Anatess Threadjackers Welcome Here!!!

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't know church... Bini and I have different views on the LGBT issue. But, I truly felt this in that thread. It may not be intentioned, I understand that - because I am very sure none of us hate gays. But, the feeling is there nonetheless because of that thread's complete failure. So yes, we may not hate gays, but our actions, at least in that thread, belie that fact.

See my previous post to you. (edit: my previous to previous post I mean).

[pam]

I have not read anyone come straight out and say: "I hate homosexuals" or "Homosexuals are disgusting" but I have certainly felt that tone in certain posts. I'm sure others have too.

I'm not sure that I've ever even seen that "tone" of dislike towards gays.

I have seen many people show or display a dislike of the actions of those that break the law of chastity among gays.

[Bini]

I'm not sure that I've ever even seen that "tone" of dislike towards gays.

I have seen many people show or display a dislike of the actions of those that break the law of chastity among gays.

I have definitely felt it.

[carlimac]

I'll come right out and say this. I hate it when groups of gays get together and try to change the world, change the time honored definition of marriage and family, when they run ramshod over people who don't agree with them- destroying business and livlihoods in their wake, when they use wily twists of truth to further their purposes and when they expect anyone who opposes them to "move to the back of the bus and don't get uppity about it." ( To quote Neal A Maxwell)

Does that get me in a foul mood? You bet! Does that come out in my writing on this forum? You bet! Does it mean I hate gays? No. I hate what they are doing! I have an over developed sense of fairness and I think it's utterly unfair of them to expect the rest of society to just move aside for them.

Do I have compassion for the burden they've been given in this life? Absolutely! And I wish they could see their attractions through the lens of LDS church doctrine where it's a challenge to be dealt with that ultimately will make then stronger and closer to the Lord than they ever thought possible if they resist temptation and rely on the atonement to help them.

More than anything it makes me sad that so many gays and now more and more young straight liberals are so blinded and schnookered by this movement that has been crafted by Satan. He has taken advantage of a human weakness, a bit of confusion in young peoples' lives and turned it into the most controlling, ugly, divisive, destructive monster imaginable. And I can imagine him getting the biggest kick out of it. Now that makes me mad all over again! And I only feel negative feelings towards gays to the extent they have bought into this lie and condemn, belittle and berate others for not swallowing it, hook line and sinker with them.

Edited January 24, 2014 by carlimac

[Guest]

Won't do that is more accurate. I apologize for it, but your intended purpose, as I've said, I felt misguided, and felt it important to say so for others browsing the thread. Clearly others felt the same.

If I made a post you felt was misguided, in spite of my intent, I would hope you would do the same.

I don't understand why it is misguided... can you expound on that?

And, really, what do you expect on a forum? :) It's the way they go, really. I remember when I was searching for an LDS forum to join I was in one where they had "focused" threads, where the OP had moderation power and could delete any posts they didn't want in their thread. Something like that would clearly a better platform for your intent, but really, the whole idea bugged the stink out of me. I'm too American to be censored. I HATE my HOA (stinking communists! Whoever came up with HOAs should be exiled). And I relish the concept of free speech and free debate. In spite of some weaknesses, it's a better way. Clearly there is some moderation that is appropriate, particularly on an LDS forum. Can you imagine some of the nasty things that would go down with no moderation? In my opinion this forum and our mods do a very good job of balancing this. Does a bit of rude happen? Sure. I prefer that to over-site that oppresses real thought and debate. If things get really out of hand, as we know, the mods close the thread -- sometime annoying, sure, especially if you're right in the middle of a good fight. But it all seems to work out pretty well in the end. I guess what I'm getting at is look on the bright side. You can't control things like this, even with a stated purpose. So enjoy.

I'm not for censoring either. But there is no censorship here... It's simply - I'd like to talk about this here... we can talk about that over there. It's like when we Floridians are talking about the great Florida weather and you butt in and say, "Australia is getting a lot of snow today"... and we're like... okay... and go back talking about the great Florida weather... and you butt in and say, "There's these Australians that really hate Florida weather"... it's... I don't know... disrespectful, I guess.

Vort's initial post was okay - the intent of the thread was not clear to him so he questioned it, so I replied. Even the one about whether we're appreciating the person who is gay or the gay person... that was also cool... but then the thread just went downhill. It was terrible.

Edited January 24, 2014 by anatess

[Guest]

I'm not sure that I've ever even seen that "tone" of dislike towards gays.

I have seen many people show or display a dislike of the actions of those that break the law of chastity among gays.

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?

Edited January 24, 2014 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't understand why it is misguided... can you expound on that?

Hmm. I'm not sure wherein you haven't gotten this from my other posts. I've explained why I think it was a bad idea several times. I don't think a "Hoorah for gays" statement is helpful, in fact I think it harmful. Moreover, titling it "Appreciation for gays" implies things like we should actually appreciate homosexuality. We should not. And I do not feel a shout-out in a public forum is an appropriate way to try and let gay people know they are loved. To clarify my previous explanation of this, those who are pro-gay may well take a thread like that as support. Those who believe homosexuality is sinful may well take a thread like that as potentially enabling. It was loaded right from the start, and that, if nothing else, made it misguided.

I feel this should be obvious. "We love gays" is not a Mormon poster slogan, a bumper sticker, or a theme. Saying it in terms like these confuses the meaning and the point. The church doesn't say it this way very clearly. Affirmation is not the church's objective in any regard. Nor should it be.

What they do say is that we should show love and compassion for all people, including those who struggle with SSA. Showing love and compassion does not mean marching in the gay pride parades though. It doesn't mean celebrating the lifestyle.

I'm not for censoring either. But there is no censorship here... It's simply - I'd like to talk about this here... we can talk about that over there. It's like when we Floridians are talking about the great Florida weather and you butt in and say, "Australia is getting a lot of snow today"... and we're like... okay... and go back talking about the great Florida weather... and you butt in and say, "There's these Australians that really hate Florida weather"... it's... I don't know... disrespectful, I guess.

It's like Floridians talking about the great weather in Florida and another Floridian butts in and says, "I think talking about Floridian whether in this regard is a bad idea." It was nowhere near as off-topic as you imply. We were specifically addressing the intent of the thread, which, as I've said, we felt it our duty to do (the Florida example isn't ideal because there is no level of morality involved therein).

Vort's initial post was okay - the intent of the thread was not clear to him so he questioned it, so I replied. Even the one about whether we're appreciating the person who is gay or the gay person... that was also cool... but then the thread just went downhill. It was terrible.

Vort wasn't innocently questioning the intent of the thread (Vort can correct me if I'm wrong), he was clearly implying that it was misguided.

[carlimac]

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?

Maybe it's because the only gays we know personally or are aware of are the ones who are fighting against us, who call us bigots and h8ters. Perhaps we simply don't have anything positive to say?

[The Folk Prophet]

Maybe it's because the only gays we know personally or are aware of are the ones who are fighting against us, who call us bigots and h8ters. Perhaps we simply don't have anything positive to say?

Nah...I don't think that's entirely fair. Certainly not my case. It does seem pretty obvious though. LDS forum. Topic = something about gays. People are going to speak out on it. "Attack" is an inflammatory way to put it, though technically accurate.

I actually feel bad for anatess. Particularly in that I know it was my doing as much as any that she felt her thread went to stink.

[Crash]

Homosexuality is not considered a sin in the LDS Church.

Wait. What?! Homosexuality is not a sin in the LDS Church?

Two things to note: First, the act of homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuality is a sin. Second, we are not just judged by what we do but also the content of our hearts. If I remain celibate but desire and entertain the thought of sex I will be judged according to the content of my heart despite the fact that I am not performing sexual acts. Remember, to look upon another to lust after him or her is the same as committing the act of fornication or adultery. It is the same in God's eyes because He said so.

So, if a person entertains the thoughts of homosexuality, even without acting upon them, it is sin. Where did the church ever say that it isn't? I believe you are misinterpreting the church's position.

[Vort]

What's the point a mother's appreciation thread?

Probably to express appreciation for mothers and motherhood. What's your point?

When are we going to have a fat lazy cow appreciation thread?

Probably never. What's your point?

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.

Let's test this claim.

Yes or no: When someone talks badly about pedophiles, do you speak up and refuse to tolerate such speech?

Yes or no.

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.

But no one here has done any such thing.

Heck, MY religion doesn't even say that homosexuality is a sin

Then why do you claim to be LDS?

but because you & others don't like it, you compare them to people raping dogs, and beating their wives.

Quin, I don't believe that you are actually unable to understand what I was saying. You know perfectly well that I was not directly comparing the gravity of the sexual perversions of homosexuals with the gravity of the other acts, some of which were more grievous and some of which were less. So stop with the self-righteous act. You are not fooling anyone.

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

So when anyone criticizes pedophiles, you jump to their defense.

Right?

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

Then point to any statement made that mocks, ridicules, or attacks gay people.

[Guest]

Maybe it's because the only gays we know personally or are aware of are the ones who are fighting against us, who call us bigots and h8ters. Perhaps we simply don't have anything positive to say?

Do you think that Hoosierguy calls us bigots and haters?

[Guest]

Yes or no: When someone talks badly about pedophiles, do you speak up and refuse to tolerate such speech?

Yes or no.

No. Because... A pedophile is somebody who committed the sinful act.

You can be gay and not commit a sinful act. Do you disagree?

[Vort]

No. Because... A pedophile is somebody who committed the sinful act.

You can be gay and not commit a sinful act. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. If you're going to define a "homosexual" as anyone who experiences sexual attraction to the same sex, then to be consistent (and honest), you must define "pedophile" as anyone who experiences sexual attraction to children.

[Guest]

Wait. What?! Homosexuality is not a sin in the LDS Church?

Two things to note: First, the act of homosexuality is a sin, so homosexuality is a sin. Second, we are not just judged by what we do but also the content of our hearts. If I remain celibate but desire and entertain the thought of sex I will be judged according to the content of my heart despite the fact that I am not performing sexual acts. Remember, to look upon another to lust after him or her is the same as committing the act of fornication or adultery. It is the same in God's eyes because He said so.

So, if a person entertains the thoughts of homosexuality, even without acting upon them, it is sin. Where did the church ever say that it isn't? I believe you are misinterpreting the church's position.

Here it is. Where the breakdown lies. The definition of homosexuality.

First, here is what the Church says about it:

Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.Mormons and Gays

The words Gay and Homosexual and by extension Homosexuality is applied to people who have the attraction itself... which the Church SPECIFICALLY points out IS NOT A SIN.

Acting on one's homosexuality is a sin.

[Guest]

Yes, I disagree. If you're going to define a "homosexual" as anyone who experiences sexual attraction to the same sex, then to be consistent (and honest), you must define "pedophile" as anyone who experiences sexual attraction to children.

This is not correct. You don't become a pedophile - a label that comes with legal action - until you commit the act. If you experience sexual attraction to children, you can call yourself a Child-sexual if you like.

[The Folk Prophet]

This is confusing. The same debate's occurring in both threads now.

[Vort]

This is not correct. You don't become a pedophile - a label that comes with legal action - until you commit the act. If you experience sexual attraction to children, you can call yourself a Child-sexual if you like.

pedophile = child lover, where 'lover' is understood sexually.

I don't particularly care about how the words are defined, so long as we agree on the definitions. I very deeply care about the gross dishonesty of those who insist that they are upholding the good name of homosexuals, yet hypocritically refuse to do the same for pedophiles (call them whatever you like).

[Crash]

Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Mormons and Gays

The words Gay and Homosexual and by extension Homosexuality is applied to people who have the attraction itself... which the Church SPECIFICALLY points out IS NOT A SIN.

Acting on one's homosexuality is a sin.

I'll go back to my earlier statement that entertaining the thoughts of homosexual behavior, without physically acting on them, IS sin. The Lord specifically says so. That the church is not bringing that into the discussion means that it isn't wanting to complicate the issue.

Again, the scriptures point out that lusting after another person is sin just as much as if lustful acts are being committed. You can't have it both ways and the church knows it. They are just simplifying it by saying that tendencies are not sinful, which is true, but acting on them is, which is also true. Entertaining lustful thoughts is acting on impulses or tendencies.

[Vort]

I'll go back to my earlier statement that entertaining the thoughts of homosexual behavior, without physically acting on them, IS sin. The Lord specifically says so. That the church is not bringing that into the discussion means that it isn't wanting to complicate the issue.

Again, the scriptures point out that lusting after another person is sin just as much as if lustful acts are being committed. You can't have it both ways and the church knows it. They are just simplifying it by saying that tendencies are not sinful, which is true, but acting on them is, which is also true. Entertaining lustful thoughts is acting on impulses or tendencies.

I largely agree, but to be fair, "attraction" does not necessarily imply "dwelling on it". And the distinction can be useful when people learn to move from where they are to where they should be. It might be literally impossible for some people to utterly quit thinking in lustful terms immediately, but they can be taught self-mastery, starting with the teaching that they shouldn't commit certain physical acts. Discipline of one's mind comes with time.

[The Folk Prophet]

To be clear, the church differentiates, fairly consistently in what I've read, between SSA and Homosexuality. I don't think it would take much to find a myriad of quotes showing homosexuality to be a sin (maybe I'll do some digging tomorrow). I don't think labeling SSA = Homosexual is fairly accurate, though in some circles it is considered the same. But it's an argument of semantics. Not very useful.

[Crash]

This is not correct. You don't become a pedophile - a label that comes with legal action - until you commit the act. If you experience sexual attraction to children, you can call yourself a Child-sexual if you like.

Rubbish! As pointed out, the entertaining of thought towards a tendency is the SAME is committing the act itself.

27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. -- Matthew 5:27-28

This isn't just for adultery. It was given as an example. A pedophile who wants to commit sexual acts with children but doesn't physically do so because he or she doesn't want to go to jail doesn't cancel out his or her pedophilia. The sinful act has already been committed. There is no grey area here.

[Guest]

To be clear, the church differentiates, fairly consistently in what I've read, between SSA and Homosexuality. I don't think it would take much to find a myriad of quotes showing homosexuality to be a sin (maybe I'll do some digging tomorrow). I don't think labeling SSA = Homosexual is fairly accurate, though in some circles it is considered the same. But it's an argument of semantics. Not very useful.

We can't have a coherent discussion until we are using the words in like manner. I don't care what it's called. Just make sure EVERYBODY understands what we are using the term as. Hence, in the very beginning, I stated MY use of the words - which may be right or wrong... I'm Filipino, I have an excuse!

[The Folk Prophet]

We can't have a coherent discussion until we are using the words in like manner. I don't care what it's called. Just make sure EVERYBODY understands what we are using the term as. Hence, in the very beginning, I stated MY use of the words - which may be right or wrong... I'm Filipino, I have an excuse!

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

[Guest]

Rubbish! As pointed out, the entertaining of thought towards a tendency is the SAME is committing the act itself.

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

This isn't just for adultery. It was given as an example. A pedophile who wants to commit sexual acts with children but doesn't physically do so because he or she doesn't want to go to jail doesn't cancel out his or her pedophilia. The sinful act has already been committed. There is no grey area here.

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.