brotherofJared

But there is nothing wrong with the person who is deaf. There is a difference between stating a fact: that person is deaf and a false observation: there is something wrong with that person.

The demise of the early church was only in that the apostles were murdered. As long as we keep ours, we have nothing to fear. My issue with only with the individual and what that individual IS, not what he does. There is danger in stating that there is something wrong with the person who has a weakness. We just can't take that position, because there is something wrong with all of us. We are sinners in a war against our own family who are also sinners. Never attack. Be prepared, however; to defend and to nurture, in hopes that no one will find themselves in a position where they reject the atonement. I'm not preaching doctrine here. We're speaking about weapons of war in the battle that Satan started in heaven. Among those are hypocrisy and bigotry and a man's sense of righteousness. These are valid weapons. Typically, when they are employed the person is completely unaware of it. This is a problem both in the church and out of it. I'm just saying, it's wrong to say there is something wrong with a person because they have feelings that don't align with what we believe is right. It is common sense that same-sex attraction is counter productive. It would end the race. The LBGT community would completely dry up if heterosexual couples didn't keep a fresh supply of candidates coming. I believe it is completely wrong to act on same-sex attraction but to act or not act on it shouldn't be out of social pressure or popular opinion. Society should not choose for us what is acceptable. We have a guide who has told us what brings happiness. If we choose to follow that guide but say this is wrong or that is wrong, then we aren't following. If we choose not to follow that guide but instead feed our appetites then we set our path in opposition to happiness and will reap the rewards that come with that path which is a state of misery. The same people make choices that are sometimes painful now in hopes or in exchange for a promise. All of these people, every single one of them, have something wrong with them. It may be a desire to steal, same-sex attraction, anger issues, laziness, but they suffer now (some forced by society - if they steal they go to jail) in hopes for a greater weight of glory. I'm just clarifying my position. I don't want to give the impression that I'm in favor of social norms. I'm pretty sure I know what is right and what is wrong. People don't do things because they are something. There are many with same-sex attraction who lead "normal" married lives with children. So, people don't fight to change the social norms because they have same-sex attraction. It is not the reason. There are many ways to deal with it. Some go really wrong because they are lead to believe that something is wrong with them. There isn't anything wrong with them. There are those who struggle with the church's policy on marriage and conclude that they will never obtain exaltation. Men who can never hold callings of any importance (I know that all the callings are the same, right? Not) because they can't find a woman they can tolerate, much less love. There is intense pressure from within the church for marriage. Those who just can't do it have a big issue with it. There are members in good standing who discover that their child this attraction and it's a revelation. They choose, sometimes, their child over church doctrines. I've watched people who were of the mind that same-sex attraction was wrong and then, overnight completely change. Sometimes because it's in their family and now they have to live with it. The hear the sorrows that some of these children bear and their hearts are melted and they rush to their aide. I'm just saddened by the idea that there is something wrong with them when I know there is something wrong with me. I just want people to recognize these people as normal people and stop saying there's something wrong with them.

from a bigot's point of view or from a more consistent steady source? Is it wrong to have same-sex attraction? No. Is it wrong to attack a person who has same-sex attraction? yes. Is it wrong to defend the definition of the family? No. Is it wrong to insist that it is wrong to defend the definition of family? Yes. If you will note here, there is nothing wrong with the person. We are all children of the same God who has seen fit that some of us will have difficulties. It is never the person when it comes to defining wrong, it is always the action taken. I should always be allowed to defend my beliefs, no matter what they are. We have many things in place that guard against being allowed to force our beliefs on others. Society is one of those. When beliefs are unpopular, no matter how right or wrong they are, we are forced to deal with the belief system of those people. That is simply a fact of life. As long as the family can remain a nuclear component of society where we can teach our children what we believe, then our beliefs can survive. But, we have to expect that our opponents get the same privilege. At the same time, we have to expect that some of our children, even our companions, may have these issues which we teach against. It is not always an US against THEM war. These are individuals who don't always pick how they will feel about attraction, sex or family. It would be wrong to say that "my son or my daughter" is one of them and then throw them out to the other side like trash, or try any means available to make that son or daughter "normal". It can't be done. We don't pick our weaknesses. We are given them and then we have to decide how to deal with them. When society says that my weakness is bad, then it's easy to do pretty much anything to deal with the weakness, but when society says, it's normal to be that way, then we can't find solutions. All weaknesses that cause us to act in opposition to God's Plan of Happiness, are wrong, but only when we act, not because we feel the weakness. So, when we say that something is wrong with that person, it is we who are wrong because there is nothing wrong with that person... no more than there is something wrong with our person.

I intended no association with doom. The implied number might be referenced to the parable of the 10 virgins. Some say the 5 that were unwise are the inactive jack Mormons. I do not think so. I'm pretty sure the 5 unwise virgins are sitting right there in church with the rest of us.

I wasn't trying to understand the lyric. I know where the phrase comes from. I believe that at some place and time, in the eternities, that we will know where Gods began to be. If we are ever to be like the Father, having all knowledge, then we would know this, unless you think God doesn't know where Gods began to be. I believe also, that in my present state, IF I could Hie to Kolob, which I can't because I am mortal and finite, even IF I could, I could not find out where God's began to be, BECAUSE I am mortal and finite. But some day, I shall know. at least, I hope I will be in a place where I can know if I so choose.

Initially, this was about "genderism". I made the statement that the "science" (pretend though it may be) was an effort to explain the effeminate man and the masculine female. Those are the "they" that I am talking about. The effort to push one's pigeon holes on another group of people and the people who do it, are not the "they" I am talking about. My statement was simply that there is nothing wrong with people who have same-sex attraction and I believe "we" the church, actually, individuals in the church who act as bigots when they say something is wrong with those people, are wrong. Does that clear it up?

Of course I can't. It's an observation. Hypocrites can only exist in a group that they judge. Take the Pharisees for example. They are Jews. They were experts in Jewish Law, but they made the Law into a business that suited their lifestyle and then lived outside of that law themselves. If they were not Jews and were not the administrators of that Law, what they did would not and could not be considered hypocrisy. Bigots simply pass judgment on other people from a personal perspective. The church is full of them. It's almost impossible to escape. Both are motivated by personal gain, whether it be money or character assassination in order to make oneself rise above others, from their perspective, it makes no difference. When I made that statement, I was thinking of the demise of the early church, which I believe was brought about by bigots and hypocrites and for personal gain.

Oh. So I am overcompensating. Got it. I can see I stepped off into the deep end here. There doesn't appear to be anything I can say that will fix the issue. I'm going to try to clarify where I wasn't going, but I doubt it will help. I didn't say anything about charity or being charitable. I believe that when we say something is wrong with another person, it's relative. There is something wrong with that person because they are not like me. To me, that is wrong. I didn't feign any unknown fault (If anyone is at fault, it's God... "I give unto men their weaknesses". Everyone has faults. There should never, ever, be a US and THEM mentality). I am for sure not celebrating anyone's issues and I wasn't implying that we should. I said I don't know what to do about it. I offer no solution, but I believe saying something is wrong with them is in itself, wrong.

Agreed. But we don't know what Adam taught his children was the reason it was done, nor do we know what Adam's children eventually decided or made up on their own about why it was done. I'm sure, during the period where they were ignorant of the purpose of the sacrifice, they came up with all kinds of explanations and speculations and they were probably wrong on some of them. Who would have guessed that it was in similitude of the sacrifice of their Savior (which in a sense is an oxymormon, how can we be saved if we kill Him? Why would we kill Him? and the questions and speculations only increase from there)? Adam was told what the sacrifices represented because it was important to his salvation. We can be certain that all things that are important to our salvation will be revealed in full. Further, we can expect to learn anything that affects our own personal salvation. Some things that we learn about this will not be very important to others, but yet, for us, they are true. I think the danger comes in when we think what we learned applies to others and that it is very important to them. It brings to mind one case where a Scoutmaster felt the church was wrong about the race issue and brought the ALCU to file a lawsuit against the church concerning giving boys leadership positions in the Scouts such as patrol leader. The action got him excommunicated and then very shortly afterward the church extended the priesthood to all worthy males (the ALCU either lost the case or dropped it or the church relinquished their position on Scout leadership positions - personally, I didn't know this was an issue, which probably came about because, in a rural area, we didn't know Scout leadership positions had any association with priesthood callings) The point is, the Scoutmaster had correct information. It was true and he was right, but it wasn't very important. He made it important by forcing his correct ideas on others, actually forcing his ideas on the church. I'm not sure that there would be a better way to handle it, but waiting on the Lord would have been more prudent. It's weird how we get ourselves all bent out of shape when we discover something and insist that everyone else is wrong and we are the only ones that are right. I don't think there is any problem with discussing it. I believe that is part of studying it out in our minds, but as soon as we get the idea that others are wrong and we're going to make it right, we get in trouble.

I agree that knowing where Gods began to be is important and it will have it's time and place where we learn it, but didn't see where you answered how it was important to our salvation. Does this mean that all those who have died already, are not saved or have no chance of being saved because they don't know where Gods began to be? Do we, or do we not, have everything that we need to know to obtain exaltation (my definition of saved in this context)? If the answer is yes, then; where Gods began to be is one of those things that are not very important for us to know.

Which one fits that doctrine? That they are the problem? or that we are the problem?

So, This makes me wonder what the third were fighting for if there was no other plan. In fact, can there be choice if there wasn't another plan to choose? Were they trying to overthrow God directly or did they actually have a cause that they believed in? For me, this is an issue. I stated in my intro (in the introduce yourself section) if God's wife literally gave birth to the 50 billion or so people on this planet over its history (summing them all together), adding to those the third that rebelled. It just seems ludicrous to me that any woman would submit to being a baby farm. That is an idea born out of ignorance, IMO. The ignorance is that we are children of God, but we don't know how, exactly, that came to be. If we consider that Christ saw His Father's work, then He, Christ, was an intelligence who witnessed God's plan of salvation before the foundations of this world were laid, before He became the firstborn (I hope I didn't break anything by making that statement). From this, and other scripture, I believe we became children of God by choice, not by birth. We, every one of us, choose God and that includes this third who rebelled. On that premise, everyone knew the plan when they made the choice. Essentially, the choice to become a child of God was to accept that plan, thus acquiring our first estate. So, it's not like Satan decided he wanted to be God and overthrow Him. It came to that, but that's not how it started. He really believed he had a better plan and those that followed him thought it was better. If we all witnessed, as did Christ, the actual plan in action, there would be those who would fear the possible results of making choices, sometimes bad ones. We are told Satan had a different plan, so I can't really accept that there never was any other plan. I'll agree that there never was any other plan that would have worked.

That's an "after the fact" reference. In mortality, men use it to justify evil acts. They call themselves righteous, but they are not. When God calls a person righteous, then I'll accept it, but men are not very good judges of themselves and often times of others. The things we do can be seen to be righteous, but even in these instances, I'd prefer to call them good and not righteous. When I objected parenthetically, I accepted the OP's use of the word but stated my dislike for it. I recognize that men want to be righteous and that most men strive to do good so that they can be. I debated within myself if it's use, in that context, was right and decided that I just didn't know and decided to note my objection and use the word they did. It is a pet peeve. I didn't mean to get into a dispute over it.

I really don't see the issue here. Two of them are not really issues (1 and 2). There will be people who don't repent who are not Sons of Perdition. They want to have nothing to do with God or His plan and refuse to participate; angry people. But they didn't commit sins that would blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. Sons of Perdition are resurrected, why not these? Where will they go if not to outer darkness? Do you know of any place that isn't one of these four places where they could be assigned, given their state? They have to go somewhere and it wouldn't be just to send them to outer darkness with those who committed heinous sins or willfully rebelled against a sure knowledge. It just wouldn't be right. God cannot go against the choices of his children. If they do not want Christ's mercy, they don't have to take it. It is there, but it is forced upon them (This brings up an issue... Was the resurrection forced upon them? The answer is no, but you will have to determine why on your own). The second time is suffering without a body. Who said they won't have a body. The opportunity is given, it is rejected. The judgment comes, they come forth in the last resurrection and then suffer in body and soul as Christ did because they chose to suffer. So these are not issues. Not in my mind anyway. The third is mercy. I touched on it concerning accepting Christ's mercy is an option. It is not forced. But where do you get the idea that they get mercy later? The scripture specifically states that they don't get the mercy of Christ if they don't accept it. And I am completely confused on this "rinse and repeat" idea of second and third and fourth chances. Where do you get the idea that if they refuse or reject that God or us will just keep trying until they accept? Who is in charge here? God or the child? Who, in all of mankind is forced?

You make it sound like it's us against them. They are not the problem. We are the problem. There are as many hypocrites and bigots in the church as there were in the early church. They destroyed the church then and are trying to do so now. I believe the social norm issue is a distraction. It is a symptom, but it is not the problem. The question remains, hopefully, your offer to use the sword was in jest, do you know what to do about it?

It goes hand in hand with "there is none good, but one." There is none righteous, but one. God. When men try to put this title on, no sooner do they wear it than they prove themselves unworthy of it.There are only men that do good and if they should endure to the end in doing good, then let God call them righteous and I will accept it.

I get what he's saying. I'm not so sure that we can get more correct. I don't think we can get any truer on doctrine if we simply follow the prophet. However, discussing the whys or the wheres and wherefores of the doctrine in church can cause some serious problems. I have been told a number of times the very same thing you posted here. But we can't be simply told not to discuss them. They have to have a place to grow. It's just not in church. So, on that part, I would concede that this is a good place to bring these things up and discuss. However, this is not the place to find more correct doctrine that what we can find in church.

Have you been there? Probably not. Tell me, how is it that the righteous (which is a horrible word btw), teach those in prison if they are separated? They are no more separated from each other than Catholics are from Mormons in mortality. They simply don't go where we go and we don't go where they go, but we do travel where we both go and preach the gospel where it is permitted. The sociality which exists here will also exist in heaven, why would it be any different in the spirit world. Prison and Paradise are states of mind and result from the choices we make. IMO. I haven't been there. You seem to be more sure of yourself that I am of myself. So please, enlighten me.

Interesting position to take. What is true then? I can agree that we teach a lot of things in ignorance, but that doesn't mean it's not true. We may not know how to put the pieces together, but that doesn't mean that the pieces do go together. In the example you quoted, it referenced scripture. Was the scripture just not true? or was the ideas that were taught based on that scripture not true? Based on one your responses, it appears that you have no problem with spirit prison or that people are kept from paradise by their own choice so that probably isn't the issue. Perhaps it's the idea of hell as being a temporary condition for them that is not true. Perhaps after rejecting the truth and staying in prision, they ought to be made sons of Perdition or placed in permanent hell? But I do agree with you, we do teach a lot of things that we don't know how it works. We say we are the God's children and it seems that some people think this means a 9 month pregancy and 50 billion personal births. The idea is ludicrous. That doesn't mean that we're not God's children. It just means that we don't know what makes us God's children. When we explain how things are done when we don't know, it is very likely that we will get the "how" of how things are done, wrong.

Some things that are true are just not very important. Can you tell me where Gods began to be? If you knew this, would it make any difference to your part in the great plan of salvation?

Not sure where you get this idea. Sin has nothing to do with spirit prison. It is not a jail. It is a place where the dead go because they don't know where else to go. They don't know Christ or the good news, even if they were Christians. Because of the apostasy, the Christ they were taught is not the Christ of their salvation. They simply don't know. It is not possible to sin in ignorance. It is also not possible to obtain the blessings of the gospel in ignorance either, but that ignorance is easy to dispell if they want to know. The sin in transgression, these will not want to come into the light. Anyone who has sinned against the light they had will not accept the gospel unless someone can convince them that it's worth it, usually family - and I'm not talking about living descendants. It will be the family they know. But the trickle down effect is in play here. As we do work for those we know, they in turn, if they accept it, turn to the ones they knew and so on. I'm not denying that the wicked and ignorant will go there, but it's not because of sin that they go there. Spirit prison is a state of mind... IMO

Well, if we understand the kingdom of God to be the Celestial Kingdom, which I do, then we know of one other requirement to enter that kingdom. I believe it is easy to see at least two groups of people in that kingdom. Those who can continue the seed and those who can't. This issue does not exist in any of the other degrees of glory. One cannot advance from not being married to being married no matter how many eons of progress they might have available to them. I'm completely misunderstanding this idea of advancing within a kingdom. I don't even know what that is or how one might reach the glory of God through it. What gets to me is the obvious influence, in the absence of Joseph Smith, of previous Christian ideas of one Heaven to take over the Celestial Kingdom and who can dwell there... Well, it just occurred to me that Joseph teaching that sealed families can reach through the eternities to save one's family might be part of justifying how everyone can eventually end up in the Celestial Kingdom. But there still appears to be a little religious syncretism going on here. Question: What is the value of know who would fit in these other heavens or degrees? Is it to influence people to get married in the temple, not to bypass it? Is it to get our children out on a mission (seeing as they must get their endowments before that mission)?

I think that is the problem with bigots. Everyone else is wrong, or off, or weird, or sick, or afflicted. With no one else around, then everything is cool.

That is why I said: "no mortal being is capable of determining if the person had a "first chance"". In other words, there is no second chance there wasn't a first chance. The gospel is carried to many people who reject it but are good people. Why is that? We just had the president of ASU speak at a BYU devotional. He is not a Mormon, may never be in this life. He filled a spot normally reserved for GA's. One might think, this guy had his chance and he passed it up. He stood in shoes that most of us would never dare tell anyone we've imagined we'd fill, much less actually fill. He gave a really good talk too. He probably won't join the church or get any of the ordinances done while in this life. Will he miss the boat? Most likely not. It is not our place to determine, even if the person willfully stayed out of the LDS church. I would call this guy a dry Mormon, though I don't know if he would. The church needs these dry Mormons because they can do things that the church can't. They are an influence for good in the world and some of these have never even met a Mormon, much less heard the gospel. However, if one has received the gospel and rejected it, they're not going to get a second chance. I just can't identify who these people are. Elder Bruce R McConkie once gave a talk about marriage and it's eternal nature. He was a bold one who I think sometimes stepped on his tongue while it was still in his mouth. In this talk, he talked about a faithful woman who was married to a reprobate who drank alcohol, smoked and cussed. His wife said to him, the husband, "You know the church is true. Why don't you stop all this stuff and marry me in the temple." (the quote is not exact). He said, "Why, Yes, I do know it's true, but I know that when I die, you'll take my name to the temple and marry me. There's no reason for me to straighten my life up. I'm enjoying myself." McConkie continued that He died and she took his name to the temple and got sealed to him and it was the biggest waste of time. That was a hard one for me to accept (which I still haven't). What was he advocating? Divorce? Does the church do that? What choice did she have? What consequences are in store for her as a result of her husband's actions. What consequences would be in store for her if she didn't do anything or even got a divorce and possibly never got married again? The consequences are too vast to contemplate, but I believe she followed the only course that she could. How could that be a waste of time? But will her husband be able to do what he wants his whole mortal life and get the free ride to heaven on his wives coat tails? Is that the way it works? Well, I don't know if it does. I wouldn't judge the old man. Who knows. Maybe God needed him on the outside. Maybe he did good things that none of us knows about. Who am I to judge. If I was a teacher, I'd teach and council that that kind of life is not the way to go, that we have to make some kind of effort to follow Christ, but I don't know that I'd say he got his chance there'll be no second chance.

That would end like the last Jaredite war and the last person standing would still be a bigot, but no one would know it.