BJ64

Could you choose to change your sexual orientation? Assuming it was not a sin to do so.

“... it [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation – practiced with another person of the same sex – and thence into total homosexuality.”- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 78

I have a cousin who founded a gay support group in Arizona. I have read a lot of his essays on the topic. I have told him that while I don’t think the church will ever change it’s stance on gay marriage, I appreciate the work he has done to promote love and compassion. For me the crux of the issue is whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. Only recently has the Church recognized that a person may be born gay and cannot change their orientation. If you were not born gay and then chose to become gay then of course it would be sinful behavior. However if a person is gay by no fault of their own then I can understand their desire for love, marriage, companionship and intimacy. I recognize the church does not approve and I recognize it is sinful behavior but I understand their desire just as much as I understand my desire for my wife.

I have access to HB1 but there really isn’t much to quote on this this topic. I’ve read that before President Kimball became prophet he was in charge of dealing with homosexuality. He apparently was convinced that masturbation lead to homosexuality. Therefore it was of prime concern to stamp out masturbation. While it may be true that 100% of homosexuals masturbated first it is also likely true that 100% of married heterosexual men, outside of the church at least, masturbated before marriage. If masturbation lead to homosexuality then most of the population would be gay. I grew up in the seventies so I remember everything statement said on the topic from way back. Are you old enough to have been presented with the pamphlet To Young Men Only? I realize this post is off topic so I will try to drop the issue.

Not necessarily. People have been masturbating since long before Playboy and internet porn. As far as modesty is concerned, he was referring to me wearing a speedo.

I think masturbation is over blown as to how sinful it is. I won’t say it’s not a sin but how it has been taught in the past I think was not beneficial to many. It is obvious that the tone has softened since the days of president Kimball and Elder Packer. In fact you hardly hear a thing about it. However since there is no scripture whatsoever mentioning masturbation, it would be nice to know who president Kimball was referring to when he said that prophets anciently and today condemn it. As I said elsewhere, Elder Kim B. Clark said it is something that if continued, over time could lead to things that are sinful.

I know this is not exactly what you meant but this reminds me how some members, including past apostles have said that the Song of Solomon is pornography and isn’t inspired and shouldn’t be in the Bible. Well, I consider it an instruction manual of how husbands and wives should love and treat each other.

I believe that the purpose for the gospel topic essays on topics such as race and the priesthood, plural marriage, and violence is in part to put to rest some of the old fashioned orthodox Mormonism.

I know exactly how you feel. I haven’t been here long but it’s easy to see that there are a handful of people, who I could name but won’t, who rule the forum. If you say anything they disagree with they start throwing insults. I’ve been asked if I’ve been excommunicated, asked if I’m really a member, told that I should be released from my stake calling, told I should have my temple recommend revoked, told that I have poor reading compression skills, told that I don’t have good communication skills etc. It seems that the more you have to back up your opinions the worse the attacks become. I guess that these people who have to be right all of the time sink to personal attacks when they can’t prove you wrong otherwise, questioning your integrity, your testimony, your faith, your morality and your membership. When someone states an opinion it is just that, an opinion. When there are two opposing opinions either or neither may be right. However these of whom I speak have to make sure that you know that their opinion is correct and that you are stupid for having your opinion. In my view the forum would be better off without them but such as it is I will do my best to simply ignore them.

It would be interesting to hear from church members from other countries. I’ve read accounts of church member families going to coed nude spas somewhere in Europe and that it was no big deal. I believe that pornography would not be such a big deal if the human body wasn’t considered an object to never be viewed.

It would be interesting to hear from church members from other countries. I’ve read accounts of church member families going to coed nude spas somewhere in Europe and that it was no big deal. I believe that pornography would not be such a big deal if the human body wasn’t considered an object to never be viewed.

Some observations I have made. Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; I don’t think we know exactly what “the fountains of the deep” were and what effect they had on the flood. “Windows of heaven” and “rain from heaven” seem to be two different things. Perhaps the window of heaven brought water to the earth from some other location. Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. Perhaps the “waters” that “returned from off the earth” was water leaving this planet and returning to where it came from.

Similarly, God could have let Joseph keep the gold plates and they could be on display at church headquarters for all to see as proof that the Book of Mormon really was translated from ancient gold plates. However that’s not how He works. We are required to accept the Book of Mormon on faith.

I wear white dress shirts and khakis. Khakis are actually quite popular where I’m at. However, men never wear shorts. I’m just trying to figure out why it’s acceptable for women to show their calves and not men. Its really a double standard that in any standard of dress that men have to wear more than women. The exception being men going shirtless. I even know of LDS mothers making their sons wear shirts when swimming because they say, if it’s immodest for girls to go shirtless then it’s immodest for boys too. I wear a tank top at the gym. I have observed that about ten percent of men there wear tank tops and about ninety percent of women do. I don’t understand why more men don’t wear tank tops at the gym.

I’ve considered wearing dress shorts to church but I know it would not be accepted. Why is it that women can wear skirts to their knees and flip flops to church and no one bats an eye? It’s a double standard.

Women must have weak legs if they can’t lift six or eight inches of cloth and it has been my observation that men are much less heat tolerant than women.

I suppose there’s no need to wear swimwear at all. Just get into the water fully dressed. A swim brief is comfortable and dries quickly when you get out of the water. This whole speedos are immodest thing is just a puritanical/Victorian American mindset. Other parts of the world are much less concerned about guys in swim briefs. In France it is required to wear swim briefs in public pools for sanitation reasons. Men shouldn’t be wearing shorts in a public pool which can also be worn out on the street. It’s not sanitary. In France there are speedo dispensers at pools so you can buy one if you don’t have one. People believe what they are taught about modesty. If you tell people that a certain style of swimsuit is immodest that’s what they grow up believing. If you grow up in a place where brief swimwear is considered normal then you’ll think it’s normal. If you were raised going to nude public beaches then nudity would not be considered immodest. By 1800’s standards every woman in America is dressing immodestly by showing their arms, ankles and neck. There is really nothing wrong with nudity in appropriate settings. It was Satan who told Adam and Eve to hide their nakedness. To get back to the original topic, as I asked before, does anyone really get turned on by seeing a woman’s shoulder?

However there is no justification for what they wear in women’s beach volleyball. If men get along okay wearing shorts and a shirt then women don’t need to wear a bikini. Of course they dress as they do for the benefit of the viewers.

Yes, but only 6000 years ago?

Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Since the flood topic has turned to creation I’d like to know how those who consider the creation account to be precisely as written, how do you account for the physical evidence of such things as dinosaurs and pre humans such as Neanderthals, fossils of all types and petrified forests which would all predate the timeline af the creation of Adam and Eve? From Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, If taken literally it would seem that after the earth’s land mass was created then the sun and all the stars were created. I think it would be hard to deny that the billions of stars that we see predate the earth by a long time.

Regardless of how one thinks the Book of Mormon people got here or where they landed, those theories do not address what is written in the book itself. The Book of Mormon is clearly written about “This Land”. A promised land blessed above all other lands where there would be freedom and where the New Jerusalem will be built. Those promises and prophecies are not written about Mexico or Central America.

I started watching formula 1 when I first got satellite TV. Before then it was not available to me. I tolerate Hamilton because he drives for Mercedes. I don’t really like him that much though. My favorite teams are Mercedes and Ferrari so this year is working out well.

No I’m talking about the split. It was Indycar then the owner of the Indianapolis motor speedway decided to create his own series named the Indy Racing League. Indycar was forced to change is name to Champ Car due to legal issues over the Indycar name. The two series operated separately for about ten years before the poor success of the two individual series motivated them to merge again. I haven’t watched them since the split which must have been in the mid 90’s

You missed Michael win seven world championships and break virtually every record. I started watching in 1995.