Suzie

I think that's where we disagree. "Homosexual molestation" (the term) is used to describe the fact that both the victim and perpetrator are of the same sex not the sexual orientation of the perpetrator or the victim, otherwise the statistics don't add up. I believe homosexuality involves attraction to people of your own sex but adults (not a child) in which case will be a pedophile and certainly homosexuality and pedophilia aren't mutually inclusive.

Well, the problem I have is connecting what you consider the perversion of homosexuality with child molestation. I just cannot understand why if someone is homosexual they could also be a child molester, I just don't see the connection at all IMO but reading your views on homosexuality then I can see why you feel the way you do. Statistics seem to agree most sexual molestation of children doesn't come from gay people, if so then it means they mostly don't act upon these tendencies (if they have them) according to your example. I think most of the time, people just repeat what they hear, assume, have their own prejudice, different culture, upbringing, fear or act out of ignorance however every parent has the right to choose who is the person best fit to babysit their own children. I am curious, what about those who watch child porn and consider themselves heterosexual? Do you feel about them in the same way you described homosexuals in your example? Even more at risk? If you do, then does it really matter the sexual orientation?

I just read it carefully and I think I am getting a grasp about what you're trying to say based ONLY in the comparison of the two men in your example. Having said that (out of that context), let's not confuse homosexual molestation with the perpetrator being homosexual (a common misconception). You may want to take a look at this for some statistics and erroneous notions about gays being more inclined to child abuse: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Hi Prince, I read that and that's why I asked if they were just personal opinions or there is documented sources for these "suggestions" particularly that one. Let's see.

You have two people who don't understand your point and by that I mean what exactly are you saying because it seems kind of obvious to me.... so yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals can equally molest children...And?

The topic is very complex and could take us many years to discuss. I would like to add as a little piece of historical information that Emma was not the first wife to be sealed to Joseph as most people may assume. Also a couple of Joseph Smith's wives lived for short periods of time at his home causing Emma to be very upset and the wives leaving at the end. So I am in the group that thinks that we just don't know whether or not Joseph Smith had children or intimacy with any other wife besides Emma. I could only speculate that he did and that's why Emma had such a hard time accepting the doctrine.

Where are the documented sources for all these opinions/suggestions or are just personal views?

Are you talking about the first dream posted on this thread? Elder Cyrus H. Wheelock said Joseph Smith told him about the dream when he visited him in jail the night before he was murdered.

I think I saw that one (with a little girl?). I have been watching those clips since yesterday.

Not in my opinion. Your 16 year old son takes your car (despite the fact that you told him he can't) and gets into an accident. He realizes how wrong he was and is truly repentant for what he has done and seek your forgiveness. You forgive him for disobeying you, but does it mean now that he's going to get away scot free and won't face the consequences for disobeying? I don't think so. Forgiveness doesn't equal lack of punishment/consequence. Mercy cannot rob justice.

The scripture doesn't say David wasn't forgiven. It says he won't receive Exaltation.

From the same article listed in the OP:

It seems like it's not your cup of tea, fair enough. I'm into psychology and I find social experiments as a whole very revealing and worth of analysis.

You would be surprised. If you go to youtube, check "what would you do" and you will see different scenarios . MOST people, don't get involved.

Did you watch the show? Do you know about it? It seems you don't. This isn't a show about illegal immigration. I just posted one example of many different scenarios. In this case, the two Mexican laborers are actors and the person behind the counter. The reaction of the people isn't an act. It's called a social experiment.

Thanks for the honest reply Dravin. I was thinking if people didn't want to help out why to humiliate them by making fun of them like some of them did? I find that behavior totally unacceptable.

I think we live in a world full of stereotypes and assumptions. From the 70's some people have been trying (very unsuccessful in my opinion) to link homosexuality to child abuse. An interesting reading here: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

I have been watching ABC "What would you do?"shows on YouTube episode after episode, very interesting! Last night I watched this one, and it reminded me a bit about the recent discussions we had on illegal immigrants and the way they're treated. Please watch the two short clips first and then tell us...what would you have done? YouTube - ‪abc - what would you do racism and illegal immigration.flv‬‏ YouTube - ‪abc - what would you do racism and illegal immigration pt2.flv‬‏

From Connie's link:

Why are you equating "tasting" our sins with suffering the consequences of them? Maybe you could please tell me your definition of "tasting" from your message? Thanks.

Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me. If I go and rob a bank and my brother pays for the consequence of my actions and lands in jail, are you saying he now tasted what is like to rob a bank even though he did NOT participate in the act? I'm really confused at what you meant. Paying the consequence for our actions (sin) is one thing. That's what the Lord did. He suffered and payed for our sins, it doesn't mean he "tasted" our sins. If he indeed tasted our sins then you're saying he was not a sinless man. Maybe you meant something completely different?

I think some people just get uncomfortable about the possibility of such thing, just as they get sometimes uncomfortable at the thought that Jesus could have been married and have children.

I would say get tested right away regardless of whether he slept with men or women and regardless of the type of sexual intercourse he experienced. Anal intercourse it is indeed part of homosexual relations, but it is also part of heterosexual relations. Whatever happened, please get tested!

The quote attributed to Joseph Smith comes from Joseph Smith and William Clayton's journals (as well as others present when Joseph Smith allegedly said it) It was in the funeral of judge Elias Higbee, his children were what we would consider "wayward" and the prophet even offered sealing ordinances to some of Higbee's daughters in law. The problem is that when historians tried to reconstruct the story, made the text sound like the sealing ordinance of children to parents seems to guarantee them exaltation regardless of how bad they lived and the knowledge they possessed. However, in Howard and Martha Coray's notebook (present at the funeral) the quote actually talks about kids who have NOT transgressed. Ehat and Cook made a remarkable point that is more consistent to LDS doctrine:

What I was trying to say is that I think they created a fictional character with that name and that's why it read: Something like what Laura Ingalls Wilder did on her books with the character of "Nelly Oleson". She collected certain personality traits from girls who behaved like her at that time and other events to create her character.