The Folk Prophet

Obama? Agree to disagree?

That is not true. Vort was comparing usefulness of threads, not severity of sin. You see this sort of response in discussions like this a lot. Someone invariably says, "should we legalize *horrendous sin* because it's popular" and someone else cries foul! "How dare you compare homosexuality to *horrendous sin*?" But comparison of sin graduation is not the point at all. Popularity being the criteria for legalization was. Moreover, what sin could be used for comparison that wouldn't offend the homosexual rights supporter? None, of course. Because they are fairly adamant that it is not a sin. I even used adultery the other day and got the same kind of response. Adultery is worse because it's disloyal! How dare you compare a committed homosexual relationship to an adulterous one... Etc., etc... Well, once again, not my point. Actually grading sins is not our purview, beyond recommending visiting a bishop vs. not. Accidentally dropped a swear? Probably just watch your mouth. Accidentally made out with someone of the same gender...yeah...might want to get to your bishop right quick.

You really think all feelings just pop up out of nowhere? Like there are no influencing factors, internal or external. They just are. But I'm not sure what you're getting at either, frankly. I don't recall specifying anything about controlling something you don't have. Moreover, where the feelings come from is irrelevant. I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only adding that simply not cultivating and focusing on the feelings is only part of the battle. Active effort to become perfect in all things is the commandment. I've not read everything from him. Of that which I have read, I do not see his ideas as aligning squarely with the Church's, and you saying they do doesn't make the case. But who cares. I could be wrong. I haven't read his books, just some stuff online by him. Regardless, Ty Mansfield does not dictate what is and is not gospel truth. The church's position is much, much greater than mormonsandgays.org. Simplifying this issue, as many are wont to do, down to a simple sentence from the header of a website is insufficient. There is much greater understanding to be had of the natural man and how we, through the atonement of Christ, can overcome. We can change who we are. In fact, we MUST change who we are. Any less is insufficient. Gay is irrelevant. Natural tendency is irrelevant. Imperfection is imperfection, and all imperfection must be purged. We are to sacrifice ourselves for the Savior, the church, and God's will. We are to change to become like Christ. It is simply not okay to be anything less than the example which Christ set for us. Anything short of this requires change. And, yes, I will maintain this includes a change of feelings and heart. As a man thinketh, so is he. What good does it do a man to give a gift begrudgingly? Having gay feelings but not acting them it is not a "sin". No one is saying otherwise. That does not mean we shouldn't be working towards changing our feelings to align in perfect harmony with the truths of the gospel. It doesn't matter where the feelings come from. It doesn't matter if the tendency is a choice or not. But these things are not simply who we are. Who we are is children of God, sons of the Most High, within us the ability to inherit all that He has upon those conditions set by Him.

But it is okay to compare those who think homosexuality is a sin to Nazi's? Interesting logic. Not to mention that what you are accusing never happened.

You do realize that the Disney movie was significantly Disneyfied and the actual ending of the book is a horrific tragedy? I guess they Disneyfied it, but not enough? :)

Hmm. Seems to me that the logic breakdown is that because not having a law against murder and rape wouldn't cause murder and rape to abound means that we shouldn't have laws against murder and rape. Prohibition of something is not really about whether it works or not.

A matter of opinion and debate. You are certainly free to your positions in these regards. I'm not saying I even disagree. But it is not a forgone, self-evident point. It's the liberty thing that gets sticky. What does and doesn't infringe on liberty is kind of the point of the debate. My position is that the homosexual agenda is the greatest threat to our liberty in modern times. Not baking a cake by way of discrimination is a pittance compared to the threat to liberty at hand. I can agree that there is discrimination and injustice in turning someone away because of their sexual orientation. I cannot agree that we should force someone, against their religious conviction, to do something. Religious liberty trumps cake buying rights, IMO.

Logic....breakdown.... Since when does "works" have to mean "eliminated"?

How is it that we're saying the same thing and disagreeing? :) The implication of your statement "I still believe that my friend in elementary school wouldn't be the intuitive guy that can work through my feelings if he wasn't gay" is that he is a better person because he is gay, based on how intuitive he is. So I read that as you mean he is intuitive because he is gay. I say nonsense. Moreover, effeminate does not mean gay either (though the world will sure try and convince you that it must). Let's be very clear here. Being gay is about sexual attraction to a specific gender, not about other traits. You have said as much in this latest post. So wherein, logically, does his gayness make him more capable of intuition? Logical fallacy at play here. I also reject the theory that sensitive and intuitive is a uniquely female trait. I call sexist on that one. :)

Respectfully, I disagree. I've had this conversation before though. Part of it comes down to what we mean by "okay". Is it okay to be imperfect? Well, yes...and no. We should always be struggling to be perfect. If we aren't there yet, as long as we're trying, it's okay. But it's not okay. Just depends on what you mean. So it is with this subject. Is it okay? Yes. But no. We should always be struggling to overcome things that are not in accordance with God's plan for us. The fact that we may struggle with them our entire lives is okay, that we may never entirely overcome them is okay, etc. But that doesn't mean it's okay to just accept them as who we are or that we'll never, in all eternity, be able to overcome them. It is not a good thing to have homosexual feelings, regardless of whether it is a sin or not. Compare it to a porn addiction. It may never go away. We may always struggle with it, always have to be careful about alone time at the computer, always struggle with keeping images from popping into our heads, etc. The fact that we have this struggle is okay. The fact that we desire to look at explicit images is NOT. That is the point: Struggling with homosexual feeling is okay. Having homosexual feelings is not. Denying this is highly problematic. I think Ty Mansfield's entire p.o.v. is messed up, btw.

Respectfully, that is nonsense and typical of the gay agenda. Being sensitive has NOTHING to do with desiring sex with someone of the same gender! I, for example, love musical theater. Oh no! I must be gay! As pointed out in another thread, I cry at silly things. Oh no...I'm sensitive. That must mean I want sex with men. Ridiculous! This is the type of "logic" that is being pushed onto our children that makes me mad. Sensitive and Intuitive = gay? This is an absolutely false equation and should be aggressively squelched at every turn. Sincerely, I think your intentions are good. But we need to face these serious issues with truth. This kind of thing is harmful and does no one any good. I am, I believe, "reproving" you. So hopefully, per our previous post interactions, you know I appreciate your p.o.v. and love you (to be clear, platonic love.... I have no romantic feelings for you).

Maybe. Calling homosexuality a sin makes many who struggle with it or know those who struggle with it feel picked on. The position of all mormons on this should be clear. We love them. We empathize with the struggle. We do not condone the actions (sins). Empathy for those struggling with this, yes. Appreciation for it, no.

Sure. The phrasing of "Gay appreciation" has a distinct implication of approval for the fact that they are gay. As I stated earlier, I very much do NOT appreciate that anyone is gay. It is a blight on the world. I sorrow for those who are afflicted with the struggle and temptation. I am very much against any form of response to it that can be interpreted as celebration or acceptance (of the homosexuality, obviously we accept them as people and children of God). The entire approach of the thread is well intended, and I applaud you for that. But it is mistaken -- as mistaken as Mormons marching in the gay pride parade. Homosexual feelings may not be a sin in and of themselves, but that doesn't mean it is okay in any regard to have them. It is not okay. Just as it is not okay to struggle with feelings of anger, or sexual attraction to a dog (per the previous, semi-flippant, joke about appreciation for that), or the struggles of addiction, or the struggles of a kleptomaniac. These things need to be seriously regarded as enemies of happiness. I do not appreciate things that are certain to bring sorrow upon my brothers and sisters if not overcome. Perhaps it's just the phrasing of the title and the implication that "benefiting the gay community" is somehow praiseworthy in and of itself. We should love our brothers and sisters IN SPITE of their imperfections and struggles. Not celebrate their imperfections and struggles to any degree whatsoever. If I were to converse with a gay friend, I would say something like, "I appreciate you as a person." I would not say, "I appreciate you as a gay person."

I appreciate some people who are gay too. Doesn't mean I appreciate gays.

Well, yeah. You always had to have a subject to learn something. The implication was that it is hard to learn about Joseph using seer stones if you don't know to research about that. That isn't true anymore. Just google Joseph Smith. From the wikipedia article on Joseph, for example: Smith never said how he produced the Book of Mormon, saying only that he translated by the power of God and implying that he had transcribed the words.[205] As such, considerable disagreement about the actual method used exists. For at least some of the earliest dictation, Smith is said to have used the "Urim and Thummim", a pair of seer stones he said were buried with the plates.[206] Later, however, he is said to have used a chocolate-colored stone he had found in 1822 that he had used previously for treasure hunting.[207] Joseph Knight said that Smith saw the words of the translation while he gazed at the stone or stones in the bottom of his hat, excluding all light, a process similar to divining the location of treasure.[208] Sometimes, Smith concealed the process by raising a curtain or dictating from another room, while at other times he dictated in full view of witnesses while the plates lay covered on the table.[209] After completing the translation, Smith gave the brown stone to Cowdery, but continued to receive revelations using another stone until about 1833 when he said he no longer needed it. ^ that was without even trying.

To be fair, a Folks-Who-WANT-TO-Have-Sex-With-Their-Dogs Appreciation Thread? A I-CAN'T-HELP-IT-IT'S-JUST-WHO-I-AM-Wife-Beater's Appreciation Thread? A People-Who-DESIRE-TO-Use-Filthy-Language-All-The-Time thread.

I try to love all people. Gay is irrelevant. I certainly don't "appreciate" gays.

Yeah...I was going to say something about religion. And I agree that it does put a hole in my thought. I would content, personally, that religion should be it's own right and not a protected "class", based on my thought. But you are correct. Religion, legally speaking, IS indeed a protected class.

Was true. Not so much any more. Not in the day of information. Not with Google and Wikipedia. True 20 years back. No excuse nowadays.

Both.

It is not unreasonably to presume that the next edition of whatever manual that has a lesson on the translation will incorporate said information.

THAT'S AWESOME!! MY PHONE IS A SEERSTONE!! Sorry for shouting. But I love it!

What is off, IMO, is that Satan is working hard, digging at people, using every tool in the arsenal to shake people's faith. There are, however, specific guides in the scriptures to guard against this -- diligently studying the scriptures being one of the prime points.

Or, perhaps, SHOULD sexual orientation be a protected class. The problem with attempting to make it protected is that there can be no sure way to validate someone's sexual orientation. Anyone claiming an orientation suddenly, magically, IS that orientation. How can we possibly make something that is just a "say-so" issue a protected class? I can't be black just because I say I'm black. I can't be disabled just because I say I'm disabled.

I cry at Disneyland commercials.