Richard Ostler listen learn and love. Is i5 understanding, or rebellion against church doctrine?

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But you certainly implied it. Twisting indeed. The problem is that if the attraction is not a choice, then full participation in the gospel of Jesus Christ (and by this, I mean getting sealed to a spouse in a temple marriage, having a family, raising children, and so on) is also not a choice. That is my point.

To be fair, I don’t read in Zealous’ posting anything that expressly states that he believes attraction is a choice

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Have I demonstrated a lack of love- or is it that you see my failure to enthusiastically embrace and advocate for the LGBTQ+++++ lifestyle as a failure to love?

Y'all enjoy your Chubby Checker dance party- my participation is pointless at this juncture.

Exactly! Many of your detractors on this board could be lovingly admonished in person by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and they would still remain unconvinced of the error of their ways until they finally begin to snap out of their spiritual stupor as day of judgement approaches. At that day, they will finally come to the realization that their advocacy for the LGBTQ cause was wrongheaded, and that in the eternal scheme of things they were doing their LGBTQ friends no favors when they encouraged them to persist in their sinful behavior. How shocked and dismayed they’ll be, for when that day arrives many of the LGBTQ brothers and sisters whom they indulged will solemnly  testify that it would have been far better if they hadn’t been encouraged to give in to the impulses of their fallen nature (which fallen nature is only temporary state of spiritual turmoil and confusion that will be left far behind and overcome when the glorious day of resurrection and redemption from physical and spiritual death breaks forth upon a weary world).

Finally, it must be remembered that there’s nothing new in any of this, for in each gospel dispensation there have been many who have been deceived by the adversary to ignore the most solemn warnings of God’s anointed prophets because they refuse to accept the fact that God balances his mercy and loving kindness with strictness and high spiritual expectations designed in wisdom to enable us to achieve our highest spiritual potential. It’s inevitable, there always was and always will be opposition in all things. As the Savior warned…

7) Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!” (Matthew 18)

[Calm]

I had an additional thought that might help…or not, so making a new post rather than editing so I don’t assume someone has read it when they haven’t had a chance. (It turned out a lot more involved than I expected, so good thing I didn’t try to jam it in as an afterthought.

I think you can love someone and offer compassion to them without respecting them, but it’s more difficult for that someone to experience that love and compassion you offer if they don’t feel the respect first.  I think this is something we all need to keep in mind when engaging in discussion with others.  I think too often we assume any acknowledgement of someone’s existence is enough to show respect, but it isn’t really imo.  I think respect is felt when someone feels attention is actually being paid and the level of respect is dependent on the amount of attention paid.

One way to demonstrate respect is to make a sincere effort to understand the other’s position.  This takes effort and time.  When someone doesn’t show a willingness or at least a desire (sometimes a person has limits on what they have available to invest even when a desire is there) to take time, to make an effort, the implication is a lack of respect…understanding is not worth their time and effort.  Time itself is not enough, one can spend hours telling someone else what to do with their life, but if one never asks the person about what they think, what they have to say, have you actually invested in them rather than just yourself?  With no change in your behaviour, you could have spent the same effort and time talking to a brick, after all, and achieved the same result in the sense of increasing your own understanding.  Iow, that love and compassion you are expressing by taking the time to instruct them is more about what it does for you than what it does for them.

An example of another way respect can be actually lacking and therefore love or compassion won’t be felt….a person comes to you with a business idea.  Your only response is “how much will it cost me to invest?”  They try to tell you the details, but you say you want the bottomline first as you don’t want to waste time unnecessarily.  They tell you a number which is above your available funds.  Your response is “no need to go further, I can’t invest, a good day to you”.  You part with them without the least idea of who they were beyond their name perhaps or their idea.  You even see yourself as being compassionate because they can take the time they would have given to you and go use it on trying to get someone who does have the funds to invest.

But what about that person?  Do you think they will see your response as anything but dismissive of them?  You didn’t give them the choice of how to spend their time, but made the decision for them.  That makes it pretty clear you cared more about yourself than them.  Your interpretation might be you were respecting them because you respected the value of their time, but when you refuse to allow them to define what it’s important themselves and instead tell them what is important for them, you are treating them as a child…actually not even that because we can still listen to a child even if we impose our standards on them.  You are treating them as a nonentity.

Telling someone how they should live, what should be important to them without actually listening to them first may feel loving to you because you sincerely believe that what you are saying is the best way to happiness, but without establishing that you see them as individuals first with a mind and heart of their own with feelings and ideas of their own that need to be taken into account and be made a part of what you are hoping for them, you will not be very successful in conveying love.

I think one of the huge benefits of LDS doctrine is not only does God see us for who we truly are (something all Christians believe I assume), but because we are actually God’s children, who we are as individuals is fundamentally important to him.  We are not just sheep to be gathered, one very much like the other, but each uniquely adding our value to God’s family (not saying other Christians don’t see it this way, just saying it’s very easy to see it and feel it in our doctrine, imo).  Unfortunately while we may teach the ideal form of family (suggesting parents spend time with each child, listening as well as teaching), we don’t always make it easy to live the ideal with our other requirements.  We teach success in the home is paramount, but put pressure on parents to sacrifice their family at times in ways that can’t be made up for….which may lead to some believing God is willing to do the same.

Edited March 29, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

56 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

To be fair, I don’t read in Zealous’ posting anything that expressly states that he believes attraction is a choice

I don't believe that he does either. What he does seem to state is that for LGBTQ individuals, full participation in the gospel is merely a matter of choice. And this is what I am critical of. If (strong) attraction is not a choice, and the Church recommends that those with strong same-sex attraction (or significant gender dysphoria, or whatever we are dealing with) should not get married, then this full participation is also not a choice. This is the conundrum that exists here. The Church can only encourage these individuals to participate to a point. At the same time, the challenge isn't just this idea that it is a choice - that choice (to participate in the Church) includes an insistence that the LGBTQ individuals avoid having intimate relationships, avoid forming families, avoid having romantic interests - and then to suggest that this is the same cross to bear as any other weakness that someone has to overcome - that is also a real problem.

[MustardSeed]

IMO It’s an evidence of privilege, or prejudice to state that’s it’s a choice “as much as any other sin.”  Ok try it for a day and come back to us.  Sit with your child and let us know how everyone’s doing in 5 years.  
 
it’s not the same. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Exactly! Many of your detractors on this board could be lovingly admonished in person by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and they would still remain unconvinced of the error of their ways until they finally begin to snap out of their spiritual stupor as day of judgement approaches. At that day, they will finally come to the realization that their advocacy for the LGBTQ cause was wrongheaded, and that in the eternal scheme of things they were doing their LGBTQ friends no favors when they encouraged them to persist in their sinful behavior. How shocked and dismayed they’ll be, for when that day arrives many of the LGBTQ brothers and sisters whom they indulged will solemnly  testify that it would have been far better if they hadn’t been encouraged to give in to the impulses of their fallen nature (which fallen nature is only temporary state of spiritual turmoil and confusion that will be left far behind and overcome when the glorious day of resurrection and redemption from physical and spiritual death breaks forth upon a weary world).

Finally, it must be remembered that there’s nothing new in any of this, for in each gospel dispensation there have been many who have been deceived by the adversary to ignore the most solemn warnings of God’s anointed prophets because they refuse to accept the fact that God balances his mercy and loving kindness with strictness and high spiritual expectations designed in wisdom to enable us to achieve our highest spiritual potential. It’s inevitable, there always was and always will be opposition in all things. As the Savior warned…

7) Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!” (Matthew 18)

Yes, I’m sure many GA s and stalwart members would agree with you. That’s always been my experience.  It’s pretty painful to be here. 

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

But it is a very emotional issue.  When a parent has a child that they love and want to have a happy and productive life be denied the very human and. core need to spend this life with someone they love and what to share that life with denied the priesthood and the blessings of temple marriage, how can that not be an emotional issue.  When you take out emotions from this equation, then what do you have left?  Some pious belief that they are not like the rest of us, so they don't have the same needs as you do?  A companion, a partner, a family?  You don't find the need to consider the emotional impact of that?

Well said! 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I will bring this back full circle to the question @The Nehor posed back at the beginning of the conversation -- how do we know that God requires these particular sacrifices of LGBTQ+ latter-day saints? What revelation (or other source of truth) do we point to when we make these moral claims? I don't recall anyone seriously answering @The Nehor's question in this thread (and am skeptical of claims in other places to such revelation).

Using Scott Woodward's doctrinal confidence model:

Is it repeatedly taught in scripture? LGBTQ+ issues show up rather infrequently in scripture. Most of the scriptures that are used have enough doubt around if and how they apply to modern LGBTQ+ people that this points to low doctrinal confidence.

Is it repeatedly taught by modern prophets? If memory serves, LGBTQ+ issues don't really show up in modern history until the mid-20th century. Since then, LGBTQ+ issues have been a semi-frequent topic for modern prophets and apostles, and they have been of mixed consistency. From believing some horrible things about LGBTQ+ people and believing that attractions/dysphoria are choices that can be repented of to the current attraction/dysphoria is not sinful but acting on it is. Somewhere in this, though, I can recall none who have claimed new, independent revelation (other than scriptures as noted above) for the church's stance.

Is it confirmed by the Holy Ghost? This seems to also be inconsistent. Speaking for myself, the Holy Ghost has not confirmed that God requires these sacrifices of all LGBTQ+ individuals. I encounter many (including many of those who have been on Br. Ostler's podcast) who indicate that the Holy Ghost has confirmed to them that God does not require these sacrifices for them.

Overall, it seems to me that doctrinal confidence that God requires these sacrifices of LGBTQ+ individuals is kind of low. As my own beliefs on the topic shift and change, it seems to me that there are some sacrifices that require rather high doctrinal confidence before I am willing to claim that God requires someone else to make that sacrifice. Some sacrifices seem small (like sacrificing alcohol in order to go to the temple) and perhaps it is okay to require those sacrifices even if confidence in their divine provenance is low. Other sacrifices (like sacrificing your child) seem so morally questionable that one ought to be absolutely certain that God requires that sacrifice. The sacrifices that the church requires of LGBTQ+ members calls for more confidence than I think we currently have on the topic.

Best comment I have heard on the subject in a very long time. We are asking too much, imo, to not be absolutely certain this is revealed truth ( which I don’t believe it is, btw). You are bang on! 

Edited March 29, 2025 by Peacefully

[Teancum]

On 3/28/2025 at 12:01 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

In case you haven't researched it- it is the churches that have made "inclusion" their highest priory that are bleeding members- while those holding to traditional values are still fairing well

CFR

On 3/28/2025 at 12:01 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

BTW, the Church's conversion numbers are climbing again, with significant gains in Africa and Latin America- or is it only the white numbers that count?

CFR

[Teancum]

On 3/28/2025 at 12:43 PM, bluebell said:

I think what the OP and many of the posts mostly say to me is that there are some people who sincerely believe that they know with absolute certainty what God's will is and what God wants the church to do, when it comes to lgtbq+ members, and it's become very clear to me that that's not me.

Honestly, I'm a little envious of people who believe that they have the inside track on God's thoughts on the matter because that is a pretty secure place to be and I'd like some of that security.  It would feel amazing to believe that I have that kind of a relationship with God, that I know Him best on this topic and everyone who disagrees with me needs to repent.   But I don't have that kind of a relationship with God.  I have my own thoughts and feelings about the topic but I can't pretend that they come from God because I have no evidence that they do.  

I have no idea who is right and who needs to repent.  

Maybe they don't have that kind of relationship with god that you think they have.  Personally I think you are in the better spot.  I admire that and your honesty about this.

[ZealouslyStriving]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

CFR

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/07/29/liberal-churches-are-shrinking/

 

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

CFR

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/04/06/converts-children-missionaries/

 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Everyone has to set aside some weakness/struggle/temptation/desire in order to qualify for all the blessings of the Eternal Gospel.

The LGBTQ++++++ community is not unique in this.

Seriously?  Would you be willing to set aside the possibility of ever marrying and having a family just because Church leaders WITHOUT ANY REVELATION tells you it is wrong to fall in love with the opposite sex?  In fact, never go on a date, never kiss, never even hold hands with someone you were in love with?  All based on just the opinions of Church leaders who are men "products of their own time"?  Do you trust Church leaders so completely that you are sure they are right about this issue when they have. been wrong before on issues that were similar in the past?  

Tell me given their track record why you would trust Church leaders so completely when they have been so wrong before on who should and not should receive the priesthood and get married in the temple.  Do you even comprehend how messed up your life would be if they were wrong once again?  Loving someone and wanting to share your life with them in a marriage is not a weakness, it is fundamental to building a strong family.

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriously?  Would you be willing to set aside the possibility of ever marrying and having a family just because Church leaders WITHOUT ANY REVELATION tells you it is wrong to fall in love with the opposite sex?  In fact, never go on a date, never kiss, never even hold hands with someone you were in love with?  All based on just the opinions of Church leaders who are men "products of their own time"?  Do you trust Church leaders so completely that you are sure they are right about this issue when they have. been wrong before on issues that were similar in the past?  

Tell me given their track record why you would trust Church leaders so completely when they have been so wrong before on who should and not should receive the priesthood and get married in the temple.  Do you even comprehend how messed up your life would be if they were wrong once again?  Loving someone and wanting to share your life with them in a marriage is not a weakness, it is fundamental to building a strong family.

You have zero interest in my answer- so why bother?

[california boy]

8 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I will bring this back full circle to the question @The Nehor posed back at the beginning of the conversation -- how do we know that God requires these particular sacrifices of LGBTQ+ latter-day saints? What revelation (or other source of truth) do we point to when we make these moral claims? I don't recall anyone seriously answering @The Nehor's question in this thread (and am skeptical of claims in other places to such revelation).

Using Scott Woodward's doctrinal confidence model:

Is it repeatedly taught in scripture? LGBTQ+ issues show up rather infrequently in scripture. Most of the scriptures that are used have enough doubt around if and how they apply to modern LGBTQ+ people that this points to low doctrinal confidence.

Is it repeatedly taught by modern prophets? If memory serves, LGBTQ+ issues don't really show up in modern history until the mid-20th century. Since then, LGBTQ+ issues have been a semi-frequent topic for modern prophets and apostles, and they have been of mixed consistency. From believing some horrible things about LGBTQ+ people and believing that attractions/dysphoria are choices that can be repented of to the current attraction/dysphoria is not sinful but acting on it is. Somewhere in this, though, I can recall none who have claimed new, independent revelation (other than scriptures as noted above) for the church's stance.

Is it confirmed by the Holy Ghost? This seems to also be inconsistent. Speaking for myself, the Holy Ghost has not confirmed that God requires these sacrifices of all LGBTQ+ individuals. I encounter many (including many of those who have been on Br. Ostler's podcast) who indicate that the Holy Ghost has confirmed to them that God does not require these sacrifices for them.

Overall, it seems to me that doctrinal confidence that God requires these sacrifices of LGBTQ+ individuals is kind of low. As my own beliefs on the topic shift and change, it seems to me that there are some sacrifices that require rather high doctrinal confidence before I am willing to claim that God requires someone else to make that sacrifice. Some sacrifices seem small (like sacrificing alcohol in order to go to the temple) and perhaps it is okay to require those sacrifices even if confidence in their divine provenance is low. Other sacrifices (like sacrificing your child) seem so morally questionable that one ought to be absolutely certain that God requires that sacrifice. The sacrifices that the church requires of LGBTQ+ members calls for more confidence than I think we currently have on the topic.

Your points are very important things to consider and should not be just stuffed off as being unimportant.  It is pretty noteworthy that there is not a single scripture in the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price that says anything about condemning LGBT issues.  These three books are the foundation of the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  So at the very least, there is absolutely ZERO scriptural condemnation in modern scriptures that are fundamental to the restoration.  

Can you, @ZealouslyStriving actually guarantee that current Church leaders beliefs are not based on their own prejudices?  If you can, please site where that foundational belief comes from.

Edited March 30, 2025 by california boy

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, california boy said:

It is pretty noteworthy that there is not a single scripture in the Book of Mormon, D&C, or Pearl of Great Price that says anything about condemning LGBT issues.  These three books are the foundation of the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  So at the very least, there is absolutely ZERO scriptural condemnation in modern scriptures that are fundamental to the restoration.  

Can you actually guarantee that current Church leaders beliefs are not based on their own prejudices?  If you can, please site where that foundational belief comes from.

There is nothing about immediate family marriage either any those books either- so what's your point?

Are you saying that a brother and sister be allowed to marry if that is what their heart tells them? Would you deny them true love?

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You have zero interest in my answer- so why bother?

why do you make that judgement from me.  I have read every response you have written and I have given you my thoughts on what you have written.  I am actually looking for a honest response to the questions I have asked you.  

Maybe this is your way of not coming up with any answers to the hard questions I ask of you.  That is on you, not me.  Don't use me as your scapegoat for not answering my questions that I ask in all sincerity.

Maybe you have not given this though all that much time to think and ponder what the implications of your beliefs are.  I totally understand that.  This is an issue I have been dealing with since I was 12 years old.  I don't expect you to understand these issues as much as I have.  Maybe this is the first time you have ever realized that your position is more of a blind trust in fallible Church leaders that are products of their own times and prejudices.  Maybe this discussion has at least opened up to you the reasons why LGBT issues is one of the top reasons why people are leaving the Church.  Maybe just trying to understand why this is such a deal breaker for so many people, you should try and understand just a little bit where they are coming from.

Edited March 30, 2025 by california boy

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

why do you make that judgement from me.  I have read every response you have written and I have given you my thoughts on what you have written.  I am actually looking for a honest response to the questions I have asked you.  

Maybe this is your way of not coming up with any answers to the hard questions I ask of you.  That is on you, not me.  Don't use me as your scapegoat for not answering my questions that I ask in all sincerity.

I have made my views clear and the same questions and twisting happens over and over. These arguments have been replayed multiple times- it's like we ar all insane.

But I will go back and answer you queries one last time...

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I have made my views clear and the same questions and twisting happens over and over. These arguments have been replayed multiple times- it's like we ar all insane.

But I will go back and answer you queries one last time...

Thank you.  I appreciate you taking the time to treat my questions with respect.  I will also treat your answers with respect.  It doesn't mean that either one of us don't want further clarification on where we come up with these beliefs.

[ZealouslyStriving]

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

Seriously? 

Yes 

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

Would you be willing to set aside the possibility of ever marrying and having a family just because Church leaders WITHOUT ANY REVELATION tells you it is wrong to fall in love with the opposite sex?

I reject the premise that there is no revelation on the subject. There is an abundance of revelation.

To your question: If heterosexual sexual behavior was prohibited with the same abundance of evidence. To align with holy will, I would refrain- just as I currently refrain from acting on desires contrary to God's will 

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

 In fact, never go on a date, never kiss, never even hold hands with someone you were in love with?

Yes.

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

 All based on just the opinions of Church leaders who are men "products of their own time"?  Do you trust Church leaders so completely that you are sure they are right about this issue when they have. been wrong before on issues that were similar in the past?  

Again, I reject the premise you are presenting.

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me given their track record why you would trust Church leaders so completely when they have been so wrong before on who should and not should receive the priesthood and get married in the temple.  Do you even comprehend how messed up your life would be if they were wrong once again?

Do you comprehend how messed up your eternity will be if you decide your desires supercede the truth of God?

38 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Loving someone and wanting to share your life with them in a marriage is not a weakness, it is fundamental to building a strong family.

It is when it is outside the law of God and His knowledge of what will eventually lead to true joy.

(I have no issue with you contracting civil unions on your own. Have at it.)

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes 

I reject the premise that there is no revelation on the subject. There is an abundance of revelation.

This is a very important question I have and I would really like a verifiable answer.  Can you point to where a prophet of God has declared a revelation from God on current policies the Church has on LGBT issues?  I will keep my question that simple.  Just looking for a simple answer.

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Do you comprehend how messed up your eternity will be if you decide your desires supercede the truth of God?

How messed up do you think my life will be when I face God?  What judgement do you think I deserve? Am I going to the Telestial Kingdom?  Is the Celestial Kingdom ever going to be an option for me anyway?  Will it matter if I can't be there with my partner that I love with all my heart?  For me, it won't be heaven without him. 

The very reason why I have made the choices I have in life is because I have learned to trust God more than man.  I do trust Him totally.  I am ready to accept any judgement He has for me.  It is why I don't really care how men in this life judge me.  Their judgement of me is totally irrelevant.  It is ONLY Gods judgement that matters.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is a very important question I have and I would really like a verifiable answer.  Can you point to where a prophet of God has declared a revelation from God on current policies the Church has on LGBT issues?  I will keep my question that simple.  Just looking for a simple answer.

Are you implying that our prophets and apostles haven't spoken clearly on this subject?

Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone demanded a " Thus saith the Lord..." in order to follow clear scriptural doctrine?

If a brother and sister desire to marry should they demand a "Thus saith the Lord..." before they abandon their plans?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How messed up do you think my life will be when I face God?

I think you will experience regret once you realize what you rejected in order to live the life you desired here in mortality.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 What judgement do you think I deserve?

That's above my pay grade.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Am I going to the Telestial Kingdom?

That's above my pay grade.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 Is the Celestial Kingdom ever going to be an option for me anyway?

If you do your best to obey Celestial law.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 Will it matter if I can't be there with my partner that I love with all my heart?  For me, it won't be heaven without him. 

You are being myopic. You are only seeing the here and now and not trusting that God knows best what leads to a fullness of joy.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The very reason why I have made the choices I have in life is because I have learned to trust God more than man.  I do trust Him totally.  I am ready to accept any judgement He has for me.

Good for you. I wish you the best.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 It is why I don't really care how men in this life judge me.  Their judgement of me is totally irrelevant.  It is ONLY Gods judgement that matters.  

You seem to confuse judgement with folks just believing what God has declared through His prophets. I have no interest in judging you, just in believing what God has clearly defined as His standards on issues of sexual behavior.

If my believing such is seen as being judgemental by persons such as yourself- well, frankly, there's nothing I can do to help that. You believe the Lord condones your homosexual activity and I'm not going to stop upholding the Lord's standards on morality, so we are at an impasse.

With that I believe we've concluded our discussion. I refuse to go on for 40 pages in an endless rehashing of the same things.

Good luck to you.

Edited March 30, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[MrShorty]

52 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you implying that our prophets and apostles haven't spoken clearly on this subject?

I can't speak for @california boy, but I'm inclined to respond that they have spoken pretty clearly. The real question is whether God has spoken clearly on this subject. (Enter long discussion on prophetic fallibility and how one determines when prophets/apostles are speaking for God and when they aren't).

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Do you comprehend how messed up your eternity will be if you decide your desires supercede the truth of God?

IMO, this question could be asked of each of us, not just @california boy (and others like him). I sometimes think the most interesting answers to this question are when it is related to an issue where the church and its leaders may have "decided that their desires superceded the truth of God." The current trend in the church (and I think a majority of the regulars on this board) is towards believing that the race based priesthood and temple ban was not of divine origin, but was motivated by the flawed beliefs of 19th and 20th century latter-day saints. In general among those who believe that the ban was of human origins but also believe in the divine mission of the church, there is a general sense that God knows how to redeem latter-day saints who "decided their desires superceded the truth of God" on that topic, as well as knowing how to redeem those who followed the leaders and knowing how to redeem those who were turned away from the church by those false traditions. At the end of the day, you and I and @california boy and anyone else who sincerely believes that they are living their lives in accord with God's will for them, will need to rely on God's ability to redeem through Christ all of those areas and places where we have decided that our desires superceded the truth of God. Whenever this idea comes up, I find myself concluding that sincerity of belief seems to be more important to God than correctness of belief. The more I study and ponder this question, the more I am convinced that our eternities will not really be all that messed up, because God will know how to redeem us from our discernment errors.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you implying that our prophets and apostles haven't spoken clearly on this subject?

Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone demanded a " Thus saith the Lord..." in order to follow clear scriptural doctrine?

If a brother and sister desire to marry should they demand a "Thus saith the Lord..." before they abandon their plans?

So there is absolutely no claim of divine revelation on this issue that is so significant that it is preventing people from holding the priesthood and obtaining temple blessings.  No Church leader has even claimed that these policies came from God.  Just faliable leaders making their own decisions.  We have been fooled before about such decisions haven't we.  I know I fell for it when I believe that it was the will of God to keep people out of those same blessings simply because of their skin color.  Why should I believe they have it right this time?

this is nothing comparable to a couple wanting to get married.  Or can you not see how devastating this policy is simply because someone is born wanting to be with someone of the same sex.

Do you really think the two are comparable?

 

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think you will experience regret once you realize what you rejected in order to live the life you desired here in mortality.  

That's above my pay grade.

That's above my pay grade.

If you do your best to obey Celestial law.

You are being myopic. You are only seeing the here and now and not trusting that God knows best what leads to a fullness of joy.

Do you think it is weird that I would rather be with my partner that I love and have been with for the past 16 years than somehow wanting to be with a woman for eternity?  Something that I didn't want to do at all when I was on earth?????

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

Good for you. I wish you the best.

You seem to confuse judgement with folks just believing what God has declared through His prophets. I have no interest in judging you, just in believing what God has clearly defined as His standards on issues of sexual behavior.

Do you think calling me myopic is a bit judgmental??

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If my believing such is seen as being judgemental by persons such as yourself- well, frankly, there's nothing I can do to help that. You believe the Lord condones your homosexual activity and I'm not going to stop upholding the Lord's standards on morality, so we are at an impasse.

With that I believe we've concluded our discussion. I refuse to go on for 40 pages in an endless rehashing of the same things.

Good luck to you.

I have hopes that you will ponder more about your stance.  Realize that Church leaders have not always gotten the will of the Lord right when it comes to who should hold the priesthood and who should be allow to enter the temple.  I hope that you will consider the impact on so many faithful families who have left the Church over this issue.  I hope that you will see the importance of a revelation from God on this issue if the Church is going to bar gay couples from temple ordinances  I hope that you will consider that my relationship with my partner is not all that different than your relationship with your partner or any other committed relationship.  We are not so different.  We want the same things as you do.  Part of that is being together for eternity.  Without that promise, what is there really to work towards???

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I can't speak for @california boy, but I'm inclined to respond that they have spoken pretty clearly. The real question is whether God has spoken clearly on this subject. (Enter long discussion on prophetic fallibility and how one determines when prophets/apostles are speaking for God and when they aren't).

IMO, this question could be asked of each of us, not just @california boy (and others like him). I sometimes think the most interesting answers to this question are when it is related to an issue where the church and its leaders may have "decided that their desires superceded the truth of God." The current trend in the church (and I think a majority of the regulars on this board) is towards believing that the race based priesthood and temple ban was not of divine origin, but was motivated by the flawed beliefs of 19th and 20th century latter-day saints. In general among those who believe that the ban was of human origins but also believe in the divine mission of the church, there is a general sense that God knows how to redeem latter-day saints who "decided their desires superceded the truth of God" on that topic, as well as knowing how to redeem those who followed the leaders and knowing how to redeem those who were turned away from the church by those false traditions. At the end of the day, you and I and @california boy and anyone else who sincerely believes that they are living their lives in accord with God's will for them, will need to rely on God's ability to redeem through Christ all of those areas and places where we have decided that our desires superceded the truth of God. Whenever this idea comes up, I find myself concluding that sincerity of belief seems to be more important to God than correctness of belief. The more I study and ponder this question, the more I am convinced that our eternities will not really be all that messed up, because God will know how to redeem us from our discernment errors.

I would say the exact same thing.  I do know that this policy is keeping me and who knows how many others away from the Church.  Perhaps being a member of the Church is not as important as I thought it was.  It doesn't seem to be that critical part of the Plan of Salvation given the very small number of people who have ever been members.  

I look forward to facing God.  If my beliefs are wrong, I am not going to be very happy with God for making it so difficult for me to believe that Church leaders got everyitng right afterall.  You have no idea how much I have prayed, fasted, cried to God over this issue.  When I finally left the Church, there has been a peace come over me that I have never had my entire life.  For me, that is all I needed.  

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Exactly! Many of your detractors on this board could be lovingly admonished in person by the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and they would still remain unconvinced of the error of their ways until they finally begin to snap out of their spiritual stupor as day of judgement approaches. At that day, they will finally come to the realization that their advocacy for the LGBTQ cause was wrongheaded, and that in the eternal scheme of things they were doing their LGBTQ friends no favors when they encouraged them to persist in their sinful behavior. How shocked and dismayed they’ll be, for when that day arrives many of the LGBTQ brothers and sisters whom they indulged will solemnly  testify that it would have been far better if they hadn’t been encouraged to give in to the impulses of their fallen nature (which fallen nature is only temporary state of spiritual turmoil and confusion that will be left far behind and overcome when the glorious day of resurrection and redemption from physical and spiritual death breaks forth upon a weary world).

CFR that these “impulses” will be immediately fixed in the next life and if they are what does it matter if you indulge them? Surely one should focus on virtues that matter and sins that can persist instead of a sin that will be miraculously removed.

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Finally, it must be remembered that there’s nothing new in any of this, for in each gospel dispensation there have been many who have been deceived by the adversary to ignore the most solemn warnings of God’s anointed prophets because they refuse to accept the fact that God balances his mercy and loving kindness with strictness and high spiritual expectations designed in wisdom to enable us to achieve our highest spiritual potential. It’s inevitable, there always was and always will be opposition in all things. As the Savior warned…

“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man:”

-1 Corinthians 10:13

The urge to kiss cute people of your own gender is not common to man or mankind. It is a minority that are ‘tempted’ in this way. Therefore it can’t be temptation since it is not common. So no sin.

If that is not enough I will turn to more authoritative work. If you read Paradise Lost you will find that when asked if they have sex the angels responded that they do with each other but it is of a more pure and holier kind. Then we later learn that all angels are men and also that some of those angels lusted after women and went down to earth and sinned. Therefore it is clear that the angels fell by giving in to impure hetero lusts instead of staying true to their calling and having holy gay sex as God intended. Repent of your vile attraction to women lest the day arrive that you come to the judgement bar and are cast out for your disgusting and perverse lusts.

Of course if you lust after both men and women you are fine. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam or Eve.

11 hours ago, teddyaware said:

7) Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!” (Matthew 18)

I don’t think you know what that scripture actually means.