The Folk Prophet

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.

Yes, I could. I apologize for offending you. I am serious though. Don't be so sensitive. There was no actual "name calling" as you put it. There was an honest and legitimate point. You and the OP have a concern because of things people have done or said. I'm saying, stop worrying about the fact that people aren't perfect. I will work to be more tactful in the way I express myself in the future though.

There is nothing wrong with having expectations to know the facts that are available. But it behooves us, if we do have such expectations, to research on our own, and that IS clearly taught by the church. An expectation for a disclaimer in the manuals is unreasonable however. Of course there is further information. Don't be so sensitive. The obvious point of it was to say that we shouldn't base our testimony or lack thereof on other people because people are fallible, mortal, unseeing, unknowing, prejudice, blind, ignorant, weak creatures. And Mormons are people, so all of the above applies to all of them. ALL people are "idiots" (except, of course, the Savior). It wasn't an attack on you. Stop reading personal attacks into things that are clearly not.

I'm not sure this qualifies as a mormonism. More of a humanism. I cried when testifying a lot more when I was a teenager too. I was more emotional when younger. Conviction is emotional. Emotion leads to crying. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think others crying when testifying influenced me to do the same. Could be wrong though. the human mind is a fickle piece of putty in a lot of ways. I do know this -- there are times when the spirit came down and whomped me pretty good and the tears came. Hmm. So in that regard, the church is true + the spirit testifies of the truth + the spirit often brings great emotion including a tendency to cry = crying during testimonies is a mormonism. I guess I could buy it on those terms.

This is a good point and I think important to reiterate as pertaining to the discussion because it did cause some problems and a great amount of apostasy in the early church (less so in the modern church because most of us never actually get the chance to directly interact with the prophet). If I was hanging out for a day with the prophet and he said "I think that's a solid investment" concerning something or and so I put all my money into it and then went bust... I see that as significantly different to the prophet saying something like, "always volunteer when service opportunities present themselves". The second I would jump on as prophet inspired advice, the first I would consider random advice from an older and wiser man. Most likely I wouldn't pray for confirmation about either of them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...as soon as I posted I thought to myself..."duh." edit: I had visions of War Games.

estradling75, You still use a modem? :)

To be fair, I include myself as "people". The hat thing I can see not having heard about with no external reading on Joseph Smith. Though within the last 10 years or so really all it takes is a Google search or a quick wikipedia read...but.... The seer stone isn't that uncommon a thing, from my point of view, to have knowledge of. That being said, it really doesn't matter to not have heard of these things. It's not important. And in spite of my snide remark about idiots, not having heard of these does not make one an idiot...though it might be fair to say that one is somewhat uneducated in this particular field (which is fine, there are plenty of fields where I am woefully uneducated myself). I would hope that after a certain amount of time of serious investment in the gospel that one would dig into a deeper level of learning. But, if not...it really doesn't matter to our eternal salvation, except perhaps wherein when we do actually hear about things like this we let it throw our testimonies. I just read a book on Joseph Smith's polygamy...well, 3 books actually....called, interestingly enough, Joseph Smith's Polygamy. As much as I learned things that I did not know before, I did not find any of it "shocking". (Though I'm sure one could find more sensational/anti points of view on the matter.) Shocking is a matter of bias with most of this stuff. We have preconceived notions of something based on our contemporary, Protestant, Victorian influenced culture, so anything outside of that can blast us with cold chills. But it's entirely perception based in that bias. Our feelings on these matters don't really have much to do with reality and eternal truth.