carlimac

I know the tradition of Ash Wednesday, but—having grown up outside of Utah, with *plenty* of Catholics—I have never seen a Catholic child attend school with their forehead marked.  
Yes, the teacher should have been more careful to give accommodation—doubly so, if she’s LDS.  But maybe @anatess2 can fill me in on how frequently American Catholic kids (at least, those attending public school) actually do this?  Is this a pretty normal thing, and I just haven’t noticed it?  Or are this kid and his grandma the equivalent of Mormons who claim refined sugar violates the Word of Wisdom?

It is important that each of us are careful in getting our own revaluations We should put our trust in Heavenly Father because man will disappoint. I will not start a fight but all men are subject to flaws. Apostles have been excommunicated for arguing contradictory revelations. I have been promoted by the Spirit, during an interview, not to issue a calling after the Stake Council made a decision. The Stake President said this was correct and how Heavenly Father does things. What ever we are doing we have our own revelations.

So, this is what you guys do while you're at work.  Hmmm.
Oh, I remember when I was in my 20's, was dating this young woman, also LDS, and I was at the time active and had been paying tithing & fast offering and Missionary Fund and (blah blah blah), and I got in trouble for kissing her.  Nothing long, not french, not anything, just a simple kiss.  Couldn't take sacrament or give prayer at church for 6 months.  I went inactive instead.

I will make a quick summary as to why I believe there are such problems concerning the LGBTQ political endeavors.   Please understand that these “problems” are not indicative of any individual – just the political climate that we currently find in our society.
Fist consideration.  In 1973 it was suddenly decided by the American Psychological Society that homosexuality was not a disorder.  This was void or any scientific proof or study but rather based on the assumption that the burden of proof that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder rather than the initial assumption that it is a disorder – or a “treatable condition”.  Soon after any research into homosexuality as a disorder or treatable condition has been stripped of government funding and any scientific outlet for publication.  In addition the federal courts had ruled that it is false advertising to claim any possible cure or treatment for homosexuality.
Additional considerations:  Because of the political climate resulting from the first consideration any research into homosexuality that does not support the first consideration – as with all LGBTQ political narratives, has become politically incorrect and labeled as homophobic, prejudice and bigoted.   It is my personal opinion that to claim any principle, idea or concept as indisputable, or flawed outside of scientific study, debate and open consideration – is not scientific.  We should be able to discuss, ask critical questions, do critical research to question any assumption or idea (at any time) and bring to critical scrutiny of any aspect or idea of a subject – to say any conclusion is Scientific.  I do not believe for a minute there is any possibility of open and critical science in the current climate to resolve anything concerning LGBTQ as scientific. I believe the current format too be too politically charged to be anything other than political.
As we have learned and observed throughout the history of man that politics is more of a religion than a science.  But worse than religion; politics is always directly associated with governments and the control and power of law.  Just as we have observed that government should not declare a state religion - by the same token; governments should not dictate what is unquestionable politics of the state.  The official title of governments that dictate politics - is a dictatorship.   I submit that the politics of LGBTQ is evidence of our current government entering the realm of qualifying as a dictatorship.  At least concerning the governing of LGBTQ politics.
We should be able to talk of LGBTQ both for and against (pro and con) as a 1st Amendment right of our Constitution.   We should be able to express opinion without fear to our life or property.  No one should be forced an opinion with threat of their business, livelihood or property.  At the same time every citizen regardless of their opinion concerning LGBTQ should have all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution that is enjoyed by every other citizen.
Now I would say something about individuals.  I do not believe it matters what the psychological stress that a person is under – it is never helpful to isolate them and attempt to convince them that they do not belong.  It is essential to humans to be able to function in society to believe they are loved and have a place in society.  But to be honest – I do not know how, in our current political climate that we can expect a resolution.   There are too many lies – but much worse – I believe – that there are too many unwilling to fully examine the truth.
 
The Traveler

If the world wide web has taught us one thing, it's that if a bunch of people adamantly claim something then it must be true.

I am currently dealing professionally with a set of parents of several children, where  the father and mother are also father and daughter.
They are quite certain that they love each other.

I'm feeling a little bit tired so please bear with me if I come across a little more grumpy than usual, but I need to get this out.
I'm really tired of people throwing around the idea of love as a justification for being open to the sin of homosexual actions.  I really am.  Because if love somehow makes it not so sinful anymore, then I guess I don't need to talk to my bishop if I:
Fall in love with another man's wife and run off with her Fall in romantic love with my sister and run off to be with her Fall in love with someone who's underage and take her away to be with her Fall in love with a pet and... well the less said about that the better Oh... wait, you mean love doesn't justify those actions?  Funny, that.  I  guess love isn't enough to justify sin after all.

I would be fine with  an arranged marriage if my dad was the one choosing for me. I trust my dad 100 percent. He knew I would marry my husband before I knew that I even liked my husband. 
 
My mom deciding who I would marry, no way. Dad yes.

This is not true.  NOTHING in scripture supports a single word of this.
This is the stuff that creates Divorce in heterosexual marriages.  That idea that Love is simply a FEELING rather than a DECISION, a direct product of God's gift of Free Agency.  Feelings can be beyond your control.  For example, feeling desire can be beyond your control.  Feeling fear can be beyond your control.  But Love  NEVER will be.  It is the greatest commandment and making it something out of our control makes God cruel.  Love is, therefore, 100% under our control.  You can choose to Love or Not Love.  You can't be forced nor denied to Love.
 
Disagree.  LOVE has never changed definitions.  People mutilate the definition to fit their own purposes.  The abundance of liberty simply allows people to cater to their hedonistic natures and serve it in a morally attractive platter they want people to accept as Love.
 
"forms?".  There is only one love.  There are different EXPRESSIONS of it.  I don't love my son differently than I love my husband.  I simply express that love differently for my son than for my husband and such love comes with different obligations for the different people in my life which prioritizes or puts people in heirarchical order in our limited capacity to love in our mortal form.   But there is one love.  That all encompassing desire to bring someone with you closer to Christ - be it your son, your husband, your parents, etc. etc.   The objective of mortal existence is to learn about love so that by the time our mortal probation ends, we can love as Christ loves - unlimited to all beings.
 
You're going to have to change that alternate universe to make it so that you can only have children within your own gender and that the proclamation of the family is marriage to the same gender.  If that is the case, then yes, I can definitely develop what I need to develop to fulfill Christ's commandments.  Because I have faith in Christ and that he won't give me pain more than I can bear.
 
I have great compassion for LGBTQ people trying to follow Christ.  I believe that giving them wrong principles (homosexuals are deprived of love) gives them more pain than giving them hope.
I feel the same way for women who can't bear children.  Giving them the wrong principles (not all women can be mothers) gives them more pain than giving them hope.

The difference is... we don't make emotional and physical connections as only possible between those who are sexually attracted to each other.

See... this is why LGBTQ thinks they are oppressed... because of ERRONEOUS things like the bolded above.  It is these stupid things that tie love to sexual attraction that oppresses LGBTQ people.  The Church does not promote that thinking.  Rather, the Church promotes that FIRST comes LOVE then comes the desire to express that Love through Sex.  Thinking that first MUST come sexual attraction then love follows is Devil thinking.  It is not the Church that gives LGBTQ these hopeless feelings... it is people who go against Church principles.

I understand and sympathize ith what you are suggesting (speaking as one who is old and hasn't married and has faced the likely prospect of never marrying).
However, part of what complicates things unnecessarily is confusing love with the sexual expression thereof. We all have hope of attaining a Christlike love even between members of the same sex, though I don't know how important or right it is to have hope for sodomy.
And, it isn't just homosexuals who may feel the "pain" of not being able to express their love in sexual ways contrary to God's will and design for His children. Given the  7th Commandment, I dare say that a significantly greater number of heterosexuals have no rightful hope of sexually expressing their love for someone else's spouse.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It really isn't more complicated than that.  You just explained the emotional hardships some have while following Christ. 

You know I think the answer as to why God commands us to do hard things, and being commanded to suppress a basic human instinct, as those with Same Gender Attraction must do, is a hard thing, is because of the consequences. God tells us this in D and C section 19:15-20
"15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
            16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
            17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
            18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
            19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
            20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit."
If we do not follow the commandments we will suffer even as Christ did. An agony that caused Christ, the greatest of all of us with powers beyond anyone who has ever lived, to bleed at every pore and beg God to take away the bitter cup. These scriptures right here explain why God asks us to do hard things. He does not want us to suffer as he did. Listen to the pleading in his voice as he begs us to repent in these verses.
Whenever I hear someone talk about how unfair it is that homosexuals can't marry I understand where they are coming from, but I think of these verses. Is it truly compassionate to encourage our brothers and sisters to take part in acts that, if they don't repent of them, will cause them to suffer as Christ did? I think too often we think only of this life and it's consequences.
There are many unfair things that happen in this life. My stepfather died on my mission, and my younger siblings had to grow up without a father. It seriously screwed up my mom's life and my brother and sisters lives. Several of them are only now recovering from the trauma. It's not fair that they had to go through that. It's not fair that some children have to grow up in abusive households, or when a life is cut tragically short in an accident, or that some develop Leukemia at the age of 9, or that some are attracted to members of their own sex and cannot act on those feelings if they wish to remain righteous. The question is, will we allow the Grace of Christ to make up for the inherent unfairness of life or will we rail against the unfairness and turn away from the very light that could get us through these troubled times? Anyways, that's how I've always seen it.

Yes. Very much so. To get a sense for how bad the harm has been not only to homosexuals but to others in society, see my articles on Spike in Social Ills,  Destructive Compassion,  Degraded Traditional Marriage,  Marriage in Crises,  and especially Hurting the Children. Granted, these articles were written in the context of the Same Sex "Marriage" debate, but they also relate to harm stemming from the movement as a whole.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know me @MormonGator, I keep things really simple and not sure I can make it any more simple than previously stated. Mark:
1) Didn't sleep with someone who had an STD (that is the easiest explanation)
2) Slept with someone with an STD and was lucky
3) Mark was smarter Steve and used protection while sinning, which prevent HIV.
4) Steve used protection but the wrong type of protection or the condom broke.
But all this is irrelevant because it assumes that both have to get an STD in order for the example to be true. It doesn't. If a person fornicates (sins) and they sleep with a person who has a STD and they contract a STD. The sickness is a direct result of their choice to sin.
The question provided in the OP is whether or not sickness is related to sin. The answer is yes. Sickness however is not always related to sin, as it can be related to righteousness like with Job.

From what I've heard and experienced in talking with a few of these people is that they don't see their lifestyle choice to be sinful. So the "Love the sinner..." mentality is offensive to them. It's probably one of the biggest barriers to seeing eye to eye with them. They simply don't see their attraction and subsequent actions as sinning. Those of us who believe the prophets and interpret the Bible to be a condemnation of homosexual relations think it is sin. And ne'er the twain shall meet in the middle. 

Since I'm allowed to say it I''ll say what I've previously said again.
 
Gays will be allowed to be married in the Temple someday. 👹

If somebody's ready to leave the Church over the issue, they're essentially putting the moral cues of society over those of the Church and calling it "acceptance." 
It's unclear to me why a culture that values self gratification over self control is somehow the premier guide to morality these days.

As expected, the thinking is upside-down on several levels.
First, the issue isn't created by the Church, but is manufactured by influential forces in society. The restored gospel has been around since 1830, whereas LGBT et al. sprung up less than 50 years ago.
Second, the primary question is morality rather than love and tolerance. Indeed, morality is the reference point by which love and tolerance ought to be assessed.. It isn't loving or tolerant to any party involved to promote immorality. Quite the opposite. And, vice versa.
Third,  while the forces behind the cultural movement make a pretense of love and tolerance, they could care less about the groups they selectively target, and view them instead as "useful idiots" to manipulate  into creating cultural strife, with the end goal of fomenting proliferating government dependency and  accruing power to themselves. Whereas the Church cares deeply about the eternal welfare of all individuals and enabling them to become their very best selves. 
In spite of the pretense of love evoked by the PR sculptured image of happiness within the LGBT... community,  disease and mental illness and deaths have skyrocketed since the movement began, not to mention the noticeable degradation of Western civilization. The o-called progressive  agenda is anything but...
On the other hand, the source for true joy as well as the power to counter destructive influences, is Christ, and this through his Restored Gospel. It is the true and proven plan of progression and salvation. It is the real way of love.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So this recent video on LDS.org about Elder Uchdorf's talk about longing for home... that's how I feel about my dad's hometown or my mom's hometown in the Philippines.  It's not really even my hometown because I grew up in another town but those 2 hometowns are where generations of my father's people (records go all the way back to the 1500's) and generations of my mother's people (all the way back to the Spanish occupation) have lived and most of my blood relatives are.   Our families have now gone global, with family living on 5 continents, but we all are connected through that hometown acting like our "base" such that if something ever happens and you need to reconnect, all you have to do is go "home" and even if you've never met anybody there nor know of anybody there, you're going to be welcomed and prepared a feast because you're family.

Just about all of my Utah bashing is done in nonserious light-heartedness.  My percentage of good to bad LDS related experiences has been about the same, in or out of Utah.
I miss Upchuck-a-Grandma and walking to church wherever I live.
I do not miss inversion or the smell of dead brine shrimp.

I have lived outside of Utah.  My experience has been pretty much the same in and out of Utah.  No I'm not oppressed, well not by the LDS population at any rate.  I have non member friends.  My testimony has grown stronger as I have grown older.  Where I live has no bearing on my testimony.  Utah has been the best place I have lived.

I grew up out of Utah and now live here.  You find some provincialism (as you do anywhere), but on the whole I find the prevailing commonality of values liberating and have no desire to leave.  
As for sociality:  I have virtually no social life and as a dedicated introvert, have no especial desire to cultivate one amongst either Church members or non-Mormons.  I see my family, I hang out here at ThirdHour, I commiserate with government workers during the breaks between court hearings.  It takes me a solid week just to recover from all the human contact I get from church on Sundays.  

I love freedom. It's what America's all about. However, ANTIVAX is not religion, it's really bad, dangerous superstition mixed with quasi-political conspiracies. The kicker is that yes, it puts our children at risk. To my thinking (chaplain's protect-religious-liberty prime directive in action) Jehovah's Witnesses are the middle ground issue. They have a sincere religious belief that blood transfusions violate the Old Testament prohibition against "consuming blood." That is a fascinating debate where this issue of individual liberty vs. public interest in protecting children match up 50/50 IMHO. ANTIVAX falls way short of the Jehovah's Witness stance. Children who are not vaccinated should be required to be homeschooled, with regular visits by social workers. This is not as draconian as it sounds, since most school districts offer online academies free of charge. The families could even be given the outdated laptops teachers turn in every so often, for new ones.