wenglund

Your friend isn't exactly correct about the meaning of "logos": According to Wikipedia, it is "derived from a Greek word variously meaning "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", and "discourse".[1][2] ....Despite the conventional translation as "word", it is not used for a word in the grammatical sense; instead, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used.[11] However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".[1][11][12]" It is important to read the term in context. The symbolic if not literal meaning of Logos in Jn 1, is creation/creator, which ties into Gen. 1. Both chapters open with "In the beginning." And, as explained in Gen. 1, the means by which God created was, "God said..."--i.e. God created by speaking or saying (logos *the word") and the elements obeyed. Also God commanded, and Jesus obeyed and formed the heavens and earth, making Jesus the creator.(the Word). This is made evident in verses 3-5 of Jn 1: 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, many of them. I am the weird uncle in the family after all. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can somewhat relate to this: Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I respect the apologies, and even more the healthy self-reflection and taking some responsibility. Well done. [thumbs up] However, I have to say that I have participated in online discussion for nearly 3 decades, across a variety of venues (politics, religion, etc.), and this board has been one of the mildest in my experience, which is unusual given the near invisibility of board moderating--which tells me that the board participants her are generally uncommonly civil and keep themselves in check. And, while there may be some name-calling and personal attacks on occasion, mostly it is good-natured ribbing or a well-intended wake-up call. So, I am not seeing the toxicity, though I may be jaded. However, I have noticed that various board participants have found the exchanges here somewhat off-putting because they haven't experience much in the way of challenges to their point of view, particularly challenges that are well reasoned and compelling. This is especially true of participants whose views are more in line with popular culture, and /or who are used to agreement, particularly among the majority to which they are a part. It can be rather jarring to come to a board where the majority, or at least the vocal majority, tend to stand contrary to pop culture. Even still, it is not uncommon for many if not most of us to find various exchanges counterproductive--a waste of time, or a less meaningful use of our time. In that sense it may be viewed as toxic. Often, though, this is corrected by taking a much needed break from the board, or from certain topics, and even from certain board participants. Anyway, as for feeling the Spirit, in my experience it depends upon at least two things: 1) the topic. The more political and less religiously oriented the topic, the less likely I am to feel the Spirit, and vice versa--which makes sense 2) Where my head and heart are at as I participate. The more I relying on the Spirit to guide what I say, the greater the likelihood that i will feel the Spirit. And, the more I rely on the Spirit in trying to understand and glean value from what others say, the more I feel the Spirit. And, vice versa. I can honestly say that some interactions here, and some amazing posts, have rivaled, if not exceeded in spiritual enhancement what I have felt in Sunday School or other church meetings. But, again, that may just be me. The bottom line, from my lengthy experience, is that the toxicity or spirituality of what I experience here is largely dependent upon me rather than on others. As with much of life, I am largely in control of the efficacy of my online experience. I tend to receive from the discussion table what I bring to the discussion table. Just some things to consider. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

At least you implicitly admit to being a "kettle." That is something. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I had thought to comment on whether people on the Left or the Right are more inclined to admit to their mistakes and apologize or not. But I figured it would be uncharitable and feed into certain stereotypes. So, I will simply express my admiration instead for the graciousness of this apology. I trust it didn't kill you to say it. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is because we are more in agreement about the heterosexual immorality, which is why it is less controversial. Ironically, that is the rub. Logically, there shouldn't be as much disagreement about homosexual immorality as there is about heterosexual immorality. But, pop culture has granted special status to homosexuals, and members, like yourself, cater to that unwarranted favoritism. If you and other left-leaning members were consistent, there wouldn't be the greater degree of disagreement and controversy. [Edit: I just noticed that others have iterated and reiterated this point earlier in the thread. But, evidently it bears repeating since it seems to be lost on some] Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In a sense, the marriage made moot the need for repentance. That which was wrong (at least in terms of appearances) was made right by the marriage. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I strongly encourage this as well. However, since you, Scott, and perhaps 3 others, including Mormongator, seem vulnerable to false equivalencies, let me kindly offer two critical suggestions so that you don't end up make egregious rookie analytical mistakes. First, compare apples to apples rather than apples to an orange (deprecating pun intended). In other words, as @The Folk Prophet intimated a logical comparative analysis should be sexual behavior to sexual behavior, and not sexual behavior to the full gamete of behaviors. And, it should be group to group rather than group to individual. In other words, tally all the positive and negative comments about the immoral behaviors (as the Church views it) of both homosexuals and heterosexuals, as made by the Right and the Left respectively pm this board.Then maybe create a subsection on Trump alone compared with one homosexual, to merely provide perspective Since the immoral behaviors of heterosexuals tends not to generate as much discussion as the immoral behavior of homosexuals (likely because of the stark difference in controversy), the analysis needs to be proportional. I would caution you, though, because these kinds of rational comparative analysis tend to work heavily against Leftist and pop-culture thinking, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. But, you may find the experience beneficial nevertheless. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-.

These articles may provide a good starting point for your research:: A Case For Ancient Temple Ordinances. and Ancient Temples and Their Functions. and Eternal Marriage and Family in the Old Testament. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

..if not also terribly ill-informed. But, false equivalencies have long been a staple of the Left. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your post had me chuckling. However, joking aside, if you think the lack of sexual attraction makes marriage a horrible idea, then logically wouldn't that mean that the loss of sexual attraction would make staying in a marriage a horrible idea as well? Isn't the high divorce rate argument the same? Where is the social sympathy for the high-powered males who marry raving beauties only to later find them gaining weight and wrinkles, sagging in places, and experiencing the unpleasantness of menopause, etc. If these alpha types subsequently lose sexual interest in their spouses, particularly when there are willing, younger raving beauties about, should they not follow their heart and their sexual attractions? Many of them do now anyway--not just by way of divorce, but also adultery?. To me, this is the problem with secular-social "reasoning." There is nothing to prevent "immorality" creep" and the eventual normalization thereof. Besides, isn't the "high rate of divorce" argument a product of " immorality creep"--the increased acceptance of divorce and immoral sexual activities? Prior to the gay movement in the mid 70, not a few gay men got married, and stayed married. It was only afterwards, when gays divorcing their heterosexual spouses became vogue, that the high rate of divorce became a factor. Supposed compassion and understanding made matters worse for gays. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is understandable, particularly in an age where romance and sexuality has been given such paramount importance. However, I would caution you in making such statements because it could rile the gay community of all places. For their own reasons, they have been working tirelessly to down play the sexuality aspect of their relationships, and dramatically magnify the love and care and "family" dimensions,. Whereas, what you stated above inadvertently does the opposite. I understand your good intention, though they may not. Just say'in. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is a strong tendency these days to rationalize not doing what God desires of us and what is in our best interest. I don't see any written exceptions to the first commandment, but maybe there is. As you suggest, that would be between God and each individual. Nevertheless, it is good to stress the general rule, and that is what I was doing., Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would agree were that viewpoint a rightful cause for positive change. At this point, it isn't with me--though that may say less about the commend-ability of the viewpoint, and more about the condemn-abiltiy of me. I have quite a ways to go in meaningfully curtailing my selfishness and pride. But, at least the honesty lets me know where I am at in relation to where I ought to be, so that when I finally get my stuff together, it will make it easier to set a course and fly--assuming time doesn't run out. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A homosexual living in celibacy has remarkable self control, dedication to the faith and discipline. Those are remarkable traits, and I'd be so proud to call them my brothers/sisters. As someone who has been celibate for nearly a half century,, I can tell you that it isn't worthy of high regard and admiration, but quite the opposite. We celibates, regardless of sexual orientation, have failed to keep the first command, and have put ourselves in jeopardy of defying the will of God by not positioning ourselves to become exalted as He is. It is essentially an act of selfishness that not only limits our own potential and denies us some of the greatest blessings, but may also negatively impact those spirits we could have brought into this world. I look back with sorrow and regret and humility rather than self-satisfaction and pride. My obedience in not committing sins of sexual commission are overshadowed by my sins of sexual omission. But, that may just be my way of looking at it. Thanks -Wade Engund-

this is the higher law. Clearly, not all are prepared to abide it. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It isn't the label that matters, but whether the action moves us forward in the plan of progression, or not. Chaos, by its very nature, is contrary to the gospel plan. That is because there really wasn't much of a change, contrary to what many have supposed. By no stretch of the imagination was the policy change a "step towards SAme-gender temple marriage" as erroneously believed, any more that heterosexual adultery and fornication were already a step closer to heavenly legitimization. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If Adam and Steve are in a state-legalized marriage (common law or otherwise), they would be in "serious transgression," and thus unlikely to be called to those positions. However, if they are merely unmarried celibate roommates or friends, it is unlikely they would be called as bishop, but as an older single celibate (though heterosexual) man who now serves as Elders Quorum Secretary, I can't see a problem--in large part because my sexual orientation ought not be and issue, Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not exactly. the new policy speaks only to treating "immoral conduct" the same. In other words, regardless of the legal status of homosexual relations, the sexual conduct will be treated the same as non-married heterosexual relations. The change is silent about non-sexual conduct. It is another way of saying that the Church doesn't recognize the states legalization of same-gender marriages. It is just that they aren't going to treat those marriages as apostasy, but rather as serious transgressions. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The Church has frowned significantly on the notion of coed housing, and even went to court over the matter in relation to BYU, though I don't know what disciplinary issues there are absent immoral activity. While at BYU, I lived on one side of a duplex with men, and on the other side there were women. The duplex was disqualified as approved BYU housing because of males and females "living under the same roof," though my Bishop didn't have a problem with it. I don't know if the same would hold were men and women living on the same side of the duplex. It would be interesting to find out. Either way, it is a move away from simplicity and order and towards chaos. The Jews attempted to avoid the potential chaotic forces of immorality creep by "building a wall around the Torah." Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I haven't looked into the matter that deeply. I just supposed that the Church would consider it as "shaking up," and that they didn't have state-specific policies. All would be considered as out of wedlock regardless of state law. But, I could be wrong. Let's both research this further and see what we come up with. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You may be right. I stated it that way to avoid potentially getting embroiled in an unproductive semantic battle; when, in terms of Church discipline in relation to the issue at hand, the terms may constitute a distinction without a meaningful difference. To me, it isn't the label attached to the offending action, but the consequences that matter. I believe that Elder Oaks wisely used the term "transgression" because it would be, on several levels, less controversial than calling "legally obtaining a state marriage license" a sin. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

It may depend upon whether they "intended to be married" and/or "hold themselves out as being a married couple, use the same last name, refer to each other as husband or wife, and share a bank account and credit cards." If they do, it may not be all that different from receiving a marriage license from the state. It would be considered as a serious trangression--though I am not sure exactly what that means in terms of Church discipline. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Interesting. One of the unintended consequences of irrationally redefining significant terms like "marriage" and "family," is it tilts towards chaos and away from order. The issue of "common law" as it relates to same-gender roommates is a case in point. Marriage between same-gender siblings or other close family members is another. Etc. The mind-boggling and frustrating permutation continue to unravel As things now stand, there are 16 states with common law marriages, several of which have already recognized same-sex common law marriages. There are four general requiremements (note that sexual relations is not included among them): What makes this more challenging, is that although only 16 states recognize common law marriages, most all the states recognize the marriages of other states (including common law). So, if a couple moved from a state where they qualified as a common law marriage,, they should legally be recognized as such in the new state of residence. (ibid) Taking this one step further, a case in South Caroline ruled that the common law status applied retroactively (prior to same-sex marriage being legalized in the state)(ibid) As for the Church, it doesn't recognize common law marriages, and as for same-sex roommates, I suppose it depends upon the last 2 general requirements, if not also sexual relations. Thanks, -Wadse Englund-