applepansy
-
Posts
5098 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by applepansy
-
-
Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Christ will come when he comes, and the wickedness of the world will not change that.
I agree Christ will come when He comes.
I'm too tired and busy to look up all the GA talks about the wickedness that will occur before Christ comes. :) I really should be doing other things.
So . . . off to do other things.
Have a great day!
-
I agree with JaG on the matter. I think the church is supporting non-discrimination as a bandaid (based on understanding as given by revelation from the Lord), rather than as a catch-all virtue that non-discrimination is the righteous path in every instance. I think viewing non-discrimination as right in every case is silly and destructive. I also believe that laws are meant to reflect morality, and the fact that society has morally accepted homosex as moral is sad. But the fact is, simply, that society HAS accepted it as moral. Therefore, to get along with society, we must accommodate their right to view morality different than us. In this case, that principle means advocating for non-discrimination. The church's stance, in my mind, is clearly an indication that being civil and allowing society to decay if they choose to do so is the overriding principle, and does not speak to the idea of non-discrimination as a principle of right/wrong at all.
In my thinking, discrimination is neither good nor bad in and of itself. Good discrimination exists. So does bad discrimination. The mere discriminatory act or thought does not self-define itself as inherently wrong. It is more complicated than that. To simply claim that we should not discriminate strikes me as a view that has not been fully considered. I believe that is the point Vort is trying to express with his questions.
. . . allowing society to decay. Do we have a choice to not allow the decay?
We know the world will get worse. We have been told its going to get worse. It has to get worse.
My feelings are, I hope it gets bad fast so it can be over sooner and 1000 years of peace can start. I can't change anyone but myself. As long as I can stand before my Savior and say I did my best to treat all Heavenly Father's children as best I could, then I'm doing my best to live the "love one another" commandment.
What I took from the news conference this morning was simply a declaration that the Church expects the same rights as the LCBT community is fighting for. Everything else.... its just noise.
-
Vort, in substance I agree with you. I'm a libertarian, and if I'm running a hotel or boarding house or apartment complex--my house, my rules. If I want to tell my tenants that they can't smoke, or cook meth, or run a telemarketing operation, or keep a dog, or sodomize each other, or use contraception, or have sex at all under my roof--by golly, I think I have a natural right to do so; because it's my property. Irrational discrimination, I believe, is best dealt with by the market; and holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to "play nice" cannot, does not, and will work in society any more than it works on the playground.
I also acknowledge the immorality of a person's being denied housing or employment just because of the types of sexual intercourse that person find appealing (regardless of whether the person actually engages in said intercourse or not), but let's be blunt--nondiscrimination legislation is, at the end of the day, about legitimatizing and accepting practices, not people.
So, yes: From a political standpoint, I think nondiscrimination legislation is generally wrong.
And yet the Church has endorsed it. Why? Have the Church leaders gone soft? Have they decided, after the last twenty years since the Proclamation on the Family issued, that this Law of Chastity thing isn't such a big deal after all?
I rather think not. The apostles that presented today have a combined two-hundred-odd years of life experience, and two of the finest legal minds (Oaks and Christofferson) in the Church today. The quorum they represent, in conjunction with the First Presidency, has over a thousand years of life experience. I sustain them all as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Even so: there have been many, many times in Chruch history that the Church acted in ways that I may not feel were per se right, but which turned out to be necessary. For example:
- The Church currently denies baptism and other priesthood ordinances to millions of Hitler's victims, simply because they are Jewish. I think that's wrong. But it's also necessary because of external pressures on our family history program.
- At the height of the Mexican war--which it's hard for me not to think of as a wholly unwarranted land grab--the Church sent five hundred volunteers to fight in that war, for the same government that had just allowed unspeakable horrors to be perpetrated against them. I think that was wrong. But it was also necessary, both because the US Army was paying in desperately-needed gold, and because the Church could sense where the political winds were blowing and needed to make sure it wasn't adverse to the guys who were ultimately going to come out on top.
- Abandoning Jackson County was wrong. We were supposed to build up that place. But it was necessary, because of the armed opposition that was insistent on our leaving; and a later revelation approved the action.
- I happen think the Church's policy on immigration undermines the United States' long-term sovereignty and is wrong. But I also think it is necessary given the prophecies of what the Lamanites' descendants are going to do to the seed of the Gentiles in the last days with or without the Church's policies--so again, it may be best to adopt a "make ye friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" position.
Here, too: I'm not completely comfortable with the Church's concession re nondiscrimination legislation. I wasn't in 2009, and I'm not now. But I have confirmation--just in this past hour--that the Church leadership is acting with divine sanction in order to forestall, or at least blunt the effects of, whatever fresh hell Babylon has in store for us. If our leaders don't know exactly what they're doing, the Lord does; and so I'm content to let the matter rest there.
As a libertarian and even an American, I may well live to regret what the Church has done today. As a Latter-day Saint; I believe I will not.
Thank you for saying this so well. I failed. :)
I would like to correct a misconception. The church is not denying baptism, etc to Hilter's victims. The rule in place is that you have to be a direct descendent to do the work. If you are, go for it. If not, leave it for their family to do.
-
There aren't any laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with the same gender either.
But that aside, yes, the news conference says they are entitled to a place to live and a job. But, what the news conference doesn't say is that everyone is also entitled to a college education. We are also commanded to love everyone including those who likes to drink beer and have sex before marriage but that doesn't mean that BYU have to accept them in their school.
And I never said they were entitled to attend BYU. A few here are reading that into my simple statement.
-
I think he was pointing out the very clear flaw in your statement...
If I do not have any skills or money... Being of a protected class does not mean I automatically have both a place to live and a job... Those are valid reasons for a person not to have either one.
I think what you meant was that no one should be denied a place to live or a Job based solely or even mostly based on being a protected class. That is what the church is saying. And that is where your statement runs into problems
There wasn't a flaw in my statement. I didn't say we have a right to live in a mansion or have any job we want regardless of our qualification.; I said we have a right to a place to live and a job. What that place to live or job looks like is very much determined by our qualifications.
-
There are laws that make such sexual conduct illegal -- to the point that you go to jail for it! -- and thus effectively bar the sexual minority from societal interactions.
If you are an advocate of homsexual "rights", then I can think of no compelling reason that you should not be an equal advocate for the "rights" of other sexual minorities, including zoophiles and the incestuous. And if you favor equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for homosexuals, how can you be honest and consistent without also favoring equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for zoophiles and the incestuous?
And this is fine. I agree with it, at least in principle. But how well do people live it? How much do they really believe it?
Do you really believe that the pedophile deserves exactly the same love and acceptance as the homosexual? Because he does. And if you do not support him, or the dog-lover, or the incestuous couple, you are acting hypocritically, pretending to a virtue you do not possess.
I believe they have the same rights under the constitution. I believe what was stated in the news conference. I may personally consider all the extremes to be aberrant behaviors, but that doesn't give me the right to not rent to someone or give them a job.
Yes I really do believe a pedophile who hasn't acted on his sexual desires deserves the right to a home and a job. If the pedophile has acted on his sexual desires and has sexually abused children then he loses the right to live wherever he wants to and has to live where society can keep other children safe. That's a consequence of acting on desires that are abusive and illegal.
-
Regarding villages, we need villages. Those are families in their own rights. Let's improve our villages instead of disregarding them. Satan is as much after communities as families.
I never said disregard the village. We need to be very aware of the village and we have heard that over and over in General Conference. We need to improve the village. My argument is that it certainly doesn't take a village to raise a child. And that's a reality. Is the village raising children? Yes! Is it good in today's world? No! More and more families are having to protect their children from the village. I am all for improving the village so families don't need to protect their children from the village.
-
No they aren't.
Did you hear the news conference?
Edit: More than that have you read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution? We are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness. To me that means a home and a job and all the things a reasonable person would need to just live.
-
Agreed. So, there are those who advocate being able to have sex with animals. They are few, and they are marginalized, but they exist. And frankly, I find their reasoning just as convincing as that of the homosexual lobby.
There are also those who insist that adult siblings (or even parent and child!) should be allowed normal marriage and sexual relations. It's no one's business but their own. I agree with them. If homosex is legalized and protected, I cannot see any reason why so-called "incest" should not equally be legal and protected. Or sex with your dog, for that matter.
So picky legal arguments aside, what is the fundamental ethical/moral difference between the two? Why should I follow Eowyn's example and whole-heartedly support an amendment protecting homosexual liaisons, even to the point of requiring apartment owners to rent to homosexual couples without discrimination, yet withhold that same human right from "incestuous" adults or those who like sex with their pets? The line seems utterly arbitrary and dishonest.
I wasn't aware there were laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with their dog.
But that aside, The news conference spelled it out and Eowyn is right. We do not discriminate against any of God's children. We are commanded to love everyone. We are not commanded to love their sins. Regardless of sexual orientation everyone is entitled to a place to live and a job. And that was stated very clearly in the news conference today.
-
Then why is non-discrimination obviously good toward men who want to have sex with other 18-year-old men, but obviously bad toward men who want to have sex with other 17-year-old men? Or obviously good toward women who want to have sex with their adult sons, but obviously bad toward women who want to have sex with their dogs? How is one sexual perversion something that should clearly be protected while the other sexual perversion somethat that clearly should not?
Key word here is "want":.... Wanting is not against the law. Acting on the want against the law that states sex with underage children is wrong. That's not discrimination in the sense we're talking about.
-
This is really more a question of balance - the balance between "it takes a village" and "discrimination". Because, if "it takes a village" then I, for one, want to be able to control who gets to be in the village.
I don't believe the nonsense that it takes a village to raise a child. What it does take is a Family! Our family has been trying to protect our children from the village for a few decades now.
-
Sorry you took offense. My question was in earnest, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. If we say "It's bad to discriminate based on sexual preference!", do we mean it? Or do we mean only those sexual preferences that are currently being promoted by outside (immoral) interests as acceptable?
I also don't think there's an obvious correct answer. If the answer is, "No, I don't support horse lovers or child sex advocates having equal access to societal means", then the whole idea of "nondiscrimination based on sexual preference" is false. Isn't it? Seems obvious to me that it is.
We should mean it. Everyone is a child of our Heavenly Father. They have a right to housing and work. They have a right to live. They also have a right to the natural consequences of their actions. But as a society we don't have the right to say they can't live or work in our community.
Vort, I'm curious. Why do you always go here when discussing these issues? It doesn't further the conversation. Shock value? I'm baffled.
-
I hate funerals myself. My family knows that when they go, parents and siblings, I won't be there. I might consider the burial part, but I refuse to attend the viewing and any other such thing.
A funeral of a neighbour boy (back in the Philippines) was really traumatic for me. I was 8 or 9. I knew him. My siblings and I played with him. He died of a failed heart. At his funeral, people were wailing and pawing over his body, it was really intense for me. I couldn't sleep that night. I was scared to death and kept seeing images of his body. Anyway, I must be the exception, because now as a 30-year old adult, I still hate funerals. Though, having been a hospice nurse for a long time, I was around death a lot, but it was different.
Bini, not many Utah funerals are like that. Maybe doing some desensitization "therapy" would be helpful. Its not good to not address the trauma of that one funeral you attended as a child.
to the thread at large: This is exactly why we should use funerals as learning experiences for children.
-
How do you handle funerals with very young children, let's say, 8 and under? If it's a family member that the child knew, is it too much for the child to see a lifeless body?
I draw the line at under age 2. If the person was close to the child then they definitely attend and view the body. We touch. We say good bye. We talk about bodies and spirits. We talk about the resurrection. We talk about eternity. And Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. We teach the gospel in a way that it can't be taught at any other time. Children grieve too. And not seeing someone dead shouldn't be a scary thing. Death is a normal part of life. I had a friend who was always looking for a loved one who had died, until she became an adult. The reason was because it wasn't real to her. If we treat the experience as a normal part of life then kids will too. Its only when we freak out that they get scared.
-
Great news conference. This needed to be said.
I hope (but I won't hold my breath) that both sides will take heed and continue the debate without stepping on the constitution rights of the other side. What is going on up until now has been disgraceful.
- Daybreak79 and Jane_Doe
-
2
-
Clutter.... oh my. I've been hauling boxes of old clutter and junk out of my house for 5 years. Somebody must be hauling stuff back in because it doesn't look like I've made a dent.
- Palerider, notquiteperfect, Jane_Doe and 1 other
-
4
-
Just include her. Especially during the holidays.
A great book that might help her and you and others is "Grieving: The Pain and The Promise" by Deanna Edwards.
-
I watched this last night and was amazed at this wonderful young woman all over again. I've been following her since she started her youtube channel. One thing I regret is that I had the chance to go see her in SLC at a small club before she got famous and in high demand. Its a long drive to SLC from here and so we didn't go. I'm so sad I didn't go.
Lindsey has an amazing testimony and she's not afraid one whit to share it.
-
After reading the questions I didn't take the survey. It was misleading.
-
Prayers over meals seem to always bless the food and that it may do us good feels like a vain repition of prayers. Do people have other suggesions what can be said? Latley I've been focusing more on giving thanks for various things.
Is it always necessary to bless the food? is your title. My answer is no, but it is always necessary to Thank Heavenly Father for our food..... and everything else.
I think your focus is the right direction.
-
The sad thing is that so many people are willingly fighting to give up freedom, because they think that somehow by suppressing moral teachings they are increasing freedom to live a life of sin without judgment.
And Satan is laughing.
-
-
I was reading something recently that mentioned that for every good gift Heavenly Father has given us, Satan has a counterfeit. I've known that but haven't really ever thought of them specifically. I have a few ideas but wanted to hear yours. For example -
Good gift: natural foods, herbs, etc
Counterfeit: pharmaceuticals
Good gift: personal revelation
Counterfeit: psychics and horoscopes
I don't think all Pharmaceuticals are the counterfeit. I do think that processed foods would be a better fit as the counterfeit to Natural foods, herbs, etc.
-
Children of the Promise by Dean Hughes.
I just finished this series (checked it out from the library on my phone) and loved all five books. The story follows a family during World War II.
I love Brandon Sanderson's books.
Have you read the Naria Chronicles by C.S. Lewis. I read them first when I was about your age.
The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were also I books I loved at your age.
oh! And that reminds me of Terry Brooks books. They start with The Sword of Shannara and continue from there. LOVE LOVE LOVE these books. Clean and well written fantasy.
If you like fantasy then the books by Hickman and Weiss are great. Hickman is LDS. (http://www.trhickman.com/)
Confused and concerned and definitely saddened.
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by applepansy
I have posted about the level of contention at this site before.
I haven't been here much in the last year or so. I just didn't have the stomach for the contention. Yesterday I found myself wanting to discuss the news conference with other LDS members. I was hoping there were others who felt the same way I did about the news conference. I was happy.
I am confused why there is so much contention over the issue the church spoke on and over the news conference itself. For me the words of our Prophet and Apostles are the last word. I was happy to hear the church say it expects the same respect as other groups are expecting. That is something to celebrate. It needed to be said. It needs to be fought for.
Our free society is disintegrating because we (as a nation) aren't allowing all people the same level of freedom. (I am not talking about redefining words, such as, marriage.) One side wants one thing and the other wants something else and if there is a little legal victory then its an all out war to make the other side pay. That's wrong! As LDS members we need more than ever to be Christ-like. Instead we bicker and fight.
What I read in the headlines yesterday was so misleading and out right wrong I wondered if they even listened to the news conference. What I read here is was just as disheartening to say the least, definitely un-Christ-like. I was surprised all over again at the level of contention. I was not surprised to see the thread closed this morning.
Are we as members going to be part of the wickness? (rhetorical)
Sigh.... have at it. I've voiced my concerns and probably won't be back for another year.
I hope all of you have a great day (year). Enjoy! :)
Edit: Had to add this quote from Russell M. Nelson, Conference Address, April 1989
"My concern is that contention is becoming accepted as a way of life. From what we see and hear in the media, the classroom, and the workplace, all are now infected to some degree with contention. How easy it is, yet how wrong it is, to allow habits of contention to pervade matters of spiritual significance, because contention is forbidden by divine decree:"