Same Gender Attractions: A "Special" Adversity?

[Adomini22]

I personally like Elphaba and do not find her posts offensive, even though we may disagree on some topics. Cant we all just get along?

[Elphaba]

I personally like Elphaba and do not find her posts offensive, even though we may disagree on some topics. Cant we all just get along?

Adomini, I wondered if that was you. It's great to see you again!

Elph

[Elphaba]

. . . (and are your military comments supposed to be some sort of threat? I’m not sure what your point was about how you would address me if you met me in real life). . . .

I did not get the impression that CrazyPotato was threatening anyone. I think she was just trying to explain why she is so blunt and aggressive. I also believe her that if she met you in person, she would not be confrontive, but would treat you with respect.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Good evening crazypotato. I hope you are doing well! :)

I hope you receive my post as it was intended to be received. As sincere advice and counsel.

Elphaba, Elgama, GaySaint, JohnnyRudick, Seminarysnoozer, Suzie,

Thank you for telling me the world is not boot camp and that truth is not something I should not defend because of forum rules. I should be more polite and listen with great enthusiam and compassion to stories of personal apostacy. Thank you for reminding me that the doctrine is open to personal opinions and that the truth for each of us is relative according to our own experiences. I think Korihor and Sherem were unfairly treated by crazy military types like me. They should have been given more of a voice, especially with church members, and should have been shown more compassion.

My contention here is not about anyone wanting to defend the truth or if they should, but it is how we do it and how we treat others while we are doing it. Obviously it is our duty to defend truth, but we defend truth most effectively when it is done, "...by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith..." (D&C 121:41-45).

In my experience, when teaching the gospel, aggressiveness, insensitivity, haughtiness, or a condescending attitude are all things that place barriers to people listening and accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm convinced that the Lord would have us do things differently. Defending the truth is really about teaching people the truth. When you teach people the gospel you should be warm, respectful, and genuine (Preach My Gospel, pg. 176). You should demonstrate sincere interest and love for those you are teaching (Preach My Gospel, pg. 176). Your goal should be to create an environment that allows the Spirit to direct both you and those you are teaching (First Presidency, Preach My Gospel, pg. 175). Ultimately it is the Spirit who has the power to convince with lasting effect and to change hearts.

Now, there is nothing wrong in reasoning with and expounding upon the truths taught in the scriptures. In fact, we are commanded to do so (D&C 68:1). But, in doing so we should use "dignified...language to help people understand the [truth]" (Preach My Gospel, pg. 182).

A part of teaching the truth means to also listen to what others are saying. "When you listen carefully to others, you understand them better" and "[w]hen they know that their thoughts and feelings are important to you, they are more likely to be receptive to your teachings..." (Preach My Gospel, pg. 185). When you listen to what others are saying, this allows you to identify concerns that they might have as to why they may be having difficulty accepting what you are teaching. If your goal is to defend the truth and bring others unto Christ, then you will certainly want to know what is keeping them from accepting the truth. But, unless you care about them, care about their feelings, their thoughts, and try to understand them, then you will likely never be able to help them to understand true gospel principles.

I commend you for your passionate desire to defend the truth and it is obvious to me that you have a strong testimony of the gospel. And I think in your heart you desire others to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. I think, however, that we can best do this when we apply the gospel in how we treat others and teach them. Just because this is an internet forum doesn't mean the principles of the gospel and those principles of effectively teaching others the truth, are not applicable. They may be harder to apply, but it should be our goal to do so.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

Edited April 16, 2010 by Finrock

[crazypotato]

Finrock et al,

I should be kind, gentle, and persuasive! What the heck! Where's the fun in that. I'll tell you what is funner - boot camp. Who's gentle and persuasive at boot camp? Geez, are you trying to make me into a flabby little girl?

Ahhh, Elphaba. You can hold my clipboard because I think you are starting to get me.

The rest of you need some more physical exertion. What are you trying to do to me here? There is no need for these bad feelings? There is a difference between being direct and passionate, and rude and unloving. Now if I thought you were a bunch of worthless losers, I wouldn't even bother with ya!

GaySaint, where are you getting these personal attacks from and lack of sympathy? Not getting you right now.

[Elphaba]

Ahhh, Elphaba. You can hold my clipboard because I think you are starting to get me.

And as my superior rank on lds.net demands, once I hand it back to you, you must follow my instructions exactly as I've written and have attached to your clipboard. I cannot, however, divulge what those instructions will be, as I haven't decided on your punishment yet.

Elph

Edited April 16, 2010 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

When you listen to what others are saying, this allows you to identify concerns that they might have as to why they may be having difficulty accepting what you are teaching. If your goal is to defend the truth and bring others unto Christ, then you will certainly want to know what is keeping them from accepting the truth. But, unless you care about them, care about their feelings, their thoughts, and try to understand them, then you will likely never be able to help them to understand true gospel principles.

Honestly? I would be incensed if I discovered someone was being nice to me so they could discover how to convert me. In my opinion, that is manipulative, and being manipulated makes me angry, as it does most people.

I really do get that your goal is to bring people to Christ, and that you believe if the person is converted, it doesn't really matter how. I also know that many converts feel the same. But that would not work with me at all. I much prefer someone who was honest and direct, and even as blunt as Crazy, than someone who was "nice" to me for ulterior motives.

It's highly probable you're approach is the best for most people. I can't say, because it wouldn't be for me. I am very much a person who appreciates someone who can tell me what they want straight to my face, and your method of being nice in order to persuade me does not do that. In fact, it has the opposite result.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Later edit: I removed the middle of my post because I think I was rude. If you have already read it, please consider that I think I was wrong to write it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My point is that, to me, your posts can be confusing because you are trying to be so nice. It's hard for me to figure out what you want me to get from them. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, which wouldn't surprise me. But I would rather you weren't so nice, and expressed your points more directly.

Elphaba

Edited April 17, 2010 by Elphaba

[Moksha]

I haven't really followed this thread, but I am sure everybody is doing just swell.

I did want to add a bit of tangential information about how our religious cousins the Community of Christ now accept gay people and how they confirm them into their membership. The point here being that things can be done differently even from a restorationist point of view.

[crazypotato]

Elphaba,

I actually agree with you. I like directness (is this a surprise to any of you?) I think that is actually why this thread was sooooooo annoying to me, and a lot of threads on here are annoying. I don't agree with people that have apostacized from the church, but I don't understand how that is so offensive to say.

If you think of homosexuality in a different way that the LDS church, that is actually completely fine by me. If you want to express why you disagree with the LDS church, that is fine too. But it is annoying to me personally to have a discussion where the LDS people are pretending to just chat and see each other's views, when it is obvious to me that are just trying to convert through a polite debate. The non-LDS people, some of them on each side of this, were annoying me because they were using quotes from MY church to explain their religious beliefs, that are not in line with the church. I would have rather heard quotes from the Bible or from a psychologist or whatever without the LDS stuff attached for the non-LDS, and then from the LDS, a little more honesty and awesomeness like me, on how I don't really believe it but I still accept you as a human being and don't hate you.

That is all I have been trying to say this entire time. If you think SSA is all fine and dandy with the LDS church, it is not. Acting on it and entertaining the thoughts are viewed as a sin, although with compassion. Other churches and people within the LDS church may disagree for whatever reason, but just come clean and admit that you don't agree with the LDS church doctrine if you don't. Don't try to spin it to support your beliefs.

This is why I said I don't quote scriptures or condemn my gay friends and family members. I let them live their lifestyle without a word from me unless they ask. Nuff said.

[Gwen]

Honestly? I would be incensed if I discovered someone was being nice to me so they could discover how to convert me. In my opinion, that is manipulative, and being manipulated makes me angry, as it does most people.

I really do get that your goal is to bring people to Christ, and that you believe if the person is converted, it doesn't really matter how. I also know that many converts feel the same. But that would not work with me at all. I much prefer someone who was honest and direct, and even as blunt as Crazy, than someone who was "nice" to me for ulterior motives.

It's highly probable you're approach is the best for most people. I can't say, because it wouldn't be for me. I am very much a person who appreciates someone who can tell me what they want straight to my face, and your method of being nice in order to persuade me does not do that. In fact, it has the opposite result.

Elphaba

maybe i misunderstood but when i read that post i did not read "be nice to convert" but that if you want ppl to understand the gospel you need to be nice. when i discuss the gospel with nonmembers my thoughts aren't "can i convert this person". i would like them to know of what they have heard what is truth and what is lies. if from our discussion they choose to convert wonderful, in the end my only goal is that there is a mutual respect for each other's beliefs. that is most likely to happen by listening and being nice and finding common ground.

[Elphaba]

I actually agree with you. I like directness (is this a surprise to any of you?) I think that is actually why this thread was sooooooo annoying to me, and a lot of threads on here are annoying.

Yet you keep coming back.

I don't agree with people that have apostacized from the church, but I don't understand how that is so offensive to say.

It's not. It's when you are snide to them to explain why you don't agree that is offensive.

If you think of homosexuality in a different way that the LDS church, that is actually completely fine by me. If you want to express why you disagree with the LDS church, that is fine too.

I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say thank you for your permission.

The non-LDS people, some of them on each side of this, were annoying me because they were using quotes from MY church to explain their religious beliefs, that are not in line with the church.

Like who? Since I've been on the thread, I haven't noticed that, though I may have missed it.

Rather, what I've noticed is that you pick and choose which quotes to acknowledge as valid, and then which quotes to dismiss because they don't support your beliefs, all from the very same interview of Elders Oaks and Wickman, located on the Church's official website, lds.org. Criticizing people for quoting the parts of the interview you dismiss is not warranted. You should look to the entire interview, not just the pieces you like.

I would have rather heard quotes from the Bible or from a psychologist or whatever without the LDS stuff attached for the non-LDS,

You get to have rather have heard them. But there's nothing wrong with anyone using LDS scripture to support their position, LDS or non.

and then from the LDS, a little more honesty and awesomeness like me, on how I don't really believe it but I still accept you as a human being and don't hate you.

Awesomeness, huh?

On this thread you have been antagonistic with people you disagree with, so it's easy to see why they don't believe you when you say you accept gay people as human beings and don't hate them. I do believe you, though.

That is all I have been trying to say this entire time. If you think SSA is all fine and dandy with the LDS church, it is not.

The LDS Church is fine with SSA.

Acting on it

The LDS Church is not fine with this, and it is considered a sin.

and entertaining the thoughts are viewed as a sin,

The LDS Church does not connsider entertaining homosexual thoughts to be a sin, though it certainly encourages people with SSA to avoid them.

It is only acting on their attractions with someone of the same gender, and outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is considered a sin.

I suspect you do hear, in your ward, that SSA is a sin. I suspect your hear that entertaining thoughts of SSA is a sin. I come from a completely LDS family, and some of them think the same. But it's not true.

What would be awesome is if you understood this, and then the next time one of your fellow members says SSA is a sin, you could eplainn to him/her that it's not. What would be awesome is if you explained to them that entertaining SSA thoughts is not a sin either. What would be awesome is if you explained to them that people with SSA can hold almost any position in the Church, including that of an Elder on a mission, as long as s/he does not break the law of chastity, or any other commandment.

Additionally, it would be nice if you explained to them that if someone with SSA did break the law of chastity, s/he is no more, and no less, deserving of the repentance process, and once that is completed, s/he once more will become a member in good standing.

I also suspect you don't like me being the one to say these things as I am no longer LDS. So be it. But, everything I've said is in the Oaks and Wickman interview on lds.org, the Church's official website.

Other churches and people within the LDS church may disagree for whatever reason, but just come clean and admit that you don't agree with the LDS church doctrine if you don't. Don't try to spin it to support your beliefs.

Explaining what they believe is not spin. It's explaining what they believe. I do agree that repeating the same thing over and over gets tiresome, and I'm often guilty of that myself. I've tried to work on that.

And no, I do not agree with the Church's position on people who are homosexual; however, I acknowledge, often, it has the right to define its doctrine however it wants, including about homosexuality. I also acknowledge its right to ask its members to engage in political activism that support its doctrines, such as Proposition 8, after which I spent some time explaining to people who were angry about the Church's involvement that it had not violated the separation between church and state, and that there was no reason its tax-exempt status should be revoked.

Not all of us fit into tidy little pigeonholes labeled ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon, non-Mormon, Jack-Mormon, etc. We can honestly support the Church in many things while not believing in it. I get the distinct impression you don't realize that.

This is why I said I don't quote scriptures or condemn my gay friends and family members. I let them live their lifestyle without a word from me unless they ask. Nuff said.

Now, that's being awesome.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I actually agree with you. I like directness (is this a surprise to any of you?) I think that is actually why this thread was sooooooo annoying to me, and a lot of threads on here are annoying.

Yet you keep coming back.

I don't agree with people that have apostacized from the church, but I don't understand how that is so offensive to say.

It's not. It's when you are snide to them to explain why you don't agree that is offensive.

If you think of homosexuality in a different way that the LDS church, that is actually completely fine by me. If you want to express why you disagree with the LDS church, that is fine too.

I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say thank you for your permission.

The non-LDS people, some of them on each side of this, were annoying me because they were using quotes from MY church to explain their religious beliefs, that are not in line with the church.

Like who? Since I've been on the thread, I haven't noticed that, though I may have missed it.

Rather, what I've noticed is that you pick and choose which quotes to acknowledge as valid, and then which quotes to dismiss because they don't support your beliefs, all from the very same interview of Elders Oaks and Wickman, located on the Church's official website, lds.org. Criticizing people for quoting the parts of the interview you dismiss is not warranted. You should look to the entire interview, not just the pieces you like.

I would have rather heard quotes from the Bible or from a psychologist or whatever without the LDS stuff attached for the non-LDS,

You get to have rather have heard them. But there's nothing wrong with anyone using LDS scripture to support their position, LDS or non.

and then from the LDS, a little more honesty and awesomeness like me, on how I don't really believe it but I still accept you as a human being and don't hate you.

Awesomeness, huh?

On this thread you have been antagonistic with people you disagree with, so it's easy to see why they don't believe you when you say you accept gay people as human beings and don't hate them. I do believe you, though.

That is all I have been trying to say this entire time. If you think SSA is all fine and dandy with the LDS church, it is not.

The LDS Church is fine with SSA.

Acting on it

The LDS Church is not fine with this, and it is considered a sin.

and entertaining the thoughts are viewed as a sin,

Entertaining the thoughts are not considered a sin, though I'm sure the Church discourages this. It is only acting on their attractions with someone of the same gender, and outside of a heterosexual marriage, that is considered a sin.

The only official position on homosexuality we have from the Church is in the Proclamation to the Family, and the interview of Elders Oaks and Wickman, located on the Church's official website. Anything else, including some of the quotes you've provided in past posts, is not the Church's official position.

Additionally, non-members have done nothing wrong if they display their understanding of the Church's official position.

I suspect you do hear, in your ward, that SSA is a sin. I suspect your hear that entertaining thoughts of SSA is a sin. I come from a completely LDS family, and some of them think the same. But it's not true.

What would be awesome is if you understood this, and then the next time one of your fellow members says SSA is a sin, you could correct him/her, and eplain it's not. What would be awesome is if you explained to them how someone with SSA can hold any office in the Church, including as a missionary elder. What would be awesome is if you dispelled some of the myths about members with SSA, including the one that entertaining thoughts is a sin.

But to do that, you'd have to stop picking and choosing what you want to accept, and what you want to reject, from the very same interview on the Church's official website.

Other churches and people within the LDS church may disagree for whatever reason, but just come clean and admit that you don't agree with the LDS church doctrine if you don't. Don't try to spin it to support your beliefs.

Explaining what they believe is not spin. It's explaining what they believe. I do agree that repeating the same thing over and over gets tiresome, and I'm often guilty of that myself. I've tried to work on that.

And no, I do not agree with the Church's position on people who are homosexual; however, I acknowledge, often, it has the right to define its doctrine however it wants, including about homosexuality. I also acknowledge its right to ask its members to become active in politically supporting its doctrines, such as in Proposition 8. I disagree vehemently with anyone who thinks this is a violation of the separation of curch and state, as it is not. I spent a lot of time in the aftermath of Prop 8 explaining that to people who were angry about the Church's activism, believing its tax-exempt status should have been removed.

Not all of us fit into tidy little pigeonholes labeled ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon, non-Mormon, Jack-Mormon, etc. We can honestly support the Church in many things while not believing in it. I get the distinct impression you don't realize that.

This is why I said I don't quote scriptures or condemn my gay friends and family members. I let them live their lifestyle without a word from me unless they ask. Nuff said.

Now that's being awesome.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Good evening Elphaba. I hope you've had a good week. I'm certainly glad it is the weekend! :)

Honestly? I would be incensed if I discovered someone was being nice to me so they could discover how to convert me. In my opinion, that is manipulative, and being manipulated makes me angry, as it does most people.

What you describe is very manipulative and wrong. Did you think that this is what I was suggesting?

I really do get that your goal is to bring people to Christ, and that you believe if the person is converted, it doesn't really matter how.

Oh, this isn't what I think and it does matter how.

I also know that many converts feel the same. But that would not work with me at all. I much prefer someone who was honest and direct, and even as blunt as Crazy, than someone who was "nice" to me for ulterior motives.

No, I think most people prefer honesty and directness. I think most people, if not all people, are put off by insincere niceness.

It's highly probable you're approach is the best for most people. I can't say, because it wouldn't be for me. I am very much a person who appreciates someone who can tell me what they want straight to my face, and your method of being nice in order to persuade me does not do that. In fact, it has the opposite result.

What I described I think is the best way to defend the truth. I'm convinced it is the best way to teach the gospel. What you are saying in your post, though, isn't what I am saying. It isn't what I believe. I mean, being manipulative, insincere, and dishonest in motives and desires is Satanic! It's likely the least effective approach to helping someone understand the gospel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Later edit: I removed the middle of my post because I think I was rude. If you have already read it, please consider that I think I was wrong to write it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I didn't see it. Thanks, though, for caring enough to remove what you thought was rude on account of me.

My point is that, to me, your posts can be confusing because you are trying to be so nice. It's hard for me to figure out what you want me to get from them. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, which wouldn't surprise me. But I would rather you weren't so nice, and expressed your points more directly.

Well, that's a new criticism as to why my posts are confusing. Have you considered that perhaps I'm sincere? I'm just saying...:)

Then again, maybe it's confusing because I write confusingly. My mother tongue is Finnish, so although I speak and write English better now than I do Finnish, I still have a tendency to phrase things in a Finnish way and this phrasing doesn't always work in English. I've noticed that sometimes this can be confusing to people. I even confuse myself sometimes when I read back what I've written!

OK. So, here are my closing thoughts. I think if you look back on what I wrote you'll notice that the guiding principle in all of what I suggested is "love unfeigned", genuineness, and a true, sincere concern for others. I had the rare pleasure to serve 2 months with my older brother in the same mission. When I arrived on the mission field he was an Assistant to the President. Although we didn't serve as companions, we were able to spend some time together during zone conferences and such when he would come up to visit. One of the most lasting lessons that my brother taught me and which set the tone for my mission, was when he told me to, "Be a friend first, and forever." Now, here is a cliche, but it's true, people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care. You cannot fake love a person. Teaching the gospel is not like selling a product. We should be nice and friends to people because they are our brothers and sisters, and not so that we can teach them the gospel. Your friendship and your love should not be conditioned on whether or not the other person listens to you or accepts your message. If it is real concern and love, then it will not be. This is what I'm suggesting. Not the fake, manipulative, dishonest crap of a sleazy salesman, but the true, sincere, loving approach of the Master, Jesus Christ. We should emulate Him in all things, in deed and in thought, including in how we treat and care for others.

Regards,

Finrock

[Elphaba]

maybe i misunderstood but when i read that post i did not read "be nice to convert" but that if you want ppl to understand the gospel you need to be nice.

In finrock's post that I responded to, he wrote:

If your goal is to defend the truth and bring others unto Christ, . . .

To someone who is LDS, bringing someone to Christ includes converting them to the Church.

He continues:

then you will certainly want to know what is keeping them from accepting the truth.

This speaks for itself. So how do you discover what is keeping someone from accepting the truth?

He continues again:

But, unless you care about them, care about their feelings, their thoughts, and try to understand them, then you will likely never be able to help them to understand true gospel principles.

So, if you want to help him/her to understand true gospel principles, which would naturally result in converting to the Church, you must care about that person, their feelings, thoughts, etc.

Deliberately setting out to care about someone, and what s/he thinks and feels, is being nice, and thus my use of the word. And when a person cares about another, that is a good thing. . . unless it is for any other reason than just wanting to know the person as s/he is, no strings attached.

I don't doubt Finrock's sincerety at all. I think he is a genuinely kind and caring person, and honestly, I like that. Not everyone on the board is like that, including me, and sometimes it is wearing.

But in the post I responded to, his stated goal was to "bring others to Christ," and thus, he will consciously care about the person so he can discover what part of his message the person is not getting or accepting. Once he knows that, he can present his message differently, and hopefully, the person will convert.

Your stated goal, on the other hand, is to find common ground. In fact, you wrote:

when i discuss the gospel with nonmembers my thoughts aren't "can i convert this person". (emphasis mine)

Thus, you and Finrock have stated two completely different goals, and that's what makes the differerence.

I don't want someone to care about me so s/he can convert me. I want someone to care about me who is interested in me, because s/he thinks I'm worth it just as I am. I want someone to care about me, regardless of whether I ever convert or not, with the obvious understanding that she would be happy if I did.

That is not Finrock's stated goal in his post I responded to. And if I were the one he "cared" about, when I discovered his goal was to convert me, I would feel manipulated by him, even knowing he believed his actions were in my best interest, because he should know better.

Okay, the last part of that sentence is an iffy one, because if you don't know better, you don't know better. Here's the thing: I've been LDS and know what it feels like to want to convert people. I'm no longer LDS, and realize that back then, I told myself that I cared about people, but I really didn't. I just wanted to convert them. That's what Finrock's post feels like to me.

I didn't do this because I was a bad person. My intentions were genuine. But I was naive, in that you really can't genuinely care about everyone, because the effort to do so will bring people into your life you seriously dislike. That's not to say you might not want to make the effort anyway, but some people just don't click, and one party shouldn't pretend she cares about the other when she doesn't.

On the other hand, given your stated intention being that of common ground, if I were "cared" about by you, I would notice that, and be willing to take a risk that might result in real friendship. And we have had a real friendship--one I have treasured for over two years now.

That is not to say Finrock may not discover a true friendship while trying to convert a person, but, again, that is not his stated goal in his post I responded to.

Elph

Edited April 17, 2010 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Good evening Elphaba. >snip<Regards, Finrock

Finrock, you wrote your post, including your clarifications, while I was responding to Gwen, and I didn't see it until a little while ago. I wanted to let you know I saw your clarifications, and will write a response later.

Elphaba

[Saturnfulcrum]

Now i really feel guilty for even posting about my homosexuality in the first place. This thread was created because of it, and I feel like I opened a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened in the first place.

I may be whining...but really, have we had a discussion about SSA being a special adversary in a while? I didn't think discussions involved picking apart and dissecting people's posts just to point out fallacies and mis-worded statements...

I might be reading too much into the posts and feeling animosity when there isn't, but I haven't felt the spirit in this discussion in a while. I could have stopped reading, but I keep getting emails telling me people have written on this thread...and so naturally I read to see what was added.

As the homosexual person who caused 24 pages of debate...can we close this thread now?

[Finrock]

Hello Saturnfulcrum! I hope you are well. :)

Now i really feel guilty for even posting about my homosexuality in the first place. This thread was created because of it, and I feel like I opened a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened in the first place.

I may be whining...but really, have we had a discussion about SSA being a special adversary in a while? I didn't think discussions involved picking apart and dissecting people's posts just to point out fallacies and mis-worded statements...

I might be reading too much into the posts and feeling animosity when there isn't, but I haven't felt the spirit in this discussion in a while. I could have stopped reading, but I keep getting emails telling me people have written on this thread...and so naturally I read to see what was added.

As the homosexual person who caused 24 pages of debate...can we close this thread now?

Hey, this is my thread and I caused 24 pages of debate! Why you trying to steal the all credit?

In all seriousness, though, you didn't cause any of this so don't feel bad. You may have missed my other reply to this concern of yours, but I started this thread with the sole purpose of have a respectful debate/discussion about a particular point of view concerning SSA. Sure a conversation from the thread you started was the catalyst for this thread, this time, but that's how things work on a discussion forum. One conversation leads to another. It's what keeps it all interesting.

Also, it would be premature to close this thread. Right now it appears we have real communication going on because people participating seem to be trying to understand where each one is coming from and come to some reconciliation. If we close it before these things can get resolved, then the thread gets closed while someone could potentially still be harboring bad feelings.

Anyways, I think it's all good. Stop feeling guilty about something you are not responsible for. It's not your fault and you've done nothing wrong. This is just how things go sometimes, not that I think this thread has been particularly bad in the first place. For the most part people have been reasonable and kind with the rare outburst here and there, but that isn't the end of the world. :)

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Gwen]

Now i really feel guilty for even posting about my homosexuality in the first place. This thread was created because of it, and I feel like I opened a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened in the first place.

I may be whining...but really, have we had a discussion about SSA being a special adversary in a while? I didn't think discussions involved picking apart and dissecting people's posts just to point out fallacies and mis-worded statements...

I might be reading too much into the posts and feeling animosity when there isn't, but I haven't felt the spirit in this discussion in a while. I could have stopped reading, but I keep getting emails telling me people have written on this thread...and so naturally I read to see what was added.

As the homosexual person who caused 24 pages of debate...can we close this thread now?

saturn, please please please please don't feel guilty for other's agency. you are not responsible for any posts on this site but your own. we all have stresses we legitimately deal with, don't add extra you don't need to that.

as for the notifications maybe this will help http://www.lds.net/forums/how-do-i-questions-forum/9883-e-mail-sent-each-time-someone-posts-thread.html#post174799