My gay best friend wants me to attend his wedding


Recommended Posts

BTW, I'm not talking about character traits you might of inherited from your blood line - as you used laziness as a predisposition. To compare this topic to something so petty is insulting. I'm talking about true genetic disposition.

 

We don't baptise people we feel are not accountable. I'm not taking the time to research the written "doctrine". Again, I don't want to compare homosexuals to disabled people but I will hold to the argument that those born with a true disposition are not accountable for actions derived from the disposition.

 

I'm not God. I don't pretend to know the answers. I'm simply stating my opinion based on my personal experiences in life. I am glad I am NOT in the position to make such judgements, nor do I expect to ever have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was hinted at earlier, but I would also like to note that just because all people aren't perfect examples of gender roles, doesn't necessarily mean they are of the persuasion ____ sexuality, contrary to what gender they may be genetically.

I know plenty of men who like to cook, dress dandy, good with children and are emotional.
I know plenty of women who like video games, camp/don't mind dirt, build things, and are not very emotional.

There is more to gender and sexuality than just a few gender roles.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Internet communication, like communication in real life, has its challenges. But as for me, I never got that he literally meant Jesus would forgive people in their sins, because you'd have to be a really bone-headed member of the Church to think that. Same for the two Jesuses thing. And remember how I mentioned some of us kind of say the same thing just differently, and then start arguing about it? I think the two Jesuses thing is a pretty good example of that. Yes, we all know it's the same Jesus, but we all know there's a difference in emphasis between the things taught in the times of the Old Testament and New Testament, the old way vs. the higher law. Yes, the Old Testament is full of love, mercy and compassion, and yes the New Testament has its share of divine wrath in that time and prophesied in times to come as well, but I think you know what I mean and I don't feel it needs an extremely elaborate explanation for you or anyone to understand, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

As for missionary duty, the character of J.S. and other leaders, poor training methods of local leaders, etc etc....those all seem like areas people can have a wide spectrum of opinions on that are not against the teachings of the Church. Again, I don't know what he said - but I've got my opinions on those things as well, and some of them are indeed critical. But that doesn't affect my testimony of the Church, nor am I against the teachings of the Church or disloyal to the Church. I'm curious what omega said. Would you mind informing me? Or someone?

 

Also, is it just me or does there appear to be enmity between you two? As in more than difference of opinion? I'm kind of getting that vibe, and I don't see why anyone needs to be enemies or rivals here.

Edited by Magus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

See, I think I understand what you mean about saying a 2 year mission as a priesthood duty isn't doctrinal. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but I get where you're trying to come from with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

 

I may be behind the times on this, but last time I read up on it, there wasn't any proof that homosexuality is actually genetic, as in something in your dna or having a "gay gene." I accept there being chemical or hormonal imbalances due to abnormalities in the womb that can influence a person, but the genetic thing I thought hadn't been proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I don't think it's speculation by itself that causes division, I think it's people being intolerant of others' speculations. We can all agree on the basic doctrines. Those are the things that unite us, or should unite us - if we have enough of the Love of Christ in us to accept that other people can speculate and arrive at different viewpoints. But actual speculation is just that, and nothing more. It's not a declaration of doctrine. At most, it might influence some attitudes, and we have to be careful of that. But at the core, our Church is a Church of pondering and seeking. Great revelations came because of humble speculation, pondering and seeking for new light and answers to question, but always with the objective and humble reservation that regardless of whatever viewpoint we have have arrived at, it could all be wrong and we must submit to whatever God chooses to reveal. And with as much truth as we have with the restored gospel, there are still so many questions. But "we believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." It's my speculation that many of those things yet to be revealed must first be sought, pondered/speculated on, and then prayerfully considered in order for truth to be revealed. Such was the way that many great revelations were received, that are now pillars of doctrine in this Church. It seems to often be the trigger that must be pulled to invoke (if you will) revelation, and that God wants us to seek these things out, because that is part of the spiritual quest of our lives. Having an open dialogue about such things in an appropriate context isn't harmful, but telling people not to talk about such things out of fear someone might lose their testimony is just going to create a closed and stagnant culture in the Church, adverse to new revelation. And besides that, I feel  strongly a person's testimony is first and foremost their own responsibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be considerate of them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have open dialogue either.

Edited by Magus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I'm not talking about character traits you might of inherited from your blood line - as you used laziness as a predisposition. To compare this topic to something so petty is insulting. I'm talking about true genetic disposition.

We don't baptise people we feel are not accountable. I'm not taking the time to research the written "doctrine". Again, I don't want to compare homosexuals to disabled people but I will hold to the argument that those born with a true disposition are not accountable for actions derived from the disposition.

I'm not God. I don't pretend to know the answers. I'm simply stating my opinion based on my personal experiences in life. I am glad I am NOT in the position to make such judgements, nor do I expect to ever have to.

I think you're trying to equate homosexuality with, say, Autism. I can see how an autistic person is judged differently for his actions depending on his level of ability.

Let's put this on a specific example... This autistic 10-year-old girl was getting sensory overload in school which caused her to poop her pants. She took off her pants right there in the middle of the classroom and flung it at the teacher. So yes, I can see how this action may be judged differently by Christ. But the teachers are still obligated to teach the girl to not do that. Right? By the way, this is a true story...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got my opinions on those things as well, and some of them are indeed critical.

 

And if you state those critical things and I'm around you'll be hearing my defense. 

 

Also, is it just me or does there appear to be enmity between you two? As in more than difference of opinion? I'm kind of getting that vibe, and I don't see why anyone needs to be enemies or rivals here.

 

I will defend the church, the gospel, its leaders, it policies and practices, its history, etc.. If that makes an enemy of someone, so be it. It's not my intent. I don't hate anyone (though some rub me wrong sometimes). But I will speak against criticism of the church or any advocacy against it's leaders teachings, advice, counsel, or direction.

 

Any bad blood between us stems from him though. I stand for the church, its ideas, principles, leaders, teachings, etc. I hold no specific animosity towards him or others. He has openly stated that I am intolerable to him however, and I can only assume that was meant personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's speculation by itself that causes division, I think it's people being intolerant of others' speculations. We can all agree on the basic doctrines. Those are the things that unite us, or should unite us - if we have enough of the Love of Christ in us to accept that other people can speculate and arrive at different viewpoints. But actual speculation is just that, and nothing more. It's not a declaration of doctrine. At most, it might influence some attitudes, and we have to be careful of that. But at the core, our Church is a Church of pondering and seeking. Great revelations came because of humble speculation, pondering and seeking for new light and answers to question, but always with the objective and humble reservation that regardless of whatever viewpoint we have have arrived at, it could all be wrong and we must submit to whatever God chooses to reveal. And with as much truth as we have with the restored gospel, there are still so many questions. But "we believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." It's my speculation that many of those things yet to be revealed must first be sought, pondered/speculated on, and then prayerfully considered in order for truth to be revealed. Such was the way that many great revelations were received, that are now pillars of doctrine in this Church. It seems to often be the trigger that must be pulled to invoke (if you will) revelation, and that God wants us to seek these things out, because that is part of the spiritual quest of our lives. Having an open dialogue about such things in an appropriate context isn't harmful, but telling people not to talk about such things out of fear someone might lose their testimony is just going to create a closed and stagnant culture in the Church, adverse to new revelation. And besides that, I feel  strongly a person's testimony is first and foremost their own responsibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be considerate of them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have open dialogue either.

 

If you think it isn't harmful to openly declare ideas such as missions not being necessary, following the prophet is optional, Joseph Smith was some kind of a lecherous womanizer, the church is messing things up in a myriad of different ways, local priesthood are a bunch of buffoons that aren't qualified for their callings, pierce anything you feel like, the prophets and apostles declarations (particularly official ones) don't count as doctrine unless canonized, Brigham was nothing but a bigot and didn't listen to the Spirit to guide the church, etc., etc., then I'm afraid I simply cannot agree. Such declarations are potentially extremely harmful, and if no one ever stands up against toxic ideas then the toxin will continue to seep into the blood veins of the membership, poisoning us all.

 

These aren't "did Adam have a belly button" type issues. They matter, and they matter a great deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A mission as a priesthood duty is not doctrinal.

 

Of course it is. Our leaders are responsible for defining and teaching the doctrine, and they have made it crystal clear that full-time missionary service is in fact a Priesthood duty. As one example among a great many, the prophet of the Lord, President Monson, recently said in General Conference:

 

Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much.

 
Or are you suggesting that you define the Church's doctrine rather than the President of the Church?
 

we are all entitled to our opinions about the people that they were. [...] 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.

 
So TFP has opinions about you and your opinions. Why is that wrong? Don't you believe in letting people have their opinions? Or is it only you that gets that privilege?
 
You may have the opinion that the sun is a large navel orange and that your wife is a bowl of lime Jello. That these are your opinions does not make them true or worthwhile. So yes, you have a right to your opinions, but why do you think that makes those opinions sacred or above reproach?
 

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?

 

The only uproar about the essays that I witnessed was among the faithless. And your opinions about the general membership (though perhaps sacrosanct since they are your opinions) are false, at least as far as my experience can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think it isn't harmful to openly declare ideas such as missions not being necessary, following the prophet is optional, Joseph Smith was some kind of a lecherous womanizer, the church is messing things up in a myriad of different ways, local priesthood are a bunch of buffoons that aren't qualified for their callings, pierce anything you feel like, the prophets and apostles declarations (particularly official ones) don't count as doctrine unless canonized, Brigham was nothing but a bigot and didn't listen to the Spirit to guide the church, etc., etc., then I'm afraid I simply cannot agree. Such declarations are potentially extremely harmful, and if no one ever stands up against toxic ideas then the toxin will continue to seep into the blood veins of the membership, poisoning us all.

 

These aren't "did Adam have a belly button" type issues. They matter, and they matter a great deal.

 

When I was talking about speculation and seeking out answers in a humble way, I wasn't talking about those kinds of topics. Nor was I talking about omega in that post you quoted. You took a question I asked you about omega in one post and used it to answer something in another post that had a completely different context and had nothing to do with omega. And in that, post, I certainly wasn't talking about questions as trivial as "did Adam have a belly button." Did I come off like I was? I didn't think so...

 

But since you bring those things up.....

 

Of course those issues matter, and matter a great deal. But I think the way you're treating omega is less like a brother and fellow member of the Church, and more like some renegade apostate that has to be chastised and rebuked, with you as the Defender of the Faith. I don't agree with much of what he has said, and considering what's been said, it's likely I wouldn't agree with many things - but what I object to is that I in the course of the debate, I don't see him being treated with much love, patience, long-suffering or much of an attempt to understand where he's actually coming from.

Edited by Magus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Of course it is. Our leaders are responsible for defining and teaching the doctrine, and they have made it crystal clear that full-time missionary service is in fact a Priesthood duty. As one example among a great many, the prophet of the Lord, President Monson, recently said in General Conference:

 

Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much.

 
Or are you suggesting that you define the Church's doctrine rather than the President of the Church?
 
 
So TFP has opinions about you and your opinions. Why is that wrong? Don't you believe in letting people have their opinions? Or is it only you that gets that privilege?
 
You may have the opinion that the sun is a large navel orange and that your wife is a bowl of lime Jello. That these are your opinions does not make them true or worthwhile. So yes, you have a right to your opinions, but why do you think that makes those opinions sacred or above reproach?
 

 

The only uproar about the essays that I witnessed was among the faithless. And your opinions about the general membership (though perhaps sacrosanct since they are your opinions) are false, at least as far as my experience can tell.

 

 

Hate to be "the devil's advocate" but....it's possible that, for omega, "priesthood duty" could be a semantics issue. Just saying. There are things you can use your priesthood for, and then there are things that just having the priesthood inherently calls you to do. The fact that someone can have the priesthood, be worthy, etc, and be told not to specifically go serve a "full time mission" for reasons x,y and z may be part of what is forming his viewpoint on this.And as far as general, member-missionary type of work that lasts throughout your lifetime, I'd say that would be more an obligation or duty of anyone who is a member, not specifically the priesthood holders.

 

For the record, I think being a priesthood bearer and member of the Church obligates you to be a member missionary at the very least, and I think when the prophets say that every young man should live worthy and go serve a full-time mission, that in itself is enough of a calling, and any possible semantics issue is irrelevant to me.

 

Also, if you only witnessed the nitty gritty and until recently somewhat suppressed history of the Church only affecting "the faithless," well... There are a lot of people, especially converts overseas where the Church is new (like Russia) that have come across this stuff and been totally floored by it and have felt very tricked and deceived. And they were not "faithless." I think the Church's intention was good (milk before meat) but the actual result of using this "True To The Faith" (the missionary-approved booklet) sort of sanitized history has been that of setting people up to lose their faith when they are eventually confronted with the whole version of the story. And of this I do have personal experience in witnessing quite a bit. I saw it on my mission and I saw it after. I was very pleased, however, to see the essays finally put up on the Church website. A big step in the right direction, although, sadly, too late for many.

 

This is a controversial Church and it always will be. When you have that much controversy, the right way to deal with it isn't to run from it or ignore it, you gotta own it and embrace it and challenge people to ask themselves, "what of it?" Just about everything about this Church challenges peoples' notions of God, society, marriage, love, forgiveness, obedience, and the concept of what a real, bona-fide Church of God looks like. And that's a good thing, but it can be scary for people. True religion does that.

Edited by Magus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think it isn't harmful to openly declare ideas such as missions not being necessary, following the prophet is optional, Joseph Smith was some kind of a lecherous womanizer, the church is messing things up in a myriad of different ways, local priesthood are a bunch of buffoons that aren't qualified for their callings, pierce anything you feel like, the prophets and apostles declarations (particularly official ones) don't count as doctrine unless canonized, Brigham was nothing but a bigot and didn't listen to the Spirit to guide the church, etc., etc., then I'm afraid I simply cannot agree. Such declarations are potentially extremely harmful, and if no one ever stands up against toxic ideas then the toxin will continue to seep into the blood veins of the membership, poisoning us all.

 

These aren't "did Adam have a belly button" type issues. They matter, and they matter a great deal.

Good job providing context to everything that I have posted or said in the past....nice one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you state those critical things and I'm around you'll be hearing my defense. 

 

 

I will defend the church, the gospel, its leaders, it policies and practices, its history, etc.. If that makes an enemy of someone, so be it. It's not my intent. I don't hate anyone (though some rub me wrong sometimes). But I will speak against criticism of the church or any advocacy against it's leaders teachings, advice, counsel, or direction.

 

Any bad blood between us stems from him though. I stand for the church, its ideas, principles, leaders, teachings, etc. I hold no specific animosity towards him or others. He has openly stated that I am intolerable to him however, and I can only assume that was meant personally.

I said your desire to always have the last word is intolerable, I don't know you so how could I have any sort of opinion about you? As far as I know you are a member in good standing, and from everything I can tell articulate and intelligent. We differ on points of doctrine and history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason I'm defending omega is because I've been in a situation before where I've expressed a way of thinking or an opinion amongst fellow members, and when people didn't understand me or where I was coming from, instead of trying to see that, they just got defensive and turned into the doctrine police and basically just treated me like some sort of aberration. It's very alienating. Again, I may not agree with omega on a number of these issues, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Edited by Magus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magus,

 

I can appreciate your desire to be a peacemaker. But you are essentially coming into something and judging a situation without context. I have tried to provide a bit of context, but without having seen the, literally, hundreds of encounters we've had, your judgment doesn't hold a lot of oomph. I'm not going to go into a series of accusations that are, really, quite complex. Omega is a skilled wordsmith and quite talented at contorting ideas to suit his arguments. But the reality is, I've never really gone after him. Those who may know me from years back on the forum might attest to this. There was a time when I would really go after people, and I'm quite good at it if I do say so myself. Of course doing so is never truly useful. My interactions with omega, for the most part, have been quite mild...though I do get out of sorts at times.

 

Like I said, I can appreciate the sentiment you're expressing, and I certainly have need of improving in these regards. I believe, in many ways, I have over time, and I hope to continue to do so.

 

But as I have explained, if someone criticizes the church or gospel I will defend it, and I accept that sometimes this will cause some alienation. It is my strong opinion, as I have said, that this needs to be done, and too few people are courageous enough, or otherwise willing to stand up and take the hit of such accusations in response to that defense. At least I hope it's merely a lack of courage. I dread the alternative, which is, perhaps, that the poisons being spread have taken effect, and we've become nothing but a faithless people who follow the traditions of our fathers but don't really feel any true sense of honor, loyalty, fidelity, and commitment to what we profess to believe.

 

I will take your admonition as a reminder to temper my language and recommit to charitable feelings and thoughts as I continue to do as I feel is necessary. But I will not back down from defending against what I consider venomous wolf-in-sheeps-clothing attacks to the kingdom of God. If this alienates one or two, I can only hope that the bulwark I mean to raise in doing so shields many others against the otherwise injurious onslaught.

 

Or would you that I cast aside my concern for those I mean to protect in favor of the feelings of one who has shown himself to be repeatedly accusatory to things I (and hopefully others) hold quite sacred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magus,

 

I can appreciate your desire to be a peacemaker. But you are essentially coming into something and judging a situation without context. I have tried to provide a bit of context, but without having seen the, literally, hundreds of encounters we've had, your judgment doesn't hold a lot of oomph. I'm not going to go into a series of accusations that are, really, quite complex. Omega is a skilled wordsmith and quite talented at contorting ideas to suit his arguments. But the reality is, I've never really gone after him. Those who may know me from years back on the forum might attest to this. There was a time when I would really go after people, and I'm quite good at it if I do say so myself. Of course doing so is never truly useful. My interactions with omega, for the most part, have been quite mild...though I do get out of sorts at times.

 

Like I said, I can appreciate the sentiment you're expressing, and I certainly have need of improving in these regards. I believe, in many ways, I have over time, and I hope to continue to do so.

 

But as I have explained, if someone criticizes the church or gospel I will defend it, and I accept that sometimes this will cause some alienation. It is my strong opinion, as I have said, that this needs to be done, and too few people are courageous enough, or otherwise willing to stand up and take the hit of such accusations in response to that defense. At least I hope it's merely a lack of courage. I dread the alternative, which is, perhaps, that the poisons being spread have taken effect, and we've become nothing but a faithless people who follow the traditions of our fathers but don't really feel any true sense of honor, loyalty, fidelity, and commitment to what we profess to believe.

 

I will take your admonition as a reminder to temper my language and recommit to charitable feelings and thoughts as I continue to do as I feel is necessary. But I will not back down from defending against what I consider venomous wolf-in-sheeps-clothing attacks to the kingdom of God. If this alienates one or two, I can only hope that the bulwark I mean to raise in doing so shields many others against the otherwise injurious onslaught.

 

Or would you that I cast aside my concern for those I mean to protect in favor of the feelings of one who has shown himself to be repeatedly accusatory to things I (and hopefully others) hold quite sacred?

 

Fair enough. I realize I'm walking into a situation with a long history that I'm ignorant of. I feel like I've said all that needs to be said anyway. I don't know omega so I give him the benefit of a doubt, but I understand you have a long history and feel like you need to do what you do.

 

But now I'm interested in hearing omega's controversial views on things, from the horse's mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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