Finrock

Good evening Snow! I've had a good day. I hope you have too and that you are happy. :) Oh, come now! "eyond the visible observable universe..." is just another way of saying that it is outside of nature. "[O]f or relating to God" in that definition assumes that God's power is supernatural, which is precisely what I'm rejecting as reality. So, your question posed to me is, in context, nonsense, because it is equivocating. God's power is priesthood. "Priesthood embraces all forms of God's power. It is the power by which the cosmos was ordered, universes and worlds were organized, and the elements in all their varied structures and relationships were put into place. Through the priesthood, God governs all things" (Priesthood, Encyclopedia of Mormonism). Further, the priesthood is "an everlasting principle, [which has] existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years,…holding the keys of power and blessings" (Joseph Smith). So, God's power, or priesthood, is as natural to the Universe as the eternal elements are (D&C 93:33). It is as much a part of the natural Universe as you or I. There is nothing supernatural about God's power. It is an eternal nature of reality. In fact, one might even make an argument that what we experience in mortality is "supernatural", or outside of nature, as it is only a shadow of that sphere of existence of true nature and true reality in which God resides. Some people do. Then again, some people don't understand the difference between elvish language and elfish language. Some people don't understand the difference between wants and needs. Or, some people don't understand the difference between eggs and an omelet. That was fun. But, let's not get distracted from the conversation. :) Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon daenvgiell. It is a pleasure to meet you! :) Thank you for your courage for in sharing your struggles. You may not see it but what you've expressed here is precisely what you should do. You have expressed a strong desire to believe and you have essentially said that you will live your life as if you believe. Do you know how much faith it takes to do what you are suggesting? A tremendous amount! And what may surprise you even more is that I'm suggesting that you seem to have this tremendous faith. The only "mistake" that I see is that you are worried about living the gospel and committing to it when you don't have a confirmation. This worry seems to be causing you to second guess and doubt that the gospel is for you. Take that leap of faith and shrug off your worries. You can do this by finding peace in placing your burden before the Lord by trusting that in God's due time He will bless you for your exercise of faith. Even if you have doubts about the existence of God, let your desire to believe take precedence and let it work in you to act as if you believe. I like what Moksha suggested. Stop struggling or worrying about finding the truth and just live the gospel. In time, God will confirm to you what you believe and have been doing, in faith, so that you can know and continue to do what you have been doing, with a surety born through the power of the Holy Spirit. So, really, you are already doing the right things. The only thing you need to do now is just stop worrying about it. When you stop worrying about it, then that worry will no longer feed your doubt and you will have more place in your heart to receive a witness. And, one last thing. You told your Branch President your feelings and he still approved your temple recommend. You are worthy to go to the temple. Just go there and enjoy it. Don't worry about getting answers or whatever. Don't have expectations that the visit to the temple will cure all your doubts. Don't even think that way. Just go there and faithfully do the temple work and go often. Just trust in God and let it all go. God will answer you. In His time and in His way, He will do it. He has promised that He will. I know He will. Just trust in Him and let it all go. Some scriptures to consider: "I, the Lord, am bound [to bless you] when ye do what I say..." (D&C 82:10). "And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith" (Ether 12:6). "For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it" (Rom. 8:24-25). Lastly, may I suggest you read Psalms? Start from the beginning and read to the end. It is an undertaking, for sure, but you will find a kindred spirit within Psalms, which can do much to act as a balm to heal you. I quote a portion below: "How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me? How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily...Consider and ahear me, O Lord my God...(Ps. 13). "Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord" (Ps 27:14). Kind Regards, Finrock

Good evening Moksha! How are you? Well, I hope. :) I believe many people do this, and I think it is a mistake. I think many people assume that were it not for the devil, their desires would be pure. My OP stands on the notion that our evil desires are our own, although Satan will "aid and abet" in us succumbing to our evil desires. "When Satan tempts a person to do evil, there are limits to what Satan can accomplish. He can put before a person any kind of evil opportunity, but that evil is enticing only if the person tempted already desires that thing. When people are tempted, it is actually by their own lusts" (Devils, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Emphasis added; See also James 1:12-15). Regards, Finrock

Good morning Snow! I hope you've enjoyed your Sunday. :) I wouldn't have you or anyone believe in anything. But, yeah, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Like I said, I'm comfortable with you believing what you want to believe in. Of course I'm not being deceptive and I do know exactly what I believe. Thank you for asking though instead of assuming. But the, shall I say, false dichotomy, presented doesn't provide all the available options. Those are both great definitions. I already knew them, but thank you for sharing them with me. They might be useful for others who post. In reality, of course, God's power is neither, but when you rely on definitions produced in ignorance you don't get definitions that reflect reality. So, I don't accept that definition as it applies to God. To me, it's meaningless. Literally. Well, this could be answered several ways. First, the mechanism is irrelevant to the existence of the "phenomenon." I've experienced the actuality of temptation, which is sufficient for belief. But, most importantly, God has told me that Satan is real and that he tempts us to do wickedly. I know this without equivocation. So, technically there is no point in me believing in something that I know. That means your question isn't applicable to my state of affairs. And no correction is needed. Yeah, me too. No, our desires are influenced by the same non-magical, who doesn't cast magic of any sort (neither the mysterious sort or the obvious sort), and most of the time invisible creature, called Satan. I almost can't. I mean, we were suppose to have flying cars by now. Not to mention delicious foods made from saw dust. All this and still no closer to answering your question. You didn't like gamma rays, which I can understand. You didn't like gravity, even though the possibilities would have been humorous to explore. What was the last option on your list? Ah, yes, microwaves. I suppose we wouldn't need to buy those little boxes that produce microwaves if Satan did use microwaves to tempt us. That would be useful; Just think of bad thoughts whenever you need to reheat last night's leftovers. So, now what? Any other candidates in mind? I'm fresh out of speculation... Regards, Finrock

Not the Satan I know. The Satan I know has a spirit body fashioned in the likeness of our fleshy bodies (Ether 3:16). Plus, spirit matter isn't immaterial (D&C 131:7). But, I'm OK with you believing what you want to believe about Satan. That's an interesting hypothesis. Personally, I don't believe in magical or supernatural powers. But, whatever means Satan is using to influence us is whatever means God allows Satan to use (D&C 29:39; D&C 121:4). And, no, it doesn't logically follow that God is therefore responsible for evil. But, in the end, I still don't know the answer to your original question. So, gamma rays is still a good answer...actually, on second thought, maybe I'll change my answer to...gravity. Gravity would be a more interesting mechanism in tempting us than gamma rays anyways, and gamma rays can be deadly. Then again, isn't that what happens to us when we sin, spiritual death (gamma = death, sin = death)? Seems logical to me. How about you, do you have any thoughts through what mechanism Satan tempts us? :) Regards, Finrock

Hello All! :) Here is my standard: Some scriptures to consider: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good” (Ephesians 4:29). James 3:2-13 Kind Regards, Finrock

Hey Snow! :) Well, Gamma radiation seems as good as any other option because I have no idea how the actual process works. It seems in the garden Satan pretty much just used auditory language to persuade Adam and Eve. Outside of the garden, well, if I were to speculate, maybe God has allowed devils be able to influence our hearts in a limited capacity perhaps using the same mechanism the Holy Spirit does to influence us, albeit the Spirit has no limitations. In fact, I don't even know what the actual mechanism is that the Holy Spirit uses to communicate to us and influence us. So, I guess my answer is pretty much worthless. Sorry, I think my first answer was better... Gamma radiation. Regards, Finrock

Hello marts1! Good evening to you. :) Certainly I believe that devils have possessed bodies. I would be denying scripture if I didn't believe it. However, I don't accept that it is a common thing. Satan's power is limited to only what God allows. There are rare exceptions to when God has allowed Satan to have special influence over people, but this isn't the rule. I tend to be very skeptical of any type of possession stories, especially those relating to your generally good, everyday people. So, I was speaking in a general sense. Of course the more we give in to our evil desires the more influence evil spirits have over us. Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Snow. I hope you are enjoying your weekend! :) Out of the options given to me, I'll choose Gamma radiation. Regards, Finrock

Hello MarginOfError! :) In truth this wouldn't be the first one. At least not the first topic that I have agreed with you on. I agree. I don't think LDS "blame" Satan for their actions, but I think there is a sentiment that, "If it weren't for the devil I wouldn't do evil." I think the devil can only persuade us to act on desires we already have in our hearts. Without those desires, there would be no evil there to temp us with. Here is something interesting I read under the topic "Devils" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "People could not demonstrate their love of God and their willingness to do the work of righteousness sufficiently to qualify them for exaltation unless they were subject to, and able to overcome, evil and devil adversaries, such as Satan and his hosts" (Source, Emphasis is original). Although I don't think this excludes my view, I do also believe that this is likely one of the main reasons why Satan was allowed to tempt us, but what I wanted to make note of is that this article makes a distinction between evil and devil adversaries. Regards, Finrock

Based on our understanding of preexistence it seems to me that we have had the capacity to choose evil over good even without an entity to tempt us. As has been mentioned already, at least Lucifer chose wickedly on his own accord. Now it's possible that so did some of the other 1/3 of the host of heaven, but I suppose it could be argued that Lucifer "persuaded" them to join him. In any case, one example is sufficient to establish that no adversary is necessary in order for evil to exist. Another clue that we have is found in 2 Nephi. I'll quote what I feel are the relevant verses and discuss them below: "11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. 12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away" (2 Nephi 2, Emphasis added). First, notice in verse 11 it states that there must be an opposition in all things. So, opposition must exist if there is to be goodness, evil, holiness, etc. Without opposition, then we would, "...have been created for a thing of naught" as Lehi states. Second, notice in verse 13 it establishes the reason for sin. Before I go further let me establish the relationship between sin and wickedness. Here is how the Church defines sin and wickedness in the Guide to the Scriptures: Sin - "Willful disobedience to God’s commandments." Wickedness - "Evil, iniquity; to be disobedient to God’s commandments." So, sin is wickedness and wickedness is evil. We can say then that verse 13 establishes the reason for evil, and it is really quite simple. It says, and I paraphrase (substituting sin with evil because they are the same thing), "If there is no law, then there is no evil." In other words, evil exist because there is a law. Evil is simply the opposition to eternal laws or laws that God has established. Satan is not the creator of evil. Evil exist because there are eternal laws and as free agents we can choose between the two. So any act of choosing in opposition to eternal laws is a wicked act. In short, a devil is not necessary in order for evil to exist. Now, my thoughts on this are actually an application of a principle I learned from another scripture regarding faith, but I will post an explanation of that later. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. I appreciate the thoughts, even the ones I may not necessarily agree with. Regards, Finrock

Hello ryanh. Nice to meet you! :) Yeah, I think so too. I don't think I made the point that the existence of extenuating circumstances precludes the ability to discern. But, perhaps you are making a point independent of what I was saying? Anyways, I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of omniscience (btw, you typed omnipotent, but I'm pretty sure you mean omniscience) but that is a different discussion altogether. I agree. Mercy does exist independent of an adversary. I, at least, wasn't suggesting otherwise in my post. I was suggesting that it was an act of mercy, not that it resulted in the creation of mercy. I think temptation and adversary are not always the same thing. I think we can be tempted without an adversary. But, I also think that another purpose of having an Adversary is to assist us towards godhood when we learn to not listen to him. So, to clarify, I am not claiming that my OP is the exclusive reason for having an adversary, but perhaps one reason. Regards, Finrock

Good evening Traveler! I hope you are enjoying your weekend. :) Do you honestly think I haven't read Joseph Smith vision or is this one of those questions where one is subtly suggesting something else? And what very important principles do you think I have misunderstood? Regards, Finrock

Good evening Saturnfulcrum. I hope you are doing well! :) Thank you for your kind post. I know your intention is to bring some kindness back in to what you perceive to be a tense and unkind situation. The reason why I didn't post any more on your thread was because I understood that my topic would likely result in a debate. In fact, this thread was created with the intention of there being respectful debate and discussion about the position I offered. I hope you understand that in creating this thread I wanted to avoid distracting your thread which was intended as a means for you to seek help, understanding, and support. In other words, I wanted create a sphere where we could debate and discuss a topic while leaving you in your sphere where you could get support and help in your struggle. Of course I don't mean to imply that you aren't welcome to participate in this thread, but understand that this isn't the "support" thread, it's the debate thread. :) Now, I have not been personally offended or angered by anything here. However, I do want to keep the discussion respectful and charitable because when they are, it fosters understanding and the debate is more likely to be edifying and helpful. Unkind words or such serve no purpose but to foster feelings of ill will and resentment and people are less likely to accept any opposing views or work towards understanding in such an environment. So, in that respect I totally concur with your post. Kind Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon MarginOfError. I hope you are doing well today. :) S, in logical terms, is not a statement. It is an expressed world view. It is, in logical terms, an argument. It is a conclusion based on reasons preceeding the conclusion. So, if you disagree with the argument expressed as S then you have no reason to debate this topic with me, because we both agree that the conclusion expressed in argument S is incorrect. On the other had, if you think S represents a sentiment or wolrd view that you subscribe to, then you might feel inclined to challenge my counter view with it's supplied reasons. OK, and you honestly think this makes sense in the context of this discussion? Consdier this for a moment. Essentially what your responses are saying is that it is sensible to change the worldview expressed as S to worldview S' and then say that the reasons given for worldview S are nonsense because they don't apply to worldview S'! It's like I'm arguing the role of the United States in bringing about world peace, and then you come along and change the topic to the role of Russia in bringing about world peace, and then claim my arguments for the role of the United States in bringing peace are nonsense because they don't apply to role of Russia in bringing peace! My responses are only supposed to make sense in context to the sentiments/worldview expressed in S. Obviously if you change S to S' then likely my reasons against S will no longer apply to S'. But that isn't how issues are debated. If you want to debate a different worldview, then express it and give the other parties a chance to respond to worldview S'. But to say that my reasons are nonsensical because they don't apply to S' when they are supposed to apply to S is an extremely useless way to contend. In the end your arguments against my position have relied on a logically fallacious form of reasoning, namely, the Straw Man argument: Definition - "The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context" (Source). And, even by your own admission*, this is precisely what your arguments have been doing. Please note the name of the thread I started. A "special adversity", which is another name for struggle. Please revisit my initial post. It is quite clear that I am speaking to the "struggle" of remaining celibate. Read any of my other post on this thread. My position has been consistent through-out. Your accusation of sophistry on my part is unfounded. Your quote is equivocating. You are misapplying my meaning of "overcome their tendencies" to mean exclusively that they are "cured" of their homosexuality, when in fact this isn't the position that I hold or have held. My position has been consistent through out. I have used "overcome their tendencies" to most often mean they have overcome them by not giving in to them and in the rare occasion that they have been "cured." In either case, peace and happiness can be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, "finding peace and happiness in the gospel of Jesus Christ" analytically includes the notion that one most obey the commandments of Jesus Christ, which includes living the law of chastity. So even if I hadn't consistently made my position clear, your rewording of my argument would still be unjustified because your incorrect conclusion of my statement would not follow from taking my line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. But, if nothing else, you could have simply asked for clarification on what I mean instead of assuming a meaning that is inconsistent with the position I have consistently held in my responses. Insofar as irrifutable arguments go, well, I saw no argument in the parts I didn't quote that has been irrifutable and thus I've made no attempt to "scrub them from the record." What I saw were arguments that were irrelevant to my position. That is generally the case when arguing a straw man. Your accusation against my integrity are thus unfounded. Concluding my post I want to make one more observation. I don't understand the necessity or purpose of the belittling and ad hominem remarks you have directed at me. Is this normal conduct for you or have I done something to you personally that has warranted your desire to attack my intelligence, my integrity, and my intellectual honesty? In any case, it isn't necessary and it add nothing to the discussion. Regards, Finrock

Greetings to all who read this! :) When considering the act of choosing between good and evil choices, I've wondered in the past, that, "If there were no Satan would we ever choose evil?" In answer to this question, I'm inclined to say, yes. Even without Satan or an entity to tempt us, it is possible, and likely, that we would choose to do evil. So, Satan is not a requirement in order for evil to exist. If this is true (and I'm certain that it is), then it might cause us to ask, "Why did God place Satan here on earth to tempt us?" If we can already sin without any "help", it may seem at first that it isn't very merciful of God to allow an entity to roam the earth who through tempting us to do evil increases the likelihood of us doing evil. However, I believe that by allowing Satan to tempt us, God is acting in mercy towards us. My reason is very simple. In our condition now, when Satan tempts us, we can choose to resist his temptation and we are accountable for our evil choices. On the other hand, how much more accountable would we be if we choose to do evil in the absence of any influence encouraging us to do so? In other words, even though we are currently accountable for our choices, it is certainly "easier" to give in to evil desires when you have a "cheerleading squad" encouraging you on. I think the fact that Satan is allowed to tempt us gives God more leeway in exercising His mercy towards us, understanding that we are in an environment where not only do we have a natural capacity to do wickedly but where we are also constantly being tempted to do wickedly. On the other hand, God would have less leeway to exercise mercy if without any external encouragement we chose wickedness solely based on our desires for wickedness. Even without Satan none of us would be able to live perfect lives and thus we would be subject to a greater condemnation. What do you guys think? Regards, Finrock

Good evening mormonmusic. I hope you are well. :) I don't believe God to be utilitarian. Utilitarianism always seems to leave someone dissatisfied. Even more particularly, it may even leave some good people outside of the scope of the greatest good. I think God acts to bring about the greatest good for all. Regards, Finrock

Good evening all! :) I believe that evil spirits have no influence over us other than to encourage us to act on evil desires we already have in our hearts. Desires that we do not poses in some degree, cannot be influenced. That is why when our hearts are pure we cannot be tempted because there is no evil desire within us, in any degree, for evil spirits to encourage us to act on. Also, as we give in to our evil desires, they become stronger, therefore making it less "work" that evils spirits must do to encourage us to act on the evil desire in the future. Eventually we need no encouragement from evil spirits to act because our evil desire now possesses us. Consequently, as we act on evil desires we may bring in to our hearts other evil desires that, before giving in, the evil spirits could not tempt us with, but who are now able to manipulate these new desires within us and encourage us to act on them. On the other end, the Holy Spirit encourages us to act on those good desires we have within us. Even if we are mostly possessed with evil desires, but have any degree good desires within us, the Spirit can encourage us to act on those good desires. If there is no good desire in us, then we have no desire in us that the Holy Spirit can encourage us to act on. We are likely perdition at this point. But, otherwise, if we act on a good desire then our desire to do good increases, even if only a degree. And if we further continue to heed the Spirit's encouragements, our evil desires will give way to the increase of good desires as our capacity for goodness increases. Until eventually our hearts will contain nothing but goodness. This is a pure heart. Regards, Finrock

Good evening GaySaint. I hope my post finds you happy and well! :) I responded to this concern/sentiment of yours earlier. Perhaps you missed it. If so, I'll post my response again. Essentially, the law of chastity is tied to marriage. Marriage is something that God has instituted. Because God instituted marriage He defined marriage to only be between man and woman. God and subsequently His church, does not recognize any marriage union outside this fundamental condition. This is what justifies the Church's position against homosexuality even in states where same sex couples can legally marry. Even though they are legally married in a secular sense, the marriage is not valid to the Church. Therefore, even the secular legally married homosexual couple is fornicating. Does this make sense (not do you agree with it, but does what I've typed make sense)? Regards, Finrock

Good evening MarginOfError. Welcome back! :) Judging from your response it is seems that we aren't able to communicate in a way that the other can understand. To me, this quote makes no sense in the context of my post. Sentiment S is an example of a position that some people have. I've see and heard, in various different ways, that general sentiment expressed many times. The whole purpose of my thread is to explore whether or not sentiment S is true. I gave reasons why I think sentiment S is false. In this quote of yours you seem to think that sentiment S is false also. Well, then we agree! But, wait...your post then confuses me because it seems that in the end you don't agree that S is false. Here are some other things you posted that thoroughly confused me: My reasons for why S is false are quoted and then followed by this paragraph. I would gladly explain to you if I honestly understood what you are referring to. I really do not know how your quote applies to what I'm saying. I'm sorry... I haven't made this claim either. I have tried to be clear about what I'm speaking to. The struggle I've been speaking to is the struggle to remain celibate even when there is little hope of heterosexual marriage. Here is an example of something you've stated that makes it appear that you believe S is true (even though in your first paragraph you state that it is false). But, anyways, in the end the, whether one overcomes their homosexual tendencies or not, the struggle is one of obeying the law of chastity. It may be true that for homosexuals it is much harder to live the law of chastity than for some people. But the fact that some temptations may be harder for some than it is for others is still common. How can anyone claim that the struggle to live the law of chastity for homosexuals is harder than anything else that others might struggle with? Breaking the law of chastity isn't the only sin and though some may not struggle with this sin, they may struggle with other sins, that for them are possibly just as hard or harder to keep than it is for homosexuals to keep the law of chastity. And yet, everyone, regardless of how hard the struggle is for them is expected to obey God's laws. The struggle to remain celibate even when there is little hope of heterosexual marriage falls in to a common category of God's law and how difficult or how easy it is to live this law falls in to the common principle of variance that individuals experience here in life. I won't quote anymore but the last two paragraphs of your post because the other parts of your response I simply do not understand them. They are out of context. They seem to be treating my reasons as conclusions. Anyways, I couldn't see how they fit in to what I was saying. Again, I'm sorry. I have not stated what you claim. I have always stated and believe with all my heart, that all people, including homosexuals, will find peace and happiness in living the gospel of Jesus Christ. It doesn't matter who you are or what you do, the sooner you stop making exceptions to your conduct and decide to strictly obey God's words as recorded in scripture and proclaimed by the mouths of His prophets, the sooner you will find yourself on the road to true peace and true joy. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I can find no justification for your conclusion in your post, so I must assert that your conclusion here is nonsensical. This has been a very bizarre post for me to read and try and understand how it fits in to what I'm saying. I do not know you but I do know of my fallibility and my tendency to make mistake after mistake, so I will conclude that, as a result of my weakness, I am unable to understand and communicate with you in a way that makes sense. Kind Regards, Finrock

Hello baver3. Nice to meet you! :) If you pick it up an 11th time you won't be sick. It's only having to pick something up 10 times that makes people sick. Regards, Finrock

Oh, it's not that bad. Then I'm curious to know how you justify your belief in the existence of arrogance? I think I understand what you mean. Are you saying that calling someone arrogant, for instance, isn't very useful? Regards, Finrock

Good afternoon Bluejay. I hope all is well with you today. :) I don't think I can accept this line of reasoning. It seems to me that if it doesn't denote it, it at least implicitely denies that humility exist. Humility isn't a relative thing therefore neither can humility's contradiction be relative. Regards, Finrock

Same to you! :) I think members are free to participate politically in any legal or moral way they choose. As far as the Church is concerned? I think only the President of the Church is entitled, through revelation, to determine what is best for the Church. This, I believe, includes determining in what quantity and capacity the Church should be involved politically. Regards, Finrock

Good evening crazypotato. I hope you are doing well! :) The point of this thread is to discuss the question of whether homosexuality is a unique struggle, unlike any of the other struggles known to mankind. In any discussion there are likely to be different views and sometimes even opposing views. This isn't a bad thing. I've always been curious why certain individuals do not handle opposing views very well and think that because parties aren't agreeing they must be wasting their time. Although finding an agreement is a wonderful goal, not all discussions need to end in agreement in order for them to be fruitful and edifying. So long as all parties involved are intellectually honest, respectful, and charitable towards each other, this translates into a fruitful discussion in my opinion. I don't have to agree in order to gain further understanding of another person's perspective. I don't have to agree in order to more fully appreciate a different point of view. I see tremendous value in believers discussing with non-believers, so long as we are respectful and charitable towards one another. It is how we begin to build relationships of trust. It is intellectually stimulating and, believe it or not, sometimes it can lead to the Spirit testifying to another of the truth. Again, it is all in how one approaches controversial or sensitive topics. If you come in to the discussion desiring to rip, and tear down, or pass judgment, then likely you are going to reap the benefits of a contentious spirit. But, it doesn't have to be that way. My sincere advice crazypotato: Don't participate in any discussion you don't feel comfortable participating in. Not everyone shares your point of view about what discussions are a waste of time and what are not. :) Kind Regards, Finrock