Faded

Well, Here are the sum total of actual questions in your original post: You will have to forgive me if those didn't sound like actual questions. Those are leading rhetorical questions phrased in a very patronising way, belittling the beliefs that you assume we have. Implying that you already know that we practice our religion out of utter terror of deity, assuming that we condemn all who disagree with us to burn in hell for eternity and that we think there's no such thing as a good person without religion.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints departs significantly from orthodox Christian dogma on a great many points. The common sense approach is to ask questions like, "Is it true that you believe _______?" That way you can be disabused of any incorrect assumptions you might have about our beliefs. And I have no doubt that you've encountered a wide array of opinions on the matter, but what is the official doctrinal stance taken by the religion they are a part of? You may find a Catholic who does not believe in the Trinity, ex-Nihilo creation or infant baptism. That does not mean that Catholic accurately represents the teachings of the Catholic Church. As to the notion of burning in hell for all eternity for being gay: If you think we believe that then you're grasp of LDS theology is pretty much nonexistent. I have no problem with you stating up front that you are and atheist and that you are a homosexual. Saying as much isn't going to bother me one bit. It's honest disclosure and appreciated. The rest of your original post -- to me -- came across as confrontational and patronising, yet full of incorrect assumptions about what we actually believe. My suggestion would be to ask questions until you feel you know enough about our beliefs to carry on an intelligent conversation first, then if you still feel so inclined feel free to pursue the debate of the homosexuality issue.

I don't disagree. Ideally we do the right things for the right reasons, but some people don't work that way and need to be driven by dread and fear. I wonder if the OP is even serious about having a discussion. Possible and even very likely they're kicking over the proverbial anthill just to see what happens. I'm very curious to see if they actually respond to any of the posts going forward. If they do then it strikes me as a very strange way to make your first post. That's why I linked the argument clinic video -- they just remind me of the man in the video who is ever so politely asking if he can please have an argument.

For starters, he might just be delusional enough to believe that if you hit the gym every day and just work at it then you'd get down to size 3 in no time at all and if only you had the body of a porstar (ala the porn you say he's been addicted to) then you're marriage would suddenly be heaven on earth. For starters, he's nuts. A person who obsesses about his wife being overweight would be obsessing about some other flaw even if she did have a perfect body, face, etc. Therein lies one of the biggest problems with pornography addiction. The women are actually real women, so the man thinks "Why doesn't my wife look like that?? If that woman can keep herself looking like that, why can't my wife do it?" Well, if you have the time, money and mental fortitude to spend six hours in the gym everyday with a personal trainer and to hire a nutrition consultant, maybe you could get to a more ideal weight in a few years. If you actually have that kind of time and money, then by all means go for it -- not so much for him but for yourself. You slimming down to a size six isn't going to fix the underlying issues in that man's head. His problem is that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, even if it isn't.Is it possible to love a woman and be happily married to her if she's 50+ lbs overweight? Absolutely! I am happily married to just such a woman. Would it be easier if she was 130 lbs? Does it bother me that my wife is about 100 lbs heavier that I'd like her to be? Yeah it does bother me more than I'd like to admit (since I'd prefer to lie and say it doesn't bother me at all of course). I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me some. I really wish it didn't bother me at all. It makes me feel like a terrible person for letting it bother me even a little bit. I love my wife very much and do my best to avoid thinking like that but it still happens sometimes. If she magically dropped down to 130 lbs, I'd be thrilled beyond belief! And once again, having said that I feel like a complete scumbag for saying it. Ultimately, I love her no matter what and I'll never make our marriage and my love for her conditional on something so trivial as her weight. I'm not stupid. I know full well that if I can't love her just the way she is, I wouldn't be able to love her any better at an ideal weight. It certainly would be nice if she was suddenly super-thin. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. It would also be nice if my work gave me a $1 million raise tomorrow. What's the point in obsessing over what isn't? But I guess it's just human nature that we do it anyways. So my honest answer: Go ahead and do your best to get yourself in the best shape possible. It might even help a little bit. Just realize that it's not going to solve the real issues here. A man who is willing to give up on his marriage that reason is likely to find other reasons to give up on his marriage. It's almost certain he doesn't realize it yet though.

The Hebrew word we see translated to "fear" is a loaded word that means a great many things beyond "being scared of." Reverence, love, devotion, submission and other things are implied in many cases, especially when it is "fear of God." Faith in the NT and Fear in the OT are somewhat equivalent really. We just don't have a good word equivalent in English, especially the modern usage of the word "fear."

So a man walks into a room full of strangers and says, "Sorry for the interuption but I'd like everyone here to know why I'm right and they're wrong." Seems like a pretty silly thing for a first post on a forum don't you think? The scientific jury is still out on the science of how homosexuality happens. No clear evidence for or against genetic predisposition, we simply have no idea there. But from the gays I have known in my life I can accept that it is not always a conscious decision to become homosexual. Why on earth do you suppose that's so important to point out whilst introducing yourself to a group of complete strangers? Seems a rather odd way to say hello. Acceptance isn't really in question. We'll agree to disagree over the moral correctness of homosexuality, but that doesn't mean I'm required to hate you, demonize you or belittle you in any way. You presume to know a great deal about the Church of Jesus Christ and it's members but clearly you don't know very much at all. So were you hoping to better understand us or are you here for no other reason that telling us that we're wrong about everything we believe to be true? The fact that you introduced yourself as an atheist means you haven't much use for God. What are the chances of you actually understanding something that you believe to be useless? While I can't say for certain whether they all have websites, it's worth pointing out that you're one down and more than 30,000 Christian denominations to go. Then you can move on to Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and the rest of the religions that believe homosexuality is sinful and wrong. If your message is "there's nothing wrong with homosexuality" to all those who think otherwise, I do hope you have an abundance of spare time because you've got your work cut out for you. Or have you already gone to websites of other religions with your message? If you've chatted with other faiths on the matter, how did it go anyways? I must say I'm very curious: If we just happen to be the first religion you're coming to with this discussion, I'd love to know why we've been so honored to be your first pick?

Is it just me or are you doing this: I may have more to say later.

Correct. The Church of Jesus Christ does not recognize the validity of a marriage between man and man, woman and woman, man and horse or woman and cat. Why on earth would a change in human law automagically cause God to up and change his mind? If NABLA gets their way, marriages between older men and young boys will one day be completely legal. Sexual relationships between older men and young boys actually gained social acceptance in ancient Rome after all. Marriages between older men and unwilling eight year old girls is an ongoing occurrence in third world and Muslim nations. It's not impossible for such a things to gain widespread legal status, is it? Homosexuality was a huge socially taboo thing for thousands of years, yet here we are. Does the fact that marriage between a 40 year old man and an 8 year old girl is unthinkable today mean that it will always remain unthinkable and to your point illegal? One thing I'd like to address that is bothering me about this: Why is your daughter making it a "Mormon vs the Gay Community" issue when it is in fact a "Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and every other major world religion vs the Gay Community." Excepting new-thinking variants who like to make themselves politically correct, there is no major world religion that does not consider homosexuality sinful. How does she think it's just about the "Mormons"?? EDIT: Anyways, I think in my mental wanderings I've stumbled across an example for you. There are many modern examples of this practice but I can't link them because they seem angry and spiteful towards Islam which I have little taste for. The best example I can find quickly is Aisha, one of Muhammad's wives. He married her when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Obviously this would be unthinkable in modern America, but for him is was perfectly legal. Following this precedent, marriage to very young girls is perfectly legal in many predominantly Muslim nations, with the express requirement that the girl must reach puberty before her husband has sex with her. When the unthinkable becomes 100% legal, does it change it from wrong to right? Where is the dividing line between right and wrong? Is social acceptance an acceptable measuring stick for right and wrong?

A better example might be pedophiles. It's just as likely for attraction to underage children to have a genetic component and homosexuality. And there are life events that happen (such as being a victim of a pedophile) that significantly increase your chances of being sexually attracted to small children yourself. Pedophiles are not necessarily violent criminals. Their sexually deviant predisposition is likely to not be their fault. The difference is that pedophilia is not given the same due consideration as homosexuality, largely because pedophiles who act on their sexual attraction are violating the rights of the children they victimize. That does not mean that they consciously decided one day to be intensely attracted to little boys and/or girls. Odds are they probably didn't. In fact, pedophiles are most often among the most self-loathing people you'll ever encounter. You better believe that the vast majority wish they weren't attracted to little kids. Homosexual and pedophile both have sexual impulses and attractions that are not socially acceptable and in both cases, acting on those attractions and impulses is sin of a very high order. Why would it matter if they're born that way or not in either case? We live in a society where adultery, orgies, pornography, homosexuality, fornication and all manner of sexual deviancy is considered perfectly acceptable. Consenting adults have the right to engage in whatever sexual behavior they see fit so long as they do no harm and do not violate the rights of others. That does not mean that it's all fine and good in God's eyes.

The is no official doctrine stating that all homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. There is no official doctrine about the possibility that genetics might have a role to play. The Church does not have a ironclad stance on the why's and the root causes of homosexuality. Each individual case must be considered individually obviously. But homosexuality is viewed as something that can be, should be and has been overcome successfully many many times. Not all are successful and my heart certainly goes out to those who are unsuccessful in overcoming it. The only clear Church stance on the issue is this: You can have same-gender attraction and still be a member of the Church in good standing so long as you do not act on said impulses and attractions. Not much different from a heterosexual member who spends their entire life single through no fault of their own. They are both expected to obey the law of chastity. The Law of Chastity = No sexual relations of any kind unless it is between husband and wife. The expectation for both is the same: No sexual relations outside of marriage.

While it's certainly no picnic, does this really surpass the Dustbowl drought during the Great Depression??? "This catastrophe intensified the economic impact of the Great Depression in the region. The Dust Bowl has been identified as the "most extreme natural event in 350 years"" Things aren't good, I'll give you that, but United States has been through worse.

The year 2012 might just see the Second Coming happen!! Then again it might not. "“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." -- Matthew 24:36 I take that to heart. The ancient Mayas were never told when the Second Coming would happen. The ancient Nephites were never told. Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, Peter, James and John all didn't know when it would happen during their mortal lives and prophets and apostles. Even now in heaven -- standing in God's very presence -- they still don't know. I always find it quite comical hearing people trying to predict when the Second Coming will happen. We don't know and we're better off not knowing. The funny thing is, with so many people predicting when the world will end ... eventually somebody's going to guess right.

The studies continue but nobody has actually proven that genetics has anything to do with it. There were a couple studies that showed something like a 2% increase in likelihood to become homosexual attributing it to genetics. Trouble with that is that 5% is the standard deviation of any statistical study, so a 2% greater chance is statistically irrelevant. Now if you are aware of better studies with better results feel free to share them. No doubt there are many. By the same token, there is an unending quest to prove that imbibing alcohol is actually good for you -- and in like manner, studies that "prove" this fact were biased to begin with. People want to feel better about consuming the poison known as ethanol alcohol, therefore there will always be people out to prove that said poison has healthy benefits. Ultimately, nobody has actually proven that ethanol itself has any positive benefits, but it's a medical fact that it is very bad for you. Likewise, studies suggesting that homosexuality is genetic and claiming it as "a proven scientific fact" are rarely unbiased and I've yet to hear of one that actually proves anything with any certainty at all. Ultimately, the "gay gene" has never been found. It's all theoretical at this point, but people want it to be true, so there will always be studies that claim to prove it. Is homosexuality an inevitability that occurs at conception? I have no idea but I tend to think it isn't. Does that mean that all same-gender attraction is something the individual actively chooses? No, I don't think that is the case either. I think there's a lot of same-gender attraction that happens in direct contradiction to what the individual actually wanted for themselves. As to your other point about gender being a premortal and eternal characteristic, I think there are many things that will have to be sorted out in the eternities. A friend of my was born with both male genitalia as well as a uterus and ovaries -- both of which were unknown because she was not born with a vaginal opening. After considerable prayer and introspection, she decided that she was really and truly a girl and not a boy, despite having lived as a boy/man for her entire childhood and even serving a full-time mission as a man. I'm willing to accept that she's right and that she really is a girl. There are many grey areas and we can and should leave those things in God's hands. Now if somebody finds themselves attracted to those of their same gender against their will, ultimately one must realize that "the natural man is an enemy to God." What is natural and what God expects of us often are polar opposites. My heart goes out to those who face this trial. It must be a terrible thing to face. But outright acceptance just isn't an option. No Mormon nor any other Christian who actually takes the Bible seriously can conclude that homosexuality is fine and good. It is condemned repeatedly in very strong words in both Old and New Testaments. So while the Church of Jesus Christ has immense love and sympathy for those struggling with same gender attraction, it is not acceptable for one of us to be a practicing homosexual.

madeleine1, I love the fact that this has changed in recent history, but it's all very new thinking. Back in the day, the Church was nitpicking over the tiniest details. Wars were fought and people slaughtered over the most subtle of differences. Protestantism represents a much larger departure from orthodoxy than many, many movements who were violently crushed before. Catholicism did try to eradicate Protestantism but they were unsuccessful. The fact that they didn't succeed and eventually came to accept Protestantism as a misdirected but well meaning group of Christians comes about primarily because they actually survived. if I had a time machine, I'd take you back to Konstanz, Germany July 5, 1415. You could explain to to Jan Hus how the Catholic Church does not seek to impose their will on others while he is being burned alive by the Catholic Church. I love that Catholicism has made such great strides in tolerance and acceptance of those who believe differently from them. Historically, that's not something they've done very well at. The point I'm driving at is simple: Protestantism isn't heresy because: a.) It survived and grew to be very very large. b.) Catholicism has drastically changed it's approach to "heresy" in the last 500 years. They don't kill people just for disagreeing with them -- not anymore that is. PC can better explain it than me, but as I understand it, Protestantism holds that no hierarchical system of control, rule and decree was ever intended and that after the apostles, Christianity becomes a "priesthood of all believers." I don't think that they acknowledge that leaders from the Pope on down had any right to rule Christendom, but imposed their rule without any right to do so. So coming from that understanding, if we're looking at it from the Protestant point of view, did anyone have any right to tell the Gnostics that they were wrong and systematically eliminate them? If all of the Protestant Reformers had come around with their same ideas in the first five centuries AD, they would have faced the same fate as Gnosticism and with their successful elimination they would be branded heretics as well.

From a Latter Day Saint perspective, the day you got married the Law of Chastity switches from "thou shalt not" to "thou shalt." So not only is it unhealthy, it stands in direct defiance of God's commandments. The command to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" is still in effect for all married couples. It may not help your sister in law to just tell her that, I'm just establishing that it most certainly isn't okay with the Lord. Getting her to come around? Impossible to say until you find the underlying cause. Sexual abuse? Just over-zealously keeping the law of chastity? Physical issues? The solution depends on the cause of course.

Soninme, you're Protestant. You're not in agreement with with the Catholic Church. Therefore you are just as much a heretic as a Gnostic.The Gnostics were an extremely broad category of Christians. They are the earliest serious thinkers who actively sought to develop Christian theology. So many different groups, practices and beliefs have been tossed into the pot "Gnostic" that it's pretty much impossible to nail down any certain beliefs that they all have in common. Catholicism adopted about half of what the Gnostics came up with and claim it as their own. The other half of their material was denounced of course. So what you've got to wonder is if the early Church got it right. Did they throw out truths that the Gnostics had preserved? Did they adopt any false doctrines by mistake? Protestantism gets itself into a bit of a pickle here. Ancient Catholicism denouncing and exterminating Gnosticism goes against the entire basis of Protestantism. It's basically Catholicism telling other Christians what they can or can't believe in. If Protestants thinks it's wrong now, how can it be right back then?