iinarihoudai

Some would say so Dr Pepper! I think it's crazy how people throw that word around as if they know the state of someone's soul.

I am bisexual. I assure you it is NOT an addiction. It just *is*. I cannot change it. Lucky me, I have it easy. I just don't get in relationships with women. Ta da! General Authorities have repeatedly said that being a homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is, meaning having romantic same sex relationships. I am not sinning by being bisexual. I would be sinning if I were to get in a romantic relationship with a woman but there's no chance of that happening because I choose not to. Will I still be bisexual in the hereafter? I have no idea. Maybe, maybe not. All we've got on that topic is conjecture. Also, I've had an addiction problem before. The addiction prevented me from living a full life, it was an obsession always in my mind no matter what I was doing. My bisexuality causes no such issues.

But can a spirit give flesh priesthood authority? Hm, perhaps they were one of the few resurrected early to perform other duties.

I am one of those people that some would consider apostate. I am not. I have a testimony, I go to church and serve, etc. I am very much a true believer but I don't follow the molly mormon stereotype. I wonder how many people were called apostates for believing that blacks should have the Priesthood.

It was my understanding that Peter and James also tarried on the Earth with John the Beloved.

DowellBrown I was going to post the same thing. Great minds?

HEthePrimate pretty much summed it up with this: Of course not. Again, I do not disagree with the message, merely the method in presenting that message. There are religions that believe there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Should they be denied practicing that belief? I don't think so. Again, missionary work is the way, not legalese.

Uh, it is already legal to have sex before marriage no matter the gender involved (though some states do have anti-sodomy laws which is goofy since heterosexual couples do that too). The only reason why we have a problem with same-sex marriage is because of our religion. Remove the religious lens and there is no lawful reason not to allow it. What needs to be done is more missionary work. In another thread two articles about gay Mormons were presented. These people had the gospel and were able to make a spiritually informed decision. If we were all better missionaries we'd have more homosexuals in the church choosing to either be celibate or to find opposite sex partners. The thread in question is here: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/46592-article-hetero-marriage-ssa.html

I just wanted to say that as someone who is bisexual and LDS I have NEVER had to go through anything like Ty did. I was attracted to women and men, okay. But women were not an option so I never went there. I directed my romantic relationship radar toward men only. Problem solved.

I just now saw this Backroads. Sorry about that, didn't mean to diss your offer. I've got my recommend renewed without a hitch after talking to the Bishop about this issue. I'm a-ok. :) (Think a mod could put UPDATE at the beginning of the thread title?)

It is bothersome because if Priesthood and RS are let out late the kids who are on time are agitated while waiting for parents. If it is Sacrament meeting then you are cutting into Sunday School time. Some people may have guests coming over and ten minutes can make a critical difference. I think the issue is the consistency. Once in a while going over is generally no problem but when it becomes a habit it's a problem.

SM1487, listen to rameumptum. Also, just because a person tells the new boy about the girl's past does not mean he's going to believe what he hears. This is why it is incredibly important to go through proper channels as rameumptum instructed. I once knew about a young man fornicating but said nothing when he received the Priesthood. To this day I wish I had said something to the Bishop. If you say nothing you will regret it all the days of your life.

Does anyone else remember the one conference session where they ran a tad bit over and so the people watching it on TV didn't even get to be a part of the closing prayer because the allotted screen time was up? Yeah. . .

There is nothing "wrong" with the definition. The only issue is that there is ambiguity about what constitutes a right. Do homosexuals have the right to marry? Some say they do, others say they don't. As already asked, do parents have the right to pick a gender for an intersex child? Some would say yes, most here seem to say no. Do blacks have the right to walk down the street unmolested? So some say yes, but, with recent news about Trayvon Martin some still say no (theoretically the law should be on Trayvon's side, but no, it's Emmitt Till all over again). Do you see what I mean about the ambiguity? If you still don't see what I am saying then I have no idea what else I can say to get you to understand my point of view.

I loved Uchtdorf's talk this morning. :)

Hala, I hope you are not implying that I'm not a member of the church because ding ding, I am.

I am simply stating that using your definition as a definitive, a that's that kind of way, does not work because people are more complex than that. We need more specifics. Without the specifics we cannot fight against those who would take away our rights.

No, of course not. But what is a right? It used to be that document excluded non-humans and blacks were considered to be highly capable monkeys. It used to be that we did not have the right to interracial marriage. Homosexual unions currently do not have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Your explanation is too simple. That's why it does not work because in practice it's nothing like that.

Vort, your argument doesn't work because you have a different definition basic rights than others do and there will always be people trying to oppress in order to gain power.

And right now, that is based entirely on physiology. If a baby is born with both sex organs the parents are forced to choose a gender. This often leads to disastrous results as the child hits puberty. Also, what is male and what is female? Is it the gender roles as our society has defined them? I think not. Men do not lose their maleness by doing housework or crocheting. Females do not lose their femaleness by working outside the home or fixing a car. There's more to being gender than physiology and stereotypes.

ARGH! I completely forgot it was today! ;;_;;

Youngest RS President ever! At 18! If Joseph Smith can have the first vision at 14 you can be RS Pres at any age.

So, if your dream comes true, do you think you'll accept the calling?

I am surprised by the number of Totally unapproves for the last three questions. Being mandated to make an offer for those who would want to take it does not mean everyone would *have* to take the offer. 1. Business fairness - Unfair 2. 3 year maternity leave- Totally approve 3. 2 year maternity leave- Totally approve 4. 1 year maternity leave- Totally approve I would also hope there would be provisions for smaller businesses so they don't go under. That way women won't be discriminated in the workplace and we don't have businesses failing. I believe Canada has something in place for single mothers to be able to stay at home with their children for the first two or three years of life.

Conservationism, isn't that conserving the environment? Anyway, the whole conservative thing came up right after the same-sex marriage debate. I am sure that many Mormons, if they knew my eccentricities would think of me as a bad girl Mormon. But I am not. If I were I would not be Temple worthy. I am myself. I think of myself as a Mormon, but also different. I feel that this difference has helped me poke others into being a little less judgmental. About being a liberal, I feel that being a liberal with the Gospel and being with others of the same mind would be a different experience than being with other liberals without the Gospel.