LittleWyvern

Any time there's new technology that becomes mainstream there's (in general) two paths families can take: Deny its use outright Allow its use but figure out how it can be used safely In my opinion, if the new technology has the potential to be used for good, option 2 is the better (but more difficult) choice. Regardless, I think we're overly complicating the issue by thinking this phenomenon is unique to smartphones. This exact same question has been asked for pre-smartphone cellphones, the Internet, home computers, portable CD players, televisions, home telephones, radios, electricity, etc.

Darn, I guess my "bleegle blaargle bloo" gag didn't go over so well.

Assuming you're serious, I enjoy the discussions and think they're intelectually and spiritually stimulating and stregthening. I grew up in an area with very little LDS Church members, so the whole concept of a group of LDS members all in the same place with its unique culture and mores is still pretty novel to me. If you really aren't serious (or if you don't believe what I put above), then bleegle blaargle bloo, I'm a person on the Internet, ta-da!

Oh, I didn't know your post was supposed to be a joke.

I don't understand why some on this thread insist on bringing up bestiality or pedophilia as if it's some kind of pet subject. This thread was clearly started to help those who suffer with a certain temptation/sin but are making an effort to become better and who have recently been the subject of heated and sometimes vitriolic conversation on this board realize that those conversations apply only to the temptation/sin, not the person. Nobody has been insisting about talking about pedophiles on this thread except you and maybe a couple other people. The subject was chosen based on recent conversations, and this thread was never about accepting or appreciating a sin, but about appreciating people that are making an effort to become better. It's obvious now that this venue is the wrong choice for that kind of conversation, for better or for worse. EDIT: before Windseeker replies, no, I'm not saying that we should appreciate a sin. I'm also not saying that we should appreciate people that are hostile to the Church or trying to destroy it.

I am constantly baffled how completely my posts can be misread with such regularity. I shouldn't have even bothered. EDIT: To be clear, I was suggesting a venue that was more positive about homosexuals, not homosexuality. I'm sure Windseeker understood that anyway.

This subject has an inherent weakness in this kind of environment, as there are some who believe that even participating in the kind of appreciation in the subject is wrong/disturbing/appalling/etc. You may have to find a more positive venue for this kind of discussion to have a chance at ever happening, which is a bit of a bummer.

*gets all prepared and stuff* *never mind*

The only difference I see it making is that you may purposely get sent to an area with a reliable medical system so that you can easily get help if something changes regarding whatever it is you're taking antidepressants for. Other than that, I don't see it becoming a problem, but then again I'm not your bishop or your mission president. I'm not aware of any rule regarding medications in general other than the guideline that medication needs should be communicated completely and honestly so that your mission president can make sure your medical needs are well taken care of.

And thus I used the word suggests. EDIT: as opposed to a word like determines.

Hold up. When you say "reject service for a gay wedding," you could mean one of two things: Refusing to perform a same-sex wedding Refusing to participate in the creation of goods or services that might possibly be used in same-sex marriages "Relevant username" jokes aside, I'm fairly certain the Church has supported Item 1 and not Item 2. I would argue (and I'm sure skippy would say something similar) that the mormonandgays website suggests a different interpretation of support than you're assuming.

I'm sure many same-sex couples have done just that in response to this situation. We only hear about this one because it's notable and it meets some sort of standard/goal of the site that posted it. Some people just have different reactions when they experience what they feel is injustice, I suppose, this being one of the more active responses.

...Which I would argue is a strict subset of discriminating based on sexual orientation.

I could put a lot of words here, but all this really boils down to is whether or not businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The rest is just extraneous stuff. Yes, that means that while the religious aspect of this particular case is interesting, I don't think it's particularly important as far legalities go. EDIT: Although I suppose the question for some here is instead whether or not we should have anti-discrimination laws at all.

Well, uh, darn, I feel really stupid now.

^-- stupid

I suppose in very rare circumstances you can make that general judgement, but I am loathe to trust my imperfect perspective on such a sweeping judgement. Maybe this is all up to what we feel about our "skill" of judging other people. I know I'm not very good at it.

Well, sure, "The Dark Ages" wouldn't exactly make it on Spaceship Earth's* highlight reel, but the whole reason I brought it up was to point out that the "different therefore stupid/needs correction" fallacy behind prisonchaplain's un-tolerant tolerance example has an origin much earlier than the current gay marriage issue. *Disney fan. Couldn't help it.

If you've been paying attention to my posts, you'd know that I've been making an argument against this scorekeeping kind of judging. We can certainly judge between right and wrong, and judge that a person is doing X wrong, but we cannot make the judgement that "I am better than person X" unless we're holding the full record of everything person X has done. Only God can make that judgement. Thus, in that form, both statements are nonsensical for the same reason. If you really want to go that route and judge that you're better that someone based on how they feel about prophetic teaching X, I'll respect that but disagree with it. In some sense, though, we're all sinners. The phrase "I'm just as good as you" on it's own without your additions may be referring to that fact depending on how it's meant.

I was referring to the common misconception that the "Dark Ages" were a time of complete societal standstill, where no art, science, or architecture was being developed, not the presence or lack thereof of the LDS Church.

While I don't disagree with you, I would make the same general point I made to JaG that we should be very careful about the scope of these judgments. For instance, in your example of "Johnny pays a full tithing. Billy doesn't pay any. Billy isn't as good," I would take issue with the conclusion of "Billy isn't as good" just stated as is. It is true that Billy isn't as good as Johnny on the subject of tithing in this example, but to say he isn't as good as Johnny in general may or may not be true (the contrapositive is also true: we can only say that Johnny is more righteous than Billy regarding tithing, not in general). While I'm sure you didn't mean those judgments in a general sense - to your credit, you did mention "regarding a specific behavior" later in your post, it is often a point of misunderstanding and conflict when our judgments are not carefully worded and scoped.

That's a good point, but there's also a gradient rather than a binary condition here. We're sometimes all over the place on some issues unless you're lucky enough not to struggle with anything in this way. And I do not intend to support any conclusion of this sort. Yes, I meant that in the "are we not all sinners?" sense.

This logical fallacy is very old. England especially should be familiar with this: a group of people are different, therefore they are "backward" or "ignorant" and need correction (or in England's case, colonizing). It's the same reasoning that led to the name "Dark Ages" to be given to a period of time that was in fact anything but dark and dreary, and led to many justifications behind manifest destiny in the Americas. I'm confident that the collective consciousness will eventually realize this if we're persistent in pointing out how wrong that way of thinking is.