Tyme
-
Posts
343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tyme
-
-
Welp, I’m quitting again. I hope I can make it longer than last time.
- marge, zil, unixknight and 1 other
-
4
-
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. It will be a joyful day when I can talk to my gay brother about the gospel.
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
Now your conflating two things that will disprove your own point. There is love and there is sex. You can LOVE anyone of any sex. No one says anything against that. But when you talk of "romantic" love, then you're saying that sex = love. And that isn't the case. That's a "snuck assumption". Sex is something that two people who love each other CAN do to strengthen their bond. But do to so is a choice.
And to answer your question, if the Lord told me that I couldn't marry a woman, then I'd obey the Lord. End of story. You think that I haven't thought about this. I have. There are all sorts of sob stories we can invoke. But the bottom line is: Do we obey the Lord? That's all.
You believe we will have surrogates in eternity. And what scripture did you get that from?
You believe gays won’t be married in eternity. And what scripture is that from?
if you’re going to pull from modern day prophets make sure you pull all the times prophets in the past have said blacks can’t have the Priesthood.
-
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
You're talking about in mortality. I'm talking about bearing and birthing children in eternity.
Surrogate...
-
13 minutes ago, jerome1232 said:
I guess this is where words get funny. Identifying as LGBT is absolutely a choice, just like identifying as a Latter-day Saint is.
Someone who struggles with gender dysphoria, or same-sex attraction can choose not to undergo gender reassignment surgery, or to not have sexual/romantic relations with their own gender for many reasons, one of which could be their devotion to God and their determination to follow his covenant path as best as they can despite their particular individual struggles.Im still waiting on those scriptures.
-
5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Again, I believe you've been looking at the wrong place. "Being gay" isn't a sin. This is where we agree. It is the choice to act on it that is the sin. It is no different for hetrosexuals.
I find many women attractive. It's an impulse/instinct. I have no control over that. But do I dwell on that fact? Do I entertain thoughts of acting on that impulse? Do I wonder what it would be like to have sex with those women? If so, I've committed adultery in my heart. And if I ACTUALLY follow through with real action, then I'm held under even greater condemnation.
Here you go.
Whether by mine own voice of the voice of my servants...
What do you think marriage is about? If you have same-sex marriage, how will you have children in eternity? Male and female is part of our eternal identity. Those characteristics don't change.
There are so many children that need to be adopted. A gay couple can provide a family for many of those children. Those children could then be sealed to their parents. That is how they have children in eternity.
just imagine for a second you’re told you can’t marry who you love. How would you feel? Would you want to be a member of the church? I think you should become abstinent and not be married since you believe that’s possibe.
im looking for scriptures from the cannon — bible, boom d&c etc. there were many leaders proclaiming that blacks shouldn’t have the Priesthood. Yet, it still eventually happened. Can you explain to me how that is different from what’s going on today with gays? I’m all eyes.
-
11 minutes ago, jerome1232 said:
Aww you see, that's what modernized interpretations/translations of the Bible are for!
Go ahead and educate me. Post all the scriptures that reference homosexuality being wrong.
-
6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:
Question - Your information states you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but you make it sound here as though you are not baptized... can you explain?
No offense taken, so let me be equally blunt with my position, and please don't take offense either. Anyone who can't see that the church leadership can never allow homosexuality to be anything but the sinful behaviour it is, is not sufficiently well versed in the plain doctrines taught on chastity by ancient and modern prophets alike. I can agree that no one should be commiting hate crimes against homosexuals or anything related thereto, but accepting sin is not loving. The woman taken in adultery was told by the Saviour to go and sin no more. The same applies to all who break the Lord's laws. Just because I might naturally want multiple female sexual partners doesn't mean I get to petition the brethren to give the go ahead for my "favourite" sin (for lack of a better way to put it at the moment - and I am loyal to my wife, for the record).
Just because some people are naturally inclined to steal, bear false witness, murder, and so on doesn't mean we change doctrine to accomodate sin. It means it's time to double down on helping people be free of such by drawing on the powers of heaven.
The doctrines of salvation, the commandments of God, are put in place to lead us to happiness. Not to let us wallow in shallow pleasures on the path of least resistance which keep us from ever putting in the work to get the sense of accomplishment and satisfaction that accompany true happiness. Self-mastery is an important step to happiness. It's true freedom.
This is where we go down divergent paths in our thinking. I don’t think being LGBT is a choice. I’m sure some choose but most don’t.
An example: A gay Mormon who doesn’t want to be gay but is. There are plenty of gays who don’t want to be gay. If it’s a choice, how do you explain that?
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
Thank you for answering.
There is no such thing as entrapment here. I'm not the one who will decide whether you get baptized or not. No one here is. This is just a stupid internet forum. We don't have any connection with your bishop or your mission president. We don't even know where you live or what your real name is. So, how would we? And we don't have any authority over whether you get baptized or not.
Obviously, I disagree on that last point. But I won't hold that against you. I still want to call you a friend.
Can I?
I consider everyone my friend. You’re my brother and good friend.
-
23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
You didn't answer the question. That's a talent of yours.
Do you believe God wishes for homosexuals to be sealed together in same sex-marriages?
Yes, when the time is right.
-
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
You didn't answer the question. That's a talent of yours.
Do you believe God wishes for homosexuals to be sealed together in same sex-marriages?
Is this what you call entrapment? Are you trying to back me in a corner so you can say no I can’t get baptized or go the Temple?
I really hope I’m misreading this...
-
3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Agree in part. It's like changing the religion you were born into. I was born Catholic and swung to the LDS side. They are children of God, no doubt.
However, that doesn't mean I should have to pay for their surgery, and it doesn't mean that @Vort should be forced to approve of their lifestyle. A Catholic doesn't have to pay my tithing nor approve of my change in religions.Then we shouldn’t expect them to approve of ours.
-
16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
So, it is your position that God wants homosexuals to be in same sex marriages?
My position is that God loves all his children, wants them to be happy and in his church.
i figured for you, your position that all adults should be able to make their own decision would apply here.
-
Just for clarification: I think the leadership of the church are following the spirit. It’s the majority of members who are. God knows there would be a mass exodus if they started accepting LGBT. That’s why he hasn’t impressed on the leadership to change church positions on LGBT. Similar to how God knew all along that blacks would receive the Priesthood. He just knew that the members weren’t ready. I’d give it about 20-40 years and it will be changed.
-
I’m just going to say it like it is. You’ll probably think the same about my position. Please don’t take offense.
i think anybody who opposes LGBT folk are heartless, not following the spirit and ignorant.
im willing to accept I may not be able to get baptized due to this stance. I’ll wait it out just like blacks and supporters had to wait for the Priesthood. It’s literally the same thing just in our era.
-
There’s nothing wrong with trans people. It’s no different than a former Catholic who chooses to be LDS. People should be able to live their authentic self’s. Period.
-
I’ll let you pick the rules. How nice am I? You get to pick the rules and have biased voters.
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
Well, that's fine. But the point of my last post (and I thought yours as well) was that we seem to be seeing an attitude problem on the other side. I wanted to just air those out and see if we can have a truce. Without that, any further debates will simply devolve into a slug fest.
As part of my background, I actually can have a good relationship with someone with whom I disagree politically. One guy is an anti-Mormon who left the Church like 10 years ago. And he is TOTALLY liberal. But we can still be friends because we know how to talk to each other on the subject of politics. And it isn't just to avoid the topic.
I tend to think you're an ok guy. It's just a lot of the political stuff you're saying that I have a problem with. So, I'd like to explain to you what I do with my friend so that you and I can follow the same rules. That is in the hopes that I'll stop doing what bugs you and you'll stop doing what bugs me.
But if you don't want to do that, then I understand. Just recognize the fact that when I read something completely off base I'm going to say something about it.
So do you want to have a debate or no?
-
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Ok. Fair enough. Let's see what we can do about that.
I'll air out my issue with your attitude. This will be my last "rant". The purpose is so we can really air it out. Then we can try to find the "friend zone". Does that work for you?
How about this... want to set up a debate for Monday? The reason I say Mon is because I’ll have internet hooked up by then. I will be able to use my computer instead of my phone.
Topic: Universal Healthcare
Format: opening statements, two rebuttals and closing statements. The posts can be as long or as short as we do choose. Then when done we can set up a poll for the audience to decide the winner.
-
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
There’s a reason for those negative connotations.
And a Democracy is not a good thing which is the pitfalls of the economic system you describe... the only way you can get that to work is for a government to decide what the tiers are gonna be (hence the communism part) subject to Mob Rule (the democracy part).
What is the name most people use for the US political system?
The only slight difference is that there would be national proposals. Similar to how the states do them now.
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
I hope you know the difference between a republic and a democracy and why a democracy is bad.
Your attitude is off putting that’s why I don’t respond to you in regards to politics.
-
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:
If you're talking about PROUT then yes, very familiar. You know what the problem with PROUT is? The same problem as Socialism. The requirement for Big Government.
I’ve never heard of PROUT. I’ll have to read more about it.
Tiered is where there are different tiers of economic success. The first tier are those who don’t go to college or don’t work in an in demand field. They would still get a house, insurance, car, food and money for pleasures. As you go to school or work in an in demand field you go up tiers. The higher the tier the better stuff you get. It can be referred to as tiered communism. I just hate to say communism because it has so many negative connotations. The political system would be democracy.
you can call it tymeism for short lol
-
54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Why end there? If people can't eat, they die. Universal Food. If people don't have a roof over their heads, they die. Universal Shelter.
Now you’re speaking my language.
Have you ever heard of the tiered theory of an economic system?
-
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. If the investigation does lead to some serious indictments regarding Russia collusion are you still going to deny it?
Universal Healthcare
in Current Events
Posted
Democracy