Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/19/22 in Posts

  1. 7 points
    Anddenex

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends. I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to." I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.
  2. 6 points
    The Folk Prophet

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    God doesn't bring anyone into the fold. He invites all to follow and obey and they either come to Him or they do not, based on their own free will and choice. Edit: I know "bring" is a subjective idea, but the point remains... it is upon our agency.
  3. 6 points
    Vort

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    A nice-sounding sentiment, but there is no lasting happiness outside the kingdom of God, which is the Restored Church.
  4. 4 points
    Carborendum

    Mid-term election Predictions

    Ok, let's explore that. I've heard self-professed liberals say that. I've heard many moderates "claim" that. But I never heard any details. I'll present the things I see that the Democrats have changed over the years. You tell me what Republicans have changed over the years and let's see which evince a greater change. Deal? LGBTQ...: OLD Liberal: Obama refused to acknowledge that transgenders should be allowed to use the bathroom of choice. Both Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage when they ran for President. Many in Hollywood mocked the idea of a cross-dresser or transgendered individual. They even mocked homosexuals until around the mid 90s. Then they only subtly included them in films. Legal teams promoting "tolerance said it was ludicrous to believe that a pre-operative transgendered individual would EVER use a bathroom for the opposite sex. Marriage is a religious institution. It is not for a government to mandate same-sex marriage. Keep transgendered men out of women's sports. New liberal: Legalize homosexual marriages. Tolerance is no longer enough. You have to CELEBRATE homosexuality or you're a homophobe. Biden promotes trasngenders going into opposite sex bathrooms. Schools push it on our children without parental consent. They even give our children hormones/medication without parental consent. Drag queen story hour is in our kindergarten classes. Biological males are in our women's locker rooms and bathrooms. Biological males in women's sports. Musk (a moderate liberal) even offered up that he has nothing against transgenders, but he found it exhausting to try to keep track of such a plethora of pronouns. He was labeled a homophobe and transphobe by the left for that one statement. And now he is hated for it. Promote placing thy rainbow flag on government buildings. But forbid a nativity scene at a public park for Christmas. Also note that Trump was the first President to be for gay marriage during a campaign. Abortion Old liberal: Three exceptions (rape, incest, or life/health of the mother) were the common liberal talking points before R v. W. Always hailed as "an extremely heart-wrenching and emotional" decision for any woman to make. Doctor's have the right to conscience regarding abortion. New liberal: Women CELEBRATE their abortions in public and crowds cheer them on. Women all over don't want to have babies -- "unnatural affection". Women who can't afford abortions have the baby and throw them in a dumpster.(*) Doctors (OB-gyn) are pretty much legally obligated to offer abortions any time a woman is pregnant. And they can be sued if the child has any defects after birth -- simply because they didn't FORCE the abortion on the mother. This happened to a doctor in my ward. The ironic thing is that it happened when she was working from home during her own pregnancy. She got sued for not aborting a baby for a defect. If a doctor simply offers a referral for an abortion instead of doing it himself, he can be sued for malpractice. Racism Old liberal: Martin Luther King, Jr. Content of character, not the color of the skin. Just get along. Let their merits get them ahead regardless of race. Obama has his "beer summit" to smooth over a clear misunderstanding. Morgan Freeman said to get rid of racism: Stop talking about it. Stop caring about it. Stop thinking about me as black. I stop thinking of you as white. And we just know each other by our names and our character as we get to know one another. New liberal: There is no misunderstanding, if you're white, you're automatically a racist. Critical Race Theory. Affirmative action (which had been shot down in courts for decades). Now is being accepted as law. We need to help out black people because they are automatically disadvantaged no matter how much money or power they have. If a black man is killed by a cop, the cop is automatically guilty of racism. A white man gets shot by a cop, it doesn't even make the news. BLM riots not stopped by police. Elected officials specifically tell the police to NOT arrest anyone "peacefully protesting" by beating people and setting both private and public property on fire. A black man MUST be released regardless of the crime. White people getting attacked completely randomly by blacks, and police are not allowed to do anything except call an ambulance. White people are hiring "special black counselors" $50,000 to come to their house and explain why they are so privileged and what they need to do for penance to "beat the racism out of their white skin." Financial woes: Old liberal: We need to be more caring about those less fortunate than us. We need to give a hand-up, not a hand-out. New liberal: If you're a minority, you can't get ahead on your own. You need help (a patron -- the classical definition). If you're a minority, you are automatically poor even if you make $100,000 per speech about racism that lasts 30 minutes. If there's any social program, it needs to prioritize minorities before white people (who are just as poor) are taken care of. Immigration: Old liberal: We need to be nicer to people who immigrate. Immigration is what has built this country. We are a melting pot. New liberal: We should have more illegal immigrants come in than both the legal immigrants and natural born citizens combined. OPEN BORDERS!!! Over 80% of these items have been enforced by the force of law (or equivalent). Of so many of these, I've seen that conservatives have come to adopt the old liberal values and positions. But people still claim that it is the conservatives that have gone off the rocker? Please talk about the tremendous changes that conservatives have undergone to go further right in the last two decades. And what legal measures have we taken to enforce any of these changes onto society. What's that percentage? (*) the dumpster baby phenomenon is a very long discussion. We can take that on a tangent if you want. But it would probably be good for another thread.
  5. 4 points
    Anddenex

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    If a man is dating a woman because he is interested in them that is a heterosexual act. If a man is dating another man because he is interested in them. That is a homosexual act. That is as plain and clear as it can be. There isn't any slippery slope, it presents the same idea of attraction. If you are OK with a men dating a man and assuming it is just a date, then you must also be OK with a married man dating other women (despite the marriage contract) because it is just a date. There is nothing slippery about it, it is the reality. Choosing to be Ok with one, while saying the other is inherently wrong is the slippery slope. The Church has been very clear. The Lord has been very clear on this matter. Because members choose to ignore the counsel, or seek to find a loop hole in the counsel doesn't make the counsel and teachings unclear. We are judged by the desires of our heart, as well as our actions -- both for good and evil. If they are speaking of "gay" romantic relations, and the "Spirit" approving -- then they are listing to obey the wrong spirit. That is the slippery slope. What else then will they convince themselves of the Spirit approving when it is obviously against the commandments of God? In that same light, I once listened to a married man seeking to convince us that the Lord told him it was OK to commit adultery. Does that make it so? Obviously not. Yes, same sex romantic relations are forbidden by God, there is no question on the matter, unless we are listing to obey the wrong Spirit. The Lord is an author of truth, not of confusion. EDIT: I'm wondering also (upon further thought), if there belief of God approving is similar (to the principle/idea) to God approving Joseph Smith saying "Go ahead" and then letting his children face the consequence of their decision. This "Spirit" approval is very different than God's actual approval.
  6. 4 points
    No, I don't think this is anti-religious. But I would agree that it is rewarding the irresponsible. I think we would disagree on who are the irresponsible parties. I have major concerns with student loan forgiveness, because the origin of the massive loans is tuition and living costs at universities spiraling out of control. And they're spiraling out of control because universities are cutting and reducing programs, expanding administration, and building out higher cost living facilities for students. All those costs get passed down to the students. These costs are not readily manageable, and thus more loans are taken out. Then when costs keep going up, student loan programs offer more funding, and the schools start competing to get that money. In short, higher education institutions are not competing for students, anymore; they are competing to get the students' loan money. And every time they make decisions (increasing tuition, cost of living, etc), the institutions get rewarded with more loan money. Offering loan forgiveness without reforming the loan program would just further reward crappy behavior on the part of the institutions. Now, I don't want to take away from the fact that people have walked themselves into these problems by insisting on going to overpriced "popular" schools, or pursuing full on degrees at large universities that could have been completed just as well at smaller, less expensive schools. Or for insisting that they not work while studying, or any combination of a lot of factors. So I've never been a fan of complete loan forgiveness (in fact, I'm vehemently against full forgiveness). But I'm not opposed to offering some form of relief if there are substantive changes to the loan program itself (and no, I don't really have any thoughts on where to start).
  7. 3 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Mid-term election Predictions

    Possible prediction: Roe will be overruled this June.
  8. 3 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    1. The inherent legalism in such a statement creates its own set of theological issues. I fear that in our haste to establish what the definition of “is” is, we may have left weightier matters (such as the Plan of Salvation, the nature of God, whether or not there is an absolute need for a Heavenly Mother, the nature of exaltation and eternal increase, the long-term malleability/immutability of sexual orientation, and the role of sexual pleasure in both temporal and eternal love) by the wayside. 2. If the relationships include sexual intercourse, then yes; we know that they are forbidden. Or at least, we “know” it as well as we can know anything about God, the Gospel, sin, and God’s ultimate plan for us.
  9. 3 points
    Fether

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    And being angry with your brother is not murder, yet Christ condemns both. Its not a matter of where the line is, it’s a matter of the heart. I would say, at VERY LEAST, homosexual dating is to breaking the LOC as anger is to murder.
  10. 3 points
    laronius

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    Women often have very close relationships with other women that men generally don't experience with other men. There isn't anything romantic about it but it's more than just hanging out with the guys and it helps meet a need on an emotional basis. So if two guys want to have a similar relationship because they are just hardwired differently than most men I don't see how we could say one is wrong and the other isn't. The problem though is when we want to take on the appearance of something more and yet pretend its not. Men and women don't "date" each other unless they are at the very least exploring the possibility of taking the relationship further than just friendship and as soon as it's decided that the relationship will not progress further than friendship the dating stops. So in my mind there is no such thing as "just dating" between same-sex individuals.
  11. 3 points
    LDSGator

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    Look, it’s a dirty job but someone has to say this. She wasn’t all cupcakes and rainbows. In fact, she had this odd obsession with keeping the poor miserable because of the Catholic teachings on suffering and how it brings people closer to Christ. That’s all fine and dandy, but when it was her time to seek treatment, she flew to the best hospitals in the world. Odd how that works. I am NOT saying she was evil, or cruel. She did a lot to help the poor. But her record is much more complex then is known.
  12. 3 points
    Fether

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I have seen far more people use “I prayed about it and God said…” to justify all sorts of decisions. One of my biggest frustrations with members is they will use prayer to cover their bad decisions or to do things they are embarrassed to admit it they wanted to do themselves.
  13. 3 points
    Carborendum

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I can imagine a bit of a game of telephone. Some individual goes to his bishop for a clear line. The bishops may be vague in their counsel. Then a discussion ensues. And being human, they poorly worded statements come out in the course of a casual conversation. Then the individual takes time to parse all the words and interprets the way, they want to hear them. Then he repeats it to others. Then others are interpreting... Telephone. The bottom line is that if someone is dead set on choosing evil, they will find a way to justify it to themselves.
  14. 3 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Irreversible Damage

    Shrier, I should note, focuses particularly on the transgender craze as it pertains to young girls. She has no problem with homosexuality, or even with gender transition by adults with legitimate diagnoses of gender dysphoria following evidence-based therapies. In fact, she suggests that many “transgender” girls are actually lesbians who have internalized some measure of “homophobia”/anti-lesbian prejudice from their surroundings (she notes that in the LGBTQ hierarchy, lesbian institutions/associations/bars/etc are under continual assault by transgender advocates). And she is sympathetic to adult transgender folks who just want to be left alone. But some of her major points are: —Until the early 21st century, people diagnosed with gender dysphoria were 90+% male and diagnoses were usually based on collateral contacts (including parents) saying “yeah, we’ve known something was different about him since he was 3”. Now, it’s like 65+% female, and it’s sudden onset, with parents (even progressive/LGBTQ-friendly ones) (and a significant majority of transgender folk grew up in white, highly educated, affluent, progressive homes) saying “there was never any indication of this until she started hanging out with these people and following these YouTube stars, and then she came out to us a couple of months later”. —A thriving online community of transgender activists openly coaches kids about how to lie about their symptoms to get treatment, an increasing number of therapists don’t use any diagnostic criteria other than “she says she has gender dysphoria, so she does”, and the “watch and wait” therapeutic approach has largely been supplanted by openly affirmative regimens that, deliberately or not, cement questioning kids into a transgender identity. —Educational systems at every level are bending over backwards to expose students to this, including kindergartners; and in some cases to begin providing hormone therapy—all behind the parents’ backs. —Hormone therapies are being granted (frankly, peddled) with nothing approaching “informed consent”. Trans influencers and even health care professionals are telling people that it’s easy to de-transition (it’s not), that puberty blockers are safe (they’re not), and that hormone treatments and surgical interventions are fully reversible (ABSOLUTELY not). (Her description of the procedure and risks inherent to phalloplasty was particularly gruesome.) Shrier says that the parents she talked to who were most successful in fending off trans ideation among their very young daughters before things spun out of control, were those who were willing to take the drastic step of pulling up stakes and moving the entire family.
  15. 3 points
    Oh - and if anyone is gonna brave the explicit temple content and watch this thing - make sure you pay attention to the musical score. All those deep basses, ominous, foreboding. The same sort of music a good (or bad) horror movie uses. I'm noticing the show even plays it when all the happy things are happening, like the cop's family breakfast getting ready for the daughter's baptism. Once you pay attention to the music, the show loses quite a bit of it's emotional power and sway. Music, like font, makes a difference.
  16. 3 points
    scottyg

    Irreversible Damage

    I agree...something odd is occurring. It is crazy how quickly it has taken hold of so many kids, and how this concept is so alluring to them. It makes no sense to me, but makes me more a believer in how fast the Nephite civilization fell in just 4 generations after Christ's appearance. Our ward also has 1 YM and 1 YW struggling with this. The prophet wasn't lying when he said the adversary was quadrupling his efforts. My young kids do not have, and will not be given access to social media by me or my wife. Hopefully frequent trips to the temple when they are of age will help as well.
  17. 3 points
    NeuroTypical

    Irreversible Damage

    Well, it has been 79 years since this was written, I think every generation since then has forgotten more, passed along less, and added new stuff.
  18. 3 points
    NeuroTypical

    Russia-Ukraine conflict

    Relevant criticism of the media aside, I am getting the same coverage of Ukraine as I always have - from my TikTok content creator, and there have been at least 2 articles a day in the Wall Street Journal.
  19. 3 points
    The Folk Prophet

    Musicals

    So I finally saw Stephen Spielberg's West Side Story. Here's my thoughts. So first, the SJW elephant in the room...the change of the character Anybodys from a tomboy to a trans character. Did it hurt the show? Yes. Conversely, did it improve the show? No. Did it destroy it? Well....yes....ish.... in the current state of culture it would be something that I'd steer clear of generally. Outside the culture, could it have been an interesting idea to have a female character that thinks she's a boy and to deal with some of the conflict around that? Sure. But in today's world, it came across as pandering to the left and forced. And, of course, anything right now that pushes that kind of narrative is harmful. But even taking those critiques out of the mix...it was still handled badly. Particularly in once scene. Spoilers moving forward, if anyone cares. So in the original movie (1961), Anybodys runs off to look for Tony and the line is, "Hey. You done good buddyboy." She replies, "Thanks, daddio." In this version it's the same line, but handled: "Hey." Big pause....melodramatic camera zoom in for the line.... "You done good.......buddy-boy!" Anybodys nods dramatically and turns to exit. The camera zoom is SO bad. Like just terrible. A perfect example of ruining something for "THE MESSAGE". In the 1961 movie the lines worked great. Here...it came across as cheesy and terrible. Just bad directing and camera work, acting choices and everything, right in the middle of what was, overall excellent directing, camera work, acting choices, etc. Just terrible. Okay...so that's out of the way. Now putting that "woke" garbage aside, what did I think of the movie, overall? Well, it's West Side Story. It's great. So the question is: did it improve on things? Yes in some ways. No in others. The overall... I'd say the 1961 version is better on the whole. This version had some things that were better, but on the whole, it wasn't as good. Obviously the directing, camera work, lighting, etc., were superior. No question on that. The other big changes were in the order of the songs and additions or changes to the story. Some of those worked. Some didn't. Some were just meaningless changes that didn't add or subtract, but were fine. For example. the west side is having the slums torn down to build the Lincoln Center. So the street gang's worlds are ending anyhow one way or another. Did this story change hurt anything? No? Did it help? Not really. It was fine. Interesting I guess. Fine. They moved One Hand, One Heart to earlier in the show and had them sing it while visiting a church. This worked. It was cool. It was better placement for the song. Some of the other changes to the song order were worse, but not terribly so. Specifically, they put Cool earlier in the show and changed it so Tony was telling Riff to be Cool and not have the rumble. This....kind of....worked. Sort of. But it wasn't better. It was, in my opinion, worse. But it was...fine. Like I said. Not terrible. And the choreography was fun. Just conceptually....it didn't quite work. Now for the terrible... they moved I Feel Pretty from the start of the 2nd Act to immediately following the rumble. This was terrible. It absolutely killed the emotions and tension from the rumble. I had noted that they hadn't done I Feel Pretty earlier. And partly I thought they'd cut it. And I wasn't sad. I Feel Pretty is, and always has been, the worst song from the show. It's a throw away song. And I dislike it. But....it's popular. So I would have been surprised if they'd actually cut it. But in the 1961 version it comes at a point where having a throw away song is acceptable. It's kind of before the story really starts moving again, and before the second Act drama really starts to build. So it's always been fine. But putting it right after the rumble was not fine. It was really bad. I'm actually shocked that such a horrible decision was made with it. Some other things that were improvements: the singing was great! Like really, really good. I was very impressed, overall. Particularly Maria. I really loved her voice, and I typically don't like sopranos. Tony was great. Anita was great. But the giving of Somewhere to Rita Moreno to sing.... okay...fine again. It worked. I got it. But I missed it for Tony and Maria (even more so since I enjoyed their singing performances so much), and even more so...that means the reprise in the end scene was Tonight instead...and that just felt wrong somehow.... but I'll admit that might be sentiment talking. So I'll give that change a pass overall. And it was nice to have Rita Moreno sing it as a solo. In point of fact, a broader overall critique I have of West Side Story as a musical is that Maria doesn't have a solo. She sort of has I Feel Pretty...which I hate...but doesn't have a good aria to sing. She should. But I digress. Officer Krumpke was one of the weaker entries in this version. Not terrible. But not as entertaining as the older movie (primarily because of the performances). The rest of the musical pieces were all pretty good. Some of them played better than the 1961 versions (Tonight, Maria, One Hand, One Heart, A Boy Like That/I Have A Love). Some of them were just as good (Jet Song, Something's Coming, America), and some, as mentioned, were not as good. Actually the performances were all at least as good with the exception of Officer Krumpke. Even when they were not as good in the show because of placement (like I feel Pretty), the performances were as good or better, mostly. Maybe not Cool. It was fine. But the 1961 version performance is pretty killer. The choreography? It was fine. It was good. I liked it. Was it better than the 1961 version? No. But it was enjoyable. The rumble was....meh. It was fine. In some ways it was stronger than the other...but in some ways not. For some reason they had Tony actually fist fight Bernardo. In the 1961 version Tony takes a fighting stance at one point but stops immediately. I thought that was stronger. And the way Tony went from totally chill to fighting Bernado didn't feel very realistic here. And the lead into the usage of knives wasn't as cool or emotional. Etc. It was fine. Not as strong. Let's see. I think that basically covers it. Probably more detail than anyone cares to read. But if you made it through, those were my thoughts. Will I purchase it? I..........don't................think so...... I mean I would in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the trans thing. Does that bother me enough to keep me from buying it? I have such strong feelings about the matter in the current political and social climate that I don't know if I can separate that from it. Which basically means I'll default to not buying it. But is it because I really was bothered by what they did there? I can't say for sure. I can say, however, that unlike some other things, that if someone I knew purchased it I wouldn't judge and scorn their decision to do so. So overall, it was a good version. Not as good (overall) as the 1961 version. Hurt by some woke stuff and some weird decisions. But still, quite good.
  20. 3 points
    I suspect that there are at least two primary sources of law. One source is what I will refer to as natural law and the other is what I will call created law. As I see it the existence of natural law is independent of any Being or being, and all Beings, including our God and every other god, are subject to those laws. This natural law has existed for all eternity and it is just a description of how the universe operates. I have no clear idea as to its origins. I believe that the requirement for justice, or the need to maintain some sort of balance, which is closely related to the concept of justice, is the basis for one of these natural laws. I believe that created law, in order to be sustainable and to endure over a long period of time- ie. from the time we were intelligences until the time we enter our final condition in the eternal realm - must be consistent with, or operate within the boundaries imposed by, natural law. If any created law is not consistent with this over-arching natural law, it will either not be established, or it will fail. I believe that the only created law that is sustainable over a long period of time is 1) law that is consistent with the natural law, and 2) law that has been created with the involvement and consent of those who will be subject to it. For God to find some free thinking, autonomous, self-aware intelligences and to then seek to impose His will upon them by creating His own law by which these intelligences would be governed, and which would enable their progression, without their consent and involvement, would be unjust, no matter how well intentioned such law was. This injustice would therefore make God’s created law inconsistent with the over-arching natural laws, meaning that it could not endure. If the above idea is true – that there is a close, causal connection between the longevity of a set of laws and the involvement of those subject to that law in its creation, then it follows that we and God, working together, are the source of the created law to which we are subject. As to origins of the longer lasting, greater natural laws to which created law must be subject, I have no clear ideas. It may be that natural law doesn’t require a being or Being for its existence and operation in much the same way that gravity doesn’t.
  21. 3 points
    Just_A_Guy

    Story Time

    You’re a better man than me. I’d be livid.
  22. 3 points
    There are many fingers to point, and there are multiple sides of the argument, some of which I can see as religious. However, when it comes right down to it, they are the ones who signed their names on the dotted line, and agreed to pay those loans back. So they should.
  23. 3 points
    I’m pretty conservative in my thinking, but I do have to admit that many of us were sold a bill of goods when it comes to college, college loans, and degrees. On one hand, I would life some sort of repayment for the 30+ hours I worked while taking 16+ credits a semester to pay my way through college. Why should the people with no work ethic, poor fiscal literacy, and a lacking vision of their future be rewarded? On the other hand, everything we were taught growing up from educators, parents, church leaders, and media screamed “go to college or your life will suck, also, you are cool if you go to an expensive college”. Then, everyone is thrown on front of government back predatory lenders as their first experience in borrowing money and told “this is a good decision”. I’m lucky to have had the wit and vision to not have fallen into the traditional traps. My mom works as a school counselor and college is not longer the push for their district. They just push for what they call “secondary education” which encompasses college and other post high school learning opportunities.
  24. 3 points
    Vort

    two questions re. the Atonement

    It cannot. We would need the answer to the question: What is the nature of Christ's atonement? And then, horrified to tears, we would nevertheless need to accept how our Savior has indeed saved us, if we will but grasp the outstretched hand.
  25. 2 points
    The Folk Prophet

    Stacey Harkey comes out

    I'll just leave this here for consideration. “Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.” - Joseph Smith