3rd hour meeting on fostering love with members of the LGBTQ community


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/3/2018 at 1:36 PM, Carborendum said:

There are current practices, and there is the underlying principle.  You may be arguing the current practice (with which I don't necessarily disagree -- I don't know).  But my point in my previous post was regarding the underlying principle.

My meaning behind the "technicality" is that we have obvious examples such as Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn who have obviously committed to each other and have a meaningful relationship.  Yes, in practice, the Church would probably require that they get the "piece of paper" (I'm guessing). But there is a world of difference between that and either the heterosexual couple who are simply shacking up as a convenient way to have sex without commitment or the homosexual couple committed or not.

To underscore the principle, one need only consider the different ways the church would view the respective couples were they each to get married.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I'm confused.  This is the impression you got of Heavenly Father from scriptures and Church teachings?  Are you and @changed not LDS?

Thanks. 

Raised, yes.  For the most part of my life.  But mostly inactive now.   i guess the church elicits entirely different feelings in me, though.  Didn't always used to be that way.  But when a life event caused my priorities to change, it became toxic for me (and the ward) to stay in a relationship where we were continually disappointing and disagreeing with one another.  

As far as God - i am forced to reconcile the God portrayed in the Old Testament with the Daddy that Jesus talks about.  If it's the latter, no problem!  As i write that, i realize i should place a higher value on Jesus' perception of God than the people who wrote the OT - but the former is so widespread in many religions, i don't always do that.   it's always been extremely interesting to me how many people not only have few problems with acceptable the God of the Old Testament, but even seem to show something that feels (to me) like a subdued but anxious excitement that a same justice will eventually be applied to those who disagree with them.

i'd personally find it surprising if many people signed up for one-on-one time with the God portrayed in the Old Testament - though i am only stating a personal preference and (perhaps false ) perception, here.  i don't want to pretend that i can or am even attempting to speak for all people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2018 at 2:17 PM, NeuroTypical said:

The topic was learning to love people in the LGBTQ community. 

My first objection is that the topic falsely presupposes that the Church and its members, or at least the Ward in Riverton, don't love the people in the ALPHABET community.

Right off the bat it confuses the sinner with the sin, and buys into a false and manipulative pop-culture narrative.

My second objection is that it makes the ambiguous and oft misunderstood notion of "love" the stated objective, rather than the principles of the Gospel--i.e. faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, etc., thus failing to understand that "love" isn't the end objective of the gospel (seeking and becoming like Christ is), nor is it the means to that end (this is the purview of the atonement and Plan of Progression), but the results of working rightly towards the right end.

My third objection is that it places the emphasis on the not-so-plausible mote rather than the very plausible beam. It mistakenly presumes that the fault warranting prioritized consideration lay with the church and its members rather than rightly with the ALPHABET community.

But, I suppose there wouldn't be much positive outside reaction and participation were the topic: How to call the wicked to repentance for the sake of their spiritual life and joy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's a huge, huge burden for homosexuals to carry. It just breaks my heart. I'm not sure how a heterosexual marriage could work if one or both partners are gay. It's not fair to anyone. 

It can.  I've seen it work. 

The thing is that it depends on WHAT that marriage is built upon.

People today base their marriage off of lust and the idea of romantic love as per the Hollywood portrayal of it.

However, Marriage has been around a LOT longer than the idea of Hollywood's idea of Romantic love.

Greeks (though we'd see them as a bunch of homosexuals today) probably had the right idea of marriage itself in regards to what it should be built upon.  They had MANY homosexuals who also were married.

In this idea in some Greek society it would be for some, especially the more manly types, that your closest friend, your lover, and companion would be a homosexual relationship.  HOWEVER, you would ALSO be married.  In this, you would be committed to the relationship.  A wife would not cheat (ideas regarding men were different in this regard at that time in many of these societies), and would be loyal regardless.  Her Husband would provide for her and stick with her through thick and thin (even if she was kidnapped and taken off by a foreign prince...in which case you'd build up your armies and invade that foreign princes land, build a wooden horse and conquer their city...etc...etc...etc).

The concept of marriage was NOT one of romance, but one of loyalty and respect.  The Father and Mother were a team with different roles, and they were supposed to fulfill those roles.  They were together NOT because of sexual attraction, necessarily, but because of commitment.  It was a commitment (and a contract) between themselves, their PARENTS, and their Deities.  Family was VERY important, and to simply disregard one's spouse...was to disrespect your parents.

In otherwords, though you were expected to have children, sexual attraction normally was NOT seen as the center of Greek marriage.  If you wanted that, MEN had other outlets...and women...well...women were expected to remain loyal regardless.

Now, in the Mormon church we would NOT follow the Greek idea in that regards.  Men should be as loyal to their wives as wives are to their husbands, meaning BOTH follow the law of chastity.  However...the idea that marriage should be one of commitment, family, loyalty, and respect are the building blocks of a successful marriage. 

A commitment to NEVER leave your spouse.  Loyalty to always STICK with your spouse.  Loyalty to the FAMILY as a unit, that it is the FAMILY that is important above all else, even your own personal happiness or satisfaction.  Finally, respect for your spouse and your children.

For those couples who put aside their worldly lusts, and focus on these aspects, I have seen accomplish successful marriages.  I've seen this with those who have had homosexual partners in a heterosexual marriage.

HOWEVER...this MORE OFTEN occurs in HETEROSEXUAL marriages.  It seems that there are MANY who get disillusioned in this life with their spouse.  They have bought into the Hollywood idea of romance and lust, hook, line, and sinker.  They become bored with their spouse, and this can lead to terrible things.  Some divorce, but some can reanalyze their life and figure out what IS important.  For those who recommit into a more serious commitment to their marriage, I see that building on these things creates a better marriage for them in the long run.

These building blocks are NOT something utilized in the West all that often today, however, when I go to Asia and the Middle East I see this principle practiced a LOT in many cultures.  They still believe in arranged marriages there, and those marriages are more often built due to family connections than anything dealing with Hollywood romance.  In order for these marriages to work they have to utilize these types of building blocks.  It is respect for their parents (why they even are in the arranged marriage in the first place and go through with it), and a commitment to whoever their parents set them up with.  It is LOYALTY...not just to that spouse, but to their entire family (parents, and when they come, children). 

It does NOT matter about their personal lust, desires, or anything else in this...as they put FAMILY and LOYALTY above that of themselves.  It is the FAMLY which is important, not what one lusts after or desires.

Many in the West probably consider this a barbaric practice, but I see many successful marriages in these cultures.  It is mainly in these cultures that I have seen this, where you have a partner (and yes, even both at times) who is homosexual but has a successful marriage.

As I said though, I've seen this type of principle put into practice MORE often among heterosexual couples who may have NO ATTRACTION to each other at first, or have gotten to a point in their marriage where such attraction seems to have died.  In these types of marriages (not so much in those who are homosexual but are in a heterosexual marriage), over time this type of commitment and loyalty as well as respect can grow into something else for their spouse.  It can bring about sexual attraction for their spouse when they apply these building blocks in their marriage, as it also can be an expression of love.  However, it is NOT the ONLY or most IMPORTANT aspect of marriage or expression of it.

I think much of why we do not see this type of success in the West at times in regards to marriages (and once again, this is more with purely heterosexual marriages to be honest...of course, almost all heterosexual marriages today are between two of that relation, whereas those where homosexual members are married into a heterosexual marriage is a very SMALL minority) is that our concept of the reasons for marriage have changed so drastically over the past few hundred years, that our marriages most times are based off of worldly things rather than other things.

I was one of the lucky ones.  I married a gorgeous woman who has remained gorgeous.  Even then, I would say if I had not built up our marriage on similar thoughts of loyalty and respect, it would have been all to easy to do as many in the West do which is to separate from their spouse.  I think there comes a point in every marriage, no matter how strong that attraction, that you have to recognize that in order to be successful you must have that idea of loyalty and commitment.  It may not be as strong a concept in our successful marriages that go from marriage until we die in the West, but I think it is still something that eventually becomes an important factor for any successful marriage, even in the West.

Yes, I was longwinded again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I can speak for the areas of Texas I served my mission in. Legal papers had to be received from the state specifying that couples relationship did in fact honor a common law marriage. Without papers, legal docs, there is nothing to separate a cohabitating common law in contrast to cohabitating.

When I was young, which I admit was MANY MANY DECADES ago, Common Law marriages were an accepted form of marriage in many states.  It was not an uncommon occurrence.  If they were together for so long, legally, they were recognized as married if they presented themselves as such.  No legal paperwork was absolutely necessary...UNLESS they decided to split up.  At that point, it would require paperwork to actually separate as it was then considered a divorce. 

However, that probably made a LOT of sticky situations, and so over the years I think most states did away with Common Law marriage.  Even those that kept it changed how it was recognized legally.

I'm not sure how it is today, but I know when I was growing up, a LOT of these couples that are living together today...would have actually been considered married under the common law practices of yesteryear.  It is not so today, but much of that is because the laws pertaining to it have changed.

I wonder, now that I think  about it, if the laws had remained the same, if immorality would not be so rampant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks. 

Raised, yes.  For the most part of my life.  But mostly inactive now.   i guess the church elicits entirely different feelings in me, though.  Didn't always used to be that way.  But when a life event caused my priorities to change, it became toxic for me (and the ward) to stay in a relationship where we were continually disappointing and disagreeing with one another.  

As far as God - i am forced to reconcile the God portrayed in the Old Testament with the Daddy that Jesus talks about.  If it's the latter, no problem!  As i write that, i realize i should place a higher value on Jesus' perception of God than the people who wrote the OT - but the former is so widespread in many religions, i don't always do that.   it's always been extremely interesting to me how many people not only have few problems with acceptable the God of the Old Testament, but even seem to show something that feels (to me) like a subdued but anxious excitement that a same justice will eventually be applied to those who disagree with them.

i'd personally find it surprising if many people signed up for one-on-one time with the God portrayed in the Old Testament - though i am only stating a personal preference and (perhaps false ) perception, here.  i don't want to pretend that i can or am even attempting to speak for all people.

I see the Mormons as portraying the Lord as a very merciful and loving individual, even in the OLD Testament...but part of that is perspective.

We see our life on earth as the beginning and end of things, but to the Lord it is but a single step...an instant where we are learning things.

For an example, imagine a child who is in the first grade.  That can be a very long year to them.  It seems that the end of first grade is a great ways off when they first start it.  They may not even be able to imagine what happens if it ends, or what happens when it does so. 

Now lets say you had a child that was not able to learn in first grade and was flunking out.  You determined that they needed another way to learn, and so you decided to take them out of their grade and put them into a special education school.  They may think that was the end of the world from their viewpoint.  All their friends are still in the first grade, and all that they know about school is still there.  They do not see how putting them elsewhere may be to their benefit (and maybe to their classmates as well).  However, you as a parent are doing this because you love them and want them to learn.  To the child it may seem a very painful experience, and their emotions could be very high.  In the same manner, though you see this, you are doing it, not because you want to see them in pain, but to help them.

In this way, the Lord has a greater view of our existence on this earth.  He knows that this is but a VERY small part of eternity.  Death is not to him as it seems to us from our perspective.  Other things are seen as very short events (for example, your child is hungry for 15 minutes before lunchtime one day...is that a harsh punishment?  It could be hard, but if it is what others are also doing, is it really a punishment or just part of the school experience for that child?), and in the long range scheme of things...not as harsh as it probably seems to our short range of thoughts.  That said, I'd rather NOT go through such things, because from my perspective, illnesses, ailments, and other things are ESPECIALLY harsh to me.

The LDS religion though, as I said, shows an extremely MERCIFUL Lord.

Almost all are saved.  Think about that, almost ALL are saved from hell in the end.  Some may end up there, but eventually, even they can get out through the Lord's atonement.

The Lowest degree of heaven as we talk about it, is very close to what many people would consider heaven already (and it IS heaven, just the lowest degree of heaven).  It is said Joseph Smith said a man would die just to get there if they knew how wonderful it was.  The best idea I have about it is that it is a place very much like our earth, but like an eternal garden where things are in continual bloom.

In this place there is no death, no illness (and no allergies), and if there is any injury they are healed instantly (perhaps to the point you do not even realize they occurred).  It is a wonderful place of peace and happiness.

And that's for those who are in the lowest degree of heaven.  It just gets better from there.  In otherwords, even those who are in the lowest degree experience what many would consider what heaven should or is like, and call that the heaven they are aiming for!

That, to me, shows love for all men, even those that have hated him and sinned in this life to the point that they would go to Hell.  Even those...as long as they do not totally forsake him and will accept his sacrifice at some point (meaning they do not completely fight against him and reject him for eternity, thus denying him the ability to save them) will go to such a place.

To me, that speaks of a great LOVE for us, even those of us who are far from perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, changed said:

What is the difference between friendship and love? between your BFF - best friend forever - and a spouse?    I am actually genuinely curious about this, as me and my spouse are really good "friends" with one another, but there are a few things that keep our relationship from feeling like a genuine marriage...  I think friendship is an amazing thing, and I love it to bits - love that it is not based on lust.... but it still seems like something is missing.

If you are Roman or Greek, quite a bit, and it depends on who you are talking about.  With your spouse, the difference is that of FAMILY.  You have a LOYALTY to your Father, to your wife, and to your son that surpasses all other bonds.  They took the honor your father and your mother VERY seriously.  A FATHER could kill their son for disobedience (it very RARELY happened and the laws were changed later in Rome to make it so it was not so easy to do so), and a son was to defend their Father's household to the death.

Then there was the love between men.  There was comradeship, but then there was the deeper relationship between men (and there were several different types, some of which I won't get into here as it probably disturbs western ideals to a degree even to discuss some of them).  One of the most treasured was that of two who were not just friends but lovers and hence the idea of dying for each other in battle takes on a totally different meaning to a degree.  Ironically, today people might say those individuals were BFF with benefits.  However, that was more of the idea of love that some may think of romantic love today (without the flowers and such, it was far more manly one could say) than that between a husband and a wife.

Marriages were arranged, they were NOT done out of love or lust.  If a man was that in lust, he could hire the women of the night.  Marriages were done in regards to FAMILY.  Family love was something entirely different than that of friends or comrades in arms or any other type of love.  It was loyalty to a family, they were your identity and you were part of theirs.

You see this idea still in Muslim nations and some Asian nations.  If there is to be lust and attraction, or even that of friendship and love, it is something the children will grow into rather than something that they start with.  What is expected is the loyalty and love of family.

In that light, at times, the love is more akin to that which you would feel for your own family, and the loyalty you have to provide for your kids or protect them (from both the wife to the husband in protecting him, and the husband to the wife in protecting her) than what we view of as love or romantic love today in the West.  They also have a MUCH LOWER divorce rate than we do, typically....

Edit: So, to answer your question, in those societies, love takes a very different meaning in various ways.  They are not taught that a marriage requires attraction (though they are normally required, or at least heavily pushed, towards having children) or even anything close to romantic love.  It requires obedience to your parents (as they are the ones setting you up with whoever you get married to...and the expectation is that they will make a wise choice), and absolutely loyalty to your spouse and family.  It takes commitment to the marriage, and a recognition that it is part of your extended family and your identity.

In these cultures, when they say they give the Bride away, they literally mean it.  The bride is now counted as part of the husbands family, and that family has a bond that is supposed to be tighter and more loyal than any other bond you ever make.  Hence, it is to the bride to be as loyal to her new family, as she was to her original family, it is her new identity and what makes her own personal.

Of course, that brings problems of it's own (bloodfeuds and other things, where if a family member gets hurt or killed by another, it is the family honor to avenge that death.  Obviously, once this starts...it can keep going back and forth until one, or the other, family is dead...so that's a pretty big downside of loyalty strong enough on this point that family supersedes all else).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, changed said:

↑ that is very dangerous ground.  To tell someone their feelings and tendencies can be fixed, that they just do not have enough faith to turn themselves around?  That is wrong - like asking you to change your gender, or telling you to change the color of your skin, or telling you to change any of the other things about your physical body you have no control over.  No one can change their skin color, no one can change their eye color, how tall they are, no one can decide not to have cancer etc. etc.  being homosexual is not something anyone can choose to change.  

sometimes the loving thing to do is to smack someone in the face - there are times when I needed to be smacked in the face, and I am grateful for those who were brave enough to set me straight when I needed to be yelled at a bit. 

I have never been able to make the celestial marriage thing work, have given up on the celestial kingdom - might just be the fox calling the grapes sour because they are out of reach, but I think I would genuinely be happier just being a guardian angel than being a g-d - I could not sit back and watch suffering and not do anything, the polygamy thing bothers me,  the commanding others to worship g-d - I would never feel comfortable commanding anyone to worship me???  the whole thing just... I don't know.  My definition of heaven is being together with friends, hanging out, relaxing ... no great and mighty ones and little lesser untouchable ones, just everyone respecting one another equally - no one holding themselves above or below another ... 

we'll just have to wait to see I guess.

Understanding proper teachings isn't dangerous ground. Understanding the truth that "all" things are possible with God (when pertaining to the exaltation of his children) isn't dangerous ground. Dangerous ground is denying things as they really were, as they really are, and as they will always be.

If you are a believer in evolution, then you know the male primate species (the natural man) has never been faithful to a single female. It is very natural, the feelings and tendency, for the male species to "love" and "lust" for multiple women. So what you are saying is that the male species is unable to curb these feelings, and that it is dangerous ground to tell them to do so if they don't have enough faith to turn themselves around. This is wrong to you? This is somehow likened to the "color of our skin"?

I once watched a pedophile (statutory rape) who loved/lusted for young women, he was even precise with age and type that he was attracted to. So you believe that telling this man to "curb" his tendencies and feelings is dangerous ground? His comment was, "Some people are wired to love younger women. I can't change. I am not changing. We are born this way as others are born to accept statutory rape laws. I am not. I am attracted to younger women."

What is dangerous ground is telling people they are not able to "change" in order to become like God. "being homosexual is not something anyone can choose to change." This is a philosophy of the world. I prefer to put my trust in God, rather than humans.

sometimes the loving thing to do is to smack someone in the face - there are times when I needed to be smacked in the face, and I am grateful for those who were brave enough to set me straight when I needed to be yelled at a bit. 

Then why make a statement that you only accept a God you makes you feel good and is loving, when you full well know love properly applied doesn't always feel good?

but I think I would genuinely be happier just being a guardian angel than being a g-d

And this is one of Satan's greatest lies. Some how he is able to get the sons and daughters of God to believe that the gnashing and wailing of teeth will allow us to be more genuinely happy. No, anyone who has been brought to further light and knowledge of the plan of happiness will not be happier in any glorified state than Celestial eternal lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

When I was young, which I admit was MANY MANY DECADES ago, Common Law marriages were an accepted form of marriage in many states.  It was not an uncommon occurrence.  If they were together for so long, legally, they were recognized as married if they presented themselves as such.  No legal paperwork was absolutely necessary...UNLESS they decided to split up.  At that point, it would require paperwork to actually separate as it was then considered a divorce. 

However, that probably made a LOT of sticky situations, and so over the years I think most states did away with Common Law marriage.  Even those that kept it changed how it was recognized legally.

I'm not sure how it is today, but I know when I was growing up, a LOT of these couples that are living together today...would have actually been considered married under the common law practices of yesteryear.  It is not so today, but much of that is because the laws pertaining to it have changed.

I wonder, now that I think  about it, if the laws had remained the same, if immorality would not be so rampant?

Sorry, I thought I was being clear regarding this comment in correlation with other comments, but maybe not. I was referring to common law marriages and getting baptized in the Church. Even if seen by the government as married, we were informed that they had to have legal papers from the government sealing approval that indeed they are within the law, and are legally married and not fornicating -- thus can be baptized.

Well, pertaining to the last sentence, I am thinking in our day and age it wouldn't make any difference. Maybe 50 years ago when people stayed together. Now, people are switching partners so often in their youth that it remains immoral. My thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

I just think we should all stop judging one another

changed, here is my perception, for what it's worth. I have seen more judgmentalism from you than from perhaps anyone else here. Others have been insistent that this or that is sinful; you have called out Latter-day Saints as prideful and intolerant. You are not alone in this increasingly common practice, but you should be aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

might just be the fox calling the grapes sour because they are out of reach, but I think I would genuinely be happier just being a guardian angel than being a g-d

I disagree with the premise of your statement, but I have a more fundamental question. Even if you yourself do not want exaltation, why do you try to discourage those who are seeking it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, changed said:

I have never been able to make the celestial marriage thing work, have given up on the celestial kingdom - might just be the fox calling the grapes sour because they are out of reach, but I think I would genuinely be happier just being a guardian angel than being a g-d - I could not sit back and watch suffering and not do anything, the polygamy thing bothers me,  the commanding others to worship g-d - I would never feel comfortable commanding anyone to worship me???  the whole thing just... I don't know.  My definition of heaven is being together with friends, hanging out, relaxing ... no great and mighty ones and little lesser untouchable ones, just everyone respecting one another equally - no one holding themselves above or below another ... 

 

@changed - i'm there with you.  i have zero desire to be a God.  Zero, zilch, nada.  To have responsibility over such a huge number of souls that it would, at least on occasion, make sense to command whole swathes of them to be destroyed for the greater good.  Someone who has to make such decisions has my sympathies - but i absolutely have no desire to have that kind of responsibility or power.  My heaven would be to be a little child, with Jesus.  

i think Jesus takes this into account - He did say He was making a lot of different 'rooms' in heaven - at least that's my interpretation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

@changed - i'm there with you.  i have zero desire to be a God.  Zero, zilch, nada.  To have responsibility over such a huge number of souls that it would, at least on occasion, make sense to command whole swathes of them to be destroyed for the greater good.  Someone who has to make such decisions has my sympathies - but i absolutely have no desire to have that kind of responsibility or power.  My heaven would be to be a little child, with Jesus.  

i think Jesus takes this into account - He did say He was making a lot of different 'rooms' in heaven - at least that's my interpretation. 

 Famous joke: St. Peter is leading a group of the recently deceased around Heaven. They walk by a door and Peter says, "Hey, everyone be quiet while we pass this door." After that, one lady says "So, what's up with that?" Peter says, "That's the Catholic room, they think they are the only ones up here." Yes, you can substitute Catholic for virtually any other religion out there, but it is a funny joke. I don't advise telling it though because people are so thin skinned about their own religions. 

I think the different rooms are for all the congregations of Christianity out there. I also think that everyone will be shocked at how many other people there are in heaven

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also famous joke:  St. Peter is leading a group of the recently deceased around Heaven.  They stop by the Catholics and see the cathedrals and hear the gregorian chants.  They stop by the evangelicals under their big praise tent and hear the worship music.  They stop by the Lutherans house and get invited in for a little lunch.  

One guy in the group said "Hey, what's that big cliff over there?"  St. Peter says "Oh, you don't want to look over there, that's hell.  The worst sinners go there.  Intrigued, the guy walks over and looks over the cliff.  To his astonishment, he sees lush green hills, peaceful farmhouses, folks milling about looking happy and productive.  "I thought you said that was hell," the guy says to St Peter, "Everyone there looks so happy."

St Peter walks to the cliff and looks over.  Muttering curses under his breath, he says "The [blankety-blank] Mormons are farming again!"

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Also famous joke:  St. Peter is leading a group of the recently deceased around Heaven.  They stop by the Catholics and see the cathedrals and hear the gregorian chants.  They stop by the evangelicals under their big praise tent and hear the worship music.  They stop by the Lutherans house and get invited in for a little lunch.  

One guy in the group said "Hey, what's that big cliff over there?"  St. Peter says "Oh, you don't want to look over there, that's hell.  The worst sinners go there.  Intrigued, the guy walks over and looks over the cliff.  To his astonishment, he sees lush green hills, peaceful farmhouses, folks milling about looking happy and productive.  "I thought you said that was hell," the guy says to St Peter, "Everyone there looks so happy."

St Peter walks to the cliff and looks over.  Muttering curses under his breath, he says "The [blankety-blank] Mormons are farming again!"

I've always thought that most (key word, most) LDS can take jokes better than members of almost any other religion. You don't want to be "that guy" who jokes around about every other religion but then turns into Sally Sensitive when his own is brought up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, changed said:

g-d tells them point blank not to eat the fruit - they eat the fruit - if going against what g-d point blank tells you not to do is only a transgression not a sin, then we are all saved I suppose.  

 

Time for you to back to the temple and pay attention to what he actually says.  You have missed a key point of the commandment and conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

@changed - i'm there with you.  i have zero desire to be a God.  Zero, zilch, nada.  To have responsibility over such a huge number of souls that it would, at least on occasion, make sense to command whole swathes of them to be destroyed for the greater good.  Someone who has to make such decisions has my sympathies - but i absolutely have no desire to have that kind of responsibility or power.  My heaven would be to be a little child, with Jesus.  

i think Jesus takes this into account - He did say He was making a lot of different 'rooms' in heaven - at least that's my interpretation. 

 

Just a word of caution for @lostinwater and @changed or anyone else giving umbrage to this thinking – before you judge G-d as being unworthy (something you consider undesirable) you should take a step back and rethink your position - realizing that with every good thing or attribute of G-d you reject that there are both severe consequences as well as eternal blessings of liberty and freedom that are forever lost.

Also, it is my belief that when Jesus said, “suffer the little children to come unto me – for of such is the kingdom of heaven”.  That he was not so much speaking of little children as being of the kingdom as he was speaking of himself and those that love and care for little children – it appears to me that you are rejecting any possible responsibility over little children (and others in spiritual or other need).  Taking responsibility to love others in a caring way (as an attribute of G-d) should not be discarded so easily.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two of the talks from the meeting that sparked this thread have been posted to Facebook.  One from the former member in a same-sex marriage, one from her still-active Mom.  

https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215217015156612

I've read similar stories, but never heard one given in church during services, at the invitation of the Bishop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Just a word of caution for @lostinwater and @changed or anyone else giving umbrage to this thinking – before you judge G-d as being unworthy (something you consider undesirable) you should take a step back and rethink your position - realizing that with every good thing or attribute of G-d you reject that there are both severe consequences as well as eternal blessings of liberty and freedom that are forever lost.

Also, it is my belief that when Jesus said, “suffer the little children to come unto me – for of such is the kingdom of heaven”.  That he was not so much speaking of little children as being of the kingdom as he was speaking of himself and those that love and care for little children – it appears to me that you are rejecting any possible responsibility over little children (and others in spiritual or other need).  Taking responsibility to love others in a caring way (as an attribute of G-d) should not be discarded so easily.

Thanks.  Very good points.

i accept most of the blame here for the confusion.  i am not trying to reject God.  i am just saying that i have a visceral reaction to the interpretation of God that (for me) oozes out of the Old Testament and out of the hard liners (usually the leadership) of many organized religions.  And yes, this is just my perception, and hardly should be accepted as fact.  i am not sure how guilty (assuming guilt needs to be assigned) someone is for a visceral reaction - or how productive it is to try and and use fear of severe consequences to grind away that visceral reaction.  i have found that usually, fear just grinds it in deeper than it was before.  

Outside of that visceral reaction there is a still a complex mixture of hope (that said reaction is founded on warped assumptions) and apology for having it, and probably a few thousand other emotions all wound up and tangled together.  

And i don't know - i hope there is a middle ground between total self-interest and isolation, and ruling over more planets than there are sands in the sea.  Like maybe mucking out the stall of my pony and trying to be nice to both my friends and those who aren't.  i honestly don't see the draw towards the former - though i wish those who want it all the best.  Maybe it will grow on me after a few billion years in heaven - but i doubt it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, changed said:

Love is not the objective of the gospel????? 

 

Correct!

Quote

Jesus sacrifice was all about love, becoming like the Savior is all about love - the greatest commandment, united in all thing - it's all about love.

Correct! And, "God is love." Also, there are 471 scriptures promoting love.

If you thought I was suggesting that the gospel had nothing to do with love, or even only a little to do with love, then you were mistaken. To me, Christ-like love is a HUGE aspect of the Plan and godliness.

However, if you correctly understood the nature of love, you would get that it isn't something that can be attained by seeking after it (as an objective), but rather it is an indirect RESULT of, or is MANIFEST in, other things--particularly obedience to God's commandments.  

Think of it this way: as we begin to obey the commandments, the love of God grows within us. That growing love motivates us to to obey the commandments all the more, which in turn increases our love, and on and on until we are filled with love and completely obedient.

That same growth to a fullness of love would not happen by simply deciding to be full of love, and concentrating on and repeatedly telling oneself to fully love. Do you understand now?

Part of the reason the two greatest commandment are about love, is because obedience to those commandments is dependent upon, and comes as a result of, obedience to all the other command (all the laws and the prophets.)

The point being, if anyone wished to grow in the bonds of love with the ALPHABET community, they wouldn't set that as their objective. Rather, they would encourage obedience to the commandment of God--i.e. repentance, no sexual relations outside the marriage between a man and a woman, no defiling of the body, etc.

However, this rightful understanding of godly love is quite opposed to the prevailing leftist cultural understanding of love, which is all about acceptance, tolerance, or in other words, indulgence of sin.  Godly love is in diametric conflict with worldly love--which means that expressions of Godly love will be rejected by the world as loving, though it will be expressed nevertheless because it is truly loving.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Two of the talks from the meeting that sparked this thread have been posted to Facebook.  One from the former member in a same-sex marriage, one from her still-active Mom.  

https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215217015156612

I've read similar stories, but never heard one given in church during services, at the invitation of the Bishop.

I didn't see anything in those stories that troubled me.  They didn't seem to condone the behavior, though they seemed to come close.  My only issue is having someone openly, and willfully, living in sin share their story with the congregation.  If we need to have people share their ALPHABET stories in church, why can't we have those that are at least attempting to live God's law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The point being, if the Ward in Riverton wished to grow in the bonds of love with the ALPHABET community, they wouldn't set that as their objective. Rather, they would encourage obedience to the commandment of God--i.e. repentance, no sexual relations outside the marriage between a man and a woman, no defiling of the body, etc.

So Wade, I've been a huge closet fan of yours for a long time - more than a decade I think.  You've been somewhat of a hero of mine in apologetic circles, I've learned a lot watching you argue on other boards.

And here you are, criticizing a Bishop for not running things the way you think they should be run.   I'd like to invite you to review all the things you've said to church critics over the years, especially the members, when they take it upon themselves to gripe and criticize about how the bishop did or said something they just can't abide.  Because you have good and relevant things to say to such people. 

Oh - apparently a member of the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer at this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So Wade, I've been a huge closet fan of yours for a long time - more than a decade I think.  You've been somewhat of a hero of mine in apologetic circles, I've learned a lot watching you argue on other boards.

And here you are, criticizing a Bishop for not running things the way you think they should be run.   I'd like to invite you to review all the things you've said to church critics over the years, especially the members, when they take it upon themselves to gripe and criticize about how the bishop did or said something they just can't abide.  Because you have good and relevant things to say to such people. 

Oh - apparently a member of the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer at this thing.

I don't disagree with the point of what you wrote. Our duty is to sustain our leaders, not call them out. But you have to admit that handing over the microphone (to paraphrase your own words) to those who are inimical to the Church and who openly preach contrary to clear Church doctrine as well as the very recent teachings of the Church's highest mortal leaders looks pretty questionable. Frankly, it would not be the first time the Church has had a rogue bishop, or even a rogue stake president. Not saying that's the case, but it's hardly surprising the idea might occur to many. How do you suggest those like wenglund resolve their cognitive dissonance? How do you resolve yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

And here you are, criticizing a Bishop for not running things the way you think they should be run. 

Oh - apparently a member of the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer at this thing.

I agree with you, I don't think this Bishop merits any criticism, quite the opposite actually.  :)  I friended him and his wife on Facebook and I have appreciated reading all the posts.  Thanks again for sharing this here, I would have missed it otherwise.   Very cool about the Stake Presidency member. Man, I want to live in this wars/stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I didn't see anything in those stories that troubled me.  They didn't seem to condone the behavior, though they seemed to come close.  My only issue is having someone openly, and willfully, living in sin share their story with the congregation.  If we need to have people share their ALPHABET stories in church, why can't we have those that are at least attempting to live God's law?

This is the type of talk I wouldn't want my children hearing in Church. In a setting outside the Church this would be fine, inside no so much. Here are the statements that completely misunderstand the gospel:

"I have a new understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and I have a relationship with Heavenly Father that is stronger than ever." Living in sin doesn't increase our relationship with Heavenly Father, and this statement, "I told her I’m not going to marry a man, not marry in the temple and one day I will have children but my child will have 2 mommies." Despite the declaration from our Father in heaven, through his Son, to his servants, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." This is the only time I have ever heard the word "entitled" with regards to the gospel, and they openly reject it.

I would have to agree with @wenglund with this statement, "The point being, if the Ward in Riverton wished to grow in the bonds of love with the ALPHABET community, they wouldn't set that as their objective. Rather, they would encourage obedience to the commandment of God--i.e. repentance, no sexual relations outside the marriage between a man and a woman, no defiling of the body, etc."

This appears to be condoning actions that are obviously against the Lord's will. As this gains more steam I would be curious to see if the Church leaders make a comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share