yjacket

I think it is just a natural outcome of normalization of behavior that was once unacceptable; I'm don't really know if the design is to "convert" people to be homosexuals, just that it will happen with normalization. I think the true design is to make society accept homosexual behavior as normal. It's not real hard, people who are wicked don't want to be seen as wicked, we all want to be seen as "good guys". It's what Satan does on this earth to attempt to destroy God's plan-he gets those who are wicked (or are committing wicked acts) to get those acts to be seen as not wicked. To that, yes absolutely there is a design. It boils down to a world-view-if one believes in Good and Evil and that there are Good and Evil forces combating each other then one can easily see how Evil operates-if one doesn't really believe in Good vs. Evil, then one will not see it. There are very few things that have occurred in society as a culture over the last 75 years that stems from Good (there is some) but the vast majority of cultural "progress" is progress towards evil.

Okay, but we are not talking in this thread about support for individuals who have SSA, we are talking about the normalization of homosexual behaviors. There is a difference between offering compassion for those who have SSA and showing instances of it in media that make homosexual behavior appear normal, unsinful, etc. Big difference.

It depends; I generally agree that boisterous boycotts don't work-but personal choice does. I refuse to watch shows like Will and Grace or movies like Brokeback Mountain, if everyone did the same things would change. We should all remember the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot of water.

Exactly, since Obamacare was passed my premiums have doubled, my deductibles have doubled, my max out of pocket has increased by 30%, what I pay after I hit the deductible has doubled and I get the same services. What a load of crap-this is socialism. Take from the haves give to the havenots. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. The basics have communism are alive and well in the US.

Oh it's much worse than this. My tax return is generally on the order of ~15-20 pages of this crap . . .and that's just the Federal; State income is another 5-7 pages. There is a reason why no one wants to simplify the tax code, too many people make money off of helping people fill out this crap. Big businesses have an army of accountants to fill out taxes, add an army of lawyers to ensure they are compliant with regulations. You can literally fill out your tax return 3-4 different ways and each of them can be correct!! Here in the US we really do not realize at how incredibly bad is actually is, people have just adapted to it-but it is really, really bad. It's amazing at how good we are doing with all the regulations, taxes, etc. And to think when the income tax was first passed it was a 1% tax on income over 10k (i.e. about 1million today)! Man, it would be nice to have lived in a time period when pretty much nothing was touched by the Federal Government.

lol, really now. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/02/16/courtney-stodden-says-shes-bisexual-is-open-to-dating-woman-after-split.html Come on. How many stars are now suddenly "bi-sexual"? How many models are now suddenly "bi-sexual", i.e. having homosexual relationships. The fact is we absolutely have 0 clue as to why some people have feelings for the same sex while others don't. No one has proven that it's something you are born with-but it is a convenient excuse to normalize it and prevent others from opposing the behavior (i.e. how dare you disagree with someone who is born like that, you evil person!!!). I don't care if it is something you are "born with" or not (my guess is that it's like most things, a combination of factors not a single factor), but the fact remains that the more it is normalized the more that individuals will accept the behavior and consequently "try it out". This isn't rocket science. If there is a social stigma against homosexual behavior than regardless of whether you have homosexual thoughts you will be less inclined to act it out-if there isn't a social stigma against it then yes you will be more inclined to act it out. Does anyone really think that if we had the culture of 25 years ago that Ms. Stodden would explore a homosexual relationship? So yes, it is social programming; kids see homosexual behavior in cartoons and movies, they get to be a teenager and a boy develops a man-crush on another dude (star football player, whatever) . . .now he thinks he's homosexual and of course has to "try it out"-when all it actually might be is just the fleetings of youth, i.e. a kid who idolizes another kid. That is what culture is about-teaching the next generation the proper way to act, behave and think-not this anything goes, if it feels good do-it attitude.

Yes, I have. A very simple example, we should pray over our food (prophets have counseled us that we should do it), yet how many people when they are out at a restaurant actually fold their arms and pray. I was on a long business trip recently with many other people and let me tell you it for the first little bit it was extremely awkward to sit at a table with people who I don't know who don't believe as I do and say a prayer. For the first little while, I was kind-of secret and furtive about it. Then I developed a bit of a backbone at just said my prayers over my food as I normally would. But initially, it was actually kind-of hard-even though I have no problem when I'm in my office and eat lunch by myself. Yet, how much easier would it be to pray over my food is 90% of the room said prayers over their food . . .really easy. My discomfort would have been taken away and in fact I probably would have felt uncomfortable not saying a prayer.

?? Really. No the reality of the world is not that we live in a multi-cultural world. You need to get out more. The only "multi-Cultural" societies are the "modern" western world. Go to South America, go to Africa, go to China, go to India. They take your multi-cultural world, chew it up and spit it out in your face. Multiculturalism is nothing more than a facade to destroy Western Culture,aka traditional white culture. Yeah, so what, I'm white, I like the culture I grew up in, I'd like to keep it that way. If I grew up in India-I'd like that culture, if I grew up in South America I'd like that culture. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your heritage and wanting to promulgate that heritage and culture to the next generation. But b/c of certain concerted powers, taking pride in your culture now means your a "bigot" (if you are white-it's okay to take pride in it if your Asian, Indian, Mexican, etc.) . You really need to read more, there is absolutely a concerted effort towards a one-world, globalized New World Order and it begins with destroying the culture that created the liberties and freedoms we have in the country. And yes homosexual behavior is against the teaching of the Church, so yes decrying media depictions of it is 100% in line with our teaching and in fact it's a shame that as a people we have become so ashamed of saying that it's wrong b/c we don't want to be labeled a "bigot". If you actually study the teachings, the Church absolutely appreciates different cultures . . .but you simply as a society cannot have a cohesive society when everyone shares a different culture. What about this do people not understand? You will have more strife, more problems, more issues the more "diverse" the population becomes . . .why b/c you have a clash of cultures. And unless and until every becomes libertarian (and I don't see that happening), each culture will use the power of the government to enforce their version of morality upon the rest. And that is the problem, I've lived in and seen how others cultures run their governments and government is always used to enforce one version of morality (even though it shouldn't). It's fine to have multi-cultural wards, every one is fine . . .why b/c it doesn't involve power or coercion, but I guarantee you there is strife. And yes, people self-segregate so in practical real life there is no such thing as multiculturalism. In business, you have a business culture, if you don't fit in with the business culture-you leave or you are fired. A while back I remember the Church saying they were adopting the meetings to wards in Africa-it's great to see an appreciating for that culture and adopting the structure of the Church to accommodate that part of the world. The multiculturalism push in the US really started in the 70s and it has been getting worse since thing. For example, my kid had an assignment from school where they listed great 1st moments in space. You know what they listed? The first Indian-American in space, the first African-American in space, the first woman in space, etc. What a bunch of crap. Those aren't great first in space. You are actually causing more strife by pushing this. Why no list, the 1st man on the moon, the 1st spacewalk, the 1st satellite, the 1st telescope, etc. Who gives a rip who made it happen, black, white, male/female-it doesn't matter, what matters is that someone built a telescope, that someone did a spacewalk, etc. Things that actually mean something to human progress rather than social engineering crap.

Like I said, I think it's scripted and not 100% true to life, but I do believe the principles in which it details-maybe not to this extreme (I think it is basically a re-enactment of some human study papers). The basic idea is that it is extremely hard for humans to go against the flow-we are social creatures and it takes an individual of extreme will-power to go against the social construct.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/02/gop-obamacare-replacement-bill-hidden-in-congress-basement.html Ah, I've got to love the Republicrats in office. They are no better than the Democons. The more things change the more things stay the same. Amazing how conservative the country actually is-yet TPTB are all big government. Rand Paul has the right idea, one of the few small government congresscritters.

Is anybody else sick of the whole pushing and normalization of the homosexual culture? I'm just so done with it. It's hard to go see a movie, etc. without it being in there. Shoot, I couldn't even watch the Superbowl without some multi-cultural political crap message. I used to think growing up that people who completely cut themselves off of TV were a little weird (my mission president didn't have a TV while he was raising a family), but the older I get, the more I think . . . you know I think that's a wise idea. Sometimes I wonder if the Amish are getting it right. This is exactly what the LGBTQRX is trying to do (and man I'm so tired of it-i.e. social engineering)-I don't think the video is 100% accurate (i.e. it was probably scripted)-but the point still stands-they are trying to socially change culture by making everyone who doesn't agree with their idea of "normal" be seen as "bigoted", etc. It's extremely hard for most people to buck social pressure about what everyone else is doing-especially when you have big organization like Disney, Seaseme Street, etc. doing this crap.

Well I think it actually depends. If this individual starts spouting off this personal doctrine in SS or decides to go to the opposite sex 3rd hour class, I think within a short period of time they will be having a conversation with the Bishop. While the Church is open to all those who wish to join in worship, there is a bound to what that entails. Common sense and civility in Church should dictate where that line is. I am always amazed by those who leave the Church and then say they feel closer to God then they ever have before. I wish them well on their journey. We will all inherit the glory to which we merit. Tying into another thread about God being all-knowing, I think a huge part of this life isn't so much about proving to God that we are worthy of the Celestial Kingdom (b/c He probably already knows), it's about proving to ourselves that we are worthy of it. Some individuals will be satisfied with a Telestial glory others with a Terrestrial glory. We all have different paths in this life, even if there is only One Path to God.

Quite frankly, not much the Bishop or the counselor can do unless they are talking to the wife (and my guess is she doesn't see a problem with the situation). I'm sorry you are having to go through this Fire_Guy, but the sister-in-law has absolutely 0 incentive to do anything else besides living/mooching off you. She is comfortable in her current state (or even if she bemoans the fact, the pain factor for her isn't high enough for her to do something about it). And unfortunately, your wife already sided with her sister. She's letting a relationship with a family member get in the way of the most important earthly relationship (spouse). What to do? Well, all I can say is good luck. The biggest challenge is in persuading your wife to stand by you not stand against you. There is the easy way of persuasion and then there is the hard way. I'd hope I could do it the easy way, but ultimately you are the head of household, you are called to preside and lead your family. Me personally, I'd say something like your sister has been living here for over 6 months (I'm guessing 6 months), she has had plenty of opportunity to get a job (yeah the economy sucks-but it's not that bad right now), it's time for her to leave. I'd give her 30 days and at the end of it tell her she must move out on her own. Make the executive decision that she needs to leave and don't be pushed around about it. If your wife leaves you over this-I'd say it's time to find a better wife. Your wife probably needs to understand better what it means to be a wife. Ephesians 5 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother (my note-i.e. family), and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

We are probably closer than you think and are arguing over terminology. But here goes: Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I do not think it is good to share the feelings of a child. I am certainly sympathetic, but I do not share the feelings (nor do I want to) of either a toddler, pre-teen, or teenager.

lol if only. My luck would be I'd pick the Marine who was a former sniper and with his snake-like reflexes and super-sonic hearing who would hear me as I attempt a pitiful roundhouse, throw a punch right in the kisser and I'd be down for the count.

And you won't find in the Bible or the New Testament some of the issues that affect our day. The Bible doesn't mention abortion. Primarily b/c trying to have an abortion prior to modern medicine would almost be a death sentence (there were superstitious ways to naturally have an abortion, but that's about it). The Bible doesn't mention cloning. There are plenty of things the Bible doesn't mention that are artifacts of the modern world. That is specifically why I have made reference to modern scriptures and modern Prophets. You've set a head's I win, tails you lose situation. You seem to believe that if the Bible doesn't specifically mention this condition, then it must be okay. When that is the wrong way of looking at the Bible. It is a guidebook that gives plenty of principles and guidelines according to God-if one searches it and has the Spirit then the truth of all things can be known. It is also why we have modern Scriptures and Modern Prophets, to help us understand better God's will in modern times. In this thread, I have already quoted to you words of a modern Apostle who was later a Prophet of God and you rejected them. Now you have set the standard to only using the Bible on an LDS site that believes in modern scriptures and Prophets of God. That's not a fair fight. That's coming into a bar, picking out the meanest looking fellow who's a former Marine and then you start punching him-1/3rd through the fight you stop and say, well this just ain't right to make it fair you big Marine need to have one hand tied behind your back and you have to hop on one leg and you have to be blind-folded. You then roundhouse the guys one leg and say SEE I WON!!!

I wrote-up a bit, but it got gobbled and I'm too lazy to rewrite. Long story short, each individual is responsible for their own feelings and happiness-teaching them that is important. Being cold is wrong and being emotionally invested in every little thing the kid does is wrong-it's a balance.

In any movement, there are several different types of people. Some are leaders who actively push an agenda (those who write and follow books like After The Ball), some are individuals who subscribe to the beliefs and then their are those who don't quite know but that have already succumb to the ideology of the movement-they may not be active participates but have joined an ideology without even really knowing it. They have been persuaded and joined it without even realizing it and then their are others who feign ignorance of any such thing and make it seem as if they are just "asking questions" when their point all along was to push an agenda. Which one you are, I don't know and I don't really care either-only you know that answer. What I can say, is that yes the ideology you are espousing is moral relativism. Why? Because again their is absolutely 0 proof of your ideology in any recorded history, in any scriptures, in any modern prophets, except your word. Unless you claim to be a prophet, what you are espousing is your own theories and ideologies. So you are either trying to persuade believing LDS members that they should believe you (i.e. that your spirit really is the opposite of what your body is), or you are trying to say that all that really matters is what each individual thinks (i.e. b/c you believe it-therefore it must be true). I really have to wonder what exactly is your point on this thread? We've had 17 pages of going around and around. You aren't an active believing member, you've come to a mostly active believing member forum (that in some way shape or form is actively funded by believing LDS members) and then you've said don't use the bible (i.e. the scriptures) to defend the Christian point of view. So I'm curious, what exactly is your point here? As a sidenote (again, only you know), but I'm not terribly confident that we are talking about "a friend" here-I don't know of a friend who would defend their friend's POV on this so vehemently-my guess is that we are really talking about you-which is fine.

Then we are at an impasse, the Scriptures are God's Word to us through His Prophets. Modern Prophets are men called of God to teach the world His Truth. If one cannot use the Bible (i.e. scriptures, words of Prophets, etc.) then what is the point? Then we are just debating about what everyone thinks and instead of their being One Truth, the Truth becomes whoever has the better argument to persuade everyone else over to their side. In fact, if we ditch the scriptures, then Truth becomes whatever each individual wants it to be . . .otherwise known as moral relativism. Now if that is the path you want to go down, be my guest, but a word of warning. Moral relativism is an extremely dangerous ideology, that at the end of the day boils down to might makes right, and that is extremely dangerous.

anatess, I mean this in a nice way but I think you're picking at nats here. You haven't been through exactly what your child has been through. You were raised in a different environment and a different culture-the same with my kids. Yes, I was a kids once. But I have a somewhat lazy child, I was never like that-so no I can't empathize with that. Just b/c I was a child once doesn't mean I can remember and know what it is like to be a child. Shoot that was decades ago-I have memories of it but that's about it. The point being that as of this point right now-all I can really do is sympathize and tell them, yeah if I were your age I'd probably feel like that too-but I'm not so I don't. The difference being with Christ is that I'm pretty sure he has all knowledge whereas I've grown/become different but I don't have all memories for a previous point in life. I don't need empathy to be a good parent, in fact I might say empathy might be a hindrance to being a good parent. Empathy is "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." I'd argue that if I as a parent I am sharing the feelings my child has then I'm doing it wrong. I asked my Dad (whom I have an absolutely awesome relationship with as an adult), if when we were kids if he ever really, really cared how we felt. His response, "No, not really". I just laughed after he said that b/c frankly that is the same attitude I have with my kids. I don't really care much about how they feel. My job is to teach and train them how to be responsible, honorable, decent human beings in this life and I don't really care how they feel about it or the methods I use to train them.

You mean "This year, the IRS put in place system changes that would reject tax returns during processing in instances where the taxpayer didn’t provide information related to health coverage. However, the Jan. 20, 2017, executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden.‎ Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their coverage status. However, legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe‎. Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected by the IRS at the time of filing, allowing the returns to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund. When the IRS has questions about a tax return, taxpayers may receive follow-up questions and correspondence at a future date, after the filing process is completed‎. This is similar to how we handled this in previous years, and this reflects the normal IRS post-filing compliance procedures that we follow" To me this means, if you feel lucky you can not pay the tax and we can't immediately verify if you should or shouldn't pay the tax but we might find out you should pay the tax and then we might audit you.

So this. I think it just shows the lunacy of going down this road; if we can't as a society say boys are boys and girls are girls then this is just the logical extension of it. If we as a society can't say boys are boys and girls are girls then why not this.

Actually, it's really not that hard to understand. From our optic, it looks stupid but in reality it was probably quite different. All we need to do is look around at our current culture today-how many people today say there is no God? How many people believe the pre-marital sex is okay? How many people believe that we just need to be "good" (when good is generally defined as "do as I want as long as I don't really hurt someone else"? If one studies history, one finds out that there are two sides to every story. Studying Germany prior to WWII is a fascinating study, b/c if you approach it from their point of view you can really start to understand why some of the things happened the way they did. My guess is the War in Heaven was no different. They probably didn't know (at least initially) they would never get a chance to gain a body. It's probably like most things, when you pick the wrong side eventually there comes a point where you either decide you were wrong and repent of it or you dig your heels in even harder to win. And that's why IMO it's called the War in Heaven. I think we knew the Plan of Salvation as it had been explained-I think we were probably taught the entirely of the Gospel-but being taught the Gospel on an intellectual level-i.e. this is the "plan"- is quite different than actually carrying it out. And that is where the War probably happened, one side said Trust God this is what we are going to do, and the other side said, "I don't quite think that is going to work out the way you say it is". I don't think it was a singular event, I think it was probably a process that eventually devolved into a War. War is just politics executed by violence instead of by words. Prior to the actual War, my guess is a lot of politicking went on to convince each other. I'm sure each of us knew and loved individuals who chose the wrong side. And when you get to the point where battle lines are drawn, you either win or you die. And God certainly wasn't going to give in or He would cease to be God, so it was either they come to God's side or they takeover God and when it got to that point-it was kick 'em out. But the above is just my musing, we really don't have much idea as to what really went on.

Hey, you were the one who said cross-dressing was a common practice when it wasn't.

Well that is inaccurate. It was not a "common practice" for people to cross-dress. What was common was as JJ said for men to play both genders in plays-this is fairly well known in theatre. I've seen people that attempt to justify that cross-dressing is no big deal b/c see they did it in the past! Well, if you look into it, it was actually pretty strictly applied-i.e. it was only acceptable when acting in a play. And then pretty much as soon as it became acceptable for women to act in plays, the acceptability of cross-dressing in theatre dropped. Dressing as a woman in a play in 1880s != cross-dressing.