My gay best friend wants me to attend his wedding

[Latter Days Guy]

And, incidentally, this ^^ is blatant false doctrine.

 

I think Jesus response would be along these lines:

 

[JayGlad]

I would submit the following:

 

If my and my children's perception of my love for them is based on my willingness to acquiesce to their unrighteous desires, and to participate in them in any way, shape or form (such as a celebration), then I would say that neither of us understands what Christ-like love truly is.

Edited March 23, 2015 by JayGlad

[The Folk Prophet]

I think Jesus response would be along these lines:

 

 

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/go-and-sin-no-more-misinterpreting-jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultery/

[pam]

Agreed. 

 

Funny...semantically, I said "more black and white", meaning not black and white at all. :)  Just one of those commincation challenges being discussed on other threads. No offense intented. I tried to cover the "gray" with "Until and unless I would be in such a position and seek personal revelation on the matter...."  We all have the blessing of personal revelation in such matters.

 

No offense taken.  :)

[Anddenex]

It's the same man, but one of them destroyed the whole of the earth genesis chp 7-8 and the other said forgive 70 times 7.. Matthew 18:22

Or we can go with Matthew 5:44 love your enemies

 

Not sure if mentioned, you mean the New Testament Jesus who will burn the earth as an oven by which all wicked will be consumed (baptism (Genesis) and then the fire (New Testament following)?

 

The New Testament Jesus who cat whipped people out of the temple due to their mockery of his house?

[Magus]

It's an interesting and somewhat difficult topic. Let's not kid ourselves - in Leviticus, death or any other number of horrible things are given as a punishment for sins as simple as picking up sticks on the Sabbath - and that one dude was stoned to death...though I don't remember if that was specifically the law for everyone or if he was just being made an example of.

 

But the fact is, Jesus doesn't tell us to stone people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath anymore.

 

And by that standard, I think we'd all have been stoned to death a long time ago.

 

Yes, it's all the same Jesus, and yes, when Jesus comes again, the wicked will burn and great judgments will also be poured out upon the world due to its wickedness....(and again, let's not kid ourselves, some of those "wicked" could easily be you or me, sometimes we think we are "safe" in living our lives by a Terrestrial law but our analysis between Terrestrial and Telestial law just might be off...and plenty of "wicked" people are delightful, good people otherwise)....but to act like there's virtually no difference between how things were handled in the OT and how Jesus advocated us handling them in the NT and today is also a little willfully ignorant.

 

I guess it has something to do with the fact that Jesus (as Jehovah) was dealing with a very stubborn group of people that rejected him even when he freed them from Egypt and had done a great deal of earth-shaking miracles for them. Had it been another group of people that were not as stiff-necked, maybe the rules would have been more lax.

 

I don't know that Jesus ever specifically said, during his mortal ministry, to do away with such and such Mosaic laws. He seemed to walk a fine line. And although he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he never said specifically "hey everyone, no more stoning." There's that walking the fine line - because taken literally, he's still saying "cast the stone," but the qualifier he proposed was perfection, which he knew none fulfilled. So what he didn't say explicitly, he showed and taught by his own personal example. And so he personally defended the woman out of compassion for her life and for giving her an opportunity to repent, and did advocate a higher standard among the people - that of giving people the chance to repent and to change instead of reactionary and condemning judgment for everything, when those same people are not themselves sinless. Jesus represented another opportunity for the people to accept and live the higher law, which was rejected by those who crucified him, but accepted by those who converted and followed him, and for the first time in the world known to them, a group was established of people who knew and tried to live that higher law. And here we are today. The Jewish religion has remained largely stagnant, (relatively speaking) and the people scattered and smitten across the earth, while the teachings of Christ have spread across the globe, albeit in imperfect and fractured form.

 

And that's not to discredit the Jewish religion - there are many great, valuable and somewhat lost teachings to be found therein...Joseph Smith himself studied and appreciated the mystical Kabbalah...and I think everyone would benefit greatly from studying such things....but my point is just to say, the Jewish religion has grown very little in comparison to how Christianity has spread.

 

Anyway, I digress.......I think what got people up in arms is when omegaseaman75 said Jesus would "forgive" and go, and people took that very literally. I think what he meant was that on an emotional level, Jesus would have a loving attitude and be there for them despite their sins, as he is there for us despite our sins, not that he would literally forgive the unrepentant.

 

I myself am not inclined to agree that Jesus would show up at all or participate, as I think showing up at the wedding isn't a qualifer to "be there for them despite their sins" (although it can be seen as a "nice" gesture...) and I think one can show love without doing all of that, but that's my opinion. I just think this thread has gotten into a lot of arguing over nothing and been a bit contentious.

 

If omegaseaman75 wants to believe Jesus would show up - who cares? We all have our opinions, much of which are not doctrinal, and none of us speak for Jesus anyway.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Magus

[Anddenex]

I didn't read any post from anyone "[acting] like there's virtually no difference between how things were handled in the OT and how Jesus advocated us handling them in the NT and today is also a little willfully ignorant."

 

Truth -- God of the Old Testament and New Testament (BoM, D&C, and PoGP) are as you specified the same God.  I don't think cherry picking events from Old Testament (harsh dealings) and then cherry picking New Testament verses (love) is good either.

 

New Testament -- Jesus (Jehovah) through an "angel" smote I believe Herod because he did not give God the glory.  In the New Testament we also have God's dealing with the couple which kept back a piece of the land both "gave up the ghost" and fell down dead.

 

I, personally, think we deceive ourselves to think that God taught love and forgiveness in the New Testament, and was harsher in the Old Testament.  God has dealt with his children differently throughout all history and it appears how harshly he deals out his discipline is contingent upon our knowledge -- not the teaching of the Old or New Testament.  New Testament times would have been also during the Nephites after his coming and look how he dealt with the Nephites after his death and resurrection. 

 

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever -- which means the manner of his discipline is the same throughout all generations and at periods he will deal harshly and within the same period he will deal mercifully.  The Old Testament is full of God's love, forgiveness, mercy, and grace.

 

Edit: Old Testament -- Joseph in Egypt forgiving his brothers who sold him into slavery is a perfect example of forgiveness and love which was also taught in the Old Testament.

 

But I am not sharing something you don't already know. :)

Edited March 24, 2015 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's not forget about Jesus of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants also.

[Magus]

Anddenex - yeah I just felt like in the course of the discussion, some seemed to be trying to make a case very hard that Jesus is the same as OT and NT, and in the course of doing that, were maybe turning a bit of a blind eye to what omega was trying to say. Anywho, I think you and me basically agree.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Magus

[The Folk Prophet]

Anddenex - yeah I just felt like in the course of the discussion, some seemed to be trying to make a case very hard that Jesus is the same as OT and NT, and in the course of doing that, were maybe turning a bit of a blind eye to what omega was trying to say. Anywho, I think you and me basically agree.

 

The potential "blind eye" towards omega's so-called "point" had nothing to do with being overly obsessed with trying to make a case, and everything to do with a moderately long history of his contrary comments against the church on pretty much every subject that every arises in the forums here. This isn't a case of a stranger coming in and making an innocent comment and then being jumped on without cause. I know where he stands, and he knows where I do.

[Crypto]

I don't know if i'll ever be in such a situation, and I pray I don't have to be, but if my best same gender friend were to have a gay marriage and invite me I would probably want to have a personal talk saying something about, How hurtful it is to see someone do something that I believe would limit their potential in the eternities, and how conflicting it would be to celebrate something that I feel condones something that would hurt them so much. I believe I have a good enough relationship that would be all that I would need to say. I'm pretty sure I would feel sorrow...

If not, it would still be a hard thing to decide upon.

[Magus]

The potential "blind eye" towards omega's so-called "point" had nothing to do with being overly obsessed with trying to make a case, and everything to do with a moderately long history of his contrary comments against the church on pretty much every subject that every arises in the forums here. This isn't a case of a stranger coming in and making an innocent comment and then being jumped on without cause. I know where he stands, and he knows where I do.

 

I was unaware you had a history. But out of curiousity, what are his contrary stances against the Church? I personally disagree with some of his opinions that I've seen in this thread, and I understand how some of his wording may have been confusing or poorly chosen in expressing the entirety of his intended meaning, but I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that anything he's said in this thread is in direct contradiction to the Church, or against the Church, or that his comments are the inverse of innocent and somehow diabolical or intended to ensnare or cause contention.

 

I'm relatively "new" here, but I just have this thing where I hate seeing people get told they're flat out "wrong" (as in like, you're "against the Church" for it) for their opinion by a large group of people anytime they express an opinion to the contrary of the majority., even if I myself disagree with them. I've been in that situation on boards where I'm the only religious/conservative member. There are doctrines of the Church that we are all familiar with, but there's still plenty of room for opinion or speculation between the cracks, and people are entitled to it. I'm not sure I've seen omega deliberately say anything contrary to the doctrines of the Church in this thread, but I feel like there's probably been some poor communication and a lot of people saying the same thing just from different angles and then being a bit contentious about it.

 

I never got from him that he meant that there are actually two Jesuses or that he thinks God forgives the unrepentant. But I did get a bit of a vibe that some were really trying to downplay (not saying intentional or not) the differences between the OT and the NT in making their cases, in a way that's sort of felt like omega isn't allowed to ever make a valid observation.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Magus

[omegaseamaster75]

 a moderately long history of his contrary comments against the church on pretty much every subject that every arises in the forums here. T

Be careful when you make accusations. I disagree with YOU on points of policy, doctrine and history....not the church.......

 

I am a member in good standing. Have a temple recommend and a calling....you'd be shocked if you knew what calling.

 

 

I await your apology

[The Folk Prophet]

As to this specific thread, I'm not saying his view that Jesus would attend a gay wedding fits into the contrary-to-the-church idea. I am simply explaining the history behind my online relationship with him and how it plays into my reaction to his comments. 

 

I'm relatively "new" here, but I just have this thing where I hate seeing people get told they're flat out "wrong" (as in like, you're "against the Church" for it) for their opinion by a large group of people anytime they express an opinion to the contrary of the majority., even if I myself disagree with them. I've been in that situation on boards where I'm the only religious/conservative member. There are doctrines of the Church that we are all familiar with, but there's still plenty of room for opinion or speculation between the cracks, and people are entitled to it.

 

If someone states that Jesus will save someone in their sins then they are flat out wrong. If he didn't mean it that way, then perhaps he should have responded right up front with, "I didn't mean it that way" rather than "you are not the arbitrator of truth". You can speculate that Jesus would or would not attend an event all you want. But if you state, even through implication, that Jesus would just forgive everybody there, then I'm going to point out the inaccuracy.

 

I never got from him that he meant that there are actually two Jesuses

 

Really?

 

   Me: There's more than one?

 

   Omega: Sure Old Testament Jesus or New Testament Jesus 

 

Obviously no one thought (at least I never did) that he literally meant there were two separate beings that were both named Jesus. What was being inferred however, and debated against, was the clear idea that Jesus changed from one sort of being into another.

Edited March 24, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[omegaseamaster75]

If someone states that Jesus will save someone in their sins 

 

Never said that. Show me where I did..... I in fact specifically said that he cannot save the unrepentant sinner.

 

Still waiting for you to prove that I am against the teaching of the church also.....

[The Folk Prophet]

Be careful when you make accusations. I disagree with YOU on points of policy, doctrine and history....not the church.......

 

*shrug* the thread record stands. Anyone may go back and read any comment made by you (or me) at any time and judge for themselves.

 

I am a member in good standing. Have a temple recommend and a calling....you'd be shocked if you knew what calling.

 

As if this has anything to do with your comments. Like I said, the record stands for itself.

 

I await your apology

 

Change your tune on missionary duty, the character of Joseph Smith and other leaders, the church's supposed poor training methods for local leaders, the roll of bishops as counselors beyond merely the "spiritual", the naive, uninformed state of the general membership of the church, and a myriad of other issues, (and we'll throw in calling all women "catty" just for good measure) and I'll apologize. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're at odds.

[omegaseamaster75]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I bet Jesus had to deal with homosexuality during his time on the earth. The roman society was ripe with it. I think that you can see evidence of it in  the new testament

 

Romans  

 

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

 

 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

Or Corinthians

 

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Or in Timothy

 

 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

 

 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

[omegaseamaster75]

 

Change your tune on missionary duty, the character of Joseph Smith and other leaders, the church's supposed poor training methods for local leaders, the roll of bishops as counselors beyond merely the "spiritual", the naive, uninformed state of the general membership of the church, and a myriad of other issues, (and we'll throw in calling all women "catty" just for good measure) and I'll apologize. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're at odds.

A mission as a priesthood duty is not doctrinal.

 

Did you know Joseph Smith  personally? or Brigham Young? we are all entitled to our opinions about the people that they were. I have never said that Joseph was not a prophet of God and I have never said that Brigham was not a prophet of God.

 

I am entitled to my opinions about the counseling role that Bishops should play in the lives of the membership. Bishops over step....it's my opinion.

 

The church does not provide adequate training to our leadership, from bishops on up. again my opinion and in no way contrary to any teaching of the church .

 

The membership in general is not informed about the history of the church. We are born and raised in a culture where we do not question and just accept. Why the big uproar about the recently released essays? everyone already knew about that stuff anyways right?

 

 

 

You are right about one thing though not all women are catty......I apologize 

[pkstpaul]

 

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I bet Jesus had to deal with homosexuality during his time on the earth. The roman society was ripe with it. I think that you can see evidence of it in  the new testament

 

I think all those scriptures rightfully disclose the "sin" of homosexuality, but I think homosexuality can be divided into two camps, if you will. There is the lustful misuse of self and there is the natural genetic disposition. I would think Jesus would have addressed the genetic disposition with love and acceptance (not just tolerance). However, I doubt any kind thing he said in favor of homosexuality would not have survived in the writings of those time or times since. Instead, his messages of love must be interpretted for how we treat the natural man (how man was born) over the behaviors of man (the lustful sinner). By all means, we should be vigilant in abhoring the sin. However, we must not cast aside those whom we are commanded to love.

 

Therefore, I see judgement of one's treatment of a gay friend as one who loves the person knowing they are not a sinner for sin's sake. We have to treat the individual as an individual and not a group.

Edited March 24, 2015 by pkstpaul

[Guest]

Therefore, I see judgement of one's treatment of a gay friend as one who loves the person knowing they are not a sinner for sin's sake. We have to treat the individual as an individual and not a group.

I'm not sure I understand this one pk... I read it 3 times and it seems like what you are saying is that if you are genetically predisposed to homosexuality as opposed to "born straight, turned gay", having sexual relations (getting married to the same sex) is not a sin?

[JayGlad]

There are doctrines of the Church that we are all familiar with, but there's still plenty of room for opinion or speculation between the cracks, and people are entitled to it.

 

And I believe that it's the "opinion" and "speculation" amongst the members that causes so much contention (another thread here) and leads weaker members away from the truth.

 

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not a gospel of speculation; His Church is not a church of opinion; His doctrines are not doctrines of conjecture. Yet far too many of us have allowed speculation, opinion, and conjecture to become part of our personal beliefs and in some cases, even our teachings. Anything less than the truth is false. Anything less than light is darkness.

 

On more than one occasion, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, of the Quorum of the Twelve, taught: “There is no salvation in believing a false doctrine.” Elder McConkie went on and listed several axioms (an axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being factual or true). Three of the axioms he gave were:

 

“Truth, diamond truth, truth unmixed with error, truth alone leads to salvation.

 

“Gospel doctrines belong to the Lord, not to men. They are his. He ordained them, he reveals them, and he expects us to believe them.

 

“We are called upon to reject all heresies and cleave unto all truth. Only then can we progress according to the divine plan” (The Seven Deadly Heresies, an address given at Brigham Young University, June 1, 1980).

 

There is so much truth to be learned (and applied), I cannot understand why we speed so much of our limited time discussing opinions and speculations, neither of which will lead us to our exaltation.

Edited March 24, 2015 by JayGlad

[pkstpaul]

I'm not sure I understand this one pk... I read it 3 times and it seems like what you are saying is that if you are genetically predisposed to homosexuality as opposed to "born straight, turned gay", having sexual relations (getting married to the same sex) is not a sin?

It isn't for me to say what is a sin. I will say that I judge them differently and I think Christ would judge genetic predisposition differently. Many people are born with genetic differences that limit their abilities/capabilities in life. I don't mean to call it a "handicap" but do believe genetics are not perfect. There are males born with female tendencies and vice versa. 

 

For instance, I worked with a woman who was a twin. She had very masculine traits. Her twin, a male, was very feminent (sp?). He was gay and in fact died of AIDS. She married a man and had children. From that one account of personal knowlege alone, I feel it wrong to judge a person acting on a genetic predisposition. I am aware of many other such cases of course. I believe these people should not be held to the level of accountability as someone who seeks gratification where ever they can.

[The Folk Prophet]

Hmm. Do genetic predispositions justify wrong behavior? I certainly know of no doctrine that supports that idea. It seems to me that the commandments are the same for all. The only way a predisposition to a character trait would justify anything is if it were strong enough that the person literally had no choice in the matter. That's a pretty serious thing. Someone who is incapable of controlling their behavior has no agency. No agency means no accountability. But, really. NO control? Lock that person up! Scary.

 

My genetic predisposition inclines me to irresponsibility. Does that mean I'm less accountable when I don't do my hometeaching? Hardly. Regardless of my disposition I am capable of choice, and I can do what I have been commanded to do, and be what I have been commanded to be.

 

Lest we forget: Mosiah 3:19 The natural man is an enemy to God unless he putteth off the natural man.

 

The natural man justifies sin theory doesn't work.

[pkstpaul]

Hmm. Do genetic predispositions justify wrong behavior? I certainly know of no doctrine that supports that idea. It seems to me that the commandments are the same for all. The only way a predisposition to a character trait would justify anything is if it were strong enough that the person literally had no choice in the matter. That's a pretty serious thing. Someone who is incapable of controlling their behavior has no agency. No agency means no accountability. But, really. NO control? Lock that person up! Scary.

 

You apparently know little about genetics and you don't seem to acknowledge that the Church does exempt people from accountability based on their "predisposition" at birth.

[The Folk Prophet]

You apparently know little about genetics 

 

And this relates to what I said how?

 

you don't seem to acknowledge that the Church does exempt people from accountability based on their "predisposition" at birth.

 

Please, if you have insight into some doctrine I'm not aware of, do share.