Traveler

The War in Heaven

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

 

Along the lines of this conversation - being homosexual used to be considered a mental illness. But now with all of the PC policing going in it is far too unfavourable to go calling these people ill. I find this interesting because the "condition" didn't change, but the "diagnosis" did. Now imagine if a serious condition like heart disease simply stopped being diagnosed, not because it ceased to exist but that by virtue of it killing 50% of the population it was deemed "normal" and not really a diseased state.Would the heart disease be any less lethal if undiagnosed?

Now sure it could be argued that these people with the underlying condition that would be considered heart disease don't really notice any symptoms of high cholesterol or high blood pressure until BAM - a heart attack or stroke occur, or they start to suffer with chest pain. Is same sex attraction normal? Clearly not, by virtue of it involving only a small minority. Is the underlying condition just hunky dory as long as there is no *BAM* -it just happened and I acted on my desires? Well that part is for God to judge. This all gets to be a tricky web of semantics as one gets deeper into it. What is attraction? Is it sinful to be attracted? It depends on how one defines attraction. For instance, as a heterosexual male, if I notice that another man has a nice physique and think to myself, "wow, he takes care of himself and has a great body to show for it" does this constitute attraction or mere admiration? Now when I notice the same thing in a woman does it constitute attraction or admiration? Is there a difference? Does it only cross over to attraction if I decide I want to be physically involved with them, or  is it at that point lustful, which the Saviour states is essentially the same as adultery? My point? Yes, struggles are normal, but that doesn't make them any less struggles. Yes sin is "normal"in our carnal state but it doesn't become less sinful. Further, regardless of sexual orientation, one needs to guard thoughts closely to not cross the line into sinful lust. For now let's throw the term "normal" out because it's completely relative, normal in the Celestial Kingdom will be righteous desires and actions, so I would prefer to keep the discussion to righteous versus unrighteous - but as just stated that opens a can of worms with semantics. 

Food for thought.

9

So, as I understand it, normal is determined by popular vote. It's not normal by virtue of involving only a small minority. Could there be anything more untrue? Mormons are a small minority, Does that make us not normal? I'm not sure how you came to the decision that same-sex attraction only affects a small minority. Are you including girls in the group of same-sex attraction that is small? Many people, don't think twice about two girls dancing with each other, even at church dances (I know someone here is going to defend that, and when they do, the ought to really think about what they're doing). If it's okay for girls to do it, wouldn't it also be okay for guys to do it? Just because many people think something is okay, doesn't make it okay and the other way around.

there is a huge difference between life threatening illness and sexual attraction. It is not now nor was it ever an illness. Heart diseases can be reduced by lifestyle, likewise acting on attractions that are self-damning and illogical can be kept within the proper bounds if one follows a certain lifestyle. The problem is that treating the patient like they are the problem or that something is wrong with them, is not going to be conducive to living within in the bounds of that lifestyle. No one is going to make it to exaltation alone. Alienating a group because they have an "abnormal" weakness is a weapon which Satan employees very effectively here. It runs rampant in the church and it is mostly unchecked.

I have a saying: It will be harder for the righteous to get into heaven that it would be put a camel through the eye of a needle. The most difficult thing for the righteous is to abstain from judging others. It is even worse for those who think they are righteous. If we are going to judge, we need to make sure it is right, because if it is wrong, then the greater sin will be on the person passing judgment. We just need to make sure we judge the deed and not the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

So, as I understand it, normal is determined by popular vote. It's not normal by virtue of involving only a small minority. Could there be anything more untrue? Mormons are a small minority, Does that make us not normal? I'm not sure how you came to the decision that same-sex attraction only affects a small minority. Are you including girls in the group of same-sex attraction that is small? Many people, don't think twice about two girls dancing with each other, even at church dances (I know someone here is going to defend that, and when they do, the ought to really think about what they're doing). If it's okay for girls to do it, wouldn't it also be okay for guys to do it? Just because many people think something is okay, doesn't make it okay and the other way around.

there is a huge difference between life threatening illness and sexual attraction. It is not now nor was it ever an illness. Heart diseases can be reduced by lifestyle, likewise acting on attractions that are self-damning and illogical can be kept within the proper bounds if one follows a certain lifestyle. The problem is that treating the patient like they are the problem or that something is wrong with them, is not going to be conducive to living within in the bounds of that lifestyle. No one is going to make it to exaltation alone. Alienating a group because they have an "abnormal" weakness is a weapon which Satan employees very effectively here. It runs rampant in the church and it is mostly unchecked.

I have a saying: It will be harder for the righteous to get into heaven that it would be put a camel through the eye of a needle. The most difficult thing for the righteous is to abstain from judging others. It is even worse for those who think they are righteous. If we are going to judge, we need to make sure it is right, because if it is wrong, then the greater sin will be on the person passing judgment. We just need to make sure we judge the deed and not the person.

You've got a big chip on your shoulder about this and accordingly set up your semantics and meanings and then use that to judge everyone you deem not in line with your views, all the while proclaiming how we shouldn't judge unrighteously.

How is it that you feel it acceptable to judge others who in your mind are failing to abstain from judging others? Is alienating that group okay with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I have a saying: It will be harder for the righteous to get into heaven that it would be put a camel through the eye of a needle.

:lol:

Yeah, those darn righteous! I'm thinking the wicked will have a much easier time of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I have a saying: It will be harder for the righteous to get into heaven that it would be put a camel through the eye of a needle.

 

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

:lol:

Yeah, those darn righteous! I'm thinking the wicked will have a much easier time of it.

It goes right along with his other sayings:

"And in that day will the Lord send his angels to pluck out the righteous and cast them into unquenchable fire."

"And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the righteous."

"For he will not suffer that the righteous shall destroy the wicked."

and the ever popular:

"Behold, I say unto you, righteousness never was happiness."

 

 

 

 

 

 

:banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I have a saying: It will be harder for the righteous to get into heaven that it would be put a camel through the eye of a needle. The most difficult thing for the righteous is to abstain from judging others. It is even worse for those who think they are righteous. If we are going to judge, we need to make sure it is right, because if it is wrong, then the greater sin will be on the person passing judgment. We just need to make sure we judge the deed and not the person.

lol . . .wow talk about twisting the scriptures to mean whatever you want it to mean.

What a fascinating world we live in today.  Up is down, down is up, black is white, white is black, good is evil and evil is good.

You see b/c you can't say something is evil b/c that means you are judging and how do you know that you are judging right so it's best not to judge at all b/c judging incorrectly is worse than anything else!!

Utterly and completely fascinating. It truly is amazing to see what has occurred in my lifetime with regards to right and wrong. 

20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

-------------

For the bolded . .. how is it that everyone preaches a form of supposed godliness in the form of tolerance and love-but they deny the Power of God in their lives? For the last bolded, we have more ability to learn and grow than any other point in history; there is the water of knowledge everywhere to drink, but people have lost their moral compass of truth.

If this doesn't describe our day, I don't know what does. What's fascinating is that people don't see it . . .they are so blinded that they either don't see, don't want to see it, or willfully disregard it.  

Amazing . . .and it's gonna get a lot worse of that I'm sure. 

----

In a serious tone, learning the difference between self-righteousness and righteousness is critical.  One can proclaim things are not of God and still recognize that it is only in and through the grace, and mercy of Christ that we can ever hope to obtain salvation.  Self-righteousness is "I have no faults, thank you God b/c I'm so much better than everyone else". Righteousness is "This is wrong, that is wrong; I am not perfect I sin in my own ways, and I'm working on it-thank you God for your Son, help me to be better, help me to be more like Thee, help others around me to be more like Thee."

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
13 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Oh please. 

Well, well.  I present actual definitions of words with sound logical statements.  And you begin your response with a rhetorical brushing off.  Such skill.  Such nonsense.  And again, such sophistry.

13 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Let's just stick with loving the sinner and not the sin and we'll be okay.

I'm all for that.  But that isn't what you're doing.  When you say "there's something wrong with us."  That is saying there is something wrong with us.  That doesn't separate us from our sin.  That's equating us with our sin.  So, let's be consistent.  There's nothing wrong with us.  There's nothing wrong with them.  We can all go about with nothing wrong and be totally blissfully unaware of our weaknesses because God will take care of everything else.

Gee, what philosophy does that sound like?  No, there is something wrong with us.  There is something wrong with them.  But what are we doing about it?

13 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

There is nothing wrong with the person who has to deal with these attractions.

Based on the actual definitions, that is incorrect.

If a child has autism (which I believe we can all agree is most often not their fault) I have no problem saying "that child ain't right."  Or even "There's something wrong with that kid."

If a teenager doesn't show proper respect or has a propensity towards theft and bully behavior, I say,"That kid's messed up."

But for some reason when someone has SSA, it is all of a sudden "wrong" for us to say "That is wrong."

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, well.  I present actual definitions of words with sound logical statements.  And you begin your response with a rhetorical brushing off.  Such skill.  Such nonsense.  And again, such sophistry.

I'm all for that.  But that isn't what you're doing.  When you say "there's something wrong with us."  That is saying there is something wrong with us.  That doesn't separate us from our sin.  That's equating us with our sin.  So, let's be consistent.  There's nothing wrong with us.  There's nothing wrong with them.  We can all go about with nothing wrong and be totally blissfully unaware of our weaknesses because God will take care of everything else.

Gee, what philosophy does that sound like?  No, there is something wrong with us.  There is something wrong with them.  But what are we doing about it?

Based on the actual definitions, that is incorrect.

If a child has autism (which I believe we can all agree is most often not their fault) I have no problem saying "that child ain't right."  Or even "There's something wrong with that kid."

If a teenager doesn't show proper respect or has a propensity towards theft and bully behavior, I say,"That kid's messed up."

But for some reason when someone has SSA, it is all of a sudden "wrong" for us to say "That is wrong."

I think semantics are most often a good thing, and especially when necessary for accurately expressing ourselves, and even more crucial in carrying out Christ's ministry. D&C 63:64, "Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." I'm not sure how a conscientiously righteous youth becoming aware of his SSA is benefited by hearing from someone he confides in, "Something is wrong with you." He probably won't believe it, but see it as another challenge in life and not about his failings, but if he is not so strong in the faith, he probably needs to hear more about temptation and that he can choose his response, and he can build his faith in Christ and in keeping the covenants no matter how hard it may seem or how much worldly social pressure bears upon him -- all the spiritual things that are right with him -- so stay true to the Gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I think semantics are most often a good thing, and especially when necessary for accurately expressing ourselves, and even more crucial in carrying out Christ's ministry. D&C 63:64, "Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." I'm not sure how a conscientiously righteous youth becoming aware of his SSA is benefited by hearing from someone he confides in, "Something is wrong with you." He probably won't believe it, but see it as another challenge in life and not about his failings, but if he is not so strong in the faith, he probably needs to hear more about temptation and that he can choose his response, and he can build his faith in Christ and in keeping the covenants no matter how hard it may seem or how much worldly social pressure bears upon him -- all the spiritual things that are right with him -- so stay true to the Gospel.

I actually agree with everything you said.  That has nothing to do with the post that you responded to.  I even stated essentially, there's something wrong with EVERYONE.  But the question is: what are we doing about it?

There is a time and a place for everything.  My post was not advice on how to counsel a person who's struggling.  My post was about BoJ's comment "There's nothing wrong with them.  There's something wrong with us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I actually agree with everything you said.  That has nothing to do with the post that you responded to.  I even stated essentially, there's something wrong with EVERYONE.  But the question is: what are we doing about it?

There is a time and a place for everything.  My post was not advice on how to counsel a person who's struggling.  My post was about BoJ's comment "There's nothing wrong with them.  There's something wrong with us."

Maybe I wasn't following the semantics! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Something is out of the norm. But this is something that we have found an acceptable means to overcome where the person can function in society without much issue. It does not make the person any less of a person because of it.

And neither does having same-sex attraction.

I disagree. We don't assume that there is something wrong with the person because we accept and understand this. What we usually come to conclusion of is, this person can't hear, is deaf. We don't assume that this person is trying to push his agenda on us.

Indeed. this is what happens when we know how to function in the same society with them.

That is because we don't know how to function in the same society with them.

I think you are talking about my paragraph, but I'm not sure. We aren't talking about spiritual worth, we are talking about Satan's ongoing war. One side says, there is something wrong with them. They need to be fixed (Ouch. No pun intended). I'm saying there is nothing wrong with them. We need to be fixed (again, no pun intended).

I have no problem defending what defines a family, that is of great spiritual worth. I think, however; that we must find a way to function better in society as this is not going to go away. It never has and never will. We do great spiritual harm by defining it as being something that is wrong.

See.  This is confusing.  I understand what you're trying to do.  You're trying to be compassionate to homosexuals.  But, compassion doesn't have to include normalization.  The more disturbing aspect of your paragraph is the idea that being gay is so normal that it is US who has a problem.  That it is US who has to change.  That is just plain wrong and can lead to conflicts with the gospel.  We need to continue to support homosexuals to help them on the path of Christ.  The path to Christ doesn't change just because you're a homosexual.

I have a mental health issue.  SOMETHING IS WRONG with me.  No, it doesn't make me sinful - it COULD lead to sinfulness if I don't actively control my tendencies.  Therefore, yes... I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO CORRECT IT.  It's always going to be a part of me - but I have to try to suppress that tendency through psychological training.  So yes, my husband has to live with my problems so he has to adjust his natural tendencies to compensate and support me.  But, he doesn't need to be fixed.    He doesn't need to accept my mental health as normal.  He doesn't even have to understand it.  He simply needs to be compassionate and support me in my efforts to overcome this specific weakness.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I actually agree with everything you said.  That has nothing to do with the post that you responded to.  I even stated essentially, there's something wrong with EVERYONE.  But the question is: what are we doing about it?

There is a time and a place for everything.  My post was not advice on how to counsel a person who's struggling.  My post was about BoJ's comment "There's nothing wrong with them.  There's something wrong with us."

To continue in this vein (I agree with what Carb is saying here)....

Progress cannot be made, nor assistance given by denying truth.  There is something wrong in a person who cannot see.  Their eyes, nerves, and brains should work together to facilitate vision.  When a person cannot see, something is wrong.  This may be due to injury, or genetics, or whatever, but it is clearly wrong.  The same is true of cancer, the flu, a broken arm, a burn, or a cut.  Something is wrong.

To deny that something is wrong in a person who is experiencing same-sex attraction is to deny truth.  God clearly intended us to be attracted to the opposite sex, just as he intended for us to be able to see.  When that doesn't happen, something is wrong.

"Wrong" is not the same as "sinful".  "Something is wrong with me" is not the same as "I did something wrong", nor even "Someone did something wrong."

Perhaps @brotherofJared should have provided his definition of "wrong" as it is either different from the normal understanding of "wrong" (when making a statement like "something is wrong with me"), or he is advocating for things the gospel teaches us are actually sinful.  It's not entirely clear to me which, but I think it's the former.  Whatever the case, continuing this back and forth without expounding on what one means by "wrong" and without switching to different terminology seems pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

So, as I understand it, normal is determined by popular vote. It's not normal by virtue of involving only a small minority. Could there be anything more untrue? Mormons are a small minority, Does that make us not normal? I'm not sure how you came to the decision that same-sex attraction only affects a small minority. Are you including girls in the group of same-sex attraction that is small? Many people, don't think twice about two girls dancing with each other, even at church dances (I know someone here is going to defend that, and when they do, the ought to really think about what they're doing). If it's okay for girls to do it, wouldn't it also be okay for guys to do it? Just because many people think something is okay, doesn't make it okay and the other way around.

there is a huge difference between life threatening illness and sexual attraction. It is not now nor was it ever an illness. Heart diseases can be reduced by lifestyle, likewise acting on attractions that are self-damning and illogical can be kept within the proper bounds if one follows a certain lifestyle. The problem is that treating the patient like they are the problem or that something is wrong with them, is not going to be conducive to living within in the bounds of that lifestyle. No one is going to make it to exaltation alone. Alienating a group because they have an "abnormal" weakness is a weapon which Satan employees very effectively here. It runs rampant in the church and it is mostly unchecked.

I have a saying: It will be harder for the righteous to get into heaven that it would be put a camel through the eye of a needle. The most difficult thing for the righteous is to abstain from judging others. It is even worse for those who think they are righteous. If we are going to judge, we need to make sure it is right, because if it is wrong, then the greater sin will be on the person passing judgment. We just need to make sure we judge the deed and not the person.

Normal is not determined by popular vote, but by what is usual. Using a bell curve where anything within say 90% of a particular population shares a trait would be very normal and those outside of that would not fit the norm. This doesn't make them bad or mean that they have to be ostracized or anything like that, but they are by definition abnormal - they do not meet the usual expectation of the vast majority. No voting required.A population of lizards where 90+% are green and the remaining population are of different colours suggests that these lizards are normally green, while the others aren't the norm. It doesn't even have to mean rare.However, it is a somewhat useless term and I stated it be better to throw it out and use terms like righteous vs unrighteous or sinful vs not sinful.

As you're clearly sensitive and defensive of the homosexual issue, let's discuss something else such as pornography. As I stated above this all gets somewhat complicated and is for the Lord to judge, but here we go. Suppose a man wants to view pornography. Is this a sin? It already just became complicated - what does one mean by "want" and for that matter even "pornography". So I'll put in some different degrees of possibility:

1. A man/boy is curious to know what a woman looks like undressed and would like to find out

1a) he gets a hold of clothing store catalogue and searches through the underwear pictures of women

1b) He starts peaking through his neighbours window hoping to find her in various states of undress

1c) He does an internet search for naked women

2. He wants to vicariously live out a sexual fantasy...

2a) He creates images in his mind to fulfill this fantasy

2b) He purchases sexually explicit content

2c) He watches the content

2d) He gets "interactive" with the content

3. He has avoided anything to do with it for 12 years, but knows that if the conditions are just right/wrong that he'd be right back with it

3a) His avoidance has not been by choice, but due to family intervention and powerful monitoring, not leaving him alone, internet filters and so on (not likely to work, but let's just go with it as a possibility)

3b) He chose to abstain, and goes to great lengths to keep barriers up so as not to fall back into it.

3c) He no longer acts on his desire to use this material for himself but is vocally advocating for acceptance of those who do at every opportunity. So much so that he insists that the use of it should not only not be considered bad, but is "normal" and healthy and shows he has good energy. Suppression of this appetite is the real problem. We just need to make it mainstream enough that people don't feel ashamed and stop like he did.

At what point in the examples above is this person venturing into sin? I would suggest that at the numbered points (without letters) he is likely simply experiencing the vicissitudes of life and has committed no sin, other than point three obviously inferring that he did in the past, but his present state doesn't suggest sinful behaviour as far as I'm concerned - he is simply aware that he could slip at any time. As soon as he steps over into the lettered points, he has crossed into the sinful realm because he is either acting upon these desires or at least the desire of his heart is to do so. It doesn't matter if any of the above situation are normal, it only matters if they are righteous or unrighteous/sinful or not sinful. God will determine that because He can look on the heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think semantics are most often a good thing, and especially when necessary for accurately expressing ourselves, and even more crucial in carrying out Christ's ministry. D&C 63:64, "Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." I'm not sure how a conscientiously righteous youth becoming aware of his SSA is benefited by hearing from someone he confides in, "Something is wrong with you." He probably won't believe it, but see it as another challenge in life and not about his failings, but if he is not so strong in the faith, he probably needs to hear more about temptation and that he can choose his response, and he can build his faith in Christ and in keeping the covenants no matter how hard it may seem or how much worldly social pressure bears upon him -- all the spiritual things that are right with him -- so stay true to the Gospel.

The problem is that there is a difference between understanding that telling a person who struggles with something that there is something wrong with them (which may or may not be helpful -- depends on the person, situation etc.) and acknowledging the broad truth and reality of something. Understanding that others might hear the meaning of "something is wrong with you" to be hurtful, non-helpful, rude., etc. is important. But the answer isn't to cast off the reality and truth by semantically redefining words and burying your head in the sand.

Disregarding the reality that there is something wrong leads to a disregard for truth in favor of feelings. It helps no one.

Being careful what you say and when, on the other hand, does matter. What I don't buy into is that there is some universal truth that ALL who struggle with any given temptation, and since SSA is on the table we'll go with that,...ALL who struggle with SSA react exactly the same, think exactly the same, reason exactly the same, and feel exactly the same so as to validate some SJWs view of what is and isn't right to say to them ever ("never, ever say BLAH"). That idea is ridiculous. Some people need a loving hand. Some people need a good swift kick in the butt.

I will grant that those who respond positively to a kick in the butt are probably diminishing (though it's hard to say, because the ability to kick them in the butt has been and is being severely undermined by all the feel-good, hippy, "love" (that isn't love at all) garbage going around.) The trend, of course, now is to cast off the idea that there's anything wrong with SSA because it might hurt someones feelings (and hurting someones feelings ALWAYS drives them away, right? It is, after all, in today's society, the greatest sin.) And those who have their feelings hurt have bought into the same idea and therefore become less and less likely to listen to truth if it's hurtful in any way. And of course the idea that there's something wrong implies that change is both needed and, ultimately, possible. But how dare we, right? Because too many have testified that they were born that way, they couldn't help it, their choices had no bearing in the matter, etc., etc. So it must be true right? After all the way people view things dictates reality right? Right?

Lies.

It's like the deaf analogy used in this thread. By semantically redefining things so that feelings aren't hurt we ruin legitimate communication, which is actually useful. What I mean by this is that we buy into the lie that nothing is wrong with someone who is deaf then it means we have no need for accessibility accommodations at all. Moreover, what's the point of a hearing aid if it isn't to compensate for something that's gone wrong. Oh...but that's a hurtful mean way to say it. It's factual...but mean...so let's not only never say it, but let's cast the baby of truth out with the bathwater of meanness. That'll help.

Lies upon lies upon lies. And society just keeps sucking it in.

Sometimes the Spirit guides us to say things that will only be perceived as kindness. Sometimes the Spirit will guide us to say things that get us burned at the stake. Pretending the Spirit only ever leads to saying what others believe is nice and kind is the worst kind of lie. Let's all bury our heads in the sand some more so we never hurt anyone's feelings. Let's just ignore the examples of Abinadi, Paul, Joseph Smith, and Jesus himself who were all killed for how unkind their words were perceived to be by others.

It's fairly safe to say, actually, that if no one is offended by things you say and the views you hold that you're not saying what you need to. That, of course, isn't license to just be as big a jerk as you feel like regardless. We do need to be careful with our words and do our best to speak the truth kindly. But we MUST speak the truth. And we can't throw off speaking and doing those things that we have been commanded to do because it might hurt someone else's feelings.

The scriptural idea that the guilty take the truth hard doesn't justify intentionally bludgeoning everyone you've deemed wicked. I don't think anyone here would support that idea. But it certainly teaches the clear principle that everything we say and teach when speaking the truth isn't going to sit well with everyone.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Well. I think you answered your own question. "philosophies of men" is a pretty broad blanket and could cover everything from Greek mythology to paganism (oops, same thing). The church was corrupted from within not from outside influences... at least, not directly.

It's a combination of both inside and outside attacks.  The apostles all got killed off.  That's as direct as you can get.  Philosophies of men - yes non-Christian doctrines seeping into the Church, not necessarily bigotry.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Right. And God made those poor people work that way. Now, is that creation good? Should we try to change it? Fix it? or should we try to get along with it just like we do with people who can't hear or see?

Yes, God gave us all weaknesses.  One can say - oh, I was born a heroin addict.  I don't have to do anything about it because God made me that way.  So, you should just give me heroin and get along with it.   It's a silly proposition.  We are not required to "get along with it".  The objective of mortal existence is TO CHANGE to be closer to Godliness.  "Getting along with it" gives the idea that one does not have to change.  No, we need to support with every fiber of our being THE CHANGE.  Not the status quo of wallowing in one's weaknesses.  So yes, get along with people as we encourage them and help them and support them that they may be inspired to change towards Godliness as we ourselves change to Godliness.  No, we don't have to normalize weaknesses that are not normal in society if it's something that can lead them farther from Christ.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, zil said:

Perhaps @brotherofJared should have provided his definition of "wrong" as it is either different from the normal understanding of "wrong" (when making a statement like "something is wrong with me"), or he is advocating for things the gospel teaches us are actually sinful.  It's not entirely clear to me which, but I think it's the former.  Whatever the case, continuing this back and forth without expounding on what one means by "wrong" and without switching to different terminology seems pointless.

I expect your are correct, but it's still problematic. By redefining words we put out the wrong message. (Sorry if I just offended the message by calling it wrong.) Wrong means what it means. If we twist it's meaning in order to allow any who struggle with anything to be at peace with that struggle without any effort to correct things (because if there's nothing wrong, there's nothing to correct) then you teach the message that correction isn't necessary for betterment.

My concern with sentiments as presented by @brotherofJared aren't the usage of the word "wrong" or not. You could use a variety of different words in it's place that get the same message across. My concern is the message -- that change is unneeded and impossible anyhow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, God gave us all weaknesses.  One can say - oh, I was born a heroine addict.  I don't have to do anything about it because God made me that way.  So, you should just give me heroin and get along with it.   It's a silly proposition.  We are not required to "get along with it".  The objective of mortal existence is TO CHANGE to be closer to Godliness.  "Getting along with it" gives the idea that one does not have to change.  No, we need to support with every fiber of our being THE CHANGE.  Not the status quo of wallowing in one's weaknesses.  So yes, get along with people as we encourage them and help them and support them that they may be inspired to change towards Godliness as we ourselves change to Godliness.

I've never agreed with you more.

(Whew...good thing I added the word "more" there, huh?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My concern with sentiments as presented by @brotherofJared aren't the usage of the word "wrong" or not. You could use a variety of different words in it's place that get the same message across. My concern is the message -- that change is unneeded and impossible anyhow. 

I'm more concerned that he is advocating that homosexuals doesn't have to change.  We do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Disregarding the reality that there is something wrong leads to a disregard for truth in favor of feelings. It helps no one.

This wins the internet for today.  Take your prize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's like the deaf analogy used in this thread. By semantically redefining things so that feelings aren't hurt we ruin legitimate communication, which is actually useful. What I mean by this is that we buy into the lie that nothing is wrong with someone who is deaf then it mean we have no need for accessibility accommodations at all. Moreover, what's the point of a hearing aid if it isn't to compensate for something that's gone wrong. Oh...but that's a hurtful mean way to say it. It's factual...but mean...so let's not only never say it, but let's cast the baby of truth out with the bathwater of meanness. That'll help.

 

As someone who is hearing impaired I would like reinforce your point and to point out that society does not "Accept" my hearing impairment.  Society demands that I step up and compensate for my weakness and become "normal".  I have to put my hearing aids in every day, I have to maintain functioning of the devices see to their repair and replacement and tons of other stuff just to try to reach normal.  Those who are completely deaf have to learn to "hear" with their eyes through sign language and lip reading...  The only things Society "offers" us when they find out about it... is understanding that it is harder for us, a chance to try again, and some tools that we need to learn to use. 

And I am ok with that, and everything the church teaches us point to us needing to treat all human weakness in this manner... including homosexuality

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

 Many people, don't think twice about two girls dancing with each other, even at church dances (I know someone here is going to defend that, and when they do, the ought to really think about what they're doing). If it's okay for girls to do it, wouldn't it also be okay for guys to do it? Just because many people think something is okay, doesn't make it okay and the other way around.

This is because two girls dancing together doesn't equal two girls being attracted to each other. Perhaps they are, but most likely they are just having fun in a socially acceptable way. There really would be nothing wrong with boys dancing together either if they enjoyed doing so and it wasn't socially frowned upon.Suggesting that every girl who dances with a female friend is a lesbian is nonsense, pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The scriptural idea that the guilty take the truth hard doesn't justify intentionally bludgeoning everyone you've deemed wicked. I don't think anyone here would support that idea. But it certainly teaches the clear principle that everything we say and teach when speaking the truth isn't going to sit well with everyone.

As I said, semantics are very important, which is why the counsel in D&C 63:64 trumps every natural or common-sense approach we may favor in ministering to those who differ from the norm in any human capacity and which subjects them to temptations that we also take to differ from the norm (and sexual temptation is sexual temptation no matter the brand). The Spirit recognizes that everything that can be identified with human nature and capacity is expressed along a continuum, and often differently from society to society, and also in terms of "sickness" and so helps the children of God according to their unique needs through doctrines, covenants and ordinances that apply universally and equally. No one in their right mind, or in righteousness, would focus on what is wrong with someone who is striving to live by these doctrines, covenants and ordinances.

No temptation is alleviated by emphasizing that something is wrong with someone; that is often the devil's way of getting us to succumb to it. The focus has to be on our divine nature and our power to choose faith in the face of challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Armin said:

I wasn't talking about "poor gays and those poor lesbians and those poor transgender people", and there was no allusion to them, since my sympathy for them is quite limited, but I was talking about poor young children who were born (physically or rather anatomically) as hermaphrodites with the burdon of the coming through of their true gender by their personal development and the day when surgery might be indicated. But this problem seemingly doesn't touch you so much.

Well, if you are seeing I the same sense at a child with scoliosis, then I stand corrected. But personally I believe that for the child it is that way until an adult changes it with his bigotry. Would the blind man ever think whose fault it was that he was blind, his parents or something he did before being born, if no one asked that question? I think not. The fault for such conclusions lay squarely on the shoulders of the unrighteous judge and they pierce the hearts of the innocent, doing more damage than the affliction (speaking only of those that can be corrected).

I am astounded at the resistance this topic is meeting here. It reminds me of my first trip the Utah. Before I arrived, I had vision of Zion, the pure in heart of one mind but that was quickly dispelled. Zion is not yet on the earth and when it comes, it will not be to Utah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now