The War in Heaven

[brotherofJared]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) If we say "they are the problem" that's not the attitude of a charitable person. 

2) If we say "we are the problem" for thinking there is something wrong with a transgendered person (which is quite different than saying "they are the problem") that is overcompensating for #1.

We don't show charity to a person with issues by telling them that there is nothing wrong with them and feign some unknown fault on our part for not celebrating their issues.

Oh. So I am overcompensating. Got it.

I can see I stepped off into the deep end here. There doesn't appear to be anything I can say that will fix the issue. I'm going to try to clarify where I wasn't going, but I doubt it will help.

I didn't say anything about charity or being charitable. I believe that when we say something is wrong with another person, it's relative. There is something wrong with that person because they are not like me. To me, that is wrong. I didn't feign any unknown fault (If anyone is at fault, it's God... "I give unto men their weaknesses". Everyone has faults. There should never, ever, be a US and THEM mentality). I am for sure not celebrating anyone's issues and I wasn't implying that we should. I said I don't know what to do about it. I offer no solution, but I believe saying something is wrong with them is in itself, wrong.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by brotherofJared

[Vort]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We should clarify while we're at it: It was not Jesus's plan, It was God the Father's. If we're going to teach it right, let's teach it right.

This is merely one of many clarifications (read: corrections) that need to be made to the four points I mentioned.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

You make it sound like it's us against them.

Depends on who "them" is. If by "them" one means those trying to tear down God's church, principles, doctrines, and truths, and one defines "us" as any who seek to sustain, uphold, defend, and advocate for God's church, principles, doctrines, and truths, then, yes, it is "us" against "them".

16 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

They are not the problem. We are the problem.

Seriously here...who is "they" and who is "we"? "They" being defined as ones with sinful attitudes who want to abolish sinning and "we" being...??? The church members?

Are you saying that as the world goes about wallowing further into the realms of relative morality and the destruction of the the family that the true problem lies with those who don't get on board with that?

16 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

There are as many hypocrites and bigots in the church as there were in the early church.

Can you back this up? Source?

Edited June 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is merely one of many clarifications (read: corrections) that need to be made to the four points I mentioned.

Sure, I only pointed it out because of your comment 'Satan had no counterplan of "salvation" that he presented in opposition to Jesus' supposed "plan". ', which if read wrong could be understood to mean that the correction was only that Satan had no counterplan. I simply wanted to clarify further.

[Vort]

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

Many Latter-day Saints have the following (false) model of our premortal experience:

1. Jesus presented a plan for the salvation of mankind, which involved choice and consequences.
2. Lucifer presented a competing plan for salvation, which involved coercion and forced obedience.
3. The Father picked Jesus' plan. (Or, even falser: We voted and picked Jesus' plan.)
4. Lucifer got mad, rebelled, and was cast out with those cowardly souls who agreed with him.

The above doctrine is false, False, FALSE. It is literally wrong on every point. Yet it continues to be what many Latter-day Saints believe and teach to their children.

To be clear, here is my understanding of our revealed doctrine on these matters:

1. The Father presented a plan for the salvation of mankind, involving choice and consequences. Jesus volunteered (doubtless was called) to be the Redeemer, the key element of that plan.
2. Lucifer, lusting after Father's honor, insisted that he he himself be the chosen Redeemer, and claimed that the redemption he wrought would be superior to that proposed by the Father, in that he (Lucifer) would redeem all mankind, not just some.
3. The Father chose the First, Jehovah, as the Redeemer.
4. Satan, the liar, rose up in open rebellion against the Father. Amazingly, the third part of the host of heaven followed the erstwhile Lucifer in this rebellion. These, having spiritually severed themselves from the Source of spiritual life, were eternally lost, and thus were called Perdition and were cast out of the presence of God.

I suppose point #4 is very similar between the first list and the second list, so perhaps I overstated when I said that "every point" was absolutely false. But the meat of the doctrine is not in the first list.

[brotherofJared]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can you back this up? Source?

Of course I can't. It's an observation. Hypocrites can only exist in a group that they judge. Take the Pharisees for example. They are Jews. They were experts in Jewish Law, but they made the Law into a business that suited their lifestyle and then lived outside of that law themselves. If they were not Jews and were not the administrators of that Law, what they did would not and could not be considered hypocrisy. Bigots simply pass judgment on other people from a personal perspective. The church is full of them. It's almost impossible to escape. Both are motivated by personal gain, whether it be money or character assassination in order to make oneself rise above others, from their perspective, it makes no difference. 

When I made that statement, I was thinking of the demise of the early church, which I believe was brought about by bigots and hypocrites and for personal gain.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

the key element of that plan

So an interesting thought that came up in studying to teach the Plan of Salvation lesson a few weeks back in Gospel Doctrine (I was substitute teaching):

The plan being one of choice required BOTH good and evil. Jesus and the Atonement are key required components of the good (being that repentance is the means), but Satan might be just as key, for as the Book of Mormon teaches, without evil there can be no choice.

[brotherofJared]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Seriously here...who is "they" and who is "we"? "They" being defined as ones with sinful attitudes who want to abolish sinning and "we" being??? The church members?

Are you saying that as the world goes about wallowing further into the realms of relative morality and the destruction of the the family that the true problem lies with those who don't get on board with that?

Initially, this was about "genderism". I made the statement that the "science" (pretend though it may be) was an effort to explain the effeminate man and the masculine female. Those are the "they" that I am talking about. The effort to push one's pigeon holes on another group of people and the people who do it, are not the "they" I am talking about. My statement was simply that there is nothing wrong with people who have same-sex attraction and I believe "we" the church, actually, individuals in the church who act as bigots when they say something is wrong with those people, are wrong.

Does that clear it up?

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Of course I can't. It's an observation. Hypocrites can only exist in a group that they judge. Take the Pharisees for example. They are Jews. They were experts in Jewish Law, but they made the Law into a business that suited their lifestyle and then lived outside of that law themselves. If they were not Jews and were not the administrators of that Law, what they did would not and could not be considered hypocrisy. Bigots simply pass judgment on other people from a personal perspective. The church is full of them. It's almost impossible to escape. Both are motivated by personal gain, whether it be money or character assassination in order to make oneself rise above others, from their perspective, it makes no difference. 

When I made that statement, I was thinking of the demise of the early church, which I believe was brought about by bigots and hypocrites and for personal gain.

I have no doubt that there are hypocrites in the church. What I question is the implied number of them and the pending doom associated. My experience tells me that A) Most people in the church are of good intent even though imperfect (which does not a hypocrite make) and B) those accusing others of being hypocrites don't usually know what a hypocrite actually is.

As to the bigot thing, per the definition I looked up: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.", well now, A) It really comes down to how one defines "intolerant" and B) According to "the world" members ARE bigots and should be because the world has defined the word so that good and faithful followers of Christ cannot escape the accusation. So I don't worry much about that particular appellation.

[Anddenex]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Lucifer, lusting after Father's honor, insisted that he he himself be the chosen Redeemer, and claimed that the redemption he wrought would be superior to that proposed by the Father, in that he (Lucifer) would redeem all mankind, not just some.

This is where I find the argument of Lucifer presenting a plan an argument based in nuances, rather than actual doctrine. A "plan" can be defined as a method for achieving an end. Lucifer's proposed "plan" was that he would be the Savior, a alternative method, to achieve an end (the salvation of all).

We all know he couldn't have, so him being a liar and presenting an alternative "plan" fits within our doctrine just fine.

As for me, just my personal thoughts, I don't see anything non-doctrinal to say Satan presented an alternative plan to who would be the Savior.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Anddenex

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

My statement was simply that there is nothing wrong with people who have same-sex attraction

This is an argument about wording.

• Is there anything "wrong with" people who are sexually attracted to children?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who are sexually attracted to horses?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who have the desire to rape their neighbor?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who want to beat up the irritating guy on the bus?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who want to bite off all their fingers?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who want to have all power over others?

These are the common lusts of the flesh. If you want to say that there is nothing "wrong with" people who suffer from these lusts, I can accept your wording. But then, you have to use the same terminology with all of the lusts of the flesh, not just with homosexual perversions. On the other hand, if you believe that some or all of the bullet points do indeed represent something "wrong with" people, then you cannot reasonably deny applying the same terminology to those who struggle with homosexual desires.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

My statement was simply that there is nothing wrong with people who have same-sex attraction and I believe "we" the church, actually, individuals in the church who act as bigots when they say something is wrong with those people, are wrong.

Well that really depends on what one means by "wrong" now, doesn't it?

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

 

When I made that statement, I was thinking of the demise of the early church, which I believe was brought about by bigots and hypocrites and for personal gain.

Wait, which early church are we talking about?  The early Christian Church after the death of the last apostle?  I'm confused because that's not the reason the early church went into apostasy.  The early Church went into Apostasy due to philosophies of men superseding the gospel of Christ.

If you're talking about the early LDS Church... well, obviously, that church didn't go to its demise...

[Guest]

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

Oh. So I am overcompensating. Got it.

I can see I stepped off into the deep end here. There doesn't appear to be anything I can say that will fix the issue. I'm going to try to clarify where I wasn't going, but I doubt it will help.

I didn't say anything about charity or being charitable. I believe that when we say something is wrong with another person, it's relative. There is something wrong with that person because they are not like me. To me, that is wrong. I didn't feign any unknown fault (If anyone is at fault, it's God... "I give unto men their weaknesses". Everyone has faults. There should never, ever, be a US and THEM mentality). I am for sure not celebrating anyone's issues and I wasn't implying that we should. I said I don't know what to do about it. I offer no solution, but I believe saying something is wrong with them is in itself, wrong.

That is so far from even being the same topic as what I was saying that we're apparently not going to be on the same page.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

53 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Initially, this was about "genderism". I made the statement that the "science" (pretend though it may be) was an effort to explain the effeminate man and the masculine female. Those are the "they" that I am talking about. The effort to push one's pigeon holes on another group of people and the people who do it, are not the "they" I am talking about. My statement was simply that there is nothing wrong with people who have same-sex attraction and I believe "we" the church, actually, individuals in the church who act as bigots when they say something is wrong with those people, are wrong.

Does that clear it up?

I understand what you're saying here.  But that's not the issue of genderism.  The issue of genderism is not that there are people whose sexuality does not fall in the middle of normal male or female indicators (either physical and/or psychological).  The issue of genderism is that movement that has took hold in western society to eradicate the societal differences between the 2 sexes - Male and Female.  This has gotten so bad that Male and Female is now being promoted as exchangeable.  There is no more Female Role or Male Role.  Which means - there is no more Fatherhood or Motherhood, or even Priesthood.  These division of labor between the Male and Female in God's house of order is, therefore, under attack.

Yes, it is a FACT that Fatherhood and Motherhood doesn't come naturally to a lot of people.  But the solution is not to tear down the institution of the sexes.  The solution is to perform one's responsibilities as Males and Females in God's society in the best way they can with the challenges that they face.  But, of course, that is predicated upon people actually knowing the importance of Male and Female in the Plan of Salvation.

If I were to answer the OP's question, I would answer it as such - the Weapons of War currently waged against the Children of God are:

1.)  Attack on Agency - included in this is substance abuse, over-reliance on medicine especially in the mental health arena such that psychological strengthening is not promoted anymore, the promotion of the natural man (be yourself... you can't help it if you're born <insert whatever thing here>, etc.

2.)  Attack on Family - genderism that I just discussed above culminating in gay marriage (the distortion of Love), divorce, abortion, sex outside of marriage, devaluation of traditional marriage, reliance on government, etc.

3.)  Attack on the Innocent - Something I just learned a few days ago... there's actually now a movement called anti-pedophobia.  Yes, folks.  Sexual attraction to children are now trying to make itself part of the LGBTQABCDEFG!@#$ movement.

The Weapons of War in God's arsenal.

1.) Atonement of Jesus Christ

2.) Comfort and Guidance of the Holy Ghost

3.) Scriptures

4.) Prophets Seers and Revelators

Edited June 8, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

I believe that when we say something is wrong with another person, it's relative.

This is certainly true.

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

There is something wrong with that person because they are not like me. 

'Not like another' only defines 'wrong' if that other is Christ. Whereas there are certainly people who do judge others based on this ^ sort of thing, I expect that the discussions here do not represent that idea, but rather weigh 'wrong' against principle.

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

There should never, ever, be a US and THEM mentality.

Can you expound? I don't find this idea as a generic overreaching principle to hold much water. In some regards I see it, of course. We're all children of God. But then again, so was Satan. It seems situational to me. If the Lamanites are coming to kill your wife and children you pick up your sword and it very much is, situationally, US and (literally, or) THEM. I think it's not that hard to understand that being against an ideal or a group of people who hold a certain view in one instance doesn't equate to being against them in all instances. But when you're on the field, you fight.

Edited June 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What I question is the implied number of them and the pending doom associated.

I intended no association with doom. The implied number might be referenced to the parable of the 10 virgins. Some say the 5 that were unwise are the inactive jack Mormons. I do not think so. I'm pretty sure the 5 unwise virgins are sitting right there in church with the rest of us.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I intended no association with doom. 

Specifically I was referring to your statement: "I was thinking of the demise of the early church".  Doom may have been an unclear word.

4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I'm pretty sure the 5 unwise virgins are sitting right there in church with the rest of us.

I actually doubt, very much, that there are many who would disagree with this. Where I'm not connecting is the implication that those who stand firmly against principles of evil, as proposed by "THEM", are hypocrites and bigots and therefore must be one of those unwise virgins.

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well that really depends on what one means by "wrong" now, doesn't it?

from a bigot's point of view or from a more consistent steady source? Is it wrong to have same-sex attraction? No. Is it wrong to attack a person who has same-sex attraction? yes. Is it wrong to defend the definition of the family? No. Is it wrong to insist that it is wrong to defend the definition of family? Yes. If you will note here, there is nothing wrong with the person. We are all children of the same God who has seen fit that some of us will have difficulties. It is never the person when it comes to defining wrong, it is always the action taken.

I should always be allowed to defend my beliefs, no matter what they are. We have many things in place that guard against being allowed to force our beliefs on others. Society is one of those. When beliefs are unpopular, no matter how right or wrong they are, we are forced to deal with the belief system of those people. That is simply a fact of life. As long as the family can remain a nuclear component of society where we can teach our children what we believe, then our beliefs can survive. But, we have to expect that our opponents get the same privilege. At the same time, we have to expect that some of our children, even our companions, may have these issues which we teach against. It is not always an US against THEM war. These are individuals who don't always pick how they will feel about attraction, sex or family.

It would be wrong to say that "my son or my daughter" is one of them and then throw them out to the other side like trash, or try any means available to make that son or daughter "normal". It can't be done. We don't pick our weaknesses. We are given them and then we have to decide how to deal with them. When society says that my weakness is bad, then it's easy to do pretty much anything to deal with the weakness, but when society says, it's normal to be that way, then we can't find solutions. All weaknesses that cause us to act in opposition to God's Plan of Happiness, are wrong, but only when we act, not because we feel the weakness.

So, when we say that something is wrong with that person, it is we who are wrong because there is nothing wrong with that person... no more than there is something wrong with our person.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

So, when we say that something is wrong with that person, it is we who are wrong because there is nothing wrong with that person... no more than there is something wrong with our person.

You realize you just created a catch-22, or contradiction?

a) Premise: There is nothing wrong with the person themselves (only their actions), so we cannot say there's something wrong with a person.

b) Claim: There is something wrong with the person who says there's something wrong with another person.

You are calling someone wrong after stating you can't say it's the person who's wrong.  It's a terminal loop.

Perhaps you mean to say: "It is wrong for person A to say that there is something wrong with person B."  That would be logically consistent with your premise - calling the behavior wrong rather than the person.

[The Folk Prophet]

40 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

from a bigot's point of view or from a more consistent steady source? Is it wrong to have same-sex attraction? No. Is it wrong to attack a person who has same-sex attraction? yes. Is it wrong to defend the definition of the family? No. Is it wrong to insist that it is wrong to defend the definition of family? Yes. If you will note here, there is nothing wrong with the person. We are all children of the same God who has seen fit that some of us will have difficulties. It is never the person when it comes to defining wrong, it is always the action taken.

I should always be allowed to defend my beliefs, no matter what they are. We have many things in place that guard against being allowed to force our beliefs on others. Society is one of those. When beliefs are unpopular, no matter how right or wrong they are, we are forced to deal with the belief system of those people. That is simply a fact of life. As long as the family can remain a nuclear component of society where we can teach our children what we believe, then our beliefs can survive. But, we have to expect that our opponents get the same privilege. At the same time, we have to expect that some of our children, even our companions, may have these issues which we teach against. It is not always an US against THEM war. These are individuals who don't always pick how they will feel about attraction, sex or family.

It would be wrong to say that "my son or my daughter" is one of them and then throw them out to the other side like trash, or try any means available to make that son or daughter "normal". It can't be done. We don't pick our weaknesses. We are given them and then we have to decide how to deal with them. When society says that my weakness is bad, then it's easy to do pretty much anything to deal with the weakness, but when society says, it's normal to be that way, then we can't find solutions. All weaknesses that cause us to act in opposition to God's Plan of Happiness, are wrong, but only when we act, not because we feel the weakness.

In general, when one says there is something wrong with something else, it means that it is not functioning as it should. What happens, of course, is that in this overly sensitive world we live in that people take it as a personal insult. It may even be insulting. That is in the eye of the insulted typically. But whether it's factually true or not doesn't change because it is or isn't insulting, and whether it's wrong or right to speak the truth about any given matter doesn't change because it is or isn't insulting either.

If one believes that homosexuality, transgenderism, or any other proclivity is a person emotionally, mentally, physically and socially functioning as they should be then it would be inaccurate to say that there was something wrong with them by any meaning of the word. If one believes that at some level said persons are not functioning as they should then to say there was nothing wrong with them would be a lie. Declaring that something is wrong with them may or may not be appropriate given the circumstance and setting.

Believing that there is something that functions differently than it should in another person isn't cause to say so to their face. It is, oft times, a good place to hold one's tongue. Explicitly seeking out such a person to declare to them that they are not functioning as they should is, clearly, typically rude on an individual level. Preaching the idea publicly, on the other hand, might be a good idea at the right time and place. Burying one's head in the sand in favor of political correctness creates culpability in those who bury their heads. Publicly and personally stating that everything is functioning as it should when this is not true amounts to significantly more harm than simply shutting up about the matter, and if one actually knows better (which, sadly, is becoming less and less common) becomes an actual lie. And, of course, there are those who's calling, job, or position render it appropriate to say such things individually to another's face, and not doing so renders them culpable in perpetuating falsehoods that are now-a-days considered concrete truths.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

40 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

So, when we say that something is wrong with that person, it is we who are wrong because there is nothing wrong with that person... no more than there is something wrong with our person.

Something being wrong with ourselves has no bearing on the truth of something being wrong with another. Facts are facts. Just because I'm blind doesn't make me wrong in saying that someone else is deaf if they are deaf.

[brotherofJared]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Specifically I was referring to your statement: "I was thinking of the demise of the early church".  Doom may have been an unclear word.

I actually doubt, very much, that there are many who would disagree with this. Where I'm not connecting is the implication that those who stand firmly against principles of evil, as proposed by "THEM", are hypocrites and bigots and therefore must be one of those unwise virgins.

The demise of the early church was only in that the apostles were murdered. As long as we keep ours, we have nothing to fear.

My issue with only with the individual and what that individual IS, not what he does. There is danger in stating that there is something wrong with the person who has a weakness. We just can't take that position, because there is something wrong with all of us. We are sinners in a war against our own family who are also sinners. Never attack. Be prepared, however; to defend and to nurture, in hopes that no one will find themselves in a position where they reject the atonement.

I'm not preaching doctrine here. We're speaking about weapons of war in the battle that Satan started in heaven. Among those are hypocrisy and bigotry and a man's sense of righteousness. These are valid weapons. Typically, when they are employed the person is completely unaware of it. This is a problem both in the church and out of it. I'm just saying, it's wrong to say there is something wrong with a person because they have feelings that don't align with what we believe is right.

It is common sense that same-sex attraction is counter productive. It would end the race. The LBGT community would completely dry up if heterosexual couples didn't keep a fresh supply of candidates coming. I believe it is completely wrong to act on same-sex attraction but to act or not act on it shouldn't be out of social pressure or popular opinion. Society should not choose for us what is acceptable. We have a guide who has told us what brings happiness. If we choose to follow that guide but say this is wrong or that is wrong, then we aren't following. If we choose not to follow that guide but instead feed our appetites then we set our path in opposition to happiness and will reap the rewards that come with that path which is a state of misery. The same people make choices that are sometimes painful now in hopes or in exchange for a promise. All of these people, every single one of them, have something wrong with them. It may be a desire to steal, same-sex attraction, anger issues, laziness, but they suffer now (some forced by society - if they steal they go to jail) in hopes for a greater weight of glory.

I'm just clarifying my position. I don't want to give the impression that I'm in favor of social norms. I'm pretty sure I know what is right and what is wrong. People don't do things because they are something. There are many with same-sex attraction who lead "normal" married lives with children. So, people don't fight to change the social norms because they have same-sex attraction. It is not the reason. There are many ways to deal with it. Some go really wrong because they are lead to believe that something is wrong with them. There isn't anything wrong with them. There are those who struggle with the church's policy on marriage and conclude that they will never obtain exaltation. Men who can never hold callings of any importance (I know that all the callings are the same, right? Not) because they can't find a woman they can tolerate, much less love. There is intense pressure from within the church for marriage. Those who just can't do it have a big issue with it. There are members in good standing who discover that their child this attraction and it's a revelation. They choose, sometimes, their child over church doctrines. I've watched people who were of the mind that same-sex attraction was wrong and then, overnight completely change. Sometimes because it's in their family and now they have to live with it. The hear the sorrows that some of these children bear and their hearts are melted and they rush to their aide. 

I'm just saddened by the idea that there is something wrong with them when I know there is something wrong with me. I just want people to recognize these people as normal people and stop saying there's something wrong with them.

[brotherofJared]

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Something being wrong with ourselves has no bearing on the truth of something being wrong with another. Facts are facts. Just because I'm blind doesn't make me wrong in saying that someone else is deaf if they are deaf.

But there is nothing wrong with the person who is deaf. There is a difference between stating a fact: that person is deaf and a false observation: there is something wrong with that person.

[brotherofJared]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In general, when one says there is something wrong with something else, it means that it is not functioning as it should.

Who is to say how things should work? You? me? Why are you right when you say same-sex attraction is wrong? and the other person wrong when they say, I should be able to act on my attractions? How people behave in society is, after all, a social decision. I accept that. What bothers me is when the few, decide that society no longer knows what's best for them as in when Prop 8 in California was overturned.