Leaderboard

I start with the axiom that we are all children of God and that mortality is not our natural condition. This life should be viewed and measured from the context of what is our ultimate purpose for being here on this earth. So, we all started out "healthy" as spirits. When we enter mortality we immediately become unhealthy due to the natural man. As we experience mortality we either progress towards a return to our natural state, which is being with God, or we digress further from our natural state by becoming more separated from God. Moving towards God is "healthy" whereas moving away from God is "unhealthy". The healthiest mental state possible is having the mind of God. Any deviation from this standard represents an illness to some degree. Committing sin causes mental illness. If we exist in a state of rebellion against God to any degree, to that same degree we are suffering from a mental illness. When we live in sin or when we adopt sinful philosophies we are necessarily delusional and are suffering a form of mental illness. Bruce Jenner is suffering from a severe form of mental illness and because our society in large measure is suffering from mental illness as well, it doesn't even recognize that this is a problem and should not be supported but rather we should be doing something to help this poor fellow and people like him. We should be helping one another become more like Heavenly Father. We should be helping our brothers and sisters know who they are and what their potential is. When we forget this basic purpose and basic knowledge and we try to segregate life in to boxes then we do ourselves and others a disservice because we become enablers and supporters of behavior that will lead people to hell rather than to happiness and we will suffer right along side them. So, this isn't just a case where we can say, "Well, it doesn't hurt me, so why should I care?" If God didn't exist, and if we weren't brothers and sisters, and if the Plan of Salvation was false then maybe we could get away with stating that things like this don't hurt anybody so why should we care. But because God is real and because the Plan of Salvation is real it means that we are all affected by what each person does to some degree. Because we are all connected we ought to be fighting for the cause of Zion rather than just apathetically allowing the notions of what is normal and healthy to be degraded in society to the point where eventually anything and everything goes. -Finrock

I, for one, have no problem with sxfritz's suggestions; but I think we should realize that they will only take us "so far". I grew up in a VERY active youth program where the bishop annually added a couple thousand dollars of his own money to the fund so that we could take "super activities", road trips to temple dedications, etc. The program seemed effective; and we usually had very effective firesides/testimony meetings during these activities. But--you know what? Twenty years later, based on Facebook the ongoing activity rate for the kids who went through that program is probably less than fifty percent. Programs are great for keeping the weak Saints in the Church; and hopefully it buys us time to transform a few of those weak Saints into strong Saints. But ultimately, you can't "program" a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and the folks who haven't been able to develop those attributes will inevitably drift away. Because--for all the cool stuff the Church does, and teaches--living life as a Mormon is hard.

McConkie elsewhere states (perhaps Mormon Doctrine, I'll have to look it up when I get home) that in most scriptures where the term "salvation" is used, it is synonymous with "exaltation" - acknowledging that there are some instances where it means something else.

You can let the musical change the way society views you as an individual Mormon; or you can let your own conduct as an individual Mormon change the way society views the musical.

Of course they're not inappropriate. I guarantee if I can't satisfactory answer them in my own mind I will spend more time considering what you have said, and that's a good thing. Why is it important to understand that the atonement is not penal substitution and how does that help in progression? When we understand how the atonement works we can better use the atonement in our lives and we can also recognize our relationship with the Father and Son more fully. This is not to say that a more limited understanding cannot still help us, but it is of a more restricted application. For example, the theory of penal substitution tends to create a separation between the individual in need and Christ. The individual on the one side suffering for their sin and Christ on the other. The thinking goes that the way to bridge the gap is repentance. If a person repents they get to throw their sins over the boundary to Christ. He then takes them and suffers for them. Do you see how this false boundary makes it appear that the person must do the work alone until a certain point? Further, it gives the false impression that Christ simply takes the burden. This is rarely the case and so when the person's experience does not match their understanding then they think they are doing something wrong. They get confused and don't understand how to progress. But when we understand that Christ is with us every step of the way. That he suffers with us when we sin, that he is not a distant God and there is no specific point at which he finally takes our sin we can turn to him at any and every step in this process. Further, by not expecting him to simply take the sin away we can better recognize when we are forgiven even if we still must be vigilant.

What is your degree in? Have you personally met Mr. Jenner? Or are you purporting that watching a television interview allows you and your whatever-degree to accurately and appropriately diagnose a total stranger? Because if it's on TV, it's 100% accurate and true, right? Just as true as Kim Kardashian's butt is "natural", right? There is not one person on this planet who has all the answers to anything, much less the subject of gender identity. We support the diagnosis of illness - mental or physical - in so many ways, yet anything that has to do with sex, the PC thing to say these days is that it's all good. How dare anything get in the way of anyone when it comes to all things related to sex. Whether it's gender identity, sexual orientation or any one of the labels that we like to use nowadays. We can speculate that a mental illness (and isn't it really just a biological illness/disorder that manifests itself in a psychological way?) is at the root of x, y or z behavior....but if sex is any way involved.....nope, that has nothing to do with anything that might relate to an illness or disorder. Say it ain't so, Joe. We can speculate all we want that...for instance....a brutal sexual crime against a person may have contributed to X actions or behaviors. Except when it comes to sex. At least anything that involves same-gender sex. We understand that there have been instances where women have turned to promiscuity or become asexual in response to a brutal sexual assault, but we can't speculate that a similar assault might have resulted in a woman reacting in a way that involves same-gender sex. It's to the point where you are vilified for even having a thought...for wondering if that is a possibility. Do we know for absolutely sure that there is one and only once cause of something like same-sex attraction? Or transgenderism? If you have that information, please do share it with us. Even those who genuinely try to understand...I mean, I don't get it...from a purely logical viewpoint, I don't get it. God made man and woman. He made their bodies in such a way that they specifically fit together in order to create life. But if you take two same-sex people, you cannot create more life without outside/artificial assistance. And once again, God created man AND woman. Not just one sex/gender. Yet, heterosexual people who believe that there is a God and that He had a purpose and design in creating man AND woman, we aren't allowed to have that belief anymore. It's not enough that I have my beliefs and you have yours. You want me to accept your beliefs while you reserve the right to reject mine. And vilify me for it. And discriminate against me for it. And try to deny me MY rights. I don't "get" transgenderism. I really don't. I don't think it is possible for ANYONE who is not experiencing that situation to understand it. But I get vilified for even not "getting" it. For not jumping up and down and saying "Yay, I am so happy for you!". We just won a wrongful termination case for a transgender client. I did respond with "Yay, I am so happy for you!" in that instance. To fire a person just for being transgender and just because you are uncomfortable with it, is wrong. My co-workers are uncomfortable with the fact that I am Mormon (although, frankly, being "religious" in any way freaks them out), that I am not as wildly liberal as they are. Should I be fired from my job because of that? I was seriously happy for this client. Even if I don't get transgender, I get that this person is a PERSON, they are kind, and sweet and were outstanding at their job. But for some, it is no longer enough that I treat this client the same way I treat all clients (and other human beings). I am being asked to toss aside the gospel as I know it, to toss aside my religious beliefs and say "Yep, you're right and I'm wrong". And if you don't believe that that is what is happening and will only continue to get worse, then you are in denial. Let the flaming being.......

A man goes into a marriage thinking his wife won't change--and then she does. A woman goes into a marriage thinking her husband will change--and then he doesn't.

Yes, it's ok. People can change. They sometimes do. Asking maybe they won't change. But try it. Maybe they will. Maybe not right away. Maybe they need to think and get ready to adjust, then change. Don't ask for too much change, tho'. You cannot expect a person to turn into someone else. Love and acceptance are the key. dc

Missions are not mandatory, any more than obedience, happiness, or exaltation are mandatory. But full-time missionary service is the duty of every young Priesthood holder, unless specifically excused.

I believe Vort or JaG or someone once proposed the idea that baptism might be required for even the Telestial kingdom. I remember responding that it didn't seem right to me. However, recently in my scripture study I read the verses 58 and 59 of Section 138 in the D&C, which reads: 58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God, 59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation. Note the following points. They repent after death.They are redeemed through obedience to ordinances.They pay the penalty anyhow, even though having repented.Their reward is according to their works.The implication here seems to me that this is not necessarily referring to those who never had the chance at the gospel and good works and are thereby not accountable. For why would the unaccountable who accept the gospel after this life pay a penalty? I imagine, instead, that this is referring to everyone who was accountable but did not live up to that accountability in this life, but thereafter are heirs of salvation to some kingdom, but not the Celestial Kingdom and Eternal Life. The meaning I read into this is, perhaps, two-fold. 1) Those who achieve any level of salvation will have to do it through the redemption of Christ by obedience to the ordinance work done for them via work for the dead. 2) Those who refuse this and do not repent will not be redeemed to any level of salvation (cast out to outer darkness). I have, heretofore, always viewed it slightly differently. But this scripture has, perhaps, altered my thinking on the matter. Not that I'm set on this view. Just thinking differently, perhaps.

Growing up, I recall Bruce Jenner on the box of Wheaties cereal and recall his amazing decathlon Gold in the 1976 Olympics. I now read and apparently it is legit he is attempting to become a woman. I have no doubt that Mr. Jenner has some serious mental illness and shame on the medical community for treating this as anything other than a mental disorder. At what point do we hold physicians so-called accountable for not seeking to heal rather than allowing an obviously sick person to continue the slide to the point of no return?

It is perhaps worth remembering that "history" does not refer to past events, but to the record of past events. History is, above all, a "story". In this sense, history can change. It can even be wrong. In general, our understanding of the past is only as good as our histories of it. In this sense, Rough Stone Rolling may be as good a "secular" history of Joseph Smith as we can hope for. But whatever other people may have said about Joseph Smith and whatever the historical records might seem to indicate, these things do not affect to any degree the reality of what happened. And we may be (and very likely are) sealed off from that reality throughout mortality. So in topics such as these, the best and safest course is to gain a testimony and follow the Spirit in all things. Insofar as they are true, histories can be very useful; but since false histories in such a topic can be not merely damaging, but damning, we are much better off not basing our beliefs on various histories, but rather on a confirmation of the Spirit. That said, it's probably a great book. I have two copies waiting to be read, some time in the future when I have loads of time to read for pleasure.

Facebook is a great place to stay in touch with people you actually know and want to hear from. It's also a halfway decent way to find people with similar interests. But LDS.net draws anonymous attention, while Facebook people basically have to put their name to their interests, because it's wise to not trust privacy settings. Some folks are willing to do so, but not as many as are willing to come to lds.net and anonymously comment on things. I like Facebook. Viva la mindless cat video brain dump cesspool of memes and themes! It's a good way to find people in your eclectic demographic.

So an old friend did something very stupid, got himself arrested, may possibly lose his family with no one blaming them. I was mad at him and he did nothing to me. He is staying with his mom and attending my ward. The first time I saw him, all I felt was love. No anger. A friend suggested the Atonement also helps us forgive. Any truth to this?

I felt similary (but to a much lesser degree) regarding certain people who made their excommunications high-profile. When, years later, one of the returned to the Church, I was surprised and relieved to feel only happiness for her, no resentment. It gave me hope that, through the atonement, even one such as I might become a Godly man.

Good Afternoon carlimac, I'm sorry that you experienced such behavior from those people on Facebook. Its really tough to have someone ridicule you and treat your sacred beliefs with such disdain. There is confusion inside and outside of the Church as to how to deal with these things and people seem to be conflating and mixing up philosophies. I don't know how often members of the Church really consider life on the terms that I detailed. Meaning, I read and hear posts from members of the Church and their message seems to ignore the fact that God is real, we are literally His children and He has a plan for us. Of course most people on this earth do not know or understand the fact that they are God's children, however, when you do know this an understand this then you can at least approach the question from the right perspective and you will not be fooled by some of the very persuasive and pleasing messages that are being presented but which are counter to what God has revealed. The modern day justification for allowing all sorts of behavior uses terms such as love and tolerance to try to make their message appealing to many people, and it works. Most people want to be good and do good. They are simply confused as to what love is and what tolerance is. So, my message wasn't meant to be something that you go and say to those who support transgender or homosexual relationships, not unless the Spirit prompts you, but rather I wanted to cut out the clutter and get to the core of the issue so as to provide a clear picture as to what we are talking about and what is really at stake. I hope that my words will be helpful to someone in seeing what it is we are really talking about. -Finrock

1. Assume you have 1 out of 1 with the blue mark. That person constitutes "at least 1" and would leave once the lights went out (it's the same for 1/10 - since the 1 would not see anyone with the mark). 2. Assume you have 2 out of 2 with the blue mark (A and B). A would see B has a blue mark, so B should leave when the lights went out. B doesn't leave, so A knows that B has some ambiguity (the same ambiguity A has). So A knows they both have the blue mark and leaves the next time the lights go out. 3. Assume this hold true for k out of k with the blue mark. All k of them leave on the kth iteration. 4. For k+1, (K+1) looks around and sees all K of them have the blue mark, so K expects them all to leave on the kth iteration (see 3 and the explanation for 2). When they do not leave, that tells (K+1) that (K+1) also has a blue mark and they all leave on the Kth+1 iteration. 1 is the base case. 2 explains better why K+1 works. 4 clinches it.

I am reminded of my freshman year in high school. Our algebra text presented one of those "proof that 2=1" problems. At first glance, their proof looked correct, but I could not bring myself to believe that 2=1. So I spent some time with the problem until I found the flaw in the logic. If you think someone's proof is wrong, it takes more than a "that can't be true" to negate the proof. You need to spend enough time and effort on the logic to find the flaw(s). FWIW, this also leads me to remember Alice's conversation about unbirthdays with Humpty Dumpty. To paraphrase, Alice explains that 365-1=364, HD says that it sounds right, but he will need to see the sum worked on paper, so Alice writes it out for him. He agrees that it appears to have been done correctly, but he doesn't have the time or inclination to think it through completely. Since inductive reasoning can be among the more difficult concepts to grasp, I wonder if the "that's good in theory but doesn't work in practice" is code for "I don't fully understand inductive reasoning, and, therefore, cannot find the flaw in your logic, but there must be one." To sum up, if someone presents a proof that I agree is valid, then I have to accept the conclusion. If I don't like the conclusion, then it is my job to find the flaw in the logic or to provide a "counter proof". Not sure if that helps at all. If nothing else, we got to remember Alice in her quest to be a queen, and that has to be worth something.

I have found that I am less prone to find fault with some behavior if I myself am guilty of said behavior. I only have anecdotes for this but it appears to me that our leaders in government are but a reflection of the general attitude of the population. What I mean is that the people, on the whole, will vote in those candidates that they feel they connect with. Unfortunately many people seem to connect with lying, stealing, and being worldly and petty. -Finrock

Indeed. I would rather have my arm ripped off than my head. That doesn't make losing my arm any more pleasant.

The spirit world is a place of partial judgement. I take that as meaning that we understand more fully our righteousness or our wickedness and enter a more complete joy or sorrow when we enter the spirit world. But we do not yet understand everything we ultimately will at the resurrection. Regarding spirit prison we have this from the encyclopedia of Mormonism: Note the clarification regarding the two conditions that are involved when we talk about spirit prison. One is, a mental condition based on our unbelief and disobedience, the other is a limitation based on the fact that we do not have a body. Our punishment ends and we are freed from the first condition when we repent of our sins. We do not need to wait for the ordinances to be performed. We are freed from the second condition when we have received all the ordinances and are resurrected.

From a certain point of view, mentally ill is any mentality that is corrupt at any level - veering from wisdom, truth, and light. From this perspective, we all have some level of mental illness, because we are all askew in some ways, which makes it a sliding scale. The further we go from truth and light, the more mentally ill we are. That is, of course, if you judge the relativity of it to truth and light with God as our exemplar, rather than basing it on the ever changing what-is-normal mark. Of course then we'd have to get into the discussion of exactly at what point of distance from truth and light do we draw the line in the sand and name it "mentally ill". That's a semantic debate that's hardly worth having. And any professional in the mental health field should well know that it's a semantic debate, no matter what mark is being set as the defining criteria against which to judge. In other words, potato, po-tah-to. Who cares? What is clear is that Bruce Jenner is very, very askew from wisdom, truth and light.

I certainly agree with you Finrock in idea and theory. But putting that into practice is a whole nuther side of the issue. For the most part, those who are engaged in gay relationships or are transgendered want no part of anyone telling them what they are doing is sinful or wrong. They are SO protective of their "rights" to act any way they feel and to engage in any kind of behavior they want to that they become the bullies they cry out against. And yet they can't see their actions as bullying. They feel they are perfectly justified in ranting, using the grossest of language and insults against anyone who is religious. I recently had that experience. I'm no New Testament apostle and have no desire to put myself in that situation over and over again. I also think that deep down, most homosexuals and transgenders know that their choice of behavior is offensive to God and to nature, so don't need us telling them that. I prefer to just keep my ideas and beliefs on the matter to myself, unless it's in some anonymous forum, like this one. (Semi- anon anyway) Or on a comments section where I can try to word a response with logic using the spirit as my guide. But to tell someone these things to their face, I believe is a dangerous proposition. I actually felt threatened by the gang mentality of this particular facebook group when I spoke up, even in the most civil and inoffensive manner I could muster. I spoke of God and Jesus Christ, tried to explain and defend Church leaders and in response was berated and felt like they were spitting in my face. I think they would have if I had been in there presence and not just on facebook. they twisted my words and were obviously intent on humiliating me and my beliefs. I'm done with that.

Hi James12, I wasn't very clear in my description because I agree that just because saving ordinances are performed on earth does not mean that the spirit is freed from spirit prison. However, does a spirit have to wait until the saving ordinances have been performed before they can repent? I guess I was assuming that the spirit in spirit prison has repented but simply has not been able to leave spirit prison because the saving ordinances have not been performed on earth for them. That whole assumption, that they can't leave spirit prison until ordinances have been performed, could be false I suppose, but I just wanted to clarify that this is what I was thinking in my mind when I made my post. -Finrock

I spoke at a convert baptism last Saturday. I was surprised that there were no refreshments, but thought maybe because ti was in the evening and people would want to go home. I've been to most of the convert baptisms in my ward over the past few years and they always had food - but then, they were always during the day, so ...

In what way is believing someone needs psychiatric help vilefying them?

You need to read the rules especially the part where it states ...... Each time you sign into site You must pay Palerider in cold hard CASH usuage Fees.

What rules?

I've posted this elsewhere. My purpose here, amongst friends who also believe in the importance of seeking to convert people to faith, is to discuss experiences, or reactions we've had.

What does it mean to forgive? Does it mean to transfer the payment to another person or is it absolution? In the below parable did the king make another person pay? Would that have shown mercy? Now as far as forgiving us as we forgive others, this has nothing to do with transference of punishment but rather the hardness of our hearts. The standard we use to judge others is the gauge we should use to judge our own heart. Forgiveness will not be forced upon us and those quickest to find fault with anothers are the least ready to enter the kingdom.

Certainly just because saving ordinances are performed on earth it does not mean that one is freed from spirit prison. They must change their ways and accept the ordinances. Of course I do not know all the workings of the spirit world, but ultimately every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. Most to receive the glory prepared for them but a very few will be cast into outer darkness.

I don't remember specifying what you have interpreted my statement to be. The last statement is not what I suggested. Edit -- If we are waiting for Zion to come, we will be waiting a very long time. We don't wait for God to build temples, we build them. Zion is a state of heart and mind, which then builds the place. The place, as specified, I do not believe is possible right now within our current government politics. Thus what will occur that will allow those of a Zion heart and mind actually build the place, such that a government wouldn't interfere with its genesis?

First question: It will begin with Zion and will permeate throughout other countries which truly the desire the welfare of its people. Zion though will definitely be the beacon -- a light on a hill -- and I think Zion will actively invite other towns, cities, states, and countries to accept this manner of economy. Second question: Yes, Zion I believe will have to have dealings with the rest of the world. Much like how the Church works today in business. The Church doesn't just work with temple recommend holders. In some cases, this is probably one way, avenue, Zion's practices will permeate to other nations. Third question: Yes, I believe it will be business practices that are already forming within smaller businesses that will eventually become the building blocks for businesses found in Zion; however, on a global scale I think if the Church began making preparations, as things stand now, it would be difficult and probably would be squashed out by the natural man. One principle that is becoming popular in business (I believe it is Zion principled is how owners are now giving "Ownership" to employees -- a stewardship archetype). I find Egypt intriguing, according to our doctrine, how they patterned their ways after the manner of the priesthood. I wonder how successful in business we as members would be if we patterned business (even leadership) in a similar way. The concept of stewardship for example.

Oh, I don't know? Moroni seemed to think there would be a "world-level" conspiracy. How can a combination that seeks to "overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries" not be considered "world-level"?

What about the strip club analogy? You dropped that discussion. I'm still wondering how you label that as inherently sinful but not a gay wedding the same. Can you explain how a gay wedding is not an inherently sinful event?

I don't see anything wrong with having refreshments after a baptismal service at church. People often have other places to go on Saturday mornings (when most of our baptisms happen) so it's nice to keep the service and the refreshments at the same place. My ward often has refreshments for after the baptism - usually just some cake, sandwiches and juice. People who are attending just bring a small plate of food, or the family provide it. They set a table up just outside the baptism room and the refreshments aren't brought out until after the baptismal service is over. If it's for a child, they often receive gift bags from various people and congratulations. It's a lovely way to end the service, particularly for children and adults who don't have family members in the church. Some families do choose to have their refreshments at their home instead. The RS President sounds like a refreshment Grinch...I'd have food anyway (she doesn't run the building!), too bad if she doesn't like it. As long as it's cleaned up afterwards there shouldn't be a problem.

Exaggerated by some, no doubt. But the danger is real and much greater than that inherent in an SUV. I know three individuals on a personal basis who died in motorcycle accidents. It is highly doubtful any of them would have been killed had they been driving an automobile. It is simply unrealistic to argue that in any conceivable accident a motorcycle rider would suffer less injuries than an automobile driver.

"Religion in America is an ocean wide and an inch deep." I'm not sure who said it, but the idea is relevant to this conversation. Why is it that in a country that is still 70% Christian--that still shows a belief in higher power amongst well over 80% of the population, and yet, which has an LBGT population somewhere in the mid-single digits, that the culture is currently so skewed against religious liberty (when pitted against sexual identity/gender rights)? One answer is the whole "inch deep" thing. And, of course, some religious groups have turned in favor of LBGT perspectives. BUT, is the current favor for LBGT, and opposition to religious freedom claims also an inch deep? Visceral but shallow? Soulsearcher, I agree that we should all be more humane towards one another. I just gave a religious tolerance lecture. I argued that to be confident and competent in one's own perspective allows us to be kind and open towards others. To help one of another faith is to show the ultimate confidence in my own.

I've never been able to afford paying my tithing, so I've always paid it on the gross of every cent that comes in. Because of that, I can afford to pay for everything else I need. I still can't afford to pay tithing, but I continue to pay it on every cent that comes in, and I still can pay for everything I need.

I wonder why my blood pressure goes up this time of year .... I do know why .... It's the NHL playoffs and the NBA playoffs and the start of baseball season. :)

I wonder why when all is said and done more is always said than done?

Soon I won't be able to wear any of my ties without inadvertently making some sort of statement.

The chapter summaries aren't technically part of the Book of Mormon--they didn't appear on the plates, but were added by later editors (Orson Pratt in early editions; Bruce McConkie had a lot of say in the 1981 headings). Oh, by the way--I live in Utah but am California born. It is frankly astounding to me that we can see so much angst on these very forums about the problems that crop up in marriages of people of different sects that still share a belief in Jesus Christ and the Bible--but that some of us then bury our heads in the sand and try to fiat some sort of orthodoxy in which marriages between people of even more disparate ethnic/cultural backgrounds are automatically guaranteed to go absolutely swimmingly, and anyone who warns otherwise must be a sheltered ninny or an unreconstructed bigot. Those who congratulate themselves on living beyond the geographical and intellectual purview of the "Zion curtain" might want to consider the possibility that we provincials might think the way we do because we have seen too much of the world, rather than too little of it.

IIRC, Joseph made the change to the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, published in Nauvoo. However, subsequent LDS editions of the Book of Mormon were based on the 1841 Liverpool edition, which (because its preparers didn't have the 1840 edition available to them) was based in turn on the Kirtland 1837 edition. It wasn't until 1981 that the LDS Church made it a priority to take all of Joseph's 1840 edits and incorporate them, along with some other corrections/clarifications, into its official version of the Book of Mormon.

No one is making him or any other young man go. The choice is up to each young man.

Not sure why Vort gets all the credit for being King Daddy Snarky but I wouldn't list him first or even second on this board.

There are plenty of people who get like that without being sexually abused, and in a fair number of cases those who have been abused become promiscuous as teenagers. I think the biggest factor is the attitude they pick up from their parents. One of the challenges is that in this church a big portion of the members are converts who grew up in other faiths, and so there is constand influx of new members who have the ideas on sexuality they learned before they were members, and they pass that on to their kids. Catholic theology in particular is rather hostile toward sex. Just see how they react if you suggest Mary and Joseph had sex after Christ was born.

Yes. If like me, I will be stubborn and now want to change and even get defensive. But, I will examine the points of the argument and likely eventually conceed to change.

I fully agree with bytor. The man is flagrantly mentally ill. Do we care for our mentally ill? Or do we just let them pursue their self-destructive behaviors while cheering them on? The only reason Bruce Jenner is being encouraged to maim himself physically and emotionally instead of gently counseled and treated for his obvious mental illness is because of the unbelievably strong pro-homosexuality movement in the US. The unmitigated self-destruction of Bruce Jenner is a national disgrace. This has nothing at all to do with freedom or even with societal grappling with transgenderism. It has everything to do with allowing a mentally ill, deeply unhappy man to harm himself in the name of the open glorification of homosexuality. I hope for the best for Bruce Jenner, though at this point I honestly don't know what that would be. I am confident that those who profit from his mental illness will ultimately get the reward they have so fully earned.