally neutral, and thus is more likely to elicit empathy from readers who may immediately brace their emotional shields when confronted with a moral situation.

While I appreciate the way you've stacked up a bunch of parallels in this response, I believe that this kind of kitchen sink approach is less likely to change hearts and minds than incremental analogies that can bring along the persuadable step by step.

I hope my imperfect attempt at empathy did not offend.  If so, I can promise it won't happen again.

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wait.  You think that having ADHD is a good analogy, but comparing sexual orientations is not???

Analogy:

a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect

b

: resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike

 

By definition, you can't analogize between two like things.

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

On a less flippant note...

My analogy was meant to elicit empathy over a very specific part of being a gay person in the Church, that is, being told that a core aspect of one's identity will be "fixed" in the eternities, and how that might make someone feel. My analogy is not about commandments, relationships, or revelation; just identity.

I made the analogy about identity because that's what the post I was responding to was addressing. I also made the analogy because ADHD is morally neutral, and thus is more likely to elicit empathy from readers who may immediately brace their emotional shields when confronted with a moral situation.

While I appreciate the way you've stacked up a bunch of parallels in this response, I believe that this kind of kitchen sink approach is less likely to change hearts and minds than incremental analogies that can bring along the persuadable step by step.

I hope my imperfect attempt at empathy did not offend.  If so, I can promise it won't happen again.

 

I appreciate what you were trying to do.  I was more trying to build on what you wrote to more closely help people understand the viewpoint of a person who is gay and how I look at it.   You certainly didn't offend me.  And I hope I didn't offend you and your very real issues dealing with ADHD and what that might mean to you in the eternities.  I hope I added more light to your analogy.

[Buckeye]

I’m late to this discussion and doubt I have much of value to contribute that hasn’t been hashed and rehashed in many prior threads. 

My thoughts: First, the brethren are sincere in their beliefs and have clearly stated the church’s doctrine against SS relationships. I expect that posture to remain for the foreseeable future (especially if President Oaks becomes Prophet). 

At the same time, there is a large a growing portion of active church members who believe the church’s doctrine is erroneous. They see the fruit of committed SS relationships and judge it good. These member’s beliefs are just as sincere as the brethren’s. 
 

While there are important differences, the current situation is akin to the racially-based restrictions on temple and priesthood in the tension it places on members who come to disagree with the church’s doctrine. The church membership -today- is slowly warming to the view that the racial restrictions were wrong even though the doctrines were sincerely held be leaders at the time. Paul Reeve’s work in this area is exemplary. The one nagging issue he doesn’t touch - and I doubt he could today - is what a member living during the ban should have done if they had the same beliefs Reeves is able to espouse today. 
 

I believe that is the fundamental tension we face and which will only grow. For me personally, I do not think it right to speak publicly against church doctrine even though I think it wrong and harmful. I do share my views with family members at appropriate times. I do provide my view within church settings if directly asked (which is very rare). And I do speak privately with local leaders about my inability to put in force a church doctrine I think wrong (eg, I won’t sit on a membership council for SS activity). 
 

If Smac or others have insights on this tension I’d appreciate them. Right now what I see in my stake is members largely ignore the issue during church meetings all the while growing numbers come to personally support SS relationships (especially the youth). Many of those members choose to walk away because they don’t see a place for themselves in the church even though such members are very common and I believe may already be the majority (at least those living in western democracies). 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

This is were everything falls apart.  The Church lived with excluding priesthood and temple blessings from blacks based on the personal opinion of Brigham Young.  Now the Church is building an entire paradigm for LGBT people based on what exactly???  Oh yeah, opinion of fallible leaders.  Do you realize what that means?  Just because you are LGBT, the whole purpose of one of the most significant choices we make in this life, finding someone to love and forming a family is taken away from them based on exactly what?  Guesses?  Suppositions?  

When I was told to marry someone of the opposite sex and my being gay would just magically disappear, it to was based guesses and suppositions.  Now church leaders are asking me to trust their guesses once again.  Seriously?  Fool me once....  Would any of you trust the opinion of Church leaders again after being burned so badly the first time? If so, tell me why.

Well, this one will be harder. There weren’t a lot of LDS families birthing children “unworthy” of the Priesthood unless the parents already were. The LGBTQ kids are being born into all the families.

And yeah, you had it rougher. I can at least hold out the possibility that I can find an active woman who is okay with my sexuality (these are very rare) and have it all work out. It is just not likely. The advice I got from one leader in the Church about that was to just hide it and not tell her. So back into the closet and find yourself a suitable partner using deception against a person I love more than anyone? Yeah, not interested.

And I really don’t want to be “cured”. The more I think about it the more I think that promise is more for the families and loved ones of LGBTQ people. There was a time I wanted to be fixed and begged for it but now that promise sounds more like a threat. To a parent or sibling of someone who is LGBTQ it is probably reassuring.

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, this one will be harder. There weren’t a lot of LDS families birthing children “unworthy” of the Priesthood unless the parents already were. The LGBTQ kids are being born into all the families.

And yeah, you had it rougher. I can at least hold out the possibility that I can find an active woman who is okay with my sexuality (these are very rare) and have it all work out. It is just not likely. The advice I got from one leader in the Church about that was to just hide it and not tell her. So back into the closet and find yourself a suitable partner using deception against a person I love more than anyone? Yeah, not interested.

And I really don’t want to be “cured”. The more I think about it the more I think that promise is more for the families and loved ones of LGBTQ people. There was a time I wanted to be fixed and begged for it but now that promise sounds more like a threat. To a parent or sibling of someone who is LGBTQ it is probably reassuring.

I see it happening for you Nehor, male or female. I had the biggest crush on a gay young man in the 7th grade. I might not have understood he was gay at that time. But have forever loved gay men, or the one's I've met. Not saying you're gay Nehor. Just saying I see women who would love to be married to one. Or someone who is bi too. In fact I think many of us are bi without knowing or realizing it, honestly. I think it's very fluid, people's sexuality, or desire to be with the same sex, may not be a physical thing at all too. More about soulmates or besties that enjoy one another's company more than with anyone else. I'm babbling now, haha.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I see it happening for you Nehor, male or female. I had the biggest crush on a gay young man in the 7th grade. I might not have understood he was gay at that time. But have forever loved gay men, or the one's I've met. Not saying you're gay Nehor. Just saying I see women who would love to be married to one. Or someone who is bi too. In fact I think many of us are bi without knowing or realizing it, honestly. I think it's very fluid, people's sexuality, or desire to be with the same sex, may not be a physical thing at all too. More about soulmates or besties that enjoy one another's company more than with anyone else. I'm babbling now, haha.

Nope, you are being realistic about many peoples’ realities.  And science backs you on the fact that bisexuality (or pansexuality) is more common than most people assume and that sexuality is fluid generally speaking.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

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."

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about.

Must be Utah culture yet again.

My religion says to ask God to verify within myself, what is right or not, and that even if I choose to NOT accept its doctrines, that I will have all of eternity, at even the very worst, in a place of learning that is so much better than earth life that people would commit suicide just to get there.

It's called the Telestial Kingdom, a Kingdom of glory.

The custom of other Faiths is to stay together only until death AT BEST, so typically no one else even conceives that something else is a possibility. And that is even if they all make it to "heaven", which is only possible if they know spiritually that a man named "Jesus" is the Son of God.

Nope.

Alma 32 says that the truth should be "sweet" to me.

I don't find the idea that I will burn forever in hell for simply not knowing the Doctrine of an individual who lived 2000 years ago half way across the world, "sweet".

I can't imagine, after years IN the church and the studying you have done, and what you have felt, you could say what you did.

That's not even close to anything I have ever heard or seen.  Where do you get this stuff?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I see it happening for you Nehor, male or female. I had the biggest crush on a gay young man in the 7th grade. I might not have understood he was gay at that time. But have forever loved gay men, or the one's I've met. Not saying you're gay Nehor. Just saying I see women who would love to be married to one. Or someone who is bi too. In fact I think many of us are bi without knowing or realizing it, honestly. I think it's very fluid, people's sexuality, or desire to be with the same sex, may not be a physical thing at all too. More about soulmates or besties that enjoy one another's company more than with anyone else. I'm babbling now, haha.

I can see it happening. I am actually pretty good at finding people I am in into. Just not in any gospel approved sense. What I am is repellant to many women in the church and the kind of women I crave are rare in the church world. Dating guys is harder just because there are relatively few that return the interest. If I walked away from the gospel I think would find a partner and even possibly multiple partners but i am where I am now.

I pass as straight unless I am in the right environment with the right people. Then I am very queer (in the positive sense of that word I hope).

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

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."

 

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

 

This reminds me of a show I'm watching on Netflix that I am really enjoying and would recommend, "The Last Kingdom." The show is historical fiction, something like "The Work and the Glory." Its title alludes to the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the island of Great Britain in the late 9th century and how six of the seven kingdoms fell to the Danish invaders (i.e. the vikings), and how King Alfred the Great, king of the Wessex, tried to not only defend Wessex from the vikings but to also win back the other six kingdoms and unite them into a single Christian kingdom he wanted to call "England."

It's fascinating how extremely religious the Anglo-Saxon political leaders are, and how superlatively confident they are in their belief about the will of God (e.g. "God would never bless our army with victory if we allow a pagan to fight for Wessex!")

Tying this back to this thread, it reminds me of the Church's counsel to "recognize bias" and “seek out and share only credible, reliable, and factual sources of information.” That's good advice, but absolutely mind-blowing how selective they want you to apply it--advice we hear elsewhere about having faith in what the priesthood hierarchy assures us is "revealed truth" is extraordinarily biased and is the opposite of a source that is credible, reliable, and factual.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Analytics