Reaching out for support after reading the Essays


WannaBelieve
 Share

Recommended Posts

So.... your position is you dont know if he is right or wrong? You're unwilling to say?

Logic tells us that we do not accept something as truth unless there is evidence suggesting that it is fact. Such a statement as Kimball's should not be made without providing evidence to support it. (At least if you want to be taken seriously). Jump through all the hoops you want, twist it all you want, but his statement regarding mmasturbation and homosexuality is wrong.

This isn't a scientific debate. This is a statement from a prophet. Now I don't know if it was just his opinion (likely) or not. But all the evidence he needs provide is that it was revealed from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.... your position is you dont know if he is right or wrong? You're unwilling to say?

Logic tells us that we do not accept something as truth unless there is evidence suggesting that it is fact. Such a statement as Kimball's should not be made without providing evidence to support it. (At least if you want to be taken seriously).

 

I think this boils down to two opposing, fundamental views of LDS leadership.  One wing holds the view that the prophet is probably right unless he can be demonstrated (primarily by spiritual manifestations; though empirical evidence may also be a factor) to be wrong.  The other wing holds . . . just the opposite.

 

 

Jump through all the hoops you want, twist it all you want, but his statement regarding mmasturbation and homosexuality is wrong.

 

Huh?

 

I thought we just established that homosexuality is most likely due to the confluence of a variety of factors, that masturbation does (at least, in conjunction with other factors) change the brain's physiology; and that therefore we can't really rule masturbation out of the equation.

 

Did we ever pin down just how many openly gay people have never masturbated?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a scientific debate. This is a statement from a prophet. Now I don't know if it was just his opinion (likely) or not. But all the evidence he needs provide is that it was revealed from God.

 

To be fair, he wasn't the prophet when he wrote this. But the point remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.... your position is you dont know if he is right or wrong? You're unwilling to say?

Logic tells us that we do not accept something as truth unless there is evidence suggesting that it is fact. Such a statement as Kimball's should not be made without providing evidence to support it. (At least if you want to be taken seriously). Jump through all the hoops you want, twist it all you want, but his statement regarding mmasturbation and homosexuality is wrong.

 

I'm afraid that science and religious belief are similar, but not the same.  Lots of people have experiences with following what President Kimball said and were blessed for it, so they choose to believe he was a Prophet whom God spoke through.  There will never be empirical evidence that Pres. Kimball was a Prophet, only experience mixed with perspective.  

 

So, asking for empirical backup is asking for the impossible.  You've had experiences that show that Pres. Kimball was wrong about this thing (I actually agree with you), so you don't believe this was inspired.  Those arguing with you have had different experiences, so they believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.... your position is you dont know if he is right or wrong?

 

My position isn't relevant. I'm not the one making claims that he was wrong -- or right. So I don't have to back anything up. I have no claim concerning the matter, except that if you are going to make such a bold claim as, "he was dead wrong", you'd better be able to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record. I spoke with my bishop tonight. He stated that doctrine does not change. Doctrine is revealed and is not "new". The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was a Policy, not doctrine. Prophets are men just like the rest of us and they make mistakes.

 

waiting for the accolades of my correctness.....   :-/

Edited by mdfxdb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position isn't relevant. I'm not the one making claims that he was wrong -- or right. So I don't have to back anything up. I have no claim concerning the matter, except that if you are going to make such a bold claim as, "he was dead wrong", you'd better be able to back it up.

Well, what does logic say? Almost all men masturbate. According to a gallup pole about 3% of the population is homosexual. There sure isn't a strong correlation. This absolutely contradicts Kimball's statement.. especially considering that many gays claim they were born with homosexual feelings. Combining these facts with my own anectodal experiences it seems that his position has no leg to stand on.

We could go on an argue the meaning of "too often leads too", but we'll have to agree to disagree in this topic. To me it's obviously false, and to you apparently it's not. That's fine :-)

Merry Christmas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what does logic say? Almost all men masturbate. According to a gallup pole about 3% of the population is homosexual. There sure isn't a strong correlation. This absolutely contradicts Kimball's statement.. especially considering that many gays claim they were born with homosexual feelings. Combining these facts with my own anectodal experiences it seems that his position has no leg to stand on.

We could go on an argue the meaning of "too often leads too", but we'll have to agree to disagree in this topic. To me it's obviously false, and to you apparently it's not. That's fine :-)

Merry Christmas

 

Just so we're all clear as to what Pres. Kimball actually said:

 

It [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation -- practiced with another person of the same sex -- and thence into total homosexuality.  --Miracle of Forgiveness, 78

 

And, another variant:

 

Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality.  --LDS General Conference Address, October 1980.

 

I think that's very different than "masturbation ("too often") leads to homosexuality"; particularly if you're trying to act as if it's the defining factor in the formation of one's sexual identity and especially if you're defining homosexuality as the attraction rather than action (seen in context, Kimball is almost certainly talking about the act).  And I'm still surprised at how cavalierly you seek to completely absolve masturbation for any role in might play in a young person's formation of their own sexual identity.  It's one thing to say it's not the only factor; but to deny it's any factor at all? 

 

I don't get this fixation on downplaying the problems of masturbation, or straw-manning and pillorying Kimball for having dared to warn against the practice.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm still surprised at how cavalierly you seek to completely absolve masturbation for any role in might play in a young person's formation of their own sexual identity. It's one thing to say it's not the only factor; but to deny it's any factor at all?

I don't get this fixation on downplaying the problems of masturbation, or straw-manning and pillorying Kimball for having dared to warn against the practice.

I have no problem with him warning of masturbation. Warning people that masturbation can lead to homosexuality is completely unfounded. TFP asked what Kimball got wrong about sex, so I brought up this issue.

I'm not attacking Kimball, just some of his statements. These are a few things I disagree with amongst the myriad of teachings of his I love.

I have a problem with Kimball's tone in his book regarding sexual sins. IMO they do more damage to spirituality than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously we could go back and for on this forever. But you have not proved your point, in spite of the adamant repetition. For you to be successful, you must give concrete evidence that masturbation does not too often lead to homosexuality. Even if I took your logic at face-value (which I see no reason not to), all it shows is that masturbation does not always lead to homosexuality. Well that's obvious. Who would argue that? But you seem to be conflating the two ideas. They're not one and the same.

 

For now I think I'll keep Kimball off of my "When prophets are wrong" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

 

Hey Vort, TFP 

 

I bet you guys think that this talk is Doctrine as well.....

The fourteen fundamentals mentioned:

  1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
  2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
  3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
  4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
  5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
  6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
  7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
  8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
  9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
  10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
  11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
  12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
  13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
  14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

To which of these do you object?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng

 

Hey Vort, TFP 

 

I bet you guys think that this talk is Doctrine as well.....

 

Talks and words and speeches and the like are never "doctrine". Doctrine is ideas. At best you should have asked, "I bet you guys think that this talk contains doctrine as well..."

 

Stop trying to pick fights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously we could go back and for on this forever. But you have not proved your point, in spite of the adamant repetition. For you to be successful, you must give concrete evidence that masturbation does not too often lead to homosexuality. Even if I took your logic at face-value (which I see no reason not to), all it shows is that masturbation does not always lead to homosexuality. Well that's obvious. Who would argue that? But you seem to be conflating the two ideas. They're not one and the same.

For now I think I'll keep Kimball off of my "When prophets are wrong" list.

I have most certainly proved it. There is no correlation between masturbation and homosexuality.

But it's ok, keep your head in the sand if it's more comfortable. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have most certainly proved it. There is no correlation between masturbation and homosexuality.

But it's ok, keep your head in the sand if it's more comfortable. :-)

  1. StallionMcBeastly has proved his point. There is no more discussion possible after his statements, because they are so conclusive and irrefutable.
  2. If you disagree with StallionMcBeastly, you are denying plain truth and "keep[ing] your head in the sand".

Welcome to Leftist Argumentation Techniques 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fourteen fundamentals mentioned:

  1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
  2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
  3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
  4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
  5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
  6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
  7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
  8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
  9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
  10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
  11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
  12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
  13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
  14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

To which of these do you object?

Most but not all of the points actually,

 

 

The content of this talk portrays to the world that as a man the Prophet who at this time was Spencer W Kimball that his words were more important than the standard works they are important than any other prophet in the history of the church or standard works for that matter, that they are more important on any subject than what anybody else has ever said anytime or anywhere, regardless of their expertise; and whose every word could be considered scripture.

 

I will not follow blindly. 

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most but not all of the points actually,

 

Come on. Don't be afraid. Let's hear which ones you object to and why.

 

The content of this talk portrays to the world that as a man the Prophet who at this time was Spencer W Kimball that his words were more important than the standard works they are important than any other prophet in the history of the church or standard works for that matter, that they are more important on any subject than what anybody else has ever said anytime or anywhere, regardless of their expertise; and whose every word could be considered scripture.

 

Well...duh. Of course. Of what use is a prophet if he cannot be trusted to speak for God?

 

I will not follow blindly. 

 

Leave off the final word; your meaning is precisely the same, and you save two syllables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most but not all of the points actually,

 

 

The content of this talk portrays to the world that as a man the Prophet who at this time was Spencer W Kimball that his words were more important than the standard works they are important than any other prophet in the history of the church or standard works for that matter, that they are more important on any subject than what anybody else has ever said anytime or anywhere, regardless of their expertise; and whose every word could be considered scripture.

 

I will not follow blindly. 

 

This is particularly jejune even your you.

 

If you aren't interested in following the prophet, blindly or otherwise, then don't. Who's stopping you?

 

Like I said. Stop trying to pick a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share