Anatess Threadjackers Welcome Here!!!

[Crash]

I largely agree, but to be fair, "attraction" does not necessarily imply "dwelling on it".

True, but to entertain the thought, as I pointed out, is the same as "dwelling on it" as you stated. If I look at a woman and think she is good-looking there is nothing wrong with that. I am merely recognizing what I find attractive. But if I look at a woman and start to think of her in a sexual manner, then I am entertaining improper, lustful thoughts, and that is the same as the physical act of sin. If she is my wife, well, I'm allowed to think that but I should still be respectful. :)

[Crash]

Rubbish back to you! Good luck in court with that!

We're not talking about a court, we're talking about the law of God. You can't quote the church but then choose to dismiss gospel principles.

WANT. Big difference. A gay person who WANTS to get jiggy with the same gendered person but has not committed it yet because he doesn't want his mom to know IS sinning.

There is a LOT of grey areas here... no I didn't say that... THE CHURCH DID! See text in blue above.

Entertaining thoughts = wanting to do it. We're saying the same thing. I did see the blue quote you posted. I guess I wasn't clear enough about the church not wanting to complicate things. The scriptures are clear, and the church knows it. What they are saying is that if a person has tendencies but doesn't act on them, whether physical or mental, it isn't sin. I agree with that. But, if the act is only mental (wants, entertain, etc) it still IS sin.

I'm not seeing the grey area.

[Guest]

Wasn't it Bacla in Philippino? Or was that slang?

The letter C does not exist in the Filipino alphabet, dude! :)

Bakla - Filipino for gay. It's not slang. But, bakla (or the English word gay), is used differently in the Philippines than it is in the US... for example - if you're effiminate or cross-dresser, regardless of whether you are homosexual or not - you are gay/bakla. For a while there in the 80's, Duran duran was bakla until the fashion trend of make-up and long hair for men caught up in the Philippines.

[Guest]

We're not talking about a court, we're talking about the law of God. You can't quote the church but then choose to dismiss gospel principles.

Entertaining thoughts = wanting to do it. We're saying the same thing. I did see the blue quote you posted. I guess I wasn't clear enough about the church not wanting to complicate things. The scriptures are clear, and the church knows it. What they are saying is that if a person has tendencies but doesn't act on them, whether physical or mental, it isn't sin. I agree with that. But, if the act is only mental (wants, entertain, etc) it still IS sin.

I'm not seeing the grey area.

We're not saying the same thing because I never used the phrase "entertaining thoughts" in saying it is not sin. I usually use the term, "struggling with" to say it is not sin.

[Crash]

We're not saying the same thing because I never used the phrase "entertaining thoughts" in saying it is not sin. I usually use the term, "struggling with" to say it is not sin.

That's an argument made for argument's sake. You said to "WANT" it is sin. I said that entertaining thoughts is the same as wanting it. How is that different?

[Windseeker]

So, explain to me why it is impossible for lds.net to have a thread about our positive experiences with gay people specifically stating "except gay marriage and sexual relationships" without it becoming an attack thread on homosexuality?

For me personally, the title of your thread "Gay Appreciation" is disturbing. I have a knee-jerk reaction to showing "Appreciation" to any socially defined group. I appreciate individuals on an individual level, but I've never appreciated someone because they are Black or White or Mormon or Hare Chrishna, male or female, let alone someone because of how they define themselves sexually.

Have I had positive experiences with individuals who happen to be homosexual, absolutely, and I'm still having them. But as a group I will never ever "Appreciate" them.

The other reason is I agree with Vort.

I don't feel like adding my experiences in a "Gay Appreciation" thread. Just like I wouldn't add them to a "Pornographer Appreciation" thread or a "Medical Marijuana Appreciation" thread..all legal btw. When you group "Gay's" I have negative feelings because by in large their goals as a political arm are destructive to the values I hold dear. Believe it or not I know and have known many Homosexuals who go quietly about their lives and feel the same way I do about the "group".

I also have a problem with the "Gay" supporters on this thread, as I stated earlier, who appear to accessorize themselves with the world and look down upon those they "FEEL" hate gays despite what they say. They socially pressure people to have to balance their dislike of sin with statements of "Gay Appreciation". "If you don't take up the rainbow banner you must be full of Hate" I'm tired of it. Does truth even matter anymore? Talking about Judgment, the worst kind of Judgment is based on "Feelings" not "Facts".

So that's why.

[carlimac]

Do you think that Hoosierguy calls us bigots and haters?

I don't know Hoosierguy. I do know Soul and he's a nice and civil person.

[The Folk Prophet]

We're not talking about a court, we're talking about the law of God. You can't quote the church but then choose to dismiss gospel principles.

Entertaining thoughts = wanting to do it. We're saying the same thing. I did see the blue quote you posted. I guess I wasn't clear enough about the church not wanting to complicate things. The scriptures are clear, and the church knows it. What they are saying is that if a person has tendencies but doesn't act on them, whether physical or mental, it isn't sin. I agree with that. But, if the act is only mental (wants, entertain, etc) it still IS sin.

I'm not seeing the grey area.

I gotta agree here. Too many people are taking what is a header for a webpage (that was certainly written by a PR person to be digestible for the lay person) and using it as the all-encompassing standard of church thought that completely explains every nuance of doctrine concerning the matter.

I'm not going to discard a multi-millennia of teachings and revelations on it because of a single sentence in the header of mormonsandgays. I don't think discarding the church's position in the header of an official website is appropriate either. That leaves one course. Reconciliation of the ideas. The church does well know the scriptures and the teachings of previous presidents on the matter. To presume that they've decided to just ignore all that in favor of social pressure is silly. Clearly, mormonsandgays is presenting a simple message that is easily digestible. It does not justify struttin' around with homosexual desires as long as you don't actually go to bed with anyone.

[pam]

I don't know Hoosierguy. I do know Soul and he's a nice and civil person.

You've never met him in person.

[Bini]

You've never met him in person.

Brag it up.

Heheheh. So, did soul come all the way from Canada just to attend a LDS.Net dinner? (Maybe he's not in Canada but for some reason I thought he was.)

[The Folk Prophet]

The letter C does not exist in the Filipino alphabet, dude! :)

See...what you gotta understand is, when I was called to the Philippines it was still an English speaking mission in the call, meaning I had no language training in the MTC. And I barely got to the point that I could cave-man it through a discussion by the end of my mission. Spelling was not on the table.

Now I know. "Di'in ka Macadto?" is "Di'in ka Makadto." Who knew? I've probably spelled the rest of the words wrong anyhow. Does Philippino use ' in that word? I have no idea! (Ilonggo in this case...let's see...Tagalog would be "Saan ka pupunta?" I believe.)

I suppose then that the c in Bacolod is from the Spanish influence then??

I guess, now that I think about it, I remember learning the alphabet... (a ba ka da e ga ha i la...). Heheh. I'm probably mispelling the spelling of the letters themselves...er...are they even spelled. I'm useless.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Quin. I hope you are doing well! :)

Shockingly, not too subtle.

What's the point a mother's appreciation thread? When are we going to have a fat lazy cow appreciation thread?

Gee. The inference just goes completely over my head.

No, wait, it doesn't exist!

Roll. Eyes.

Which IS me spouting off.

And it's how I show my appreciation.

By not tolerating hateful and divisive language that dehumanizes and insults entire groups of people, be it racist, sexist, antisemetic, misogynistic, or any other hateful ism. Anything that wants to declare a person to be 3/5ths of a "real" person, deny the same treatment under the law as everyone else, or compares them to animals and criminals (or make them criminals) just because they're different from the majority OR different from their own religious beliefs. I'm not a slut because I don't cover my hair, even if someone else's religion says I am. Nor your wife, nor your daughters, sisters, mother.

Heck, MY religion doesn't even say that homosexuality is a sin, but because you & others don't like it, you compare them to people raping dogs, and beating their wives. What? Because they're black? Or Jewish? Or don't cover their hair? Or... Wait... What's that group that's okay to hate right now? Oh. Right. Hate-group-du-jour.

EACH and every single time someone makes a hateful comment about someone's race, religion, sexuality... Whatever. I. Do. Not. Let. That. Stand.

Regardless of how much I might like the person in all other ways, when they choose to abase an entire group of people, they are wrong. And I would be just as wrong to say nothing and let them do it.

It's wrong, unchristlike, and moreover directly against instruction given to us who are LDS from our leaders to love, NOT mock, ridicule, or attack gay people....Just in case this is too subtle for you ... "With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters." Mormons and Gays

Happiness in life comes from obeying God's commandments. For a disciple of Jesus Christ it just doesn't make sense to advocate behavior that leads to death. Homosexual principles cannot lead to happiness or life (neither spiritual life or physical life). God, not man, said marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other legitimate definition of marriage. There is nothing that mankind can do to alter what God has instituted and defined. Oh, societies and individuals may act in contradiction to God's laws but they are literally delusional if they believe they can achieve lasting peace and joy or if they expect that they will continue to prosper in the land.

Your attempt to play the homophobe/bigot/hate group card is dishonest. It is a textbook example of the type of tactics that are used by same-sex marriage advocates in an attempt to suppress any speech or dialoge that is in opposition to their self-serving definition of tolerance and love. There is nothing righteous or praiseworthy about an ad-hominem.

Nothing Vort has posted has equaled to hate speech or dehuminization of gays. It seems clear to me that Vort is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that exist within the arguments of SS marriage advocates. The point being made here is that we should't celebrate, condone, support, or encourage sinful behavior. Homosexual marriage and homosexual sex are sins! Why attempt to ridicule and silence a man who is trying to help others realize that they need not be controlled by their natural impulses? It doesn't make sense for a disciple of Jesus Christ to attack a man who is ultimately testifying that before we came to earth, we were God's. Our sexuality is just a small part of our identity. We are children of God first and forever.

Those of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ ought to advocate, support, and stand-up for the family as it has been established and defined by God, the Eternal Father. We should be united in making sure that God's purposes on this earth are fulfilled. We ought to be testifying to all mankind that living the laws of God, including the law of chastity, will bring joy and peace to one's life.

-Finrock

Edited January 24, 2014 by Finrock
Clarifications

[Crash]

Good Afternoon Quin. I hope you are doing well! :)

Happiness in life comes from obeying God's commandments. For a disciple of Jesus Christ it just doesn't make sense to advocate behavior that leads to death. Homosexual principles cannot lead to happiness or life (neither spiritual life or physical life). God, not man, said marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other legitimate definition of marriage. There is nothing that mankind can do to alter what God has instituted and defined. Oh, societies and individuals may act in contradiction to God's laws but they are literally delusional if they believe they can achieve lasting peace and joy or if they expect that they will continue to prosper in the land.

Your attempt to play the homophobe/bigot/hate group card is dishonest. It is a textbook example of the type of tactics that are used by same-sex marriage advocates in an attempt to suppress any speech or dialoge that is in opposition to their self-serving definition of tolerance and love. There is nothing righteous or praiseworthy about an ad-hominem.

Nothing Vort has posted has equaled to hate speech or dehuminization of gays. It seems clear to me that Vort is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that exist within the arguments of SS marriage advocates. The point being made here is that we should't celebrate, condone, support, or encourage sinful behavior. Homosexual marriage and homosexual sex are sins! Why attempt to ridicule and silence a man who is trying to help others realize that they need not be controlled by their natural impulses? It doesn't make sense for a disciple of Jesus Christ to attack a man who is ultimately testifying that before we came to earth, we were God's. Our sexuality is just a small part of our identity. We are children of God first and forever.

Those of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ ought to advocate, support, and stand-up for the family as it has been established and defined by God, the Eternal Father. We should be united in making sure that God's purposes on this earth are fulfilled. We ought to be testifying to all mankind that living the laws of God, including the law of chastity, will bring joy and peace to one's life.

-Finrock

This was very well stated and this is the exact position of the church as has been affirmed by church leaders time and again. That does not mean that we are to shun gay people or any other people. We love the sinner, which is literally everyone on earth, but hate the sin. The simple fact is, as stated, that anyone who's heart is on sinful things will not inherit the celestial kingdom. Those who strive to do righteous things, whether thy have gay tendencies or not, and who concern themselves with the building up of the kingdom of heaven will be rewarded with exaltation, provided they have met the ordinances of the gospel.

[Soulsearcher]

Brag it up.

Heheheh. So, did soul come all the way from Canada just to attend a LDS.Net dinner? (Maybe he's not in Canada but for some reason I thought he was.)

You are right i am in canada, and yes i did come down sort of for an LDS dinner. I think part of it was more Two of us from this site were traveling to Utah and we kinda hoped we could all have a dinner. Oddly enough my first trip, and first time meeting Pam was to meet a girl from this site. Lol second trip was to go to my first Gay club.

[Bini]

You are right i am in canada, and yes i did come down sort of for an LDS dinner. I think part of it was more Two of us from this site were traveling to Utah and we kinda hoped we could all have a dinner. Oddly enough my first trip, and first time meeting Pam was to meet a girl from this site. Lol second trip was to go to my first Gay club.

Some things just aren't meant to be. :)

[Soulsearcher]

Some things just aren't meant to be. :)

Lol aside from Pam and Amber and one or two others both trips fell under the disaster category lol

[pam]

Lol aside from Pam and Amber and one or two others both trips fell under the disaster category lol

Whoa....wait a minute. You got to see Amber and me and hang out with us. Sheesh.

[Quin]

Good Afternoon Quin. I hope you are doing well! :)

Happiness in life comes from obeying God's commandments. For a disciple of Jesus Christ it just doesn't make sense to advocate behavior that leads to death. Homosexual principles cannot lead to happiness or life (neither spiritual life or physical life). God, not man, said marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no other legitimate definition of marriage. There is nothing that mankind can do to alter what God has instituted and defined. Oh, societies and individuals may act in contradiction to God's laws but they are literally delusional if they believe they can achieve lasting peace and joy or if they expect that they will continue to prosper in the land.

Your attempt to play the homophobe/bigot/hate group card is dishonest. It is a textbook example of the type of tactics that are used by same-sex marriage advocates in an attempt to suppress any speech or dialoge that is in opposition to their self-serving definition of tolerance and love. There is nothing righteous or praiseworthy about an ad-hominem.

Nothing Vort has posted has equaled to hate speech or dehuminization of gays. It seems clear to me that Vort is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that exist within the arguments of SS marriage advocates. The point being made here is that we should't celebrate, condone, support, or encourage sinful behavior. Homosexual marriage and homosexual sex are sins! Why attempt to ridicule and silence a man who is trying to help others realize that they need not be controlled by their natural impulses? It doesn't make sense for a disciple of Jesus Christ to attack a man who is ultimately testifying that before we came to earth, we were God's. Our sexuality is just a small part of our identity. We are children of God first and forever.

Those of us who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ ought to advocate, support, and stand-up for the family as it has been established and defined by God, the Eternal Father. We should be united in making sure that God's purposes on this earth are fulfilled. We ought to be testifying to all mankind that living the laws of God, including the law of chastity, will bring joy and peace to one's life.

-Finrock

The subject of marriage is completely different than someone's sexual identity.

Heterosexual people go through life and never get married.

That doesn't change their sexual orientation or identity.

Ditto homosexual.

When someone says "homosexual" and someone else replies with "child & dog rapers" ... That is a direct verbal assault.

The same way if someone says Quinn, or Finnrock... And someone else says "child & dog raper", or someone says woman and someone else says fat lazy cow.

Taking aside all the homosexual people outside the church... Let's JUST look at all the homosexual people INSIDE the church. Those following the law of chastity along with every other covenant they've ever made... But then a member of the church calls them or equates them with (by inference, or straight out, the hateful intent is clear) someone who rapes children or animals.

NOT ONLY THAT... But then the vast majority either agree with the sentiment, or remain silent.

I could have told you of 2 members in my ward (that are open about their SSA), and gone on for days, as they're wonderful people. One fairly young, one who fought in WWII. Both committed to following the church despite the HORRIBLE treatment of them by other members. I could have told you about my pal who is in a mixed orientation marriage, as they believe so strongly in the gospel AND want a family.

I could have told stories about many many of my friends outside the church.

But Vort equated these GOOD PEOPLE with the worst kind of evil.

And, sickenly, others followed suit.

The church is vey clear on its position about marriage.

The church is ALSO very clear that homosexual people are to be treated with love & understanding.

Calling someone a pedophile is NOT treating them with love and understanding.

Nor, IMHO, is justifying all bad treatment of homosexuals based on the separate issue of marriage.

Q

[Quin]

For the record... I SUPPORT the church's stance on marriage.

I also VOTE for marriage equality.

Because I believe that all people should be equal under the law.

Whenever one group is denied he same rights & responsibilities as everyone else... Or is dehumanized / doesn't "deserve" the same rights as others... Even if I do not agree with the group, I vote for ALL of us having the same rights. Equal unto the law.

Not men only.

Not white men and women only.

Not everyone but Jews.

Not everyone but gay people.

Not everyone but redheads, or everyone but homeless, or everyone but wealthy people, or everyone but ...

No buts.

ALL of us having the same legal rights and responsibilities.

If a person is a legal consenting adult, I believe FIRMLY that my government should treat them the same under the law as every other legal consenting adult.

MY church can recognize as holy matrimony something entirely different than my friend's churns, mosque, or temple.

I love that.

I love that I am free to follow MY church's dictates.

(I've lived in countries where that is not true. It is a precious gift.)

I cannot deny that religious freedom to others.

So while I support MY church's view on holy matrimony,

I do not support the government saying a white woman cannot marry a black man.

Wait. ANY kind of judicial discrimination.

Q

[Vort]

But Vort equated these GOOD PEOPLE with the worst kind of evil.

You are lying, Quin. No other word suits your actions. Shame on you.

[Vort]

But Vort equated these GOOD PEOPLE with the worst kind of evil.

This is false, Quin, as has been explained to you repeatedly and very carefully. Shame on you for continuing to insist on this untruth. I invite you to be more truthful in your communications and to avoid false characterizations of the postings of others.

[Magen_Avot]

We are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and we are to be forgiving, patient, long suffering ect. God loves us all and doesn't respect one over another. There is no room in this to pull out one person or one group to condemn. We are to embrace those who seek to come to Christ and cease not to invite the rest.

Since we are to "Come unto Christ" we are to leave 'Babylon' and progress in perfection until we know the Savior... personally. We cannot do that without recognizing our plight, repenting and seeking forgiveness as a starting point.

What would Jesus do in this case? "Appreciate us based on our sins?" Or invite us to repent and come unto Him? Deny ourselves of ALL unrighteousness? Resist temptation? Flee sin? Certainly not point our finger in accusation, and most certainly NOT praise us for our resistance to change even though we all have good in us. We are praised for striving to repent, change and come to Him. This applies to all... ALL who live.

However, in the days ahead, when the 'great and terrible day of the Lord' arrives, it will be everlastingly too late to expect a pass because we should be 'appreciated in our sin' of choice, or refused to stand for truth and righteousness (appropriately). There will be only two choices: Babylon or God.

Therefore, it is beyond reason to expect anyone to embrace the ideals of Babylon when they have chosen to embrace the path to Christ.

I would ask a question though. Is there a need to minister among a specific people? Who would have stopped the four sons of Mosiah? Anatess thinks there is. Who and how may be another question which I don't have an answer for. But I think that is where her heart is.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Quin. I hope you're doing well! :)

The subject of marriage is completely different than someone's sexual identity.

Heterosexual people go through life and never get married.

That doesn't change their sexual orientation or identity.

Ditto homosexual.

When someone says "homosexual" and someone else replies with "child & dog rapers" ... That is a direct verbal assault.

The same way if someone says Quinn, or Finnrock... And someone else says "child & dog raper", or someone says woman and someone else says fat lazy cow.

Taking aside all the homosexual people outside the church... Let's JUST look at all the homosexual people INSIDE the church. Those following the law of chastity along with every other covenant they've ever made... But then a member of the church calls them or equates them with (by inference, or straight out, the hateful intent is clear) someone who rapes children or animals.

NOT ONLY THAT... But then the vast majority either agree with the sentiment, or remain silent.

I could have told you of 2 members in my ward (that are open about their SSA), and gone on for days, as they're wonderful people. One fairly young, one who fought in WWII. Both committed to following the church despite the HORRIBLE treatment of them by other members. I could have told you about my pal who is in a mixed orientation marriage, as they believe so strongly in the gospel AND want a family.

I could have told stories about many many of my friends outside the church.

But Vort equated these GOOD PEOPLE with the worst kind of evil.

And, sickenly, others followed suit.

The church is vey clear on its position about marriage.

The church is ALSO very clear that homosexual people are to be treated with love & understanding.

Calling someone a pedophile is NOT treating them with love and understanding.

Nor, IMHO, is justifying all bad treatment of homosexuals based on the separate issue of marriage.

Q

With respect, your post would be a lot more meaningful if it was not a distortion of the truth. You continue to twist what has been actually said. It is curious to me that you aren't addressing what has been said but rather you are creating false statements, attributing these false statements to posters (i.e. Vort) and then attacking these contrived statements as if you were doing something virtuous or standing up to bullies, etc.

It seems like you are purposefully trying to prevent a rational dialogue because you are opposed to the position that homosexual sex and/or marriage is sinful.

I was born in to a home where I was sexually abused by my mother and grandmother. I have memories of being abused as young as four years old, which continued until I was six years old. I was also raped by an older neighborhood boy a couple of times when I was six years old. I was exposed to pornography at a very young age. I remember as young as five years old I was seeking out pornographic material and viewing it. When I was ten my stepfather would regularly show me hardcore porno movies or magazines. I became a sex/porno addict at least by the time I was six years old, not by choice, but because it was forced upon me. Although not technically true but in all practicality I was born with a sex/porno addiction because of my mother, grandmother, and others who abused me. I had no control over this segment of my life which essentially shaped who and what I was for years.

As I got older and became accountable for my actions I did not just magically get rid of my addictions and my impulses. I have struggled for years to overcome what was given to me as a child. But despite my childhood circumstances, when I became accountable I have never been justified in giving in to my sexual perversions and impulses...Or, if I had been inclined to do so, in celebrating my perversions as some sort of virtue.

If we are going to celebrate homosexual fornication then we might as well celebrate heterosexual fornication. Homosexuality, no matter how that impulse was obtained, is a distortion of, and at odds with, God's laws and ways. We should not be condoning, supporting, and putting on a pedestal perversions of God's laws. We should not be celebrating and putting on a pedestal things that are contrary to God's laws and His ways. This is true whether you were born with a particular impulse or not born with it.

-Finrock

[Guest]

Anatess is going to hijack this thread...

See...what you gotta understand is, when I was called to the Philippines it was still an English speaking mission in the call, meaning I had no language training in the MTC. And I barely got to the point that I could cave-man it through a discussion by the end of my mission. Spelling was not on the table.

Now I know. "Di'in ka Macadto?" is "Di'in ka Makadto." Who knew? I've probably spelled the rest of the words wrong anyhow. Does Philippino use ' in that word? I have no idea! (Ilonggo in this case...let's see...Tagalog would be "Saan ka pupunta?" I believe.)

I suppose then that the c in Bacolod is from the Spanish influence then??

I guess, now that I think about it, I remember learning the alphabet... (a ba ka da e ga ha i la...). Heheh. I'm probably mispelling the spelling of the letters themselves...er...are they even spelled. I'm useless.

Pilipino is the National Language. It is different from the individual dialects. There are 49 distinct dialects and they may or may not follow the Pilipino alphabet. And then, added to that, the Spaniards mapped the archipelago so they are known worldwide by their Spanish names instead of their local dialect name or even their Pilipino names. Bacolod, for example is Bakolod in Pilipino, Cebu is Sugbu. But the Hiligaynon (also erroneously called Ilonggo) and Cebuano dialects follow the Spanish alphabet where you get the Ch sound and the Ll (el-ye) sound and the N~ sound (en-ye) and the Rr (hard R) sound... etc. But when the Pilipino language became nationally accepted as the national language, the individual alphabet of each dialect changed to adopt the Pilipino alphabet. But in the last 20 years, some private schools started requiring Native Tongue classes in Elementary and High School in addition to the Pilipino and English classes. So, those speaking Cebuano and Hiligaynon may get to revive their Spanish alphabet - not sure. The linguists are arguing whether to bring back the alphabet from the 1600's or go to the very very roots of the language prior to the Spanish occupation - which is largely oral tradition and very very sparse written records - which would mean creating an alphabet specific to the sounds in the native tongue.

How's that for confusing?

By the way, it's "Diin ka pakadto?" instead of makadto in Hligaynon. And "Saan ka pupunta?" is perfect Pilipino. In Cebuano, "Asa ka padulong?" which is interesting to note because Hiligaynon and Cebuano are both variations of Visayan (you can still mostly understand each other) - but in this instance, they are completely different.

[The Folk Prophet]

Anatess is going to hijack this thread...

Pilipino is the National Language. It is different from the individual dialects. There are 49 distinct dialects and they may or may not follow the Pilipino alphabet. And then, added to that, the Spaniards mapped the archipelago so they are known worldwide by their Spanish names instead of their local dialect name or even their Pilipino names. Bacolod, for example is Bakolod in Pilipino, Cebu is Sugbu. But the Hiligaynon (also erroneously called Ilonggo) and Cebuano dialects follow the Spanish alphabet where you get the Ch sound and the Ll (el-ye) sound and the N~ sound (en-ye) and the Rr (hard R) sound... etc. But when the Pilipino language became nationally accepted as the national language, the individual alphabet of each dialect changed to adopt the Pilipino alphabet. But in the last 20 years, some private schools started requiring Native Tongue classes in Elementary and High School in addition to the Pilipino and English classes. So, those speaking Cebuano and Hiligaynon may get to revive their Spanish alphabet - not sure. The linguists are arguing whether to bring back the alphabet from the 1600's or go to the very very roots of the language prior to the Spanish occupation - which is largely oral tradition and very very sparse written records - which would mean creating an alphabet specific to the sounds in the native tongue.

How's that for confusing?

By the way, it's "Diin ka pakadto?" instead of makadto in Hligaynon. And "Saan ka pupunta?" is perfect Pilipino. In Cebuano, "Asa ka padulong?" which is interesting to note because Hiligaynon and Cebuano are both variations of Visayan (you can still mostly understand each other) - but in this instance, they are completely different.

THREAD HIJACK!!! How dare you?

Far be it from me to debate one of the Philippine dialects with a Philippina, but...

The one thing I clearly and distinctly remember learning was the ma tense altering prefix (though I know there were more, naga, naka...???). Ma was for future tense. I don't remember pa being a prefix option. The first phrase I learned was diin ka makadto, and that's the way every missionary said it (including the Philippino ones). So if you're right, we all sounded like a bunch of cavemen.