log2

I'm sure you do. That you believe it, and probably sincerely, portends problems for future interactions. I find your attempts to so do entertaining.

LOL! I don't find it pleasurable combing through a tendentious morass of tortured definitions made to fit a polemical bed of Procrustes to justify a game of statistical fallacies. It takes far more time and effort to correct that crap than it did to write it in the first place. Frankly, I find other pursuits more pleasurable. And I find your condescension rather entertaining. You seem to like using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Interesting. If I don't take someone at their word for anything unless they have first demonstrated they have no stake in the matter, you say I cannot cite them at all. That, you see, is a classic non-sequitur. And yet, he cited the same definition-torturing site as you, which rather discredits him in my view as a reliable source for truth, whatever his claimed religious affiliation is.

What changed, one wonders, that the APA decided that homosexuality was no longer itself a disorder - reality did not change that day, did it? Was that action perhaps a political one, rather than a scientific one? In any event, here's the fun bit - you're addressing a claim I never made.

That is an issue of definitions. For example, same-sex sexual relations are, by definition, homosexual sexual relations. Homo = same, sexual = sex, hence, homosexual = same-sex. One who engages in homosexual behavior - possibly including, and possibly not, the behavior of self-identification as homosexual - is, at a minimum, bisexual, and at a maximum homosexual. Actions speak louder than words, you see. And I would support the BSA in excluding any of them if it is indeed the case that they are a disproportionately higher risk towards the children and teens which make up the Scouting population. I would also support the BSA in excluding them from the organization based upon their failure to uphold the Scout Oath. I take no man at his word for anything until and unless he shows, and not just claims, that he hasn't got a stake in the outcome of the argument. Since the stats and their interpretation also rise or fall on tendentious definitional games, I'm disinclined to pursue the never-ending debate on who's experts trounce whose. The stats support my view that even in the most homophiliac of nations - the Netherlands, and New Zealand - homosexuals per se suffer more mental illness than heterosexuals. I don't need you to agree with me, neither do I require Church leaders to agree with me. It's like gravity: an observational reality.

Actually, I am laughing at your links. The definitional legerdemain and tortured reasoning is really quite entertaining. For example, shall we debate whether same-sex behavior, between participants of whatever age they happen to be, is, by definition, homosexual behavior? Shall we debate further whether pederasty is, or should be, classed as a form of child sexual abuse? Shall we debate whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, given the fact that homosexuals, per se, suffer more mental problems than heterosexuals, including depression and suicide, even in the most homophiliac of countries (Netherlands, New Zealand)? The list goes on. Also, just FYI - SPLC has negative credibility with me. I'm inclined to believe something is true just by virtue of the SPLC claiming it's false.

As I said, "if." If you happen to know of any specific error in the link, please feel free to demonstrate it - otherwise, as they say, talk is cheap, and mocking laughter cheaper still.

You're perfectly free to disagree. I'm comparing pain to pain. "Liken the scriptures," and all that. From what I gather, he has not turned his heart away from his wife - his heart was never turned towards his wife to begin with. I believe our shared goal should be to help him overcome his personal trial with honor in sustaining and obeying the ordinances and covenants. It is unhelpful and unfair to call him, however obliquely, a two-year-old - or were you referring to myself?

Have I, now? Where? It is interesting to me - though it might not be interesting to you - that even Christ sought that the cup of the wrath of God might be turned away from him. To slap the label "selfish" on a desire to avoid pain and a desire to seek happiness seems to be a form of uncharitable trivializing of something we all share. Not everyone has as high a pain tolerance as someone else, and everyone has a different breaking point. Have I assumed anything about your marriage?

That's not a fair analogy, Eowyn. If you have read the Dune series, you might be familiar with the concept of the Gom Jabbar. It was a test administered to sift humans from animals, or, in other words, those who can endure pain through self-disipline as opposed to those who lack self-discipline. Our goal should be helping all reach their potential, so that they may be fulfilled. I have given some advice to this poster in another thread, and I hope he takes it - indeed, I hope at some level he wants to be faithful to his covenants and is, on some level, looking for a way to do it. However, I have to say that a loveless marriage is a crucible and a torment that cannot be fully appreciated unless you've been there. It is a variant of the Gom Jabbar. Charity ought still to guide our approach to our brothers or sisters who may not share our perspectives or experiences.

Is there a petition one may sign in support of the BSA's decision? After all, the Boy Scout oath specifies that Scouts should be "morally straight," and if one cannot abide by this oath, one has no business in the organization. This is especially true for the leaders, and more especially if it is the case that homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionately high number of child sexual abuse cases.

It stands to reason that one is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to one whom one does not love - and that, at least, is an insuperable barrier to fulfillment.

The poster in question has no love for his wife, and finds no joy in her company.

That's the one I was thinking of! :)

I find these useful. LewRockwell.com - libertarian, antiestablishment www.wnd.com - conservative News & Current Events, Breaking News, Analysis, Political Commentary ? Newsmax.com - conservative CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News - liberal, establishmentarian

Why stop at two? And why be biased against, say, a human / non-human pair?

I don't doubt that you do. There is a minimal level of orthodoxy required - say, among others, belief in the prophethood of Joseph Smith, without which "a testimony of the Restoration of the Gospel" would be a complete farce. Of course, if someone believes Joseph was a liar, deluded, or insane (or possibly wicked), then there is some heavy-duty equivocation going on during the temple recommend interview.

"I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father. The Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and or spirit, and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods." - Joseph Smith I would suggest, therefore, that such people as you refer to would probably not be members in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I must remember that one... "I ate some pie"

I would suggest to ask him directly if it's ok if you call someone else to give the blessing. In my opinion, if he makes no relevant answer, and doesn't move on it still, he's in dereliction of his divinely appointed duty and it's yours to make up the slack. Make the call if you feel, after prayer, it's appropriate and necessary. I would also suggest counseling with your home teacher / bishop - that might be during the same call. In all things, follow the Spirit.

It can't be any worse than what my hometown bishop said to me after several years of atheism and doing whatever I wished - he said "Log2, now that you've been in the world and sampled everything it has to offer, you're ready to come back."That stung me to my heart and caused me no small amount of shame - because it was true - and I think he was inspired to say it. Looking back, I think that shame helped me in my repentance process. In any event, the bishop is a messenger of the Lord to you, to give you whatever is needful in helping you to reclaim your place as a child of Christ - fear nothing he has to say, and don't be offended, but hear with your heart.

If I may make a suggestion, don't focus so much on the outward performances such as scripture study if you don't feel it's helping. Instead, focus on putting your whole heart and soul into your prayers and coming into communion with your Father. Scripture is not what you read, but what the Spirit gives you, either independently or as you read - therefore, pray with all your heart to receive the Spirit of God. Then see where you feel your priorities should be.

I wish I could plead with the OP's husband to hear her with his heart. I hope mhsmd takes this to the Lord and seeks counsel at his hand. Please take this to the temple and ponder and pray, even if you go alone. I believe if this becomes a power struggle between spouses, then even if somebody wins, nobody wins.

Ask him anyways. It is his duty in the Priesthood to provide the blessings thereof for his family, or arrange for them to be administered to. When it was time for my son to be named and blessed in church I felt deeply unworthy and asked a worthy brother to bless him. I was not in the circle.

Impressive.