Vort

Where are the errors in logic?

Are you intentionally ignoring what I wrote just to be contrary? If so, congratulations, you have succeeded.

There is nothing irrational about fearing that someone who has shown an attraction to one type of sexual perversion might show an attraction to another. It may be factually incorrect and even unwarranted, but it is certainly not irrational.

Nothing. This is your (incorrect) inference, not my implication. Then you see wrong.

Anal sex, a central feature of male homosexuality, is a far riskier and more disease-laden form of sexual contact than heterosexual (vaginal) sex. Of course the advice to get tested for diseases is more obvious and more pressing in cases where such things have been practiced.

I thought "Loudmouth" was your first name. Are you Chinese?

I am well familiar with the D&C verse. I assumed you were referencing it. I maintain that it is absurd to think that murdering someone is less serious or "great" than not forgiving the murderer. I do not believe the verse is talking about murder.

In the sense that the wage of sin is death, and he suffered death for our sins. Are you suggesting that "suffering for our sins" is somehow synonymous with "committing all our sins"?

The consequence of sin is eternal damnation. You surely are not suggesting that the Lord is eternally damned. Then what? In any case, claiming that the Lord "tasted sin" because he suffered for our sins is a non sequitur.

Are you reading the thread? AGStacker wrote:

Suggesting that, by suffering for our sins, the Lord "tasted sin" in the same sense that a sinner tastes sin is indeed like saying that suffering the consequences of raping your neighbor is the same as raping your neighbor.

Suffering the consequences of raping your neighbor is not the same as raping your neighbor.

I do not disbelieve this doctrine, but I do not understand it. Example: My grandmother was widowed with nine children. One of those, a son, married a woman and had children with her, then left his family and the Church to take up with a woman in a commune in another state. He smoked heavily, drank, did other various drugs, and lived there until the day he died at a young age (early 70s; his mother lived into her 90s) a couple of years back. My grandmother died about fifteen years ago. I remember her saying not long before her death how she wished this son would return. But he never did in this life, despite my grandmother's fervent hope and firm faith. I cannot and do not pass any final judgment on my uncle. I could not see into his heart. But I could see what he did with his life, and it was not pretty. I did not see any tentacles of divine providence drawing him back; instead, it looked like rebellion. So I don't see how this doctrine applies. We can say, "Well, we don't know people's hearts and we don't know the mind of God, so we can assume that those children will eventually return in the afterlife, accept their covenants, and be raised unto eternal life." But if we make that assumption for children of the covenant, why not just make that assumption for everyone else, too? After all, God is no respecter of persons. We know why we don't make that assumption, of course. It is an apostate doctrine. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us! Nevertheless, fear God; he will justify in committing a little sin. Yea, lie a little, take advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die. And if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God! For God has created all flesh, and he will also save all flesh! We recognize this immediately as the false, vain, foolish doctrine it is. Yet that's what the salvation of covenant children ultimately sounds like. Anyone care to shed some light on this topic?

Let us examine your responses in this thread. Attempt to defend the statement. Another attempt to defend the statement, combined with implicit criticism of someone for violating what you think to be LDS teachings. Another attempt to defend the statement. Another attempt to defend the statement, combined with disputing the teachings of a leader based on your own beliefs. So no, you do not have to agree with opinions, and your disagreement does not mean you have an axe to grind. Grinding an axe suggests you have an axe to grind.

Not offended. But when you invite opinions on a quote and then immediately take issue with anything people write that disagrees with your own opinion, the obvious explanation is that you didn't really want other opinions. You just wanted other people to validate your own.

You mean Nelly Oleson wasn't a real person in the Little House books? I'm scandalized. (Not really, but I seriously did not know that.)

This is the wrong venue to ask. Talk to your bishop.

It appears that you have an axe to grind, and that your call for opinions about the quote was really a request for people to agree that it's better to sin and repent than never to sin in the first place.

No. She said it was better to pass through sorrow to know good from evil. If you are referring to Moses 5:11, many Church leaders have suggested that Eve's transgression was not "sin" in the strict sense. I don't necessarily agree, but what I am sure of is that we have only the haziest idea of what occurred in the Garden of Eden and what it means. To suggest that Eve sinned and was glad, and so therefore it's great for us to sin and repent, is not merely absurd, it is dangerous. Yes, I'm just full of surprises. And one of my most surprising aspects is that I think sin is evil. I even go so far as to teach my children that it is better that they not sin than that they sin.

All of them.

Taking on sin is far different from tasting sin in the sense the author describes. What the author says is false on its face. Sinning is never better than not sinning. Sinning and repenting is not superior to refusing to sin in the first place.

Seeing as how ERB's Barsoomians are all nekkid, I don't see how they could make a non-X-rated version that was faithful to the book.

Bunk. The Lord never tasted sin; does that make him less than the sinners around him?

A few things: Your father would not find out. There would be no reason for your stake president to contact your father. As a father, I can state with some confidence that your father did not "hate" you. He may have reacted very badly; if so, shame on him. You can't repent "this week". Repentance is not a scheduled event, like teeth cleaning. Your repentance will take as long as it takes to make you right with God. Depending on the nature and depth of your transgression, it might be as quick as the stake president saying "Don't do that any more" or as long as six months or a year -- or as long as it takes you to be able to reject the sin from your heart and turn to Christ.I think your focus is on the wrong thing. The point is to make yourself right with God and be cleansed of uncleanness. Worrying about how mad Dad might get is irrelevant.

According to the handbook excerpt cited in my previous post, the bishop or stake president member officiates at convert baptisms.