JoCa
-
Posts
448 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JoCa
-
-
6 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Ok, enlighten me. What are some quotes from 20 years ago vs. today? I've read a bunch as well as arguments similar to yours here. And as I read it, I'm certainly not getting the same thing out of it that they get. I do hear a softening in "tone" not the overall message. The principles have been the same. But there was a time to cry out repentance from the roof tops. Today is a time for gentle persuasion.
No change in principle. Just a change in method.
I agree there is a softening of tone. I agree the principles have been the same; however it is getting harder and harder to actually hear the principles.
When you have active temple recommend holders attending homosexual weddings and it is seen as acceptable, right, good and even so much as that to not attend a homosexual wedding is seen as "hate", then the message is getting muddled and the principles are getting muddled. That is what a softening of tone leads too.
Eventually over time, acceptance of a softening of tone becomes acceptance of certain behaviors which if not checked over time will actually change principles.
I grew up in an era where we were taught unequivocally homosexual behaviors of any kind was sin. Are the youth taught that today? When YW are making pride bracelets for a Church activity are they really being taught correct principles? Pride bracelets are all about celebrating homosexuality, attending a homosexual wedding is about celebrating homosexuality.
Are the principles really the same? Maybe underneath they are, but on the surface they are world's apart. So when do we go from celebrating homosexuality to saying well in principle it's not a sin? When do we move from well it was just those bigoted prophets in the past and this new and enlightened modern generation we aren't like that?
I actually think you have the order of the gentle persuasion and crying repentance reversed. The scriptures are full of examples where 1st God tries the gentle persuasion and then when they don't listen or go too far off the rails, then comes the cry of repentance. We are in the last days, and thus evil is called good and good called evil-it's pretty obvious.
I'm totally fine with today being the time for gentle persuasion. My main point was and still is that the Church will continue to go down this path and eventually it will reach a point where it will be pretty obvious one of two things will happen, either the Church caves on this issue or the hammer comes down. The reason why I say this is that the homosexual agenda does not stop at just saying well you do whatever you want to but it is still wrong. The homosexual agenda will not stop until it has brainwashed everyone (at least everyone on the surface), that homosexuality is no sin, it is just a different way of living and its no big deal.
You see it in the Church's media video's about the family who's son "came out". And it will continue down this path until it is obvious that one of two choices must be adopted.
-
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
What on earth are you talking about? Waffling? When has the Church waffled on the gay marriage issue? We fought with all peaceful and legislative means available to prevent it from being an accepted practice both legally and culturally. Where was the waffling?
Only AFTER gay marriage became law in many states (and then upheld in the SCOTUS) that the Church said,"Ok, since TPTB have made a declaration, we'll do our best at damage control."
Yes, things will get worse before it gets better. When working with earthly governments, we've always tried to work within the system instead of against it. Only when we were left with no other recourse did we take up arms in revolt against them.
At present we are not at that stage. Do you really think we are? Do you believe that we have had so many of our rights infringed that you're ready to take up arms against this sea of troubles? Are you willing to stake you life, your fortune, and your sacred honor on it? If so, why have you not done so? If not, then sit back and wait for the Lord to tell us it is time.
My apologies; I did not say homosexual marriage (you inferred that is what I meant, but that is not what I meant), I should have been more explicit in my words.
Waffling on the issues of homosexuality. If you do not see the Church waffling on homosexuality then you ain't looking close enough. Read GC talks about this issues 20 years ago, read books written 20 years ago (go back even 10 years ago). The Church's stance then was different than it is today. Look at mormonandgays vs. what was written just a few years ago in my lifetime, look at the videos the Church produces today. Yes the Church has softened it's stance on homosexuality. Unless and until it hardens it's stance back up, these questions will arise.
It's a very, very logical thing. I don't agree with those who advocate for homosexual marriage in the Church-but their arguments have some reasoning behind it.
It goes like this: Since simply having SSA is not a sin and it is something you are born with, why would God ever deny the ultimate blessings in this life to someone who is supposedly otherwise a healthy, happy, righteous individual. How could a loving God deny those blessings to a child and therefore the Church must be in error and it's current "policy" is wrong and will one day go away like blacks not having the Priesthood.
I don't agree with this line of reasoning, but unless one fervently believes that homosexual acts are sinful then it does hold some logic. Now couple this with the endorsement of a homosexual concert, add in openly celibate homosexual members serving in callings, add in YW making pride bracelets (as was described in another thread), add all of those things together, add in temple recommend holders going to, participating in and celebrating homosexual weddings, etc, etc, etc. and is it any wonder that people ask questions like, "why can't married homosexuals get baptized".
Currently, the policy is SSA isn't a sin but "acting on it" is . . .well what exactly does "acting on it" mean? The eye is in the beholder. Does it mean I can be a faithful member as long as I don't commit sodomy? Does it mean I can openly advocate that I'm homosexual? Does it include holding hands, what about dwelling on it?
My opinion is acting on it is anything that gives it expression-thinking sexual thoughts about another member of the same sex is acting on it. This used to be common place knowledge and when counseling or disciplining those involved in homosexuality these things were brought up. Now, it's immutable, it's fixed, your homosexual and that's it and how dare!!! anyone say to you this is something to be overcome.
But today, the Church leaves "acting on it" up to the individual. I can be homosexual, indulge sexual feelings to a member of the same sex and I'm still good.
I'll get blasted for this as hate . . . whatever.
I'll give a quick example, If I'm an alcoholic, I don't go to Church tell everyone hey guys "I'm an alcoholic!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't drink. I might say (in a private setting or at special moments) "at times in past I've had problems with alcohol, but through Christ, I've been able to overcome them".
But today in the Church openly homosexual members say "I'm homosexual!!!" but I can still hold callings b/c I don't break the LoC.
It's a difference in attitude and the attitude of the Church and members of the Church is shifting to become more accepting of the sin-that is a fact.
It will continue sliding until at some point the hammer is dropped and when that happens I think you will see plenty of people in the Church leave.
-
-
I agree a loaded question. Unfortunately, unless and until the Church comes down hard on either side of this issue people will waffle on it.
"If the Church is for loving everyone and that everyone should be accepted and they are for families . . .how evvvvvillllll of them to break up such a loving family"
If/when the Church is ready to take a stand like it did prior to the current waffling politically correct culture (prior to 2005ish) and it is willing to take the full brunt of the hits in public relations, and tell everyone in no uncertain terms with the Power of God that this stuff is not of God, like the bold prophets of old, then these asinine scenarios will cease. Until then, just be prepared for more and more political/social pressure for the Church to cave on homosexual relations.
-
17 minutes ago, Vort said:
So here we have a woman who says she never loved her husband.
I say accept the woman at her word. She deserves no less.
I do agree with this. If the tables were turned and a husband said that he didn't love his wife oh the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Words matter. It is a very cruel thing to say something like this to a spouse, regardless of what state one is in. If one is "out of their mind" so to speak due to whatever influences, it is something that should be repented of and efforts made to ensure that actions demonstrate that the words weren't true. JMHO.
-
1 hour ago, mdfxdb said:
OP,
Get a book called Fireproof. Read it and apply it. In the absence of one of the 3 A's (Adultery, Addiction, Abuse) you cannot leave. You have to think about your children. You have at least until the last one is 18/out of the house.
Your wife can learn to love you, and you can love her. Find a real counselor that doesn't suggest divorce. Talk to your bishop, he can help. If your wife doesn't want to go to counseling, then you should go alone.
Truth, I'd be really leery of any counselor that suggests divorce without any evidence of Adultery, Abuse or mental issues.
Fact of the matter it takes three people to make a marriage work, you, your spouse and God. Without any one of those the marriage will be in for some hard times. If your spouse doesn't want to make it work, there is nothing you can really do about it-except love her and make your marriage priority #1 (above everything except God).
Yes if a marriage is not functioning properly, the children will notice it and it will affect them. The best thing for young children is to see their mother and father in a secure relationship that pays more attention to the marriage than to them. But if you are worrying more about how your marriage is affecting your children rather than the marriage itself, it won't work.
And that is the real question, rather than worry about whether she loves you, find out where her marriage ranks on her priority list. If either one of you does not have your marriage at priority #1 (below God) problems will occur. Once you find that out, then the question to ask is why is it not @ #1, and how can we get it to be #1. Do that and the rest will take care of itself.
I'm not sure what is going on w/ Dillon, but ultimately it is the thing that causes the breakdown of every marriage-one person (or both) in the marriage is not willing to make the marriage #1 . . .so it fails.
Some people say, marriage is a piece of cake or easy . . . well for the rest of us mortals, marriage is the hardest thing we will ever do in this life, but also the most rewarding.
-
-
Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs for GLAAD, which focuses on discrimination in the media, said his organization’s research suggests that “as many as 20 percent of young people now identify as LGBTQ — far more than ever before.”
Oh wait a second . . . .I thought people were "born that way". They are "born that way" but 20 percent now identify as LGBTQRXYZ. If that is correct, 20% . . .20% of youth id as LGBTQ, 1 in 5 youth are LGBTQ. If true, oh my goodness as a society we are screwed.
I recently saw a study that looked at gender identity and sexual orientation over time, 20 years ago vast something like 95% were either completely straight male or female, today more people identify as well more fluid. "Born that way" lies of the devil.
I think as this progresses farther and farther down the rabbit hole eventually the gig will be up and the born that way argument will drop by the wayside . . .once society has completely acquiesced to it.
-
3 hours ago, MormonGator said:
It's somewhat ironic to complain about how bad technology is on an internet forum-powered by computers and smartphones.
True enough, but I was more warning about teenagers and smartphones. Teenagers are not adults and their brains are not fully developed and are thus more at risk vs. adults.
-
Maybe the Church should start looking at the latest research linking smartphones with teen depression and suicide rates instead of hopping on the PC political bandwagon . .. .
Read it and weep. We are destroying our kids.
-
3 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:
That was in the olden days, before the internet. Now parents tell me the teachers have everything online, and all a parent has to do is read the teacher's assignments online. So much easier for those kids that "lose" or "forget about" things they don't want to do.
Surely you mean a student. Why would a parent ever read the assignment their child has? I already passed 3rd grade a long time ago-it's not my responsibility to read the teachers assignments it's my kids responsibility.
-
7 minutes ago, Vort said:
It is the parents' responsibility to teach the "three Rs" of school, as well. Public schools are, or should be, an assistant to the parents' educational efforts. I realize that most people don't view it that way, but to be blunt, most people are wrong.
(No offense intended to you, JoCa.)
None taken. I completely agree with you.
-
17 minutes ago, Backroads said:
But is homework the ultimate way to teach responsibility? I can teach time management, planning, turning things in quite naturally without relying on homework. What makes homework superior? (And this is a serious question as I do respect your opinion and am considering it for my homework policy). What's the data like for failure to handle homework later in life if they don't get it in lower grades?
And yeah, I am an adult who doesn't want to have to grade extra assignments. I like to manage my time and make the most of it and would prefer to focus on assessments and tasks they perform in class.
I appreciate the ask and (I hope) I didn't mean to insult with my comment-just a recognition that it's easier not to do homework.
Yes, you can teach time management in other ways. But it is one tools that reinforces time management and responsibility-if it's done right!!!
Homework done poorly (kid comes home, parents nag about homework, sit at the dinner table, tell kid to open up books, sits with them and helps them with every question, ensures they get a good grade. If the child turns in sloppy or unfinished homework the next day, the teacher says "well try again harder next time" or "that's okay". This teaches nothing and in fact is detrimental-i.e. it teaches the child "I as I child do not have to be responsible for myself b/c either someone is going to make me do it or they will let it slide to where it doesn't matter"
Homework done right (kid comes home and has a set time to turn in homework-i.e. you can't work on it past 7pm), parents don't say a word about child's homework. Kid either does it or doesn't do it. Next day the child either turns it in or doesn't turn it in. If it's turned in sloppy or not finished child gets a bad grade. If a period of time goes by where the child consistently turns in sloppy or unfinished work (i.e. at parent teacher conference or quarter grades), parents drop the hammer, restrict privileges, etc. This teaches responsibility and time management as well as consequences for bad behavior. That sometimes we can "get away" with bad behavior immediately but the "chickens always come home to roost". This teaches the child that he can choose to do his homework right away or he can procrastinate, if he procrastinates long enough bad things happen (as in time runs out). Longer term projects (i.e. week long homework) reinforces this even more.
-
2 minutes ago, Vort said:
My observation is that most school time is wasted time, as far as learning school subjects goes. I also observe that public schools have become de facto child care facilities. We're not talking about them acting in loco parentis in the traditional sense, we're talking about them performing child care activities for the parents.
The further things go down this path, the better homeschooling looks to me.
Vort, bingo, man, bingo.
I'll amend that to de facto child care leftist political indoctrination centers.
-
3 hours ago, anatess2 said:
It's not the teacher's job to teach the child at home. It is the PARENT's job. If the parent wants to give their child math exercises instead of dusting the baseboards, he is more than welcome to it. Other parents may prefer that the time be spent letting the child catch a tree frog and figure out why their feet stick to the window. Homework should only be assigned if the teacher could not complete the tasks during class period.
If your child is growing up to be a snowflake wimp, don't blame your child's teacher. Blame yourself.
I agree with most of what you say. Parent's job is to teach the 3 Rs, Respect, Resourcefullness, Responsiblity (R's), teacher's are to teach the three Rs of reading, 'riting and 'rthemetic (r's).
But let's not kid ourselves, they go hand-in-hand. Teachers should be demanding to reinforce those lessons that are primarily taught at home. It's not the teacher's job to teach the three R's but to teach the three r's; however they should be augmenting and helping out. Just like parents should be augmenting and helping teachers in teaching the three r's.
I completely agree, kids need more play time-but they also need homework.
-
15 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:
It's nice to know that paper is getting around. There is a sequel to that paper that was just released, Possession by Devils and Unclean Spirits. I've attached it for you or anyone else to read. There is an email address included in both papers. If you want help with your problem, drop me an email.
As for bishops, well, quite simply they lack correct knowledge on the subject of evil spirits and possession. The vast majority believe what the world teaches about possession and don't have a clue as to what the Church actually has taught on the subject. I have been told by many other men fighting this addiction that the standard response to a request to cast out unclean spirits is, "Huh?" About three weeks ago, I got a call from a brother in Oregon with this problem who went to his bishop for a blessing. He told his bishop that he was possessed and asked him to cast out the evil spirits. The bishop said, "Brother ----, I assure you, you aren't possessed." Sadly, I've heard this many times from many people. If you decide to try and talk to other people about this, be prepared for a lot of opposition.
I'm not gonna say much about how I know, except a hearty AMEN and TRUTH.
I think the way of the world has deceived many into not seeing and/or believing what is right in front of our faces and/or a lack of faith in casting them out.
-
14 hours ago, Backroads said:
While I'm up for teaching responsibility, I don't know if busywork is the best way to teach it... and at my lower grade level, the amount needed to achieve "I taught significant responsibility!" is time that is best needed for other areas: playtime, family time, reading rather than marking how much you're reading. I figure, one day they'll get to a higher education level with more intricacy where homework could be more necessary and significant, and I expect the rest of life to this point had taught them sufficiently to partake in such responsibility.
If life is decent, the responsibility will come up.
But what exactly is "busywork"? Quite frankly, most kids (in the younger grades) have no clue what "busywork" means or even what it is. My kids dust the baseboards in the house when they are little. Is that "busywork"? It's a nice to have, but does it need to be done, no-I've never dusted the baseboards myself. So why assign it? B/c it gives the child a responsibility.
Busywork is write this same exact sentence 50 times. I completely agree playtime is one of the best things a child can do, is just go play! But they still need to learn how to be responsible and homework teaches them that. I'm not a fan of lots of homework having 2+ hours of homework a night when they go to school for 7 hours is not cool. But for lower grades, what is the big deal with 15-30 min. of homework each night?
IMO, it's b/c adults are too lazy and don't want the hassle and stress of telling kids to hand in their assignments and then grading their assignments. Then when they give a student a 0 some idiot parent will complain about "how dare you give my little johnny a 0, he worked so hard on this assignment". It's much easier to just say homework is "busywork". Homework is first and foremost about teaching responsibility and if they don't learn it when they are young . . .well good luck teaching it when they are older!
As a society we need to be tougher on kids, not nasty or brutish, but expect and demand more out of them and then hold them accountable when they don't do what they should do. Otherwise . . .well otherwise you get the current generation of (casting with a broad brush) wimps and snowflakes.
-
I'm in favor of both reading logs and homework; it doesn't need to be much-i.e. for younger grades half hours worth of work or so. But IMO the most important part of homework and reading logs isn't what they learn directly from the piece of paper or from the book they read.
The most important thing they learn from it is responsibility, as in I have an assignment and it is due on x day. In order to turn it in properly I need to work on it at this time. It teaches self-reliance, independence and an understanding of the consequences of procrastination (you get a bad grade). Those things are in really short supply in today's world and children need to learn more of it.
If I did homework, I would make the above clear to parents, i.e. under no circumstances should a parent do the homework for the child. If I suspected a parent "helped" with a homework assignment, the student would get a 0. The objective of homework isn't to reinforce that 2+2=4; it's to teach the kids so that later in life when they have a job they can do their homework assignments at work or at home with minimal problems.
-
22 hours ago, MrShorty said:
@Suzie and @JoCa, may I interject this question into your debate:
Are the two statements: " Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin " from the lds.org SSA article that Suzie linked to and Elder Bednar's " There are no homosexual members of the Church " (which seems to be the overall point of this article https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/who-am-i also from lds.org) mutually exclusive statements? I have said before on this forum that I don't understand our theology of sexuality very well, and maybe some of that difficulty is that, if statements like this are mutually exclusive, that the Church sometimes seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth.
Or is it possible that one can identify as both a child of God (trying to keep this as our primary identity) and also identify as L, G, B, or T, (or A or I or Q or how many letters can we add here and irritate those who hate having a long list of letters in the alternative identities list) or even heterosexual?
I highly encourage anyone to read this study by BYU Education and Law Journal, a great resource.
http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=elj
Some great stuff here:
"A biopsychosocial model mediated by choice best represents the current state of the research on homosexuality. Homosexuality is not explained by either a simple biological model or a simple psychological model, nor can homosexuality be reduced to a simple matter of choice. Emerging scientific evidence supports the notion that homosexuality is not easily or simply defined and that homosexuals are not a homogeneous population. In addition, the terms "homosexual attraction," "homosexual orientation," and "homosexual identity" refer to distinctly different phenomena.
Homosexual attractions may emerge during adolescence and disappear. In fact, in one study, nearly 26% of twelve-year-olds reported being unsure about their sexual orientation.24 However, only 2-3% will self-identify as gay as adults.25 A homosexual orientation, which is a general affective response to members of one's own sex, appears to be fluid-it may wax or wane. A homosexual identity is a sociopolitical statement that one wishes to be gay identified. Frequently, the three distinct categories are merged in both the media and academia, making it even difficult to discuss the term homosexuality. Perhaps the more important questions are as follows: What can scientists say about the malleability of homosexuality? Once established, are homosexual attractions modifiable or changeable? Or, can an individual who is predominantly homosexual become predominantly heterosexual."
It is a really great article and falls in line with pretty much what I've said and thought most of my life. Homosexual individuals are individuals who have had something which has gone awry in their life-it is from a toxic combination of the right disposition, mixed with the right timeframe mixed with the right environment. Those things combined lead to this sickness. The same thing could be said though of most things that severely afflict the soul-pornography, alcohol, etc. Unfortunately, the homosexual agenda has blinded just about everyone into this very sick ideology.
IMO the Church is trying to find the middle ground, one that stands up for fighting homosexuality for what it is-a very gross evil sin, and one that doesn't completely go against the massive propaganda machine that the LGBTQRS has turned into (and if people don't see it they have blinders on . . .when a man gets fired from a job for contributing to a anti-SSM 7 years ago, you know they are one of the most powerful lobbying and social advocacy groups in the US).
My guess is this middle ground way will continue for some time until it becomes perfectly clear, either the Church as an organization buys into the lie that LGBTetc are born that way, hence there is nothing wrong with it and hence as an organization it should do nothing to actively discourage it and should embrace it in all it's glory, or it drops the heavy hammer and makes it unequivocally clear that it is wrong. Folks, the camel's nose is under the tent, anyone who doesn't see it is someone who quite frankly doesn't want to see it. Where it leads and how long God allows it to go on, is anyone's guess.
The thing that I find so fascinating about the modern Church culture is that as a people we are so dead set on making sure that other individuals, groups, etc. know that the current Church disavows any association with racism that they were "on the wrong side of history" and that today we are "on the right side of history". How egotistical, how narcissistic, to think that we know so much more than our ancestors, we are so much more enlightened then those uncouth, uneducated slobs of past centuries.
Do you ever think that the day will come with the Church will disavow any association with things said on websites such as mormonandgays? How positive are you that you are on the "right side of history"? Will your ancestors look down on you for promoting an ideology that future generations see as evil?
IMO, the Church is speaking out of both sides of it's mouth-it is giving lip service to and applauding a platform for LGBTetc organizations to recruit and indoctrinate youth and at the same time shutting off the mic of those who dare to make such a statement in a Church meeting. Someone who uses testimony meeting as their own mini, mormonandgays video story. It will continue to go on until it becomes pretty clear that either a hard stance is taken or the Church acquiesces to it's demands. Again anyone who doesn't see where the homosexual mormon advocates are leading this (i.e. homosexuals marrying in the temple) is blind as a bat.
It amazes me, we are members of Christ church, we know that Satan is the enemy of Christ and will do anything and everything to stop His Church, are there or are there not forces arrayed to try and destroy the Church? Just read "If I were the Devil", good stuff.
It goes without saying, but I will say it-I take a stand against evil behavior and these philosophies of men, but I don't in the least bit hate homosexuals; I hate the homosexual movement, but not those poor souls who are taken into mindset and an ideology that will not serve them well; as long as they continue down the road of homosexuality they can never and will never be able to enjoy the full fruits of what God has to offer them . .and that is very, very sad.
-
6 minutes ago, Suzie said:
Of course it matters how it is called, you said someone identifying as a homosexual is a sin. You are wrong according to the Church and I proved it to you through an official source.
Are you willing to admit the carelessness of your statement and admit the error or move on to something else?(unless you believe the Church is wrong on this one?).
??
No it's not careless. Elder Bednar "There are no homosexual members of the Church". Care to refute that? Are you willing to admit your carelessness?
Prove me wrong in what I said this evening. I use a squirrel but it's easy to apply to other areas.
Big difference between saying I suffer with SSA vs. I am homosexual. One is an identity, the other is a weakness. As a man thinketh so is he.
-
18 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:
You might dislike it, but I keep in mind that I used only to repeat your phraseology.
Thanks for answering. Since I said I wasn't looking for a debate, I won't dissect your response with my responses. Suffice it to say I disagree with most of what you said. @Suzie and I are on the same page here.?? Well this is a message board, if we didn't debate or conversation I'm not sure what else it would be for. That's okay, I have no problem with your disagreement-I don't take offense by it.
-
On 8/20/2017 at 11:48 AM, Suzie said:
Pedantic? Never.
(offtopic: When are you going to start a nice LDS history topic to discuss. It is always me! 
)
JAG, my whole point is: Even if someone wants to identify themselves with any of those 50 gender identities, doing so is not a sin. I am concerned when we state otherwise.
Poppycock. I identify as a squirrel. I live my life as a squirrel. Am I ever going to do be able to do the things God requires of me necessary for Celestial Glory if I live my life as a squirrel?
Don't call it sin, call it sin-it doesn't matter what you call it. Dress it up in all the pretty words your want to. The fact remains, identifying as a squirrel will led me to my literal damnation (as in a damned river), wherein I will never reach my full potential as a Son of God.
So fine, you don't want to call it sin-the individual who identifies as a squirrel will never reach Celestial Glory unless they either a) repent of their desire to be a squirrel or b) healed of whatever infirmity is causing them to think they are a squirrel. But if I identify as a squirrel, I'd think it would be a very cruel friend who would tell me, yes, yes JoCa it's quite alright that you identify as a squirrel. Live your life as much as you want to as a squirrel-don't make any effort to not be a squirrel b/c God will make it right.
I say bull honky to the above. A true act of love would be, JoCa, I understand you want to identify as a squirrel, but it is only by identifying as a Son of God that you can reach your full potential . . .it's called preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If I say to the squirrel identifying individual-God will make it right. Do I not have to fight and battle against my desires of anger, against my desires against alcohol, against porn or against any other thing that will keep me from God. Don't worry JoCa, God will take care of it.
Oh really . . .
And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.
-
On 8/18/2017 at 1:26 PM, LiterateParakeet said:
I don't want to get into a debate about this, but I do want to know if I understood you correctly.
Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is. So are you saying that we shouldn't tell a homosexual child that God loves them as they are? I'm trying to imagine what else you would say.
"Johnny, sorry God doesn't love you completely, because you're flawed. Just try to be obedient and perhaps maybe there will still be some hope for you."
Surely that isn't what you meant, but if not what DID you mean?
I really dislike the phrasing "being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is" and "homosexual child". Just like Elder Bednar said, STTE we should not define ourselves by our sexuality, i.e. saying "homosexual child" IMO is really disingenuous. Simply by doing that we are already defining a child by their feelings. If I have anger problems, do I label myself as a "anger adult", I might have anger issues or I might have a alcohol issues but it doesn't define me.
The homosexual revolution isn't about an individual who has feelings of attraction for the same sex, it is about an identity as a "homosexual". Honestly, (I might ruffle feathers) I would say identifying as a homosexual is a sin, whereas identifying as someone who has struggles with attractions to the same sex is not. There is a very powerful difference between the two.
The homosexual movement, when they say God love you as you are, what they really mean is you are a homosexual, God loves you as a homosexual and therefor there is no need to change part of who you are.
The most insidious part of the homosexual movement is that is actually denies the power of change, real change and the power of the Atonement. The movement says, God loves you as you are and changing who you are is impossible. The unallowable speech with the homosexual movement, the one thing that they will deny to the nth degree is that over time one can change who they are, they can change the very core being. It is an ideology that is 100% antithecal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I know thoughts and feelings can change. It has happened to me personally. I have had struggles over certain thoughts and over certain feelings. Through the power of Christ, my very being has changed and is continually changing. As I become more of who God wants me to become, I can change my very emotions. And that is what we are really talking about SSA is all about emotions and feelings. The very sad thing about the homosexual movement as I see it within the Church is that we end up denying the very power that we are supposed to have such a testimony of . . .the Power of Christ to change who we are to make us a new man or a new woman.
So no having SSA isn't a sin; however there is a bit of hypocrisy that unfortunately we are not willing to face. If Christ expects me as a married man to not "look on a woman to lust after her" b/c I have already committed adultery in my heart, then surely Christ expects those who have SSA to not "look on the same flesh to lust after" so as to not commit sin in his heart.
And the beautiful thing is that overtime as I grow as a married man I can become more like Christ, I can change my heart to follow his instructions more fully. It has happened in my life. If it has happened in my life, through the Atonement of Christ, why can it not happen in someone else's life who has SSA. Do I have such little faith as to deny the Power of Christ to make that change in their hearts, in their minds, in their feelings. No I will not deny that power. For God truly can work miracles.
Quite honestly, it is a lack of faith and an unwillingness to change. It is more comfortable, it is easier to say whelp "God just loves me as I am", rather than put for the hard effort that it takes to change oneself. The haters say that "praying the Gay away" in a sarcastic manner. . .quite frankly they have no clue what they are talking about-they deny the power of prayer, the power of God, the power of the Atonement.
We read in the Scriptures:
19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.
Sometimes I wonder if the easiness of modern life and general prosperity has weakened our faith. When Moses came down from the Mount he had the higher law and saw the people dancing and worshiping an idol cow; he broke the tables and gave the lessor law. Is our idol cow the philosophies of men as told to us by modern say philosophers??
Instead of looking towards homosexuality for higher suicide rates, maybe there are other causes:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/05/smartphones-ruining-mental-health-teens.html
And I bet an already confused teenager that suffers with (of course the homosexual crowd would say saying suffers with is hateful) SSA is probably a lot more vulnerable . . .
-
And lest there be any doubt. When I talk heritage I mean:
http://www.waaytv.com/story/36162583/southern-anger-nazis-kkk-hijacking-confederate-debate
"When I was growing up it was like a badge of honor to be proud of your Southern heritage. It was taught and it was part of who you were," said Castello, 58. "To see it denigrated down to the point of Nazis is disgusting."
Amen brother, preach on, preach on!
Baptism for same sex couples?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Totally agree, and the main point being here that as a general membership, we have become more acquiescing to sin. The members of the Church do not want to hear the harshness of Ezra Taft Benson nor of Kimball, they want only pleasing words spoken to them. And the Lord gives it . . .until people have sufficiently ripened in iniquity and then the hammer gets dropped-and then we see who is on the Lord's side and who isn't.