The War in Heaven


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You wish.

Incidentally, and I expect you'll talk back at this thought like you do pretty much everything, but do you really believe that ALL-CAPS! adamancy is key to doing this? Because what it comes across as is that you're screaming at me and I pretty much just shut down.

As a matter of whatever, I feel as adamant on my view as you do on yours. So what should we do? Scream bloody murder at the top of our lungs until that becomes insufficient so we plan to meet in person where one of us can murder the other to prove their point?

I simply find the theoretical "discussion", which it is not, useless. It's just someone screaming their views at me at the top of their lungs. Should I do the same back?

WOULD IT HELP IF I USED MORE UPPERCASE? Would that help convince you that my view MUST be right because I REALLY MEAN IT?!

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Nope. I don't like homosexuals generally. I believe they have an agenda and that it is evil and pernicious. It has nothing to do with compassion. I'll reserve further comment until I see where you're going with this.

 

Normalization is, by definition, making everything the same. That's not what I'm doing. Accepting that there are differences is not bringing everything into the same state.

That is not what I'm saying either. I never intended to polarize the US and THEM as being straight and gay. The US is those who judge that something is wrong with others, if for no other reason than that they are different from us. The US can be gays who say there is something wrong with straight heterosexuals. The problem isn't sexual orientation. This applies whenever we undertake to judge others. To judge righteously is to judge the action. To judge unrighteously is to judge the person's weaknesses. This latter judgment leads to prejudice and bigotry (might be the same thing) and to class people and claims false statements like same-gender attraction is a disease that can be cured. It prevents those who have such issues who are confused and uncertain to withdraw and fear the society they exist in. Sometimes the escape is to find people who will accept them as they are, and those people might have an agenda, or to simply escape life altogether. At that point, the problem is now on those who judge, even if they did so innocently, not knowing that their words pierced the lost and confused.

I like my superhero shows. It bothers me that they insist, to be PC, that every show must have characters that portray open gay relationships. I believe that is unnecessary and I believe that doing so is pushing an agenda. I am vocal about my objection. What the shows portray is not that it's normal to have these feelings. They portray that it's normal to act on these feelings. If acting on feelings is the only justification one needs to act on them and it's okay, then Vort's list of "wrongs" would make for some very interesting shows. I'd be afraid to turn on the TV ever again.

My point is, that it is us who need to stop saying that there is something wrong with others. It doesn't matter what's wrong with them. Our efforts would be much better focused on what's wrong with us because we can do something about that. I know the path to Christ doesn't change. It is the individuals choice to take that path regardless of what's wrong with them. I feel that being the example, that accepting others for what they are has a much better chance of success than does judging them for what they are.

Good example. Not all of us can see. And when that doesn't happen, something is wrong. Can you make that person see? No. So who has to change how they respond to that person? The blind? or the person who has what God intended?

Then we should stop treating as if it was sinful or even as something that can be fixed.

I understand you now.

I think this discussion is better served by getting away from the phrase "something wrong with them".  The way this phrase is being used in this thread is the same as 3 guys looking at different parts of an elephant and disagreeing on the description of an elephant.  You see "something wrong" as judgment, even unrighteous judgment (not all judgments are unrighteous) - and it can be that.  But that's not what we're talking about.  We see something wrong as something we have to avoid in ourselves as well as an opportunity for service.  There's no reason to serve somebody who has nothing wrong.  And there's no reason to warn other people not to develop it if there's nothing wrong with it.   After all, if there's nothing wrong with being deaf, then what stops somebody from gouging his ears out?   So, when we identify SSA as something wrong - then we can serve that person to help him overcome it and we can teach our children not to develop it.  Because, as @The Folk Prophet has said above - there are those who CHOOSE to develop SSA.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.

He doesn't need to, but he does. Why is that? Is it because it's normal? No. It's because he accepts what is wrong with you and doesn't judge that it's your fault or your parents or your life in the preexistence. Your abnormal condition, by his adjustment, is now his normal. It would not be so if he rejected your condition and tried to lay blame somewhere.

This is an excellent example of coexisting and adjusting ourselves to what is wrong with the other person. We all make adjustments when we accept that what is wrong with the other person fits our norm. We make adjustments for disease and cope with it. We make adjustments for chemical imbalances though we don't always do well in making adjustments. We recognize that adjustments must be made in our understanding of it and ability to cope with it, but sometimes we fail. If there is a fix, then; sure use them. But if there isn't, then make adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

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.

I realize this is arbitrary and your opinion, but establishing norms from anyone's personal perspective is never going to establish norm. Bell curves assume we have all the data, we don't. If we did, the percentage would actually be established based on the distribution of the data over the bell and the fact that we are using a bell curve means that the norm is established by what is popular, most frequent. That normal is what most be people do.

That is not how we, in the church determine what normal is because, on a bell curve, normal is the absolute most minimum edge of the upper side of the grade. It is normal to abstain from coffee, tea and tobacco. It is normal to reserve sexual relations only between an man and a woman who have been legally and lawfully wedded, it is normal to be honest in our dealings with our fellow man, it is normal to pay an honest tithe with an actual measurement, a rule, that we can use as a guide as to what that means. On a bell curve, Mormons are not normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

He doesn't need to, but he does. Why is that? Is it because it's normal? No. It's because he accepts what is wrong with you and doesn't judge that it's your fault or your parents or your life in the preexistence. Your abnormal condition, by his adjustment, is now his normal. It would not be so if he rejected your condition and tried to lay blame somewhere.

This is an excellent example of coexisting and adjusting ourselves to what is wrong with the other person. We all make adjustments when we accept that what is wrong with the other person fits our norm. We make adjustments for disease and cope with it. We make adjustments for chemical imbalances though we don't always do well in making adjustments. We recognize that adjustments must be made in our understanding of it and ability to cope with it, but sometimes we fail. If there is a fix, then; sure use them. But if there isn't, then make adjustments.

Actually, my husband judges that something is wrong and no, it is still not his normal - he can't look at this as normal because we don't want our kids to think that this is normal or even acceptable when it manifests itself.  We especially don't want them to mimic the behavior in their lives.  It can be very ugly.  But yes, my husband chose to marry me and support me DESPITE my weakness.  He doesn't accept the behavior as okay, he simply decided to give me the freedom to fail while I try to overcome it.  He taught the kids to do the same.  If I was not working on overcoming it, he wouldn't have married me.  But of course, my mental illness is not the totality of who I am.  So, it's not like my husband married a psycho who has no good qualities. 

Now judging - you have a narrow view of judging.  What you're saying is not judging.  What you're saying is simply blaming.  Judgment is not blame.  Judgment is simply deciding what is right and what is wrong.  You can judge something is wrong and still decide to put up with its consequences.  You don't have to, of course.  As a matter of fact, if my husband decides to leave me because of it, I wouldn't blame him one bit.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

To judge unrighteously is to judge the person's weaknesses.

Bull.

Fornication is wrong. If you have a weakness for fornication, then I'm telling you right now that you have a weakness for something that is wrong. And my judgment in that is 100% righteous.

If you can't see that, then I can tell you about another weakness you have that is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

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.

2

How is this NOT the popular vote? It doesn't matter that you didn't actually vote. I used that term because we make these decisions by silent vote. You say it's the vast majority, but you don't actually know that. Well, we did in California on Prop 8, but it wasn't the "vast majority". It is not vast by any means and the vote that we have does not consider those who didn't or couldn't vote. I recognize that norms are established by the majority, most of the time. That's not my point.

5 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

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?

No. It's not. It's normal because a vast majority watch pornography. :D

I am far more sensitive about your examples than I am about the same-sex attraction issue... I can't even get through a rough scan of them. Let's see where you went with it though...

Hmm... it didn't go anywhere. I believe it is an act to point to the mote in another person's eye. Period. And that is a sin. The sin is on the judge. Judge the action, not the person. We have to live with the person. We don't have to live with the act, When the person acts, depending one what it is, we may not have to live with the person either, but until the person acts we have to live with them. We might as well learn to get along with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Vort said:

Bull.

Fornication is wrong. If you have a weakness for fornication, then I'm telling you right now that you have a weakness for something that is wrong. And my judgment in that is 100% righteous.

If you can't see that, then I can tell you about another weakness you have that is wrong.

Fornication is not a weakness. LOL. It is an act. The act can be judged. It is very specific. Very few people don't know what it is when they are doing it.

God is the best example of righteous judgement.  Even he, though he knows u are going to absolutely commit the sin, he doesn't judge until u actually commit the sin. The weakness to fornicate is in all of us. That is not the sin. Judging the weakness is unrighteous judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

he doesn't judge until u actually commit the sin. 

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. Alma 12:14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence. Alma 12:14

Now why would we dare not look up to our God? Could it because we reject the plan of happiness and found in the judgment that his judgments were just and we discover our awful state?

Taking this out of context woul make all of us damned. I don't know about u, but I have no problem looking up to God. In fact, I need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I didn't get the impression u were talking about sex between married couple. Nevertheless, fornication is sex. What was I supposed to think about?

You were supposed to think about what 'fornication' means. 'The act of having sex" ain't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I realize this is arbitrary and your opinion, but establishing norms from anyone's personal perspective is never going to establish norm. Bell curves assume we have all the data, we don't. If we did, the percentage would actually be established based on the distribution of the data over the bell and the fact that we are using a bell curve means that the norm is established by what is popular, most frequent. That normal is what most be people do.

That is not how we, in the church determine what normal is because, on a bell curve, normal is the absolute most minimum edge of the upper side of the grade. It is normal to abstain from coffee, tea and tobacco. It is normal to reserve sexual relations only between an man and a woman who have been legally and lawfully wedded, it is normal to be honest in our dealings with our fellow man, it is normal to pay an honest tithe with an actual measurement, a rule, that we can use as a guide as to what that means. On a bell curve, Mormons are not normal.

Normal is usually defined as common, typical, expected. The bell curve shows the relationship of what is most expected. Almost never is there ever all of the information in place when establishing a bell curve. For instance looking at nutritional adequacy data is based on a representative sample of the population, not the entire population and then recommendations are made that will meet the needs of 97% of people. Now you can argue about at what percentage something becomes  normal/ abnormal, but to simply say we don't have all of the information appears to be a cop out because you don't like the information we do have. It is fairly well established that 2-5% of people identify as LGBT, this is certainly a small minority. So if you want to push the issue you can go on to talk about the number being much larger because people are afraid to come out and so on. Even if we tripled this number to 6-15% this is not really a percentage that would stretch to the labels of typical and expected. SSA is abnormal by virtue of it being a relatively uncommon trait.

In the church we don't determine normal, so the rest of your point is well... pointless. We teach right and wrong, correct principles and let people govern themselves. Using norms is how we get relative morality which is simply not a gospel principle.

I never said Mormons are normal either. Obviously we are not. We are a peculiar people.

I'm done discussing normal, because as I stated in the beginning it's an ambiguous term and we'll be better served to use less ambiguous terms such as righteous or unrighteous, which are not really ambiguous within the gospel context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

 

No. It's not. It's normal because a vast majority watch pornography. :D

 

If you'd stay with points and stop using non-interchangeable terms a useful discussion could be had. The question in this case is not whether pornography is normal, but sinful - if you can't see the difference than there will be no effective communication with you. Are you intentionally twisting things to be contentious, or do you not grasp the concept that normal and righteous are not synonyms?

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

How is this NOT the popular vote? It doesn't matter that you didn't actually vote. I used that term because we make these decisions by silent vote. You say it's the vast majority, but you don't actually know that. Well, we did in California on Prop 8, but it wasn't the "vast majority". It is not vast by any means and the vote that we have does not consider those who didn't or couldn't vote. I recognize that norms are established by the majority, most of the time. That's not my point.

It's not popular vote unless you want to suggest that SSA is a choice and that more people choose OSA. I'm working on the premise of it being a non-chosen trait (while I too feel sometimes at least it is chosen). I think at this point you're misunderstanding some things completely so I'll try again. Prop 8 has nothing to do with anything. Going back to the lizards of different colours - if 90% of the lizards are green and 10 are other colours the other colours by virtue of being a small minority are not normal or not typical. If 2-5% of the population is gay and the other 95-98% is heterosexual, the gay ones are not typical, ergo not normal. No voting is required - it just is. Like I said, you can discuss at what point something is common enough that it becomes normal and that is fine. For me less than 5% is certainly not normal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

It's not popular vote unless you want to suggest that SSA is a choice and that more people choose OSA. I'm working on the premise of it being a non-chosen trait (while I too feel sometimes at least it is chosen). I think at this point you're misunderstanding some things completely so I'll try again. Prop 8 has nothing to do with anything. Going back to the lizards of different colours - if 90% of the lizards are green and 10 are other colours the other colours by virtue of being a small minority are not normal or not typical. If 2-5% of the population is gay and the other 95-98% is heterosexual, the gay ones are not typical, ergo not normal. No voting is required - it just is. Like I said, you can discuss at what point something is common enough that it becomes normal and that is fine. For me less than 5% is certainly not normal.

 

Let me tackle this from one more angle and then I'm really done with this concept of normal. If you had a disease that killed 90% of the time or more would you consider it normal to survive the condition? I personally wouldn't consider this normal, I'd see it as very fortunate blessing to be a survivor of such. Now if survival was 50/50 maybe it would be considered normal to survive, maybe not - where that line is drawn is blurry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Now why would we dare not look up to our God? Could it because we reject the plan of happiness and found in the judgment that his judgments were just and we discover our awful state?

Taking this out of context woul make all of us damned. I don't know about u, but I have no problem looking up to God. In fact, I need to.

We are all damned. (Unless we rely wholly upon the merits of He who is mighty to save. And just so we're clear: that means repentance to taking advantage of the Atonement).

But that wasn't my point. My point was simply that our thoughts will condemn us. There's no context to it. It's just a way of saying that not engaging in fornication - or any other activity - doesn't keep us free from the need to repent and thereby rely upon the merits of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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