JoCa

Oh and this "support the youth" so they don't commit suicide is an absolute red herring . . .total poppycock. The youth in general today have more anxiety problems, more mental health problems, more suicides than any other generation previously. It ain't b/c someone is homosexual and they got made fun of at school. No, it has to do with the absolute and total wussification of society. Quite frankly the kids aren't tough enough and parents (in general) have absolutely failed the current generation in teaching them to have grit, suck it up and to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It goes back to the absolute evil ideology that we have to instill in kids "self-esteem". No, you want kids to have confidence not self-esteem. And the only way kids or people get confidence is by actually doing thing and accomplishing things. Having to struggle and then overcome challenges builds confidence-that is the only way anything else is counterfeit. Telling a kid "you're special" hurts them way more than it helps.

Bingo; the Church is speaking out of both sounds of its mouth on this issue. Exhibit B: https://www.lds.org/topics/virtue?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/topics/homosexuality?lang=eng Virtue is a prerequisite to entering the Lord’s holy temples and to receiving the Spirit’s guidance. Virtue “is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards.” It encompasses chastity and moral purity. Virtue begins in the heart and in the mind. ------- People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple. Those two things can't be reconciled; The Church has cognitive dissonance on this issue. I don't know why it has it, but it does. You can't tell me that virtue begins in the heart and in the mind is a pattern of thought and behavior; Then tell me that identifying (i.e. something that comes from the heart and from thought) as homosexual is morally okay. Being virtuous is a life-long pursuit of training our minds on how to act and how to think, on becoming someone who is virtuous. But homosexuals get a pass-identifying as homosexual-i.e. adopting that pattern of thought, is now virtuous. The only way that can ever become virtuous is if homosexuality is virtuous. Quite frankly, the Church as an organization has become very, very confusing on this issue. And it didn't use to be this way.

I tell you now. The entire point of this is to bring acceptance of homosexual behavior into the Church. People who don't see this are whistling past the graveyard; it is the entire objective.

I actually think this is a really insidious article and several evil ideologies are being espoused (not necessarily evil people but evil ideologies). "By the time he was 5 years old, Tom Christofferson knew he was gay—he just didn’t have the vocabulary to express what he was feeling. “I found the language to name it when I was 12 years old,” Give me a flipping break; at age 5 he knew he was homosexual, he was having sexual desire to members of the same sex . . .really?? Anyone who believes that garbage has never raised kids. Yeah some boys are a little more feminine and some girls are a little more boyish . . .they are called either tom-boys or sissies. But b/c one is a tom-boy or a sissie boy does not a homosexual make. In addition, this statement does not in any way shape or form jive with the medical and scientific research on homosexuality. Biggest lie ever told "they are born that way". "“My partner and I had a wonderful life, and we had been together about 12 years at that point. But there was a deeper element and a spirituality that I wanted to have in my life that I didn’t feel, and so after we moved [to New Canaan, Connecticut], I felt like I wanted to attend church. That was where I had felt the Spirit in the past, and it was where I felt I would be able to have those feelings again.”" In other words; my life was absolutely wonderful committing deviant whoredoms. You see there was nothing wrong with homosexual behavior; I was living a wonderful live . . .but I wanted more "spirituality" "This marked a new beginning for him in the Church but also a heartbreaking end to a 19-year relationship. " More gag-worthy material. You see it was just so so incredibly "heartbreaking" to end a relationship . . .steeped in SIN!! Do we as Latter-Day Saints, followers of Christ, ever talk about any other sin like this? That is was "heartbreaking" to end a sin!!! Oh you know it was just so heartbreaking to end my 19 year relationship with pornography, but I wanted to join the Church so I did. "“Being gay is not simply an attraction, nor does it necessarily refer to sexual behavior. It is a way of being itself, an existence, an identity." Okay . . .so what exactly is it then. You can't even define it; if it's not attraction, if it's not sexual behavior then what exactly is it? This is more evil ideology wrapped in "love". Words matter, words have definition and they mean things. An existence or and identity is based on behaviors and thoughts. When I say I am an engineer-it means specific things, it means things about what I believe, how I act, how I behave, what I've studied. I can define it to the nth degree what it means to be an engineer to have an identity as an engineer. Telling me being homosexual is an identity but you say well it's not an attraction or well it's not behavior . .. well then exactly praytell what is it? More post-modern relativism bull that has seeped into this culture-explain away words so the very definition of the word is so ephemeral that it means absolutely nothing. I also point this as to exhibit A as to the actual doctrine of the Church has changed. 20 years ago he was excommunicated for identifying as homosexual. In other words identifying as homosexual was a sin, yet today he is welcome with full fellowship regardless of what evil ideology he believes in and spreads. Of course b/c he is an Apostle's brother, we don't dare say anything negative about this ridiculous Satanic ideology. There are some good things in the article-just b/c someone teaches and believes a Satan inspired ideology does not mean we scourge them or beat them or do anything like that. But here is the kicker " his partner began to wonder if people he thought had accepted and loved them were really just being well-mannered and kind. " Umm . . .so you are telling me that loving them really means that one accepts their ideology. Accepting can't just be well-mannered and kind. Okay got it. What a evil load of junk in this article . . . Oh Zion . . .

I agree; I don't think it's pornography. Pretty much anyone in the Church will tell you porn is not good and looking at porn is a sin . . . even those in it will admit it. I think there are several other issues where what once was called sin is now not sin.

I would agree that this is precisely the issue. I will tell you where true doctrine comes from and quite frankly we need a lot more of it. True doctrine comes from the Scriptures, not in the "philosophies of men". You say a "correction of outdated, incorrect teachings". Why are they outdated? Why are they incorrect? How do you know they are incorrect, how do you know they are outdated? Because "science" tells you so, b/c the homosexual agenda says so. Yet the best research out there says the idea the homosexuals are "born that way" is tenuous at best. The research mostly shows that it's a combination of factors, abuse heavily influences it and the choices one makes in ones life heavily influences it (i.e. someone may not have said "today I'm homosexual", but through at series of choices over years they have been lead to or convinced they are homosexual). There is a reason why very, very few things get Canonized. True doctrine, pure doctrine comes from the Scriptures. I would also amend that anything signed onto by the entire Quorum of the 12 would also hold that weight. Anything else, well it may be doctrine it may not be doctrine; more likely it is interpretation (which if coming from the Apostles holds a lot of weight). But the Apostles 100 years ago made plenty of statements on race that turned out to be "incorrect". If their statements turned out to be incorrect then it logically follows that the statements of today's Apostles could easily turn out to be incorrect too. That's why going back to the scriptures, homosexuality is a sin. To lust (i.e. have sexual desires with someone you are not married to) is sin. To have sexual desires with someone of the same sex is sin. Period. We live in such an over-sexed culture which has completely distorted normal views on sexuality that held sway for hundreds of years. Anything else about why, where, how, etc. is just fluff. When you understand what is sin and what isn't sin, then you can actually take steps necessary to overcome it. When you don't understand what is or what isn't sin . . .then it gets all muddled and confusing.

I agree with much of what you have said. In answering your question of clarification: Doctrine is stipulated as:"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group." It's too easy to dismiss old attitudes as "not doctrinal" simply because we don't like them. But we are not being intellectually honest when we do that. The Church has changed it's doctrine on race. It has changed it's doctrine on this and it has changed it's doctrine on many things (some are bigger shifts than other shifts). At one point not too long ago the Church believed and taught that homosexuality could be cured; today it does not. That is a change in beliefs that is taught and therefore a change in doctrine. So yes it is a change in doctrine not policy. I completely agree with AoF 9. However, the vast majority of revelation received in the Church since it's inception has been against current culture and in many ways contra-culture. It has almost always gone against what is popular. The only other time where I can think that it went with the popular culture was during Prohibition-but considering the Church already had the WoW . . . It has only been recently (since 2008ish) that new revelation (using your term) has very conveniently mirrored popular culture. When I say mirror, I mean that as the world has shifted left, the Church has also shifted left, not to the same degree but it has still shifted left. Put another way, the LDS Church as an organization is becoming more liberal as society has become more liberal. Personally, I think this is more a reflection of the membership of the Church soaking up the ways of the world more than anything else. I agree with your last paragraph. We do talk much about Matt 5:28 .. .but in this context it seems to only apply to heterosexuals. Put it this way, even though at points in my life I have chosen to become ensnared in unseemly things, I do not go into Church introduce myself to my Sunday School class and say in the box "things to know about me:" "I'm an adulterer in my heart!". I do not go to my Bishop and say, "Bishop, I'm an adulterer in my heart, I currently don't act upon any lustful desires, but I just want you to know in my heart I'm an adulterer". and he doesn't say to me "I love members who are adulterers in their hearts, sure you can be a temple worker!!". I don't identify as an adulterer in my heart. The thought of it is just ludicrous. But yet those who identify as homosexuals get a free pass. A homosexual can walk into Church, proclaim to the whole world they are homosexual and the entire ward is expected to fawn over them. The Church now "applauds" an organization that sets up a rock concert that teaches things directly contrary to God's law (if the news reports are to be believed, the 13 year-old Savannah gave her cut-off "testimony" in front of the entire concert). I've watched the Mackintosh's story on the mormonandgays website. Not once, not one time in the entire video was the word sin mentioned. Yes it was mentioned that their son was living a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Church. It was a weasel way out of not calling it sin but still trying to say "we don't agree with it". Saying contrary to teachings basically says well we have are teachings you have yours we disagree with your teachings and that's okay. I agree with just about everything Elder Oaks says in this article from '95 (some of the data is outdated I think, but otherwise I'm in agreement): https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng "We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior." But again that message is not the same message as it is today. In today's Church culture, coming out as homosexual is well something to be applauded (I am using hyperbole here and yes I recognize it). More accurately, if someone proclaims they are homosexual, I'm supposed to just "love them" attend their wedding or do whatever else to make sure they feel "loved". As a point of clarification, I personally do not consider someone who at times has or who has had attraction feelings to a member of the same sex homosexual. I feel pretty secure with myself to say, yeah I can recognize and appreciate when there is a good-looking girl or guy (and by the same token when there is an ugly girl/guy). But the key is not to indulge in any lustful, i.e. sexual thoughts. The moment that I start thinking about sexual thoughts is the moment I start to commit adultery in my heart. I think there are different levels: 1) attraction to individuals of the same-sex. But if we use the following definition of attraction: the action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something. Then pretty much all of us have at some point or another had attraction to the same-sex. We have best friends. We have a brotherhood in the Priesthood, yeah there are some who I have a "man-crush" on. I enjoy going on campouts and enjoying a bond of brotherhood. That hardly qualifies as homosexual. 2) sexual attraction to members of the same-sex :Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.[1][2] Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal is an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. Now this gets a little more problematic. I'm in the office, I'm a married man-should I have sexual attraction for the good looking 25 year-old receptionist? Well let's break this down a little more. What is "sexual desire": Sexual desire is a motivational state and an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, need or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities”.[1] Okay. So sexual attraction is based on sexual desire which is based on a "motivational state" to engage in sexual activities. Again, the question is as a married man, should I have sexual attraction for the good-looking attractive 25 year-old receptionist? NO! Because any sexual attraction would be based on a motivational state to engage in sexual activities with this lady, which would be lusting which would be committing adultery in my heart. God expects me as a married man to control myself to not have sexual desire for the receptionist. Anytime, that I engage in that motivational state of sexual desire is sin. Does God expect me to have no recognition for beauty-absolutely not. I don't have a problem saying the attractive young lady-but when I say that I'm not in a motivational state seeking to engage in sexual activities. And, in general I do a pretty good job of controlling this. So if having sexual attraction for the 25 year old receptionist is a sin, would it not be that having sexual attraction for the same sex is a sin? 3) engaging in sexual behaviors with the same-sex. So when a member says I'm homosexual. Which level are they openly admitting to? #1, well if that's the case-they ain't homosexual. #2, openly admitting that they think adulterous thoughts about the same sex, or #3 they want to engage in same-sex behavior but so they don't get kicked out of the church they don't. And then the question becomes (if it's #2 or #3) why do I as a fellow worshiper in Christ need to know that you indulge in sexual thoughts about the same sex? How would the women of the Church feel if I got up and told the ward. Hey sisters, even thought I'm married just so you know I indulge in sexual thoughts about you. Why do you feel that I need to know that if I'm in Priesthood, there might be a chance that you are indulging in sexual desires about me? Why is there a double standard? I'd be considered a creep if I told the ward "hey I'm an adulterer in my heart", but the homosexual-come on in brother!! In sum, the shift that has occurred is that it is now considered totally fine for someone who has sexual desires for the same sex to openly profess they have that sin and it isn't considered sin. I'm totally cool with allowing those who do indulge in sexual desires for the same sex to attend the temple; I think it would be ridiculous to hold married individuals to that standard. I'm not cool with it being acceptable to be openly homosexual about it. Because it is saying in essence, either a) indulging in sexual desires for the same sex is not sin (which would be it ain't sin for me to indulge in sexual desire for other women not my spouse) or b) it's totally cool that I sin in this way and I don't need to work on it (which again would me that it would be fine for me to sin in sexual desire for other women too!). Saying I'm homosexual, embraces the sin rather than call it for what it is . . .sin and something that should be overcome through God's help.

Condolences on losing your husband. No they are not too young . . .kids are never too young to start learning about faith, God, religion and the spiritual. For starting to teach them, teach them God exists and that we must have faith in Him. Teach them about prayer, scripture reading. I would suggest that if you really want them to learn to start taking the missionary lessons-they will help you gain a better understanding of God, His Son and the Gospel so you can better understand how and what to teach your children. I think your desires to teach your children are very righteous and fantastic desires. If you have family prayer every day (ideally morning and night), teach them individuals prayers, pray over your meals and read scriptures with them you are well on your way to teaching them the proper things in life. The Church produces very large scriptures for families that have pictures in them, define big words for kids. They are great for reading together as a family. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/new-testament-for-latter-day-saint-families-thomas-valletta/1003110822/2677326143988?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP4449&k_clickid=3x4449 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/the-book-of-mormon-for-latter-day-saint-families-thomas-r-valletta/1003770679/2677950575971?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP2782&k_clickid=3x2782

Umm, not really. "However, he is obsessed with having a perfect family and as our kids have gotten older I feel his concern is not for them but for how he is perceived at church or by fellow mormons." Is that not condemnation of her husband when faced with a difficulty? Her post is about griping about her husband who (according to her) is upset b/c they aren't the perfect family. I would hardly call that supporting her husband nor supporting her husbands faith. I know people have problems with stereotypes, but they exist for a reason . . .b/c in general they are true!! Otherwise they wouldn't exist. I'm not blaming her for her children's choices, I stated in my 1st post their choices are their choices, they made them-they need to lie in the bed they made. If one is going to start griping about how they perceive their husband is failing at being a proper parent, it might be good to do a little soul-searching. I am merely stating, i.e as an observation not as a condemnation, that it is pretty obvious how these children came to make these improper moral decisions. This isn't rocket science, if a child is being pulled (by teachings) in two directions, one direction of religion and another direction of non-religion-it should come as no surprise when a significant portion of children raised in this environment opt to go the non-religious route. If one wants to take that as a condemnation-fine not my problem; I'm stating an observation, a fact not a condemnation. We reap what we sow. Don't blame me for stating the obvious-if you don't want to reap these types of scenarios then don't sow them. Pretty simple.

http://www.connellodonovan.com/transgressors4.html vs. mormon and gays. vs. homosexuals being recommended as temple workers. From the booklet, "First he should abandon all places, things, situations, and people with whom this evil practice is associated" "He will throw away his pornographic materials and will have ceased reading articles about homosexuality..." "Homosexuality CAN be cured". "God did not make people "that way" ". This was given to Bishops . . .come on people the Church has changed it's doctrine on this issue. The change in doctrine is that now it's okay to be homosexual as long as you are "celibate". Of course that just means as long as one doesn't have sex or break the law of chastity. In today's Church I can advocate for homosexuality, I can read magazines about it, I can proclaim to the whole ward that I AM A HOMOSEXUAL and that is totally cool as long as you don't have sex. As long as I don't do anything physical with someone of the same sex, I'm good. That was not the message 20 years ago. The message was don't touch it at all. Remove yourself from any influence, don't think about it, don't read about it, don't do anything to act it out. It's the frog in the pot. I did not come to this conclusion that the Church has changed its doctrine until very, very recently. Honestly, the endorsement of the LoveLoud woke me up and I started researching and yes the Church as an organization has changed it's doctrine on homosexuality. It didn't come by any revelation . . .it came by small steps. If you look at the message the Church put out 30 years ago vs. today it is very obvious it has changed. It's not my place to correct (i.e. to force it to change) the Church; but I do recognize it has changed. To not recognize it has changed is IMO sticking ones head in the sand.

Sounds exactly right. 50% of the marriage is religious 50% of the marriage is not religious. 40% of the offspring have made bad moral decisions (probably one more to go to bump it up some more). I think you've gotten exactly what you've sown.

?? So having two parents attending the same religion together is not the ideal?

I understand it's something you tell yourself to make yourself feel better. That's great. But it's wrong. Not it's not a universal truth as there are always exceptions. However, the ideal is for children to be raised in a home with both mother and father united together in spirit (i.e. attending the same church/religion) and on the same page. It wouldn't be the ideal if it wasn't better. Put it this way, 100 families with both parents attending church together. I will absolutely pit the children of those 100 parents with both parents attending church against children of 100 parents with only 1 parent attending church. Want to take a bet on which group of children will live better lives?

Honestly, sometimes I think we get too caught up in the details vs. the message. We think if it has violence it is a bad movie or if there is cussing it is a bad movie. I agree in many instances it is, but in today's society I'd be more worried and concerned about the message vs. the actual content. Hollywood and TV shows today are very little more than propaganda dressed up to titillate. There are some good movies and shows, but they are getting harder and harder to find. There are some excellent war movies that teach good principles that are R, and there are some disney and kids movies that are rated G that teach absolutely horrible principles to little children.Schindler's List is Rated R but teaches some very important lessons. The Croods is PG and I wouldn't dare let my kids watch that disgusting piece of trash for the values it teaches kids. Go more by what message the movie is promoting more than the details.

I agree with a lot you say. I think there is a difference between feeling shame for the actions of your child and feeling guilt that you didn't teach them better. In other words, if you feel the pain of their decision more than they do, then you are in essence carrying their monkey on your back. And paradoxically, by doing this over the long-term it will almost guarantee that the child will make very bad decisions later in life-b/c they never feel the crushing weight of bad decisions for themselves and thus never learn that bad decision will affect them severely. Having a child leave the Church and one that gets pregnant is a product of long-term decisions and any guilt a parent should feel over this should be . . .where was I when they started down this path? Where was I when they started making the little mistakes that lead to this bad large long-term decisions? If as a parent you saw they were going down a bad path and did your best to correct it but they made the choice to continue then you shouldn't have any guilt. If you blissfully unaware, well you've got some thinking to do. However, given the OPs comments, I wouldn't be surprised if she contributed to the problem rather than helped to fix it. Should be no surprise when a child leaves the Church when one parent doesn't even go to church. It's amazing to me, people think they can not go to church, not really teach religion to their child (by their example) and then acted shocked when the child doesn't live the religion. No surprise there.

We don't really know what is going inside the guys head. But I do agree it is something culturally that we have accepted; that parents are responsible for the decisions the child makes and therefore any wrong doing the child commits the parent feels like they are a "bad" parent; this is not good at all. Totally wrong. The job of a parent is to teach right and wrong and so consequences are enacted to ensure children know when they commit wrong or sinful acts-but all children have free agency. Some kids just like to indulge man's natural sinful nature more than others, it doesn't mean the parent has done anything wrong. I think we do need to teach children not to shame the family name or to do things that would cause a bad rap about their family. I.e. when someone hears the last name they should immediately think good thoughts not bad ones-but IMO a parent should never feel shame for something their kid did . . .they should only feel guilt if they didn't teach their kid properly right/wrong. If something like that happened to my kid, I'd probably just tell them very simply. "Son/Daughter I'm very disappointed in you-I taught you better than this, you have obviously not learned from my teachings so now life is going to have to teach you and that's going to be a very hard lesson to learn, much harder than anything I did to teach you. Good luck" i.e. it's not my problem it's your problem kid-you made the mess now you deal with it-I ain't picking up for your slack.

I will provide just been busy.

You are already half-way there to starting up a conversation with her without it being ackward b/c you've already had several conversations with her. The first conversation with someone can be awkward, but since you've already had an opportunity to talk at the scavenger hunt then the rest should be easy. Probably the best way to restart conversations is to remember something you talked about together that was interesting, it could either be something she does, or did or something you have in common. Say you talked about a history class she was studying during the picture scavenger hunt. The next time you see her you can say STE "So how did that history test turn out you were studying for?" Something like that. The key is to remember something she liked (or hated but not in a horrible way) and to start the conversation from there. Maybe she hates history and you have the same professor. "Boy that test Prof. X gave really sucked!! I hated it, how did you do on it" This is a general technique you can use in life. The person will response favorably, you already have something to talk about and then (either immediately or later) the person will think, that guy was pretty cool he remember xyz detail that I told him about, he's a nice person. Once you have re-engaged using a natural common topic, then you can steer the conversation to other topics of interest or just get to know her better. The biggest challenge to this tactic is to do it naturally so you don't come off like a creep "Man, that weirdo knew about this small thing I told him about and he's remembered everything about me . . .creeeeeep!!!" Going up and saying "umm, hey yeah so how ya doing" is not the smartest tactic. It can work-but yeah that's the socially awkward way of doing it. If you don't know them at all, best way is to somehow find a way to be near them during a common activity and then during the activity start talking. Best way to reingage with someone you don't know well is to start off with something you discussed in the last conversation that was of interest to the person. As far as general conversation guidelines people love stories, they love to tell stories about themselves and they enjoy hearing good stories from others. If you get into a storytelling mode with someone you know you've started to connect.

So I will jump in and slightly (only slightly) defend chasing. I do agree that one of the seven deadly sins in Lust which is:"1) intense or unrestrained sexual craving, or 2) an overwhelming desire or craving." We are commanded not to lust, regardless of whether the person we lust after is married or unmarried. Adultery is between someone who is married, fornication is with someone unmarried. I think it is applicable that we could modify slightly the scripture to say whosoever "looketh upon a woman to lust after has committed fornication in his heart". So certainly one who is lusting after their potential future spouse is committing a sin .. .however the remedy for that in Corinthians is to get married, i.e. better to marry than to continue on in the sin of lust. So is the act of getting married for sex sinful-no. Is the act of lusting prior to marriage sinful-yes. D&C 121, "let virtue garnish thy thoughts". So did this individual sin prior to being married, certainly yes. However, I think the point being that the actual repentance of the sin of lust is either a) cut that person off from your life so you don't think about them anymore or b) get married!!! In other words, getting married was exactly what was needed to repent and get rid of the sin! Ipso facto, how in the world could getting married be sinful if it was the remedy for the actual sin of lust itself!

I will ignore your condescending very rude remarks and personal attack. I have done nothing of what you accuse me. I have used logic, consistency, reason and references. You are just being obtuse. Be that as it may, I will attempt again. Do you or do you not agree with this statement? "WE DENY that adopting a homosexual of transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption." If you agree with this statement then how do you square that statement with the current attitude within the Church that it is okay to claim "I am a celibate homosexual and am therefore worthy to have full membership in the Church?" I have seen (but I don't have the link to it, sorry not gonna go chase after it), earlier Church instructions to Bishops on how to approach the homosexual issue from about 20 years ago-those instructions were very much in line with the things Kimball said in Miracle of Forgiveness. For many years, even in my youth it was known that any type of homosexual activities-be it in thought or deed were against God's will. It was also known that it wasn't something one was cursed to be for a lifetime. If one had homosexual thoughts, the objective was to retrain the mind to not have those thoughts. That is the shift in the Church, earlier to say "I'm a celibate homosexual" was idiotic, if you hadn't retrained your mind then you were still living in sin (i.e. sinning in your mind through fantasies), if you had retrained your mind, then there would be no need to say "I'm a celibate homosexual" b/c you by definition weren't homosexual anymore. If you aren't thinking homosexual thoughts and have retrained the mind-then to say you were homosexual was just to continue to cling to sin. ----- If you do not agree with that statement, then how do you square current Church teachings against teachings of 20 years ago. The only thing one can say is that we are "more enlightened" today-well that's a false argument, especially with no officially revealed doctrinal changes (as I've been told), except the point is the doctrine has changed. It has changed from where homosexuality was something you did (either in word or thought) to something you are (see mormonandgays.org website). But as I have said continually, that yes the reason there is confusion in the Church within the membership is b/c the Church is not clear on this issue. Through websites like mormonandgays, the PR youtube videos the Church puts out, it is obvious to see that the doctrine has changed. But then when the Apostles speak like Elder Bednar did, it appears the doctrine has not changed. Point being 20 years ago the Church was very, very clear on this issue-today it's like the Church wants the doctrine to change, but it doesn't want it to change and thus the confusion. And please don't even mention the "ark steadier". A point about that, an ark steadier requires actions not words, in other words an individual who attempts to by action correct things. I'm not advocating for anything, I don't claim any special privilege or power. God will right the ship in His own time. I think we need to pray mightily for our leaders that they will have the strength, the foresight, the will, the knowledge from God to do as He sees fit. I do think it's a little stupid though to not recognize "yeap there is a chance the ark is leaning" . . .I'm sure God will fix it in His own due time . . .but all ain't well. 20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. 21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

From the article: "We need to know why the twenty somethings see the LGBT movement as a civil rights issue". That's a pretty easy one to answer. Because the youth have been indoctrinated through modern media. When you have tv shows pushing the lifestyle, government pushing the lifestyle, schools pushing the lifestyle is it any wonder why the youth see it as a civil rights issue? Pretty easy answer. For the second paragraph, Church is supposed to be about a community with a common belief set, and homosexuality is a big issue. There is more division b/c the allowable opinion on such weighty matters is allowed to have more leeway in church.

Umm, I really don't have a problem with this. You do know that it takes two people to get married right? She had to say yes. And it's says it's okay in the scriptures to do so. 1 Cor. 7:8-9 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. And one of the primary outcomes of sex is children and continuing the circle of life is essential to this life. Even using birth control they ain't perfect and somewhere 3 times out of 100 you will get pregnant I don't know that it's the best long-term reason . . .but then again God gave men these desires specifically so they would have the desire to start a family. So no, I don't have a single problem with it. Now, that changes if the guy is like well I'm going to get married so I can have sex and then when I've had my fill or I'd like to have sex with someone else then I'll just get a divorce-that it very bad and very deceitful. I think there was a rumor going about of BYU students who went to Vegas to "get married" had a weekend of debauchery, got divorced and then tried to claim they never broke the law of chastity . . .they were ex'd. Simply because they never planned to actually be married. So if the guy got married then got divorced, yeah big problem. Otherwise, not a problem

Oh really now. I would absolutely love to be wrong on this. So tell me what is adopting a transgender or homosexual self-conception? Let's look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept "One's self-concept (also called self-construction, self-identity, self-perspective or self-structure) is a collection of beliefs about oneself[1][2] that includes elements such as academic performance,[3][4][5][6][7] gender identity, sexual identity,[8][9][10][11] and racial identity.[12] Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to "Who am I?".[13] In other words, someone who says "I am a homosexual" has a homosexual self-conception. Now I completely agree, the 12, especially with Elder Bednar's recent talk have affirmed in words,either in GC or in other Church settings something to the effect of the above, i.e. that we deny a homosexual self-conception is consistent with God's plan. However, the Church as a whole it is quite a bit more confusing. We just had a discussion on this in another thread and plenty of members came out against what I was saying quoting from mormonandgays.org. And I agree they are correct, as an organization, the Church isn't quite sure which way it wants to go and it wants to tow this middle line of well acting on it is a sin but saying I'm a homosexual isn't (except Apostles have tried to explain through gentle persuasion-as Carb put it- that we shouldn't do that). Members are completely free to say "I'm homosexual, but I don't act on it" and that is totally cool, no one will tell them, hey self-conception as a homosexual is against God's plan. We have individuals who's self-conception is homosexual yet they serve in callings and in fact the Church is proud of this fact. So how as an organization can homosexual self-conception be against God's plan, yet it is rarely if ever mentioned. Temple recommend members attend homosexual weddings-yet nothing is said against it. If you pay attention, you will definitely find it (being affirmation of the statement) in the Church, even today you will find it .. . but it's not a very clear nor strong message and it's getting harder and harder to hear that message. So unless I'm wrong (and trust me I'd love to be wrong, please prove me wrong), I stand by what I said, 10-15 years ago, the Church as an organization would have easily agreed with this. Today well it's complicated.

I'm surprised you don't have more of a reaction to this line: WE DENY that adopting a homosexual of transgender self-conception is consistent with God's holy purposes in creation and redemption. it's sad that an evangelical organization has more guts to speak truth that we currently have. The shifting in the Church can be summed up in the above line-10 years ago the Church would sign right on with this line. Today, not a chance.

I think you've read to much psycobabble. I dislike smoke, cigarettes, etc. It's a nasty habit and filthy. I don't go to places where smoke is and I do my best to just stay away from it. I have no problems with individuals who smoke, I'd just rather not be around the smell. Go smoke, that's fine no problem-but don't tell me it's healthy or leads to a happy lifestyle. If everywhere I went, it was shoved into my face, made an example, if Church's came out and said we must have compassion for those who smoke, and if I was continually bombarded with a message of it's wonderful, if you don't associate with those who smoke you are an "evil" person, etc. etc. etc., then yes I would protest loudly and vigorously against it. Change smoke to homosexuality and there you have it. I quite frankly am sick and tired of being bombarded with all this messages that it's so wonderful and that we should just have compassion. I don't really care what people do with their life, go be homosexual and go destroy your life-no skin off my back. But stop trying to tell me that because I stand up for what is true (i.e. homosexuality is a evil sin, people can change through Christ can overcome their worst sins), that I'm the one who is messed up. Stop telling me that the reason your (as in the homosexuals) life is so messed up is because I don't "accept" you. Whatever, stop being a drama queen, grow up, learn to become responsible for your own life. You have a messed up life, you have mental problems, own up to it and recognize your own faults in it. Maybe, just maybe you should try to overcome all your sins rather than just the ones you think are sins. Yes, I will pushback quite hard on that.