HEthePrimate

Members
  • Posts

    1076
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HEthePrimate

  1. the reasoning i've heard is gay or lesbian is a title an identity, same sex attraction is an affliction, only a small part of a person. Those of us who identify as gay see it as a part that molds a significant part of our lives, it doesn't make us who we are, but it's a large part of us because it defines some of our strongest emotional ties and relationships. The church has tried to keep people from identifying this way so it can be easier to to separate the view of the desires in a persons life.

    I very much doubt there are too many people who view their sexuality as their entire identity. Pretty much everybody understands that their sexuality is only a part of who they are.

    For example, in addition to being gay, a man is also a son to his parents. He may be a Canadian. He may enjoy soccer. Etc.

  2. The "so called" wording comes from the church's reluctance to apply a label. They usually use the term "same sex attraction" so as not to box one in.

    The Church doesn't normally hestitate to apply labels to people. "Wicked" and "apostate" leap to mind. ;)

    "Same-sex attraction" is merely a broader term that applies to homosexuals of both sexes, whereas "gay" typically refers to male homosexuals and "lesbian" refers to female homosexuals. People use the terms "gay" and "lesbian" when referring to themselves, not to box themselves in--why would they want to do that?--but as a simple descriptor.

    Or I should start calling myself a "so-called straight" so as not to box myself in? :lol:

  3. Helping the people in his ward is the bishop's job. Don't worry about "bugging" him--it's what he's there for.

    Yes, I believe most schools and universities have counselors.

    In my opinion, cutting is not a matter of "worthiness." It doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it is unhealthy for you, so you need to get help. Your bishop should be able to help you. Even if he personally doesn't know what to do--though he might--he can at least refer you to a therapist.

    Good luck!

    HEP

  4. "People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians."

    I agree with what President Hinckley said in that quote, about the important thing being whether or not one acts on one's inclinations. But I wonder why he said "so-called gays and lesbians." That seems to imply that they're not really gay or lesbian, which casts doubt on the rest of what he says.
  5. It's a bit ambiguous, in that it depends on how one defines "homosexuality." The Church doesn't teach the homosexual feelings/tendencies/orientation alone is sinful. It does teach that homosexuality activity or behavior is sinful. Some people think of the word "homosexual" as a state of being, while others think of it as a state of doing.

    Let's see how it sounds when we switch it around. Is heterosexuality a state of doing or being? That is, in order to be considered heterosexual, does a person have to currently be sexually active with a member of the opposite sex?

    I am a widower. If my heterosexuality was dependent on being sexually active--that is, on doing--then I was heterosexual while my wife was alive, but after she died, I must have suddenly become asexual, because I keep the Law of Chastity. Right? Can you see why I'd take umbrage to that suggestion? :lol:

    IMO, hetero- or homosexuality are states of being, not doing. I am not currently sexually active, because I follow the Law of Chastity, but I am still heterosexual because I am attracted to members of the opposite sex.

  6. Normally I wait until a movie is at the discount theater before watching it. (Yes, I'm a cheapskate!) But on Memorial Day I thought to myself, "Hey, it's a holiday, I'll treat myself!" and went to see The Avengers. Plus, it was freakin' hot that day, and I don't have AC at home, and I figured it would be nice to sit in a cool theater for a couple of hours! It would be virtually impossible for any movie to live up to all the hype, and indeed, I was not blown away by The Avengers. But I did enjoy it, and found it entertaining. :)

  7. (attempting to be as vague as possible)

    So let's say a pedophile slips up, is arrested, suffers all manners of lawful consequences, does his service and/or time, then later on joins the local ward.

    If this person were called into working with children, if he were truly repentant (is obviously going to church), what would possibly persuade from simply refusing the call, instead creating all manner of lies in order to slip through the cracks in order to hide his past?

    If the Church knows about his criminal record, they'll put a notation on his Church membership record saying he should not be called to work with children or youth. Even if he's fully repented and in good standing with the Church, they don't want to run any unnecessary risks. But that's assuming they know about his past, and I know they don't normally check people's criminal backgrounds unless it's brought to their attention.

    You asked if he was truly repentant what would dissuade him from accepting a calling to work with children. Well, if he's truly repentant, that should theoretically do it. But it's understandable that people would want more safeguards in place than that!

  8. Give me an example of something you know. Not something trivial or self-evident or true by definition, like 2+1=3.

    Do you know what country Paris is in?

    Do you know which is the southernmost continent?

    Do you know the gross shape of the earth?

    Do you know how many planets orbit the sun?

    Do you know the speed of light in a vacuum?

    Do you know who the President of the United States is?

    Do you know whether drinking a tall, frosty glass of cyanide will kill you?

    Now, please tell how you "know" these things, and explain how that is essentially different from those who "know" spiritual and religious truths, such as is commonly expressed in fast and testimony meeting.

    It could be argued that one cannot know anything for sure, and I know people who do argue that. We could theoretically not even exist. No matter how much we feel like we exist, we could be a bad, food-poisoning-induced dream that God is having.

    But some things are more probable than others, given our faculty of reason, physical evidence, etc., than others that don't make sense or which lack physical evidence.

    I've actually been to Paris, France. I've talked with people there. I learned French. I ate their food, pooped in their toilets, banged on doors, and lived that reality for 22 months. Based on personal observation of a wide variety of things that can be measured, I conclude that Paris is real and is in France. It is much easier to make a case for the existence of Paris than the Fields of Aaru (the heavenly paradise in ancient Egyptian mythology). But if you've received a revelation from God that after you die, you're going to the Fields of Aaru, I probably won't argue with you. Just don't expect everybody else to receive your personal gnosis as "The Truth," because it's something they can't measure or see, and they would have to receive their own revelation in order to believe/know it. Until they receive that revelation, they'd have no reason to believe you.

    To be fair, I suppose it's possible that I, and the millions of other people who claim to have been to Paris, might have dreamed or hallucinated it, and so you can't know for sure that Paris exists--even if you yourself have been there! But it does seem rather unlikely, does it not? ;)

    Anyway, I didn't claim that religious knowledge is impossible. But it is attained by different means--namely, revelation--than empirical knowledge, and that seems obvious enough that I don't know why I bothered writing the above!

    In an LDS book (I think it was published by F.A.R.M.S., but don't remember the title) I once looked at, the author listed five different ways of acquiring knowledge. If I remember correctly (please correct me if you've read it and I got the list wrong), they were as follows: observation, experimentation, authority (learning from an expert or authority figure), reason, and revelation. FWIW, I think using a balance of all those tools is a healthy way to go, rather than relying exclusively on one.

  9. Am I reading you correctly? You would have preferred that the father, when walking in on a man engaged in the act of molesting his 4 yr old daughter, should have taken no action other than to call 911?

    I can't speak for anybody else, but I think that obviously the father should have stopped the man molesting his daughter, assured that his daughter was safe from further harm, and then called 911.

    Stopping the criminal does not necessarily require killing the criminal. Though if the guy was waving a gun around, there's a good chance I'd shoot him to prevent him from killing my daughter or me.

    Are you advocating life sentences for convicted pedophiles?

    Point of information (my inner school marm emerges!): A pedophile is not the same thing as a child molestor. A pedophile is an adult who is attracted to children. A child molestor is an adult who, well, molests a child (or more than one). I have met people who feel attraction to children, but have not acted on it.

    Anyway, when it comes to legal repercussions, I think it should depend on the seriousness of the crime. For example, looking at child pornography should carry a lighter sentence than raping a child.

  10. I was wondering, do you think you can lose your temple recommend if you do not support prop 8 or anything like it? I believe that missionary work is the only right course of action not forcing people to adhere to our belief system. However, the question on whether or not you are sympathetic to groups that are contrary to the gospel leaves me wondering that if I were too open about this opinion I may run the risk of losing my recommend. I have noticed that other liberal Mormons also tend to use a pseudonym as well which makes me wonder if this is something I need to be concerned with. I can't ask my Bishop either because the last thing I want to hear is, Sister please return your recommend.

    I think the original purpose of the question was to see if the person supports polygamy or groups that support it, and also groups that are specifically anti-Mormon (i.e. whose main purpose is to tear down the Church). If a person were to be overstrict about interpreting that question, he could not join any political parties or other organizations because none of them are in perfect accords with that the Church teaches. Likewise, what if my sister (or brother, etc.) leaves the Church? Am I supposed to stop associating with her? I don't think so. So I think we need to be careful not to apply that question too loosely, and stick to anti-Mormon and polygamist groups.

    Peace.

  11. Those who have an experience which gives them knowledge know the difference between know and believe.

    Those who look it up in a dictionary know the difference between "know" and "believe." ;)

    Knowing and believing are not the same thing, and the scriptures recognize this. Moreover, the scriptures indicate that believing is just fine.

    D&C 46:13-14 says that some people have the gift of knowing by the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, while others have the gift of believing on their words, "that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful."

    When Ammon is talking to King Lamoni's queen, he asks her if she believes what he says. She replies that she has had no witness other than his word, but she believes him, and he praises her for her faith (Alma 19:9-10).

    And of course, in the ever-popular Parable of the Seed, we are instructed to plant the seed in our heart and nourish it. If it grows and produces good fruit, then we know it was a good seed, "and your faith is dormant; and this because you know" (Alma 32:34).

    Belief and knowledge are two different things. And if you don't "know" something for sure, that's okay. You can still do fine in the gospel and even receive eternal life, according to D&C 46:13-14. If people really do know something, I have no problem with their saying so. However, I suspect a lot of people use the wording "I know" when in fact they mean "I believe" because it's what they hear other people say all the time at church, and maybe subconsciously they feel it would be unacceptable to say "I believe" instead. I'd rather people "be real" and honest and say they believe if that's what they mean, and that might offer a sense of relief to others who feel they are somehow deficient for not having a sure knowledge.

    HEP

  12. Here's the article

    What gets me is that one of the victims was just a guy who had sex with his girlfriend in high school. Should that be a murdering offense?

    Obviously no, having sex with your high school girlfriend should not be regarded as a capital offense.

    To me, the real issue is the rule of law, letting law enforcement officials and the justice system do their jobs, and not appointing ourselves judge, jury, and executioner. Vigilantes purposely ignore the law and due legal process, and are therefore (IMO) criminals themselves.

  13. I do not believe the essence of evil is ignorance. I believe the essence of evil in knowing full well what the choice in tells and choosing that which is harmful (usually to others) in order to fulfill a selfish desire.

    Ignorance can result in undesirable, or "evil," consequences, but I agree that it is not the essence of moral evil. If a person does something that she knows is wrong, that is obviously more evil than if they did it in ignorance. Although none of us has a perfect knowledge of anything, and yet we can still do evil things.

    That I why I believe the first step into evil is to focus on self – what I want, my will, my wish, my pleasures, my orientation – what will make me happy, what I deserve or should get. Not as a deception but as a choice to indulge self. Goodness is the opposite – to actually lose yourself – to sacrifice and discipline oneself – not for self but to loose one’s self for a cause believed greater.

    I truly believe that to focus on one’s self – one’s glory – one’s blessings – even one’s salvation is the very essence and beginning of evil. The only way to good is through sacrifice of that self; through discipline. Every warning in scripture is a warning to avoid self-indulgence and every suggestion (commandment) is to give one’s self to some sort of discipline outside or away from self.

    To an extent I agree, but would qualify it by saying that focusing exclusively on oneself, when you have the option of paying attention to others, can result in evil. Babies are very self-centered. Their purpose in life, for the time being, is to get their needs met and grow. But babies are not evil--they just are what they are. If a person chooses to remain in that babyish state, forever demanding that everybody else take care of them, without contributing anything in return, even though they're now 25 years old, then we have a problem. But at the normal infant stage of life, there is nothing evil about being self-centered.

    Even as an adult, there are times when a person needs to focus on herself and meet her own needs, or sometimes seek help from others. But you're totally right that if they focus exclusively on themselves, such that they ignore other people's needs, or even harm them, that is evil.

    PS - I thought to add one more thing - I believe it is possible to achieve "spiritual" evil as well as "physical" evil - Satan and his followers that were expelled from heaven being a broad case in point.

    Could you clarify, please, what you mean by "spiritual" vs. "physical" evil? Just want to understand what you're saying. ;)

    Peace,

    HEP

  14. It makes me happy to hear of people that are prepared/preparing out of obedience. Wonderful!!!

    It makes me happy to hear of people who prepare themselves because it makes sense to prepare.

    Like you, there are some things in the news that really bother me and I stay away from those articles for my own happiness and wellbeing. For me it isn't the financial stuff so much, but it is the articles on torture, rape, and other horrendous acts particularly related to children and the other stuff that shows how depraved some people are becoming. I feel sick after just reading the headlines of such things.

    But reading the financial stuff does make me think of my Sunbeams and other people I love and I just want to do all I can to help others get ready because, regardless of how much as I would like to, I can't help all the family, friends and aquaintances that have said, "I'm coming to your house."

    Sometimes I want to ignore the news and just live my life, because so many of those news stories are disturbing. But inevitably I go back to reading the news (I don't watch much TV) because I want to have some idea what's going on beyond my own little life. Plus, I figure that if I'm going to vote responsibly, I'll need to understand what the issues are.

    But yea, it doesn't hurt to take a "news vacation" every once in a while, in order to keep one's sanity! ;)

    Peace to you.

  15. I know they will disagree. But I'm pretty sure being old is one of the requirements. :D

    Haha! Or maybe it has to do with smoking something... :lol:

    Except my BIL was called to be a bishop at quite a young age, and as a result became a high priest.

    Some people they have meet with the HP Group even if they are not actually high priests, because they are older, and might fit in better with their age-peers. And sometimes they decide "What the heck, he's meeting with the HPs, might as well make him one!"

    But yeah, it's often a result of a calling like Bishop or High Councillor.

  16. I don't recall reading that heavenly father commanded people to commit genocide, please share a verse if you see in the Bible supporting excerpts.

    Okay, here's when the Lord supposedly told them to destroy the Amalekites:

    2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

    3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

    (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

    Or Samuel claimed the Lord told him this. Or whoever wrote the book claimed that Samuel said that (authorship of the Books of Samuel is uncertain).

    Note that it says to kill everyone, men, women, and even babies who were still breastfeeding. Animals, too.

    Now, I don't believe the Lord really wanted that. This is a case where there may have been a mistranslation, or someone altered the text, or the original author had an agenda. But again, that's not to say we can't find good messages in Samuel, just that I don't believe the Lord commanded that particular thing.

    It is possible the Israelites did not carry out the total destruction of the Amalekites anyways, as other scriptures hint that there were survivors. Maybe it was just a particularly brutal war, and the Israelites wanted to salve their conscience, I don't know.

  17. I see those passages and assume the Bible is accurate. So, I try to understand why God would order a society to be destroyed. I figure they were so corrupt God was sparing the earth of future generations of evil.

    You figure that genocide is always wrong, must be wrong, and so the characters in the story must have misunderstood what God was telling them.

    Is my summary fair?

    Pretty much. Or they purposely claimed God told them to do it in order to justify their actions. Or they really did believe God told them to do it, much like the 9/11 terrorists probably believed God told them to do what they did.

    Not everything done in the Bible was God's will, but I do believe everything written was what God wanted written.

    I'll agree to disagree on that. This is not to say I don't value the Bible, or think it uninspired. I just don't believe that it's perfect.
  18. I'm saying that by definition God is good and just. What God does--even in the Old Testament--is good and just. We may not understand completely, but I start with those assumptions. When individuals take episodes of the Bible and use them as ammunition to accuse God of evil, I take such a person to be a mocker, a scoffer, and quite often an unbeliever who finds it cute to take Holy Scripture and attempt to turn it on itself, and against the one who inspired it.

    You can take it however you want, but I'm being serious. The God I worship does not command people to commit genocide. I am not mocking, I am rejecting the notion that a good and just God would do such a thing.

    I am not accusing God of evil--I am saying that what is written in the Bible may not always be an accurate reflection of God's will. Human beings wrote the Bible. They may have been inspired with a message from God, but their own opinions, philosophies, and cultural assumptions may have also crept into what they wrote. I am saying we need to read the Scriptures with a discerning eye.

  19. So, your point is that maybe its not a "code" driving change but maybe he is just sick of his consequences? OK. Except that experiencing pain doesn't always help people stop addictive behavior.

    Exactly! The definition of an addiction is that you continue doing a behavior even though it's hurting you. The pain/distress is not enough to make you overcome the behavior, but it can alert you to the fact that you have a problem. You may want to change, but not feel able to.

    It usually takes a bigger gun. And my guess is that, while this person doesn't believe in God, he believes in something. Defining those beliefs or building on whatever belief is there could be a good foundation for change.

    Yes. Everybody believes in something, and I think you're right that defining one's own beliefs and/or building upon them can be helpful in overcoming self-defeating or addictive behaviors.

    ;)

  20. Maybe I misunderstood but I took Finrock's comments in a different spirit. Beliefs about God aside, if the OP believes that his behavior needs repair then he must believe in some code of conduct. I think what Finrock meant was to help the OP find and work from his values. At least that is more of the direction I saw in the statement.

    My point is that you DO NOT need a code of conduct in order to see the need to repair your behavior. If your behavior is causing you distress, or not yielding the desired results, you will want to change it regardless of whether or not you have a code of conduct.

    For example, if I touch a hot stove and burn my hand, I don't need a code of conduct or a revelation from on high to tell me not to touch a hot stove again.