Oligith1

*blinks* I'm not banned yet? I was sure I would be after that personal attack that I did. I mean, yeah I was in a bad mood already when I came to the forums last and saw someone do something that crossed one of my pet peeves, so I chose to take out my frustrations on that individual, but I've read the rules and it doesn't make allowances for that. For what it's worth though, Aesa, I do apologize for my accusations. I shouldn't have taken my frustrations out on you, and I am sorry that I did so. I do hope that you forgive me. Oh. /derail off

Then why frame your whole topic by stating... ?You did not say "my curiosity is nothing more than a desire to criticize your beliefs." You did not say "my curiosity is nothing more than a desire to discuss what I think is wrong in your beliefs." You did say that you were just curious, meaning, only curious, meaning that you "just wanted to know" our beliefs. When it comes down to it, I just want you to own up to the fact that you obviously were lying about being "just curious," and instead just wanted to provoke a "discussion" where you attempt to put the LDS here on the defensive regarding some scripture and non-scripture (I mean, Journal of Discourses? weak). Personally I believe that the best defense is a good offense, hence my behavior in my posts. But when it really comes down to it, I would prefer to believe in true tolerance and the whole "we might as well just state each others opinion and say "okay, you believe this, nice." and "okay, i believe that." *hug*" People really are entitled to their own opinions after all. Just don't try to mask your own opinion as an innocent, honest question. As far as... Is that what you think this is? Pointing out a wolf in sheeps clothing is "being incredibly touchy?" I mean, if you came as just a wolf, I'd be fine with it, it's the sheeps clothing that is offensive...so to speak, of course (unless you really are wearing a sheep as you sit at the computer right now....eeeewwww) In other words, if you just came out and said, "Hey, I think that your beliefs are wrong in these ways. Go ahead and try to refute me." I would just take it at face value, respond accordingly (as I did in the "I'll bite" section of my previous post), and move on. It's just your whole "I'm just curious" bit that annoyed me. The whole "I'm not attacking you" thing (paraphrased, of course). I think you should have the guts to go ahead and be open with your contempt for our beliefs, and what you have heard are our beliefs. (I still think item six in your list is of dubious origin).

Nothing more than... ...eh?Meaning that you will just go, "Oh, thank you for sharing your opinion and thoughts on the question that I asked. I just desired to know/ had an inquisitive interest in your concerns/was nosy about what you thought/ or had an interest which led me to inquire of you your opinion," if I do answer your question? That you won't argue with my opinion should I answer? Because curiosity according to the definitions I've read isn't critical, nor is it analytical. It is simply...curious. That said, I'll bite. 1) I believe both statements because I believe the scriptures to be true, and I believe that God still speaks today through His prophets. I do not find them to contradict each other either when it comes down to it. I mean, that verse in Genesis has many interpretations including what you are alluding to and "if anybody makes anyone else bleed, someone else will make that person bleed." Now remember that you are just "curious." No arguing. 2) Again, I don't see a contradiction on those verses. The verses out of Moses are hindsight. The verses from Genesis are as the facts happened. I mean look at the context of Moses 5:11. It was after Adam and Eve had been making sacrifices to Heavenly Father out of obedience to what he'd been commanded. After an angel had come to them to explain why they had been commanded to do so. After the Holy Ghost had "fallen upon" Adam and they learned that "as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will." (5:9) After they had gained great hope in their own possible Salvation. Wouldn't you praise God? 3) I always find it funny when people read that part in Exodus "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (bold and italics added for emphasis) as meaning "Thou shalt have no other gods." I mean, if he'd meant that, why not just say, "None, nada, zilch No other gods at all." Why add that whole "before me" clause? Mmmm? The way I read it, God was saying that we should be putting Him first in our lives and that we are to worship only Him. That isn't to say that there wouldn't be any other Gods, or were no other Gods (heck, when it comes down to it, nowdays people talk about the modern gods known as TV, Video Games, or money. *shrugs* I mean, what are people spending most of their time "worshipping" now, eh?) So as far as Adam being a "prince...under...the Holy One," so what? 4) *yawns* So someone has two names....and? 5) As many have already stated...yay! We now can be sure that Satan can imitate an angel. So...um...yeah. Is that news? 6) Mmmm...you may have me on this one. I've read all of the standard works, the official canon of the LDS church, what is authorized by the Prophets of modern times as "scripture" several times, and I can't seem to find the Journals of Discourses anywhere in them. As such, I can't say if what was written in this non-canon work is true or not. I mean, I've never read those Journals. Heck, I don't even know who is supposed to have written it. In any case, I do have to say that the Bible is greatly historical in nature despite the overwhelming spiritual and doctrinal aspects of it. I would never say that it has no value though or is of no worth in modern times. I rather like the Bible. I mean, it is a part of our canon after all. It is scripture. So there ya go. I do hope that I satisfied your "curiosity" about my particular opinion. I'm sure that you won't take a list of quotes out of my post and critique them, denounce them, or attempt to argue with them due to this not being an attacking post, but...

The basis of my belief is that I prayed, God answered my prayer quite definatively for me, and that's all I really needed. Sure, it took nineteen years to get that answer after praying, studying, rebelling against the thought, and yearning for it, but come it did. In the end though, I would much rather be happily self-deceived than to be miserable in the "Truth." That's just me though.

Simple answer. We do not believe that you must be baptized to enter "Heaven." We believe that you must be baptized to enter the Celestial Kingdom. The "paradise" - what people might term "Heaven" - Jesus was referring to on the cross was definately not the Celestial Kingdom due to the fact that one must be resurrected to enter the Celestial Kingdom (or any kingdom of glory for that matter) and none had been yet resurrected until after Christ himself was resurrected three days after his death. In the end though, it's just another question of definitions and people's differences in understanding what the definitions mean.

He needs counseling, badly. He also needs a wakeup call. I would also agree that leaving him, at the very least temporarily, would be in both of your best interest. Being a guy, the question that comes to my mind is does he love you? Does he really love you? How much does he love you? Does he love you enough to do what it takes to overcome his abusive behavior completely? Does he love you enough to seek professional help in these matters? Does he love you enough to spend the time away from you needed to learn how to show love properly? The thing is, he may think that he does love you and if he thinks so, he'd probably be right, but that does not necessarily mean that he loves you enough yet. I've learned that love is an evolving, changing, and growing thing when it comes to the person who matters most in your life. I love my wife more with each passing day and add nuances to that love in ways that suprise me and help me to grow. It could be that his love for you is in the "teenager stage" where the love is more selfish and more about him, but can still grow into the adult and later godly love which puts you into the position you deserve to be in, just behind God in his heart. I'd say walk away for the time being, but don't close off communication completely. Dont' be in a hurry to return to him though. I would definately not set a specific date to go home. The goal of all of this would be for the both of you to heal your individual wounds which are the natural consequence of arguing and fighting. I don't just mean any physical wounds, but the psychological, emotional, and social wounds. If you still see the part of him that you loved originally still present within his being, I would focus on that and let your love of that piece of him give you hope. As for him, I would request that he do go to counseling specifically for his abusive nature. I would find a counselor for him to go to who specializes in this issue (abusive husbands) and ask that your husband visits with him/her. (a counselor who does specialize in this issue should be able to see past the mask that he wears in public, while one who has not studies this issue could be faked out and made to believe that the problem is yours and not his) If you can't find a counselor on your own, I'd look for battered womens shelters, the people in the local police department who are generally sent to deal with domestic violence, and the church social services to ask them who you should recommend...maybe in that order too. I really wouldn't go back to him until/unless the counselor is satisfied that he has changed, and that he has proven his love to you again (up to you what this would mean). Also, I would recommend that he continue to visit with the counselor for at least a year following your return, should you return at all. Should he show signs of returning to his old behavior, you should let him know that he is showing those signs and that while you will still love him unconditionally (hopefully), you will still give him the physical distance he needs to overcome his challenge should it reach the yelling stage again (don't wait until he prepares to strike you). All of us have our challenges in life. Some of us have challenge of Same-Sex-Attraction, some of us have a "Short Fuse," some of us have the challenge of Pride, and some of us have a whole mixture of challenges and temptations...well, most of us do. We are all human after all. Yes, if you are in danger, do what it takes to get out of danger, but remember that he is just human with human failings and needs love as much as everyone else. Don't excuse his behavior with this thought, but remember to keep loving him because God still loves him. We all need help from time to time. Frequently we don't realize that we need that help though. We might even adamantly deny that we need the help, but that doesn't change the fact that we do need it. I'd say that the best way to help him would be to leave him and follow the course I've outlined. No, I'm not a professional. This is just my gut feeling here. I mean, I needed a wake up call when I was at my worst with my wife...

All I have to say is EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!!!! I adore chocolate. I can't stand even the smell of coffee. I've been a professional baker though and have never heard of this "depth." Sounds to me like someone who likes coffee wants you to try *gags* it.

If not remove it, at least change it as they did the Hymn "I am a Child of God" where the hymn was changed from "teach me all that I must know" to "teach me all that I must do" as it was added to the hymnal.

Yay! Lotsa questions! Let's see what I can answer. I'll try to keep it brief because I know I like to use too many words to write sometimes. First (bold and italics added) Someone already covered this one, but Elder Holland is not telling anyone to kick any people out or disown people, but is telling parents that they have the right to limit behaviors and actions. The scriptures do tell us that our thoughts will condemn us, so yes, unclean thoughts (gay or hetero) are bad and sinful. Even if you do not act on those thoughts, you do still need to repent and try to never have those thoughts again. Feelings are not thoughts though. Example: You hit your thumb with a hammer. You feel pain. You think, "Ouch!" (hopefully just that) You cry, yell, scream, and otherwise express your pain (your actions). Next one I'll do piecemeal. From what I have read of the many and various theories of why a person may end up with their SSA (Same-Sex Attraction), one of the common environmental ones is sexual abuse as a child. Another common theme in the stories professed gays share is that of "not fitting in" and just "feeling different." But I have to say that I am not an expert. I don't have a psychology degree. I'm not a research sceintist. I'm just a guy who has gone through what I've gone through and has read up on the subject. I can give my opinions, but as I stated before, from all I've read the sources of SSA are many and varied and though there are some common themes, I couldn't tell you for certain if one thing or another is an actual source of SSA. In the end though, I still think it doesn't matter where it comes from. What really matters is what you do with the feelings when they come. As far as It's a very good question and one I was hoping would be asked. Is it confusing? You betcha! Define a word in two very different ways and then hold a conversation. The only thing that will result is confusion. Especially if you can't figure out what each person means by the word through context. I think the best example for this would be the term "mad." In one definition it means angry. In another it means crazy or insane. If you say, "That man is mad" it is really hard to tell if the speaker means that the person is crazy or just angry without more information. I probably could come up with an entire paragraph in which you could use either meaning and it would still make sense either way. I won't, because I'm trying to be concise. Unfortunately, the terms "Homosexuality" or "being Gay" or "being Lesbian" are all now similar to the term "mad" in that through common usage of the terms by people from two distinct points of view, you could have an entire conversation and completely misunderstand each other. I'm glad the term same-sex attraction (SSA) has come up in recent times because that term, for now, is still clear. As for my story, I said that using one definition I am Gay -- the one where Homosexuality is merely having an attraction to others of your own gender (SSA) -- and yet I am not Gay -- the one where Homosexuality is not only having SSA but also acting on those feelings through your thoughts and actions. I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm trying to clarify the confusion that already existed. Now, if I met you on the street and I wasn't being all analytical, I would say that I am not Gay. Personally, I don't usually apply that label to myself. Why? Because I choose not to, that's why. Jimuk, in some ways I was very effeminate as a young boy too...still am in fact. I love to cook, sew, crochet, sing, and the like and have no interest in cars, sports, and most things that guys stereotypically are supposed to prefer. Perhaps this is a way to identify someone who might struggle with the temptation early, but in the end, SSA is still just a temptation and can be denied and controlled. People may be born with the temptation perhaps, but that still does not eliminate their ability to choose not to give heed to it. Sexual orientation is another of those terms which can be, and is, used to mean both just the attraction (as you used it here to mean) as well as the behavior. I just want to point that out. That said, I agree with you. Same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction, whatever their sources, don't really seem to be choices, but what you do with that attraction is a choice. Once again, the distinction between feelings, thoughts, and actions needs to be stressed. As I stated above, they are seperate and different things. Feelings are the level where our impulses are, our natural pushing to do one thing or another, our instincts. It is where pain, hunger, fatigue, lust, anger, and a myriad of other base emotions are. While we can't choose our feelings, we can control them. Just because we are hungry does not mean we have no choice but to eat. Just because we are in pain does not mean that we have to scream. Just because we are lustful towards someone does not mean that we have to even entertain thoughts about them. And so forth. Thoughts are the level where we analyze the various stimuli of our feelings, our environment, the situations we find ourselves in, people we are around, what we see, hear, touch, and so many more inputs and make decisions based on our thoughts. This is where we can decide to give in to our feelings or not. Of course in our thoughts we have the conscious and subconscious, imagination and dreams, and such. And while we are not accountable for our subconscious decisions, we generally do not act while sleeping, though if you are a sleepwalker, I really don't think you are accountable for your actions when you are actually sleepwalking. Actions...well...those are obvious. As far as wanting people to be born with "correct" sexual feelings (I assume you mean opposite-sex attraction) we don't know for certain that we aren't. In the end though, it does not matter if we are or not. If SSA comes only from environmental stimuli, it does not negate that SSA still is a reality that some people have to deal with every day. Whatever the source of the temptation, it's there, it's just up to us to choose if we let it rule us or not. Ok. That's every question from when I started this post up to now. I do hope it helps.

I was hoping someone would speak up with this view. Hey! No groaning, rolling your eyes, or any of that. Just pause for a moment and listen...please. I agree with you 100% that acting on homosexual feelings is sin. I even agree with you 100% that entertaining homosexual thoughts is sin. I have to say though that having homosexual feelings (defined as having an attraction towards others of your own gender) is most certainly not a sin. WAIT! Stop thinking that response you are already thinking about and pause for a moment and listen. Is it a sin to be tempted? Did Eve commit sin before she ate the fruit, before she decided to eat the fruit, during the time when Satan was making his sales pitch? Heck, she didn't even know who Satan was, did she? I say that having same-sex attraction is a temptation. I can choose to act on it or not. I can choose to entertain the thoughts or not. Unfortunately, I can't choose to not be tempted. I wish I could. It could be that you agree with me in all of this and that I simply misunderstood, but then there is another aspect to what you wrote that I would like to address. You declare boldly that "Homosexuality is a sin." I agree with you....50% on that one. Once again I must say that definitions of words really matter. If you define Homosexuality as the behavior of entertaining same-sex sexual fantasies in your thoughts and/or the behavior of engaging in sex with other members of your gender then I agree with you 100%. Acting on temptations is the definition of sin. On the other hand, if you define Homosexuality as having the feelings, the attraction to, the temptation to do all of those things I just described, I would have to disagree with you 100%. Sin is not sin if you don't do it. Also we are not sinful just because we are tempted...otherwise Jesus wouldn't be perfect. What I pointed out in my original post is that there are differing views on the definition of Homosexuality. The reason I pointed it out is to attempt to give people a better understanding of what we are fighting here. You won't have a chance of persuading someone of your opinion if you don't first understand theirs. Remember the commitment pattern? Build on Common Beliefs. But first you have to find out what those beliefs are. So when it comes down to it, I can say honestly that I am a Homosexual. It is not a sin. And I do have a hope of gaining the Celestial Kingdom even with that title. Of course, in that paragraph I am using the definition of Homosexuality which defines it as a temptation only, but I do hope you understand what I mean. Do I plan on ever going back to the behavior? Certainly not. Hence... So when it comes down to it, I can say honestly that I am not a Homosexual. It is a sin. Any who engage in that sin and do not repent have no hope of gaining the Celestial Kingdom with that title. Now you might say that I'm creating a problem by creating a dual definition of the term Homosexuality, and were I the one to have created this dual meaning I would agree with you completely. The fact of the matter is that I didn't create it. I'm just shining light on what others have created. Just ask any Gay Activist to define Homosexuality, and you'll find that they will either refuse to define it (annoying, but true -- can't cure something that you can't understand after all) or they will give you the definition that I have pointed out. Ok. I'm rambling again. Hope it helped.

The answer is manyfold. In California, where I live, homosexuals can have Domestic Partnerships which do give them virtually every right that a traditional marriage has. I do hope you notice that I said virtually. There are still a few rights that marriages have that Domestic Partnerships don't have...I've heard something about visitation rights in prison and some inheritance stuff, but I haven't looked too deep into the subject. Hence, the Gay Activists are trying to get those last few rights by gaining marriage. This is the answer they give to the public to gain support for their side. Of course, they could go about it in a different manner and just seek legislation that would grant Domestic Partnerships those last few missing rights, but there is a reason they don't take that path. That leads us to the second answer. That answer is that they want official acceptance for their chosen actions and lives...even if they won't officially admit that they chose them, but that's another barrel of monkeys to discuss. Since there is a whole block of people who aren't swayed by Hollywood, pictures of old ladies embracing in joy, and empassioned cries for "equality," the Gay Activists have decided to force "acceptance" through official channels in a "you believe in majority rule, so if the majority rules in favor of Gay Marriage, then you have to accept our lifestyle as a good thing." Another reason is the legal side of it all. Law is frequently determined by mere definitions of words. Change the definition, and you change effect of the law. Marriage has a great many strings attached in the legal world. Many States have laws which say that if you are "married" in another State that the first State will recognize that Marriage. Also, other States don't have Domestic Partnerships, so if a Gay couple want to move from California to most other states, they will lose the rights associated with the Domestic Partnership. On the other hand, were what they had a "marriage," they would have a leg to stand on in court to argue that the other State that they move to has to recognize their rights as a "married" couple. Those are just the main reasons. There are many other varied minor reasons that a person might want it: an individual wants access to a trust fund that they can only receive when they become "married" but they can't stand the thought of marrying anyone of the opposite gender; they feel that if they can get married in a church to the person of the same sex that they love that somehow God will officially accept them as they "are;" they might just like the chaos that erupts in a crowd when you bring up such hot topics like this (yeah, I know a guy...); etc... I do hope that helps clarify it all.

Your answer is because most members don't understand the verses in the manner that you do. Good thing that we still have modern prophets which do help clarify such murky scriptures as that. James E. Faust said, "Stay away from intoxicating liquor" in The Enemy Within. Russell M. Nelson said, "We are not to drink alcoholic beverages." Addiction or Freedom Joseph B. Worthlin wondered aloud of the results of people living the Word of Wisdom and to "never abuse their bodies with alcoholic beverages" in Fruits of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is just to quote three of the people we sustain as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators" nowdays. I am very greatful that Heavenly Father sees fit to clarify for everyone the truths of the gospel.

I don't drink coke. I tried it once and...oh gosh was it awful! Blech! Then I had a college health class tell me how bad the frequent drinking of soda is for the body according to several medical studies on obesity. Net result is that I just don't drink soda almost at all. I have the occational (once every few months or so) root beer, but that's about it. Being one who is not prone to headaches or have any other real pain relieving needs nor frequent upset stomachs, I have no medical reasons to drink it. For me, it doesn't matter if the prophet said not to drink Coke or not. You couldn't get me to drink a coke short of tying me down and forcing it down my throat

I love video games and play them all too much. I generally perfer the RPG (role-playing game) variety which gives me the opportunity to...explore the evil side of humanity some. Yep. I sometimes play characters which love going around killing all of the innocents they can find. I remember one time making a Blackguard Barbarian on Neverwinter Nights and making it a point of doing every single evil act available in the game just for kicks. Does all of this make me evil? Heck no. It's a game and very seperate from reality. In reality, I would never hurt anyone...other than those stupid gohpers in my backyard *grumbles* But in all seriousness, people who cannot separate fantasy from reality are those who might want to be more cautious of what they do in their spare time. All of that said, the ideal is set up in the scriptures: -- 13th Article of FaithWe are to seek after virtue and goodness. If what we are seeking doesn't qualify or is actually against such virtue, perhaps we should rethink our choice, eh? My playing a bad guy in a video game is probably not the best use of my time, I know. It was fun at the time, but fun is such a fleeting thing. True happiness is a much greater goal to seek after and you don't find that by playing the bad guy in video games if you get it by playing video games at all, but that is another topic of discussion isn't it?

*grins* The only missionaries that knock on my door don't speak english. Ah, the joys of living in the San Diego area. As I don't speak spanish I usually just apologize and they leave, but if they did come by and I did have time and they did happen to speak english for once, I'd be more than happy to have a gospel conversation with them regardless of their background. After all, I did tracting on my mission and it was a joy to be let into a house after so many doors which would not open for us.