[DaddyB]

amateurparent wrote:

DaddyB:

I understand the point you make.

As the LDS gay who is feeling left out of the lovefest supporting SSM, it must feel especially isolating.

It must feel much like going to a baby shower for an unwed mother when you yourself are dealing with infertility, miscarriage, or death of a child. Each congratulations one hears in that situation just feels like another knife into the soul. The baby shower is all about of hope and celebration. You want SO MUCH to be part of that celebration .. But you are not .. You are celebrating for someone else who made choices that our church’ frowns on. It is very easy to get caught up in, “I am more worthy” and ” I have kept the commandments” and “why are they celebrating something that is viewed as a sin”

Sometimes, we just need to be happy for others and their journey. Most Happily Ever Afters are rarely as good as they appear from the distance. Every life journey includes horrible pain, difficulties, and unbelievable obstacles to deal with and manage. We still wish people well on their journeys. Sometimes, that is all we can do.

As we yell Bon Voyage to SSM couples and wish them well, it doesn’t detract from you or your journey. Like the story of the prodigal son, we can find joy in both sons .. For vastly different reasons.

Hang in there.

Just to clarify, this post is not about me. I was just wondering what your thoughts were about the article I linked to by Joshua Butler.

[DaddyB]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

When we know all there is to know about Egyptology along with how other ancient cultures used that language, and we know all there is to know about God’s intentions and methods with the Book of Abraham, there will be no conflict.

Granted that all fields of human understanding are evolving but to say that when these fields are fully evolved and fully known then they will confirm your position seems preety foolish.

What is the point of new information if we only use it to confirm what we already knew?

If we really do know it, new information will always confirm it. What new information helps with is the assumptions we attach to that original nugget of knowledge. Because of conditioning from our life experience, we make many unconscious assumptions about things we know that are not actually part of it. We put those in the box with that knowledge thinking they belong in that box under all circumstances. We hesitate to consider using the nugget of actual knowledge without those assumptions or to look outside of the box for other workable assumptions in different situations. Awareness of this tendency will allow us to separate actual knowledge from the assumptions.

The other problem we get ourselves into is forgetting that since we are good with a hammer, we want to make every problem a nail. Someone who is gifted in spiritual discernment and not in academics, may be lazy in using analytical thinking in spiritual matters, which could cause them to misapply or misunderstand the spiritual idea. On the other hand, someone very proficient in academics may ignore his spiritual side and lose the wisdom that allows him to use his academic knowledge wisely.

[DaddyB]

Old-Timer wrote:

I respect that view, Daddy B – and agree with it partially. I do believe Joseph was inspired in much of what he did – but not everything. I know he would agree with that statement.

Remember, Joseph himself said he was a rough stone rolling and that God was knocking off the rough edges – and that Joseph is the most chastised person in the D&C. When we try to paint him as perfect and infallible, in practical terms, I think we do him a grave disservice – and I think we also devalue the Atonement in a very real and important way.

I hope I didn’t give the impression that Joseph was perfect in any way. As God pushed him to his limit many times He also allowed Joseph to make mistakes in the implementing of His directives. He often gave Joseph general objectives and let Joseph figure out how to implement them. God wanted Joseph to learn from his mistakes as much as from revelation.

[DaddyB]

Old-Timer wrote:

…but JS was always exploring the new and pushing the envelope.

This whole post is a very illuminating perspective, which I agree with. The only thing I would add is that it was not just an ambitious, industrious attitude that influenced Joseph Smith. All this only happened because he was continually being stretched by what God wanted him to do. The ambition and vision came from Jesus Christ and Joseph was only a willing participant.

[DaddyB]

Shawn wrote:

During my faith crisis, I have questioned why a great apostasy would take place and why so many people then and now do not learn the gospel during mortality, and it seemed that there should not even be a need to do work for the dead because God should be able to get the gospel to everyone while they are living.

Shawn, I have contemplated this a lot. The reality is that only a small fraction of our Father’s children have lived in mortality with even a small glimmer of knowledge of the gospel, let alone the fullness. I guess that makes work for the dead the single most important reason for the restoration.

The reason I believe Father allows the vast majority of us to live mortality without knowledge of the gospel is that most of our spiritual siblings need a different kind of mortal experience than I do in order to learn what they need to learn. The variety of situations we are born into makes me believe that our mortal experience is very custom and personalized. It can’t be just random.

This reality also speaks to how important life in the post mortal spirit world is for most of Father’s children. There must be a lot of learning and growing in that realm.

[DaddyB]

bridget_night wrote:

I listened to Grant Palmer’s podcast on the Laws and it just blew my mind. I keep hearing all these excuses for JS, like ‘all the prophets had weaknesses.” and JS admitted he had flaws. BUT, JS broke 6 of the 10 commandments including adultery and murder. Any of us lay people today would be excommunicated for the stuff he did, but not JS and other early leaders. Instead, teens and single members today, have been raked over the coals for masturbation and having a same sex attraction, or women wanting the Priesthood. I expect a little better from prophets and leaders than lay people in the first place, but at least repentance and consequences not rationalizations.

It is interesting that you would assume that Joseph Smith broke 6 of the 10 commandments including adultery and murder. I realize that his critics have claimed such by cherry picking second and third hand sources out of context from history, but that is to be expected for any true prophet of God. The fact that there is so much controversy about him is just another evidence that he really was a true prophet. But actual historical evidence in context shows he was neither an adulterer or a murderer. I suggest you do some serious and careful research into what the defenders of Joseph Smith have turned up historically before you jump to these extreme conclusions because of what the critics have said.

[DaddyB]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

The only reason . . .

There almost never is only one reason for any human conclusion. Just saying.

You are right. I may have overstated that just a bit.

[DaddyB]

Heber13 wrote:

DaddyB wrote:

The academic evidence in favor of the historicity of this book of scripture far outweighs the weak claims against it. I have not heard or read a single claim against its historicity that is not flawed or is without a very rational explanation.

Does that matter to you? If so, why?

Good question. If there were no critics making false claims to prevent serious consideration of the spiritual realities of the Book of Mormon and to create doubt in those weak in the faith, it would not matter so much. It would still be enjoyable, however, and act as a faith strengthener.

The reality is that Satan does not want this Book to be read or respected. It is one of the most if not the most powerful weapon against his agenda. The academic arguments against the Book of Mormon are often presented in a very logical, credible way and people generally instinctively trust what they read or what someone quotes from history. It is hard to imagine someone deliberately misleading us even though we are aware that people do that all the time. It is, therefore, the responsibility of those who do know, to provide answers to the charges of the critics. Most if not all of the evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon have been discovered because a critic first claimed it as a problem. Does that answer your question adequately?

[DaddyB]

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, an acceptance of ambiguity (things we don’t know) is the basis of faith. Remove ambiguity, and faith dies.

I couldn’t agree more. Well said.

[DaddyB]

SamBee wrote:

I agree with him.

I think even if a fully fledged Nephite city were to be found down a sinkhole in the Yucatan, it would not actually impact the message of the BoM that much, other than proving it didn’t all come out of JS’ head.

I like the Book of Mormon, but it’s not the history or lack thereof, which is important to me.

I agree that this is likely what the EQP had in mind. If not, it is probably what those who heard it assumed.

But to me it is irrational to say that the events in the Book of Mormon never actually happened and still believe the Book of Mormon is of divine origin. I also find it interesting that it is even an issue. The only reason a believer would doubt the historicity of the Book of Mormon is if he or she accepted the claims of the critics without checking their sources and learning what LDS scholarship has discovered and said. The academic evidence in favor of the historicity of this book of scripture far outweighs the weak claims against it. I have not heard or read a single claim against its historicity that is not flawed or is without a very rational explanation.

[DaddyB]

Heber13 wrote:

Ambiguity is something I think we just learn to accept, and learn to live with. I find some of his statements in the talk encouraging, and yet…also trying to not scare young listeners about ambiguity…

In my experience, ambiguity is mostly caused by our lack of understanding the entire context of things. When I was quite young, having just learned the basic principles of geometry and the very rigid rules and definitions, one definition that was emphasized heavily was that of a line. It could not bend or curve in any way eternally in either direction. It had to be perfectly straight. Then a friend, who had a big brother in high school calculus told me that he could prove that a line could still be a line with bends and curves. That was direct contradiction to what I had learned. It seemed only one concept could be right, the one I learned from my teacher or what my friend was saying. This was ambiguity to the max being taught by the same public school system. However, when I learned the context and how this could be, the ambiguity disappeared. We need to remember that God sees the bigger picture with no ambiguity. It all makes perfect sense to him. We just need to be patient and realize we have much to learn.

[DaddyB]

DarkJedi wrote:

The only thing that surprised me was the age of the talk – I didn’t think anyone talked about such things that long ago.

Now you’re making me feel old. There are a wealth of deeper thinking stuff on the BYU Speeches sight. Neal Maxwell’s are particularly thought provoking. Here’s the link: http://speeches.byu.edu/ I like to browse by speaker, the tab to the far right.

[DaddyB]

turinturambar wrote:

Daddy B,

This is a very complicated issue, and not at all cut and dried. The Brethren have had several approaches to this issue in the past 50 years, and they continue to change on this stuff.

I’m going to be blunt: I think you’ll find the answer to your question by going out, making the acquaintance of several gay people, and listen, really listen to their stories. Get some empathy, and then come back to the discussion.

The brethren have had several approaches in teaching the same doctrine as the culture changes. The brethren have shown an increase of understanding for people challenged by this. But the fact that homosexual behavior is a serious sin has not varied in any way. Show me one example where the severity of this sin has diminished at all. Show me one example where the severity of this sin is not completely cut and dried.

And about my empathy toward people who are gay. I have spent hours and hours in discussions and just listening to the gay perspective. My perspective has indeed drastically changed on this issue. You have no idea. Because of his talk last conference, some would like to assume that Elder Oaks has not taken the effort to do the same, but they would be way wrong. Just because I love, respect and have empathy for people who have certain challenges does not change the laws of God. The more we value someone or empathize with their situation, the more deeply we love them as a brother or sister, the more important it is to not waver from what God has revealed about what will bring them ultimate happiness. God’s laws are not to punish or to bring misery. They are the only way to real peace and happiness. Help me see where I am wrong here.

[DaddyB]

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin Note]: DaddyB, your points can be made without equating or comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. That is a comparison that has been used in despicable, terrible ways throughout history and has been (and still is) twisted to slander homosexuals unfairly and inaccurately (since more pedophiles are straight than gay, and it’s not statistically close). It won’t be allowed here.

All such comparisons in any future comments will be deleted without explanation.

Sorry if I offended anyone. The only comparison I wanted to make between pedophilia and homosexuality was that they are both serious sins that abuse our procreative powers. That is the only relationship I meant. Homosexual behavior is labeled a serious sin by God’s prophets from the beginning and no prophet has ever wavered on it. It seems many of the posters here seem to think the prophets must have gotten this one wrong. Of course it is also a sin to not love the sinner here as in any other sin. We all have our weaknesses toward certain sins. Just because some have acted out in hate toward the violators of this commandment, doesn’t mean it isn’t a commandment anymore. Why is it okay to have sex outside of marriage(as defined by the church) if you are homosexual and not okay if you are heterosexual? How can anyone who believes in the Bible and especially those who also believe in living prophets think that homosexual behavior is suddenly not a sin? Please help me understand the thinking here.

[DaddyB]

Roadrunner wrote:

…a youth asks you what they should do if they kissed another boy or girl of their same gender? Is a simple kiss sin and does it require repentence?

Kissing a person of the opposite gender can be a sin or not. It depends on what thoughts, desires and emotions are involved. It is the same with same gender. I remember hearing from GAs from the Kimball era that he would kiss them. Didn’t Paul say something about greeting with an holy kiss?

Roadrunner wrote:

What if this youth is sexually attracted to both boys and girls – how can they figure out if they are gay if they can’t “experiment”? And by experiment I dont necessarily mean sex.

Just what do you mean when you say you don’t necessarily mean sex? Are you speaking of only going all the way or doing things with sexual feelings and desires? It is the desires that matter more than anything. What if a youth is attracted to certain forms of alcohol? How will he ever know if he will really enjoy it if he doesn’t try it? He might find out that he prefers wine to just regular fruit juice. Shouldn’t the church encourage experimentation with such things? [Offensive comparison deleted, with explanation in the following admin note.] Perhaps we should all experiment to find out what we prefer.

I am nearly 60 years old and I am attracted to my wife of similar age. But it seems very likely that I may find more physical pleasure with a younger attractive female. Should I experiment with a little dating, flirting and kissing perhaps to see if this is true? Maybe a little porn could help. Do we not find what we seek? Please help me understand the difference between your question and these that I am asking.

[Author]

Posts