Bensalem

I think the future holds incredible growth for the LDS church. The more terrible things become, the more people are inclined to look to God; and the more people look to God, the more the Holy Ghost can testify of the truth of the LDS church. God's will for the Church is hundreds of millions of saints, not just 15 million. We have a long way to go.

As I said, each person must decide for themselves. As for the word "condemnation", I accept the presentation given by many a missionary, which states that "damnation" can be thought of as a dam that retains water, aka, blessings from reaching those who are not obedient. If what I teach condemns, it is only because it must be true. It seems you take offense at my lesson of obedience to the covenants every saint has made at baptism. Are you suggesting the better lesson is to say it doesn't matter if a saint ignores his promises to God?

We also have the three kingdoms of heaven, Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. And there are three parts in the Celestial.

I look at the two parts remaining as one part male and one part female. I'm not sure if there is any church doctrine to support that point of view.

My only opinion in all this is that what I am teaching is true doctrine. Each individual must decide for themselves if I am presenting true doctrine, remembering that we are our brother's keeper and that it is the doctrine that condemns not the teacher.

I'm coming in late here, so forgive me if I present some repetition. The LDS church's prophets and apostles don't have absolute power, Christ does. They, and all in the Melchizedek priesthood, do possess the authority to act in the name of Christ. As far as I know, service in the Church (even at the top) is not a paid position. So our prophets and apostles are not collecting our contributions and tithe into their personal bank accounts. I'm not even sure they have access to or control of the funds. Financial integrity is maintained through other callings to individuals with appropriate professional skills. Moral integrity is a requirement that starts at baptism into the Church. The lack of scandal or corruption is the witness of the Church's and the people's integrity. After all, we are saints.

Why do you suppose it must mean one person is making a judgment of another? Can't it simply be one person teaching another? As for my 'teaching', I consider it general, not personal.

There is way more that supports prophets and apostles in His modern church than refutes them. The Word of God in so many ways presents both edges of the sword while honoring our free agency.

Yes to your view that the 'escape' is through the Atonement. We must try to remain diligent in all aspects of the Gospel, but partaking of the sacrament is our reset button. When I contemplate all that Christ asks us to do and then read, "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30), I can only reconcile this with living a repentant lifestyle through the Atonement.

In broader terms and since the LDS church teaches that faith is a verb (or in other words an action word), than "inactivity" in the church would be defined as a lack of faith, which translates to a lack of action or of doing what our faith demands. So someone who fails to get themselves to church, fails to pay their tithe, fails to keep the WOW, fails to pray, or fails to serve is inactive in the faith. The only thing that reactivates a person is repentance through partaking of the sacrament. Therefore, the minimum requirement to be considered active in the LDS church must be partaking of the sacrament. Those who do not, must be perfect in every other aspect of their covenants and promises and obedience to God and Christ.

You and 'Traveler' make a good point against the continuation of the trait as a purely genetic factor. However, scientific discoveries have found that there is a secondary "influencer" over the genetic code. I've heard it compared to the relationship between computer hardware and software. The hardware here is the DNA and the software is this other determiner of the ultimate outcome. It has a name but I forget it. It was described as a chemical library, perhaps of enzymes or hormones or proteins, that trigger the DNA to reproduce itself with a predominate trait. My wife, who is a nurse, suggests it is like being born with a predisposition to acquiring lupus or cancer, which is genetic. But not everyone will get lupus or cancer. Supposedly, the science supports something along those lines for the acquisition of homosexuality.

Her learned position is that the scientific literature is leaning toward a genetic link. That basically we are born gay or straight. That it is not a matter of personal choice. That the environmental and social influences work to either support or contradict that which is biologically decided. That is what is being taught at the undergraduate and graduate university levels. Really.

The information obtainable from scripture is priceless since it can lead to personal answers relevant to our life on earth and ultimately to a knowledge of God and the afterlife. Historical accuracy will always take a backseat to spiritual accuracy. Therefore, those who hold to the necessity for the historical accuracy of the scriptures are not the vanguards of enlightenment. They miss the primary lesson of all scripture, which is future spiritual fulfillment. I am sure there are more examples of scriptural interpretations leading to failures in innovative thought and the expansion of human intelligence than there are examples of such leadings. What comes to mind is the Catholic church's claim of Galileo's heresy, the Protestant's claim in opposition to evolution leading to today's theory of intelligent design, or the fundamentalist's claim that dinosaurs lived in the time of Adam and Eve. Religious authority has historically proven itself unenlightened and impotent in the light of scientific discovery. The scriptures can be used to support science or history but not to prove or disprove them.

Intellect often gets in the way of nurturing the seed which can grow into a knowledge of God. Humility (understanding we do not know everything) in faith fertilizes the seed and allows the Holy Ghost to testify to us that there is a God. Atheists often use the quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan) adopted by their "leader", Christopher Hitchens. They are essentially demanding a sign in the context of harboring pure doubt. God cannot reveal Himself in a vacuum of doubt. Only in sure faith can the Holy Ghost be known. I suppose there are some who can intellectually deny God (for lack of evidence) and yet maintain a hope that there is a God. And as we know in the LDS church, hope is a form of faith in that which we cannot see.

I thought they were chickens without wings and sharks without fins.

I didn't have to look far: The covenant to pay tithe is made before receiving a baptism of water, as are the promises to attend Sunday service and obey the word of wisdom. As pointed out, sometimes work prevents us from attending church, and that is acceptable. In the case of not being able to keep the WOW due to natural weaknesses, we are able to repent and try again. But in the matter of tithe, we are making a conscience decision to not pay. Our heart is with the money and not with the obligation. And the parable of the widow's mite removes any argument based on actual poverty.

I pointed the difference out to my daughter and added that the Church equally condemns heterosexual activity outside of marriage. I don't believe any baby is born with a bad temper, maybe with colic or a headache. I didn't present to her bestiality, but I'll see if she would remain so tolerant should sex with animals become socially and legally acceptable.

What do you do about not partaking of the sacrament? It is the primary reason for Sunday service.

Being LDS means more than attending Sunday service, especially when job obligations prevent it. I think the more definite dividing line is whether or not you pay tithe. You can't consider yourself active if you don't pay your tithe.

No, I believe her teachers can keep their jobs. We agreed that homosexual certainty is not yet genetically proven. Her argument was that scientific studies identify that we are born into our sexual preference and so personal choice is not a factor. That is what I could not accept. Even with my acknowledgement that varying amounts of estrogen and testosterone in an individual's development may account for sexual tendencies, she continued to deny that choice was a factor. My whole approach to science and religion is that they do, and will eventually, come together. That is why I was investigating a reconciliation on this matter here today.

Clearly, in the USA we have made 18 the age acceptable for marital consent and sexual maturity. Since my daughter agrees with the need to restrain premature marriage but disagrees with limits on adult consensual behavior, I believe my only avenue would be to explore with her her views on polygamy or extramarital affairs. She may not be so accepting of those behaviors should they become socially and legally tolerated. I don't believe she would be tolerant of her husband cheating on her or taking a second wife.

Again, I thank you for your expanding list of examples, all of which my daughter would deplore (if only for the age discrepancy of which we in this society claim is a victimization of youth). I will present your points to her soon.As for her focus on Mormonism, she has no love for the other religious orders in their discrimination in same sex marriages and continued intolerance, and is only concerned with Mormonism in that I, her father, am LDS. Specifically, she was disappointed that I could not state a definite LDS position other than "it was a sin worthy of repentance", that "we held it up as no more of a sin than other heterosexual behaviors we teach against", and that, at least to some degree, "same sex attraction is a personal choice". She was curious as to how we justified ignoring the science on the matter. She accepts the right of all religious orders to set their own doctrine. She simply does out agree with much of it. To be sure, she would disagree with all underage marriage and probably polygamy.

Great example, and one I did not think of. Pedophilia addresses the genetic component, social environmental influences, and the criminal aspect. It only falls short in the category of adult mutual consent. In other words, the immaturity of the victim makes it a socially unacceptable crime. I can't use the "eyes of God" argument since it represents a purely religious perspective. But if I may divert somewhat to a different subject. Do you believe gays in their quest for same sex marriage are actively seeking God's approval?

Well, that certainly explains the Church's view, as well as, collaborates many of my words to her. I will include it in my continuing discussion with my daughter. And as I told her, I guess it would be fair to say that the Church does not recognize same sex marriage to be valid even if it is legal. Is that also correct? So in other words, same sex relations, even in the confines of a socially legal marriage, breaks the Law of Chasity, whereas, opposite sex marriages outside of the LDS church do not.

I mentioned addictions to my daughter and added that if scientists someday identify a genetic link to criminal behavior, would that justify criminal behavior. Likewise, the crime of rape is not tolerated by society along the heterosexual spectrum. She questioned my association of same sex love with criminal behavior since such love could be practiced without violence in a setting of mutual consent. Of course, she did not see such acts as a weakness to be dealt with... only a natural circumstance of birth to be accepted. That's how I was reduced to the secular argument set in statistical probability mentioned in an earlier post.