Jenda

I agree, Paul.God has asked us to sacrifice everything that stands in the way of Zion returning so that His will can come to pass. The key word is "sacrifice". What is part of your life that keeps you "of the world" that is keeping you from being actively engaged in kingdom building tasks? (That is a question for everyone, not just homosexuals, but is indicative of why we are no closer to Zion then we were in Joseph Smith's time.)

AS8, we have stated in the rules that personal attacks would not be tolerated. The discussion board is to discuss the topics, not the people who are participating in them.(Sorry, I'm not Spencer, but I hope the answer is adequate.)

So, Paul, are you stating in the "nature vs. nurture" question, that one can be naturally gay from nurture alone? Because if it isn't genetic, then it has to be nurture (environment). That, alone, in your opinion, can make one naturally gay?

Actually, Paul, I know that both of them were choices. One is my niece, and she is an identical twin. Her twin sister is straight, and she is lesbian. The other is my ex-sister-in-law, and she chose to be a lesbian after she was raped and physically assaulted by her then-boyfriend.Both choices.

I know two women who are lesbians, and it was a choice for both of them. Out of the gay men I know (or have known) all but one came to it "naturally". The one that didn't was raped by a man when he was a teenager, and that changed his orientation. (This is by his own admission. He was attracted to girls before it happened, and desperately wanted to be attracted to women later in life (because being gay was standing in the way of being priesthood.))

For the most part, I agree with your post, Paul. However, I know that there are those who choose to be gay. This is especially true of females. In the one study that they did where they found a "gay" gene, it was only in the male population. Although they repeated the study and failed to get the same results.

Actually it was Peter, not Paul. And that was a vision, Peter wasn't actually asked to eat the unclean meat. Like I said, I understand the greater good that comes from this commandment, but it still leaves me wondering, What if Hitler claimed the same thing? That is where it starts getting troublesome to me. If God commands one person to do it, how do we know He hasn't commanded others to do it? Ones that we believe to be monsters (like Hitler)?

Winnie, that was a touching, touching story. Thank you for sharing the one thing this thread lacked, the personal testimony. God bless your son.

It's the agency discussion again.

OK, the Laban story starts in this chapter. When I think about this story, I have a bit of a hard time with it, so I tend not to think about it. I understand the reasoning, but I just have a hard time with God commanding someone to kill someone else. (I guess that is technically in Chapter 4 (but in our BoM, it is all in the same chapter. )(In fact, all of this is still in chapter 1 in our BoM.) Anyway, one of the verses that I like in this chapter is verse 7. .........For I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men save He shall prepare a way for them, that they may accomplish the thing which He commandeth them. That, to me, says that God knows our limitations and weaknesses, and always works within that frame of matter. He never would ask us to do anything that we are not capable of doing. That is comforting to me, somehow. It also gives me faith. If God asks me to do something that seems hard or near impossible, it means that he knows I can accomplish it.

One of the things I really like about the BoM is the tenderness that is used throughout. Yeah, it has it's moments, but on the whole, it has a tender feeling to it, much more so than the OT. For example, in 1 Nephi 1:20 .......For behold, I , Nephi, will show unto you that the tender mercies of the Lord are over all those whom he hath chosen, because of their faith, to make them mighty even nto the power of deliverance. Over and over, it show us how much God loves us.

What I would want and what I would expect are two completely different things. Would I expect somebody to take an unreasonable risk to save my family? No. I would hope so but that is my heart. My brain knows that unreasonable risks just lead to increased casualties. This quote of his is very telling. Yes, he would want someone to step in and save the life of his child (he wouldn't demand it (so he says now, but wait till it actually happens), but he would want it), but no, he wouldn't do it for someone else given the same circumstances. That, to me, is two-faced.

Maybe because Nephi, prior to then, was obedient for the sake of being obedient, as the law dictates. It was only after he cried to the Lord and the Lord answered him that his heart softened and he became a believer. The letter of the law thing compared to the spirit of the law thing.

Actually, it is entirely relavent to this conversation. (I didn't think so.) You practice selective reading, Trident. I stated I follow protocol unless there is absolutely no help around and the nearest ambulance is a looooong way away. I did base my information on the types of equipment we use in the hospital, so if your stuff is soooo much better than ours, more power to you. And you might note in my post above that I stated the problem was keeping the germs out (or in) was the point, and after 20 minutes the mask was no good (based on the products we carry in the hospital), so your point is not well taken.Besides, if I had AIDS, or SARS, or TB, or anything like that, I wouldn't be rushing around giving first aid to anyone, now, would I? Maybe you are too immature, I mean young, to remember that years ago, there was no such thing as BSI, and people actually went around saving lives without all that stuff. What a concept! Personally, I don't have an ego. At least, not one that is nearly as comparable to yours. And since you can't read, or at least comprehend what is written, I am done with this conversation.

That thought just crossed your mind, huh?? It didn't need putting together or anything? It just fell into place fully formed. That is really interesting.

Sorry, Snow, but this part of your post is evidently not true. There are whole other denominations out there that were part of the original movement, just like the LDS, that are not capital M Mormons. We are mormon, but we are not LDS. Jenda, I don't get what part of my post you say is untrue. Mormonism is a considered by many, Mormon or not, to be a seperate and distinct religion - Christian but in a way that no other Christian movement is. Mormons do not consider Community of Christ Church to be the Mormon Church nor do they so consider the Stangites, nor the Culterites nor the Fundamentalist. The non-Mormon does not, I think, consider any of those groups to be Mormon either. If some non-LDS person is talking about "those Mormons" 998 times out of a 1000, they are not thinking of the Community of Christ Church. You might be more like us than, say, the Catholics, but in the Mormon and non-Mormon consciousness, you are not part of a "seperate and distinct" people - a "peculiar people" You may call yourselves Mormon, like Mormons call themselves Christian - as far as I know we don't own the word but you went your way, and we went our way. Am I missing your point? Well, you are not missing my points, you understood them, you just don't agree with them. Part of the point was about the meaning of the word Mormon. Yes, the LDS mormons are the ones that everyone thinks of first when the word Mormon is mentioned, but anyone who knows about our church calls us Mormons, even when we try to correct them. In books outlining different denominations, we are always Mormon. Mormons might not consider us mormon, we don't necessarily consider ourselves mormon, but everyone else does. The other part of the point is that what you all have (except the polygamy thing, and the temple ordinance things) that makes you feel distinct, are held by other churches, also. So, you are really not distinct in your distinctness. BTW, we are a peculiar people. (But that is one of the distinctives that you share with us (whether you want to or not.))

Cal, from reading Behunin's posts, I feel (and she can correct me if I am wrong) that she is referring to the punitive nature of the law. If someone is found guilty of a crime, or even in a civil case, there are penalties. People are coerced into doing things because of the penalty they would have to pay if they did them. And some of the penalties are very violent. Death. That's kind of violent. (I'm not stating my opinion on the matter one way or the other, just stating that putting someone to death is violent.) Incarceration with inmates who would not hesitate to abuse other inmates in one way or another is violent. Fines up to millions of dollars can be considered violent. To me, that seems the point of her post. But I could be wrong.

I think we all know that that is a snow job. (Get it, snow job. Ha Ha Ha ) I think that anyone who has had a life-altering experience with the Holy Spirit would be considered "born-again". I mean.................................. that's what it means. I think that most people who have been "born-again", out of necessity, need to start at the lowest level of knowledge, because, well, that's where they are when they are born-again. All things are new. They are at the milk level. And that is fine, since it is the only place they can be, but then they have to start the process of re-learning the principles of the gospel and how they fit into the born-againness. Sometimes, it may not appear that some things fit where they seem to have been previously, but with prayer and seeking, the answers are revealed. Yes, living in the love of God is very nice. God does love each and every one of us. We are His children. But, He has still given us commandments, and still wants us to obey Him. He is so pleased when we choose to make that commitment to do that even though we don't have to. Yes, we are all saved (different levels of glory) but He wants us to choose to spend eternity with Him. (He's like that. :) ) It doesn't mean he loves us better, it means we love Him better.

Sorry, Snow, but this part of your post is evidently not true. There are whole other denominations out there that were part of the original movement, just like the LDS, that are not capital M Mormons. We are mormon, but we are not LDS.

New York City. Well, we are all waiting with baited breath. Were you one of those brave souls who rushed in to save people's lives?

He changed his mind about me... Halley Would you care to go into a little more depth with that last statement???

yes. I would link you to info, but it would get deleted so as to shield LDS posters from the real world. You can PM me.

Are internet mormons different from other mormons???

Ummm.............. I wasn't implying that one shouldn't have sex (Heaven forbid! That is my greatest pleasure after serving the Lord! B) )I fully believe that under the covenant of marriage that sex is fully condoned by the Lord. Not only that, but I believe that God should be invited into every aspect of your marriage. Back in the days of Christ, they had temple prostitutes so you could give your "sacrifices" to the Lord in every way. I wouldn't think of offering that kind of sacrifice, , but the marriage bed should be part of our thanksgiving to the Lord. My previous post was meant to mean that in the "putting off of the Adam", one is repenting of their sins and opening their life up to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It means to put off that which is natural (sinning) and taking upon you that which is holy. Sorry for the confusion. And don't ever put those particular words in my mouth again!!!

If you really want to know, it's not worth all the hoopla that they give it. In fact, it is pretty bad. YUCK!!