The Folk Prophet

I think you're perhaps conflating my responses with bytor's somewhat. I have no qualms with the fact that Josh Weed is gay, by definition. I do tend to agree that it's a mistake for him to proclaim it to the world, shout it from the rooftops, so-to-speak, and self define as such as a primary variable of who he is. But I have no doubt that he is sexually attracted to people of the same sex -- the definition of "gay".

I'm not sure how this > "If the Lord would have given the commandment that we can only marry those of the same gender as ours, do you think you will stop being attracted to women? " < is in any way a "definition" of homosexuality. And I'm not sure how you cannot see that this sort of a statement is an attempt at justification. But I believe you if you say it wasn't your intent. Intent aside, however, pointing out that it would be ridiculously hard for a straight person to turn gay if the church commanded it holds all sorts of implications, and one of them is clearly some level of justification. I'm also not sure how my fairly flatly stating that I do believe a straight person could go gay (or develop any other tendency) if it was commanded is irrelevant to what you said, as it is a direct response to what you said.

I was talking with my brother the other day about his A.D.D. kids and he made the comment, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?" I kid (sort of) of course. But I really do have a problem with the whole "victim" society we live in nowadays. Nothing is ever our fault. And psychology plays right into that. So as you don't think I'm making light of your disorder, I really, honestly, do have A.D.D. Diagnosed. For real. But I sure don't plan on still being that way by the time I die. In point of fact, most who know me nowadays have no clue (and refuse to even believe) that I struggle that way. I would hope your efforts at overcoming what at first I thought was a sister-condition to IBD are along the same lines. Wait. I thought it was way beyond PC to compare homosexuality to any sort of disorder!!

This entire philosophy is, in my thinking, based on twisted half truths and mistaken, trendy, political correct ideologies that I do not buy into at all. It's also irrelevant, which is something else that seems to escape the modern atmosphere of what's considered rational thought on the matter. It's the argument (lie) that because something is natural it is justified. Of course with the whole "Mormon Gay" thing that justification is softened. It's only their desires they're justifying, rather than the blatant actions. But we know well that the natural man is an enemy to God, unless one puts off the natural man and becomes willing to submit to all things the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us. All things! (How offensive, right? An "enemy to God". What a rude scripture!) So what, exactly, is the point being made then? It's setting up a meaningless hypothetical to get "straights" to emotionally admit that gay is okay because they find the idea of gay sex repellent. But that is the whole problem with emotional arguments. It doesn't matter how we feel about something if it is not in line with God's will. Moreover, I do not believe for one stinking second that anyone who allowed themselves to go down certain paths could not develop sexual attraction for practically ANYTHING. Not for a second. We, as the corrupt, disgusting little perverted creatures we naturally are can learn any sort of depravity. In point of fact, I think it would be FAR, far easier for a straight person to develop gay or bi attractions than it, likely, for a gay person to develop straight attractions. Kind of like how it's easier to develop (oh no...here comes one of those offensive examples...) a lying habit than it is to break it, or how it's easier to start viewing pornography than it is to stop, or how it's easier to develop a road rage habit than it is to break it, etc., etc... It's always easier to become corrupt than it is to clean up from corruption. And the choice or not to become corrupt isn't really relative to that. Some people have extremely depraved psyches through no fault of their own whatsoever. And leaving that depravity behind becomes no easier because of that. But depravity is still depravity, imperfection is still imperfection, the natural man is still the natural man, and if we do not yield to the Holy Spirit and put off that natural man then we are enemies to God -- chosen or not. This is the same thing being asked of all of us.

Except being gay IS (for some reason people cannot seem to understand this) a DESIRE for sin. Being autistic "may" cause one to desire certain sins. It also may not. It is not the defining factor of it. It is, however, the defining factor of what homosexuality is. It is a desire for something sinful. To make a truly compelling comparison, you'd have to use an example that sets someone up in a role where they have a desire for something sinful. Of course, as soon as you do that everyone calls foul and claims your comparing gays to this or that and how offensive and all that. But if you don't compare it that way, then the comparison doesn't work on any level, because having a desire for tomatoes is not the same thing. Maybe an orthodox Jew's desire for bacon would work.

I call foul on that in two regards. A) Source it. Does he really equate it thusly? It strikes me from reading this post that he equates "gay" with having sexual attraction for the same gender. B) It's malarkey if he or anyone does equate sexual interest with being artistic or musically inclined. Sexual attraction = desire to engage in sexual activities with -- not "I like the color pink" or "I love musical theater" or "I'm good at something" or even, "I'm bad at math". Not the same thing.

Read through it. About 80% of what he says rings true and right, and the rest rings false and flat. Particularly, his general adamant expression that his experiences define reality and thereby he declares, resolutely, what is and is not "truth". I know his heart is right. I know he means well. But in the end, he perpetuates the same victim culture that is common now, and adds to the great lie being drunk by the world at large. And why? Because what he "knew" to be true at 12 and 14 must be the truth? Really? Very little of what I believed to be truth about myself at 14 do I still hold on to. I also appreciate his testimony and his pseudo-loyalty (unless he considers their teachings false based on his personal experience) to the brethren. But the end of what he is and does strikes me as, overall, harmful. Are there some in the struggles of same-sex attraction who might be helped by him? Yes. Is that worth the damage being done? Dunno.

Seems to me there's only one of us determined to argue here. I'll leave it to you to figure out who it is. The chip-on-shoulder approach to online discussion is a sure-fire way to get nowhere. If you're so certain I was just attacking you and are entirely unwilling to consider the merit of my point on it's philosophical value...then that's your business. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

Neither. And I suspect you understand that quite well but are determined to press an argument for argument's sake.

Um....

Why is your speculation that I'm speculating about the cause of your failures legitimate then? Please re-read my response carefully. I do not address your status directly at all. I am responding to the philosophical question. If you want honest debate, then you need to avoid defensive implications of criticism and accusation that do not exist as well.

I guess all the saints who died without ever learning where the Book of Mormon actually took place, and all the saints who will die before it's actually revealed are out of luck then. Too bad for them. Too bad for us probably. Salvation lost. Woe is us. Snarkiness aside, I tell you...it just is not important to know when we take into consideration what is, actually, "important".

Seems to me the entire question is backwards and, likely, the root of the problem. Worrying about others helping us succeed vs. worrying about helping others succeed... In other words going about the business of our Father, forgetting ourselves, and doing His will, which is the immortality and eternal life of mankind. Can one be considered "succeeding" with succeeding in this work?

Yes...but the Nephites could have lived in a small portion of "The Promised Land" and the promises would still apply to the land at large. So, yes....the American Continent(s) as a whole...important to know. Specifically where? Interesting. But not important.

Duplicate

Not when I was a kid. I don't know about now. The first sounds stupid. The second...I have dreams...but....no. Just kids with sawed off shovel handles who took it way to seriously. :)

"Travelled to" may be a bit misleading as an idea. Appeared in. Came to. Descended from heaven to. Visited. Better.

To each their own.

This is my first post ever on these forums that isn't a gospel topic. I feel...like...unclean...or something... But as I work from home and so you all pretty much represent the extent of my social interaction/friendships, if I don't share here, who will I share with? I just bought my wife* a new washer/dryer set. Here's quick story. Our dryer broke. We have a washer that's only a few years old. But it was the cheapest thing we could find. It's fine though. So the conundrum: Get a cheap dyer to match. Get a nicer dryer and make do with the cheaper washer. Get a nicer matching washer and dryer. Get a really nice matching washer and dryer. So, being an all or nothing kind of guy, I've been swinging back and forth from the cheapest thing possible to the super nice option -- back and forth, back and forth... We only need the cheapest, of course. But they are only supposed to last a few years or so. A bit nicer will last 10+, I hear. So I had motivation to not go the cheapest route. But then, of course, as soon as a step away from the one side of the pendulum... kerplang!...to the other side I go. If I'm going to spend this much I may as well spend a bit more...and if I'm going to spend that much I may as well spend a bit more...etc., etc.... Suddenly I'm from just under $400 to just under $2000. I flip out and swing back the other way. Kerplang! Then the process repeats. And so it went. What finally won out is my desire to make my wife* happy. And therefore you might guess which side of the pendulum I landed on. To be fair, there's a whole lot more expensive options to go for. And there was a Memorial Day sale going on. But I got what I wanted, and what I think she will be tickled to death with. And that makes me very happy. I don't even feel buyers remorse...yet. Of course the delivery doesn't come until next week, so maybe when it does it'll hit home and I'll feel guilty. But right now I'm just super excited...and super excited for my wife*. * I will admit, in the case of laundry, I tend towards being a male pig and don't do my share very often. But I make up for that by doing a whole lot of other things that are super helpful around the house...and will definitely help out even with the laundry if the wife asks for it or is feeling stressed or the like. Hopefully buying her a nice washer/dryer also makes up for it somewhat. Maybe having a nice washer and dryer will get me helping with the laundry more often too! Here's what I got: Washer / Dryer We considered the front loading thing...but stacking them, while allowing more space in a room (something we don't need to worry about much in our laundry space) makes for a pain in the behind in that the washer needs to go on the bottom, so you're moving wet clothes up. And it's just awkward. My wife's parents have that set up and we've found it to be annoying as we've had cause to borrow theirs through the years (this will be our 3rd dryer in this house...part of my motivation to get a nicer one). Otherwise, they're fairly nice if you get them with the pedestals (the way my parents have them), but then you're adding $500-$700 to your overall cost...for a couple of boxes to raise your machines up. I don't think so! So we went with the traditional top loading washer and a cool dryer that opens two ways to make easy loading from the washer, and easy unloading to a clothes basket. Should be super cool. Plus the washer is HUGE. 5.0 cubit ft. I'm very excited! Feel free to congratulate, scorn for overspending, or ignore. :)

Why would the isthmus being impassable in our times, specifically with a clear description in the book of extreme changes to the land, water levels, etc., at the time of Christ's death, be relevant to said theory?

My favorite sport (nerd alert) has always been lightsaber dueling.

Funny. That's just the excuse I used to start viewing it back in the day, leading me down what became a very dark path. Secretly, I always knew better.

That is reasonable. It's actually a bit interesting from that perspective, and plays into testimony paths, etc. Like being friendly/nice to people so they'll join the church. If they join ONLY for this reason, they are on a sandy foundation. But if that kindness leads them to the spiritual investigation and thereby their testimony is built/based upon the witness of the Spirit, as it must be to stand, then the kindness path becomes a tool that is invaluable. In that regard I can acquiesce to the idea. The more evidence,support and knowledge we can put beyond the Book of Mormon, the more we open up potential paths for investigators. However, I see a dark side to the concept as well, and there is a great deal of controversy that stems from the sad fact that, apparently, a large (to some level) portion of Latter-day Saints have testimonies that are built on the wrong things. And that makes me wonder, to an extent, about even providing false paths, and perhaps plays into why the Lord doesn't guide us to more evidence of the Book of Mormon or other aspects of the "truth". The only way anyone can know the truth is through revelation by the Spirit, and that thinking may well contend for a de-emphasize-other-paths approach to bringing people to the gospel. As in -- if you want to know the Book of Mormon is true, then read it and pray about it. Then you can study the history and geography and whatnot if it interests you to your heart's content. But until you "know" it's true from the proper path, these other things hold less value.

To be fair, there's "exposure" and then there's "Exposure!". There's coming across and there's having it taught/preached. There's skeptical exposure and there's embracing supportive exposure. These things matter. I'm not sure putting it in terms of such extremes as the idea of trying to shelter your children from any exposure whatsoever is legitimate in the argument. It makes for a nice straw man. But it's really more about controlling the exposure. Lest you think I'm just being contrary, I do think there is, certainly, some validity to the idea that if parents are teaching and raising their kids right, then what they are taught falsely in school is really not much of an issue. That being said, I tend to fall on the side of "sheltering" a bit, with a healthy understanding (I hope) that your point, while perhaps too extreme, is valid. Kids are gonna hit this stuff somehow somewhere. The solution isn't just to hide from it.

I had a registered sex offender attending a ward I was in once. I was, frankly, astounded at the lack of Christianity, forgiveness, and love that most of the ward displayed toward this man. There is a balance to be found, of course. You wouldn't, of course, have such a man babysit for you. You would, of course, take precautions about where and when children go, etc. But when the man is at church, helping with service projects, etc., you forgive, you love, your forget, etc., It is a tough balance and one that takes great wisdom and spiritual guidance, methinks. But like I said, I was amazed at how many people just treated him as a write-off, shunned him entirely, and spent a great deal of time posting nasty things on Facebook (the devil's playground) about him. Not sure this is applicable to the OP. Just sharing thoughts.