Fether
-
Posts
3690 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Posts posted by Fether
-
-
1 hour ago, Suzie said:
It will never stop and that's the reality we need to accept....
What will never stop? The propaganda or the terrorist attacks?
-
49 minutes ago, mikbone said:
due to our caveman ethics.
It is contrary to the laws of God to disobey the man with the biggest club.
-
We tried listening to an article last night. Siri’s voice wasn’t pleasant, but it beat reading out loud. I think that will be how we do it
-
-
2 hours ago, clbent04 said:
Not that we have a lot of insight on this subject, but whenever I hear Heavenly Mother referenced within the Church, I perceive there's this idea that God only has one wife in particular.
If we are referencing something we have very little information about, shouldn't we do so assuming God follows the eternal principle of polygamy?
Never mind what we do and do not know and doctrine…This would a PR disaster. Can you imagine the outcry if the Prophet said “heavenly mothers”? All the stereotypes of Latter-day Saints would be gone and it would be all about “Mormons believe God is a Polygamist”
- Anddenex and JohnsonJones
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Oh, I’ll agree I’m being highly pedantic. At the moment I’m merely taking issue with your characterization of the parade-of-horribles as a “pseudo boogeyman we think is coming” [italics mine, and apologies if I misread your emphasis] and that you seem to think isn’t really related to the issue at hand. My position is the issues are integrally connected, even if the LGBTQ folks can’t or won’t understand the way they are preparing the way for what’s most certainly coming.
My original comment was toward the OPs assumption that the LGBTQ are also pushing to normalize pedophilia and necrophilia. This is not the case. They are not for that.
I do, however, completely agree that it is paving the way to normalize it one day. I can get behind that.
Maybe you can help me with this then. Today, Is there anything gained on accusing the LGBTQ movement of supporting pedophilia when they currently do not?
-
37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Fether, I’d agree with this more if…
What do you think I am arguing for?
-
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
The P-word will never be supported on its own terms; just as “sodomy” or “perversion” never were. It will be couched in terms of love and sexual autonomy and liberation. They’ll start out with the most innocuous cases—the seventeen-year-old boy who fell in love with and married his 22-year-old teacher, the sixteen-year-old from an abusive home who was noticed by a middle-aged school janitor who treated her with a kindness and respect she’d never known before and taught her to finally trust men . . . and on and on it will go.
5 minutes ago, mikbone said:Neither would I.
I do believe that the LGBTQ+ movement as well as the Equality act are tools that the Lord’s enemies will use to exploit the innocent and make sin of all sorts more acceptable to all.
I can get behind both of these. But let’s not extend this potential future to the present. As of now, we aren’t there, so let’s not accuse organizations or patterns of belief that aren’t accurate.
Let’s be honest with the issue and attack it, not this pseudo boogeyman we think is coming.
-
4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
In my experience, it’s not that they consciously support it; it’s that in justifying themselves they’ve undermined the ethical system that more broadly leads society to resist the darker impulses (especially those that are sexual in nature) that are constantly trying to drag humanity back into the animal kingdom. In the aftermath of the sexual revolution and the victory of the doctrine of consent uber allies, the ethical case against pedophilia is based primarily on inertia and (in the case of pedophilia) on canons about childhood developmental psychology that could be (and in some societies, have been) knocked over relatively easily once the right political pressure is applied to the right people.
I can get behind this. But as of now, there is no wide spread or common support if it. Ask any member of the LGBTQ and they would reject the idea of pedophilia just as quickly as a Latter-day Saint
-
9 minutes ago, mikbone said:
orly?
https://cacjc.org/the-shocking-facts-about-child-pornography/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
From wikipedia:
“Incest between an adult and a person under the age of consent is considered a form of child sexual abuse[71][72] that has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood abuse; it often results in serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest.[73]Its prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10–15% of the general population as having at least one such sexual contact, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse.[74] Among women, research has yielded estimates as high as 20%.[73]”
You are expanding the general consciences of the group. I’m sure there are Latter-day Saints that support child pornography, but I would never say “latter day Saints support child pornography.
-
1 hour ago, mikbone said:
Im not familiar with everyone involved in the LGBTQ+ movement. They do seem to have lots of variation and a desire to be inclusive of every outlier though.
You would be extremely hard pressed to find someone that accepts pedophilia:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5462805002
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2352J8
-
12 minutes ago, Vort said:
I guarantee you that not everyone agrees that such things are wrong.
True.
other things that not everyone agrees on:
- murder is wrong
- rape is wrong
- Heroin is bad
- the Holocaust was bad
but if we are qualifying “everyone” as in all political leanings and movements with a reasonable following, then yes, we all agree pedophilia and necrophilia is bad. The LGBTQ movement does not support pedophilia and necrophilia.
-
3 hours ago, mikbone said:
Dunno, im a doc not a lawyer.
But it looks like any sexual orientation or gender identity will be free game.
I’m pretty sure the only thing that will happen is BYU will not longer have access to federal funding.
-
-
5 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Personally, I believe it is a personal distinction.
I had/have concern about some of the statements the Church has made, but I don't know if it's exactly "doubt" because I have yet to reconcile them with either what I know to be true or doctrine.
There are other things I may have "doubt" about. They aren't consistent with my beliefs or some understanding. I don't complain about these things publicly, nor do I discuss them privately unless it's with intent to gain more light. (example: previous struggles with King Follett's Discourse that I've discussed here. I would ask and discuss them with friends to gain insight, but not denounce them). While I don't speak out or complain against the Church on these issues, and I follow them obediently, I would still consider them doubts.
Would you say you are actively following Uchtdorf’s counsel to doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith?
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us
-
10 minutes ago, mikbone said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_(United_States)
I can’t imagine this legislation not getting passed.
I assume that it will impact our schools and church.
I bet the facial hair rules @ BYU are seeing their last days.
What exactly would this do to our church and school?
-
-
-
44 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Thanks. It was the "middle ground" that hung me up, since middle ground to me implies compromise. Compromise generally involves giving something up in the interest of amity or agreement. I'm not disagreeing with your statement, but personally probably would have instead said something about prayerfully and carefully examining the doctrine to ensure the "line" is drawn in the right place.
I suppose I only take notice and split hairs because this is a very serious issue for me personally. I don't want to compromise on God's will. However, we should make very certain we haven't accidentally excluded our brothers and sisters from all of Christ's earthly light due to cultural or misdrawn lines.I'm not sure I made sense, so I'll try again if I haven't done well.
I get it. It is why I used the phrase “doctrinal middle ground”. It stays doctrinal, but we offer changes that don’t compromise our beliefs
-
36 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Could you explain what you mean by "middle ground"?
There are things we do because of doctrine and things we do because no one has had a problem with and he haven’t had a reason to stop. Middle ground would be found in situations that fall in that second category.
for example:
- in the US, we have a cultural hall that normally has a basketball hoop. If basketball went out of fashion and everyone like tennis, we could replace those basketball courts with tennis courts.
- Making same sex marriage not apostasy, but just a serious transgression when it came to church discipline.
- allowing pre-18-year-old children of LGBTQ or polygamists get baptized without first presidency approval
-
There were a lot of things said in his talk that showed a deep desire to find a doctrinal middle ground, yet no one is talking about it.
“I and many of my brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.”
- ELDER HOLLAND
- askandanswer and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
1 hour ago, Vort said:
This is false.
Your right, it isnt clear that that is what it was
-
1 minute ago, LDSGator said:
Ya, I just can’t find the line. I may have made it up
What's a popular word, saying or phrase you can't stand?
in General Discussion
Posted
“At least I’m honest”
What is this even supposed to imply? That being honest is virtue enough to cover up for hurtful, prideful, negligent, or harsh words? Honesty should be a default standard, not a rare virtue that makes up for short falls