The next logical step

[Tyme]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Agree in part. It's like changing the religion you were born into. I was born Catholic and swung to the LDS side. They are children of God, no doubt. 

However, that doesn't mean I should have to pay for their surgery, and it doesn't mean that @Vort should be forced to approve of their lifestyle. A Catholic doesn't have to pay my tithing nor approve of my change in religions. 

Then we shouldn’t expect them to approve of ours.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Then we shouldn’t expect them to approve of ours.

Right, totally agree. 100%. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Tyme said:

Then we shouldn’t expect them to approve of ours.

That's right.

[Tyme]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You didn't answer the question.  That's a talent of yours.

Do you believe God wishes for homosexuals to be sealed together in same sex-marriages?

Is this what you call entrapment? Are you trying to back me in a corner so you can say no I can’t get baptized or go the Temple?

I really hope I’m misreading this...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Tyme said:

Is this what you call entrapment? Are you trying to back me in a corner so you can say no I can’t get baptized or go the Temple?

I really hope I’m misreading this...

"Entrapment"?  Huh?

Tyme,  I'm going to say again as honestly and sincerely as I can.  I really do think you're an ok guy.  We obviously have some different positions on things.  But I'm looking for common ground.

I believe people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves in their understanding of the pursuit of happiness.  So, to answer your question about that: YES.

And I believe you should have the choice to smoke or not smoke.  That's entirely YOUR choice.  You have the freedom to make that choice.  And, honestly, as addictive as tobacco is, I wouldn't think any less of you if you never kicked it.  You'd still be ok in my book.  And I had hoped I could consider you a friend regardless.

But what we are allowed to do and the nature of the freedom of our choices have consequences.  Some consequences are from God, some from government, some from the natural results of our decisions.

My grandfather joined the Church many years ago. And like you, he had a tough time kicking cigarettes.  It took a while.  But he eventually did.  He was a wonderful man whom I loved very much.  I really miss him now that I think about it.

But he could have lived a lot longer had he not gotten lung cancer.  This was not God's punishment.  It was not government intervention.  It was not "society" telling him anything.  It was a natural outcome of his smoking.

Freedom to choose does not cancel out freedom from consequence.  Now, I'm all about getting government to stop punishing so many things in life.  I don't know why you thought I would disagree with that.  I don't.  I 100% agree.
The Lord has also said that those with same sex attraction can become baptized and be in full fellowship among the Saints of God.  If you had heard differently, you've been misinformed.

[Tyme]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You didn't answer the question.  That's a talent of yours.

Do you believe God wishes for homosexuals to be sealed together in same sex-marriages?

Yes, when the time is right.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Yes, when the time is right.

Thank you for answering. 

There is no such thing as entrapment here.  I'm not the one who will decide whether you get baptized or not.  No one here is.  This is just a stupid internet forum.  We don't have any connection with your bishop or your mission president.  We don't even know where you live or what your real name is.  So, how would we?  And we don't have any authority over whether you get baptized or not.

Obviously, I disagree on that last point.  But I won't hold that against you.  I still want to call you a friend. 

Can I?

EDIT:  @pam, I didn't mean to say that Third Hour is "stupid".  I just think that most internet things are stupid.  But I love this forum -- no, no, really I do!!!  😎

Edited November 15, 2018 by Guest

[Tyme]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Thank you for answering. 

There is no such thing as entrapment here.  I'm not the one who will decide whether you get baptized or not.  No one here is.  This is just a stupid internet forum.  We don't have any connection with your bishop or your mission president.  We don't even know where you live or what your real name is.  So, how would we?  And we don't have any authority over whether you get baptized or not.

Obviously, I disagree on that last point.  But I won't hold that against you.  I still want to call you a friend. 

Can I?

I consider everyone my friend. You’re my brother and good friend.

[SpiritDragon]

On 11/8/2018 at 8:03 AM, anatess2 said:

If he does, this guy will soon follow in Canadian courts:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html

Someone needs to prosecute Stefonknee's parents for child labour. Imagine sending a six-year old out to plow snow. How does "she" even have a licence? She doesn't meet the age requirements. This is messed up.

In case it get's lost in translation - I don't actually want any one prosecuted. Perhaps a mental health diagnosis would be helpful, but because such a diagnosis is discriminatory it no longer exists (side note - how long before any other mental health problem can't be diagnosed because of the stigma that something isn't right?). Honestly, though, "she's" missing out on the whole experience of being a six year old by going to sex rallies and working.

[JohnsonJones]

49 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Yes, when the time is right.

I'm going to disagree with that one, unless you think Paul wasn't speaking the commandments of the Lord when he spoke.

However, opinions differ.

It may be that in 20-40 years things will change, which will be weird if they do as to reconciliation with the Bible.

Either way, I'll probably be dead by then, or too old to really care.

[SilentOne]

10 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Someone needs to prosecute Stefonknee's parents for child labour. Imagine sending a six-year old out to plow snow. How does "she" even have a licence? She doesn't meet the age requirements. This is messed up.

I've been wondering how the mandatory schooling laws would apply to the case.

[SpiritDragon]

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

I’m just going to say it like it is. You’ll probably think the same about my position. Please don’t take offense.

i think anybody who opposes LGBT folk are heartless, not following the spirit and ignorant.

im willing to accept I may not be able to get baptized due to this stance. I’ll wait it out just like blacks and supporters had to wait for the Priesthood. It’s literally the same thing just in our era.

 

Question - Your information states you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but you make it sound here as though you are not baptized... can you explain?

No offense taken, so let me be equally blunt with my position, and please don't take offense either. Anyone who can't see that the church leadership can never allow homosexuality to be anything but the sinful behaviour it is, is not sufficiently well versed in the plain doctrines taught on chastity by ancient and modern prophets alike. I can agree that no one should be commiting hate crimes against homosexuals or anything related thereto, but accepting sin is not loving. The woman taken in adultery was told by the Saviour to go and sin no more. The same applies to all who break the Lord's laws. Just because I might naturally want multiple female sexual partners doesn't mean I get to petition the brethren to give the go ahead for my "favourite" sin (for lack of a better way to put it at the moment - and I am loyal to my wife, for the record). 

Just because some people are naturally inclined to steal, bear false witness, murder, and so on doesn't mean we change doctrine to accomodate sin. It means it's time to double down on helping people be free of such by drawing on the powers of heaven.

The doctrines of salvation, the commandments of God, are put in place to lead us to happiness. Not to let us wallow in shallow pleasures on the path of least resistance which keep us from ever putting in the work to get the sense of accomplishment and satisfaction that accompany true happiness. Self-mastery is an important step to happiness. It's true freedom.

Edited November 15, 2018 by SpiritDragon

[askandanswer]

From the article:

But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child

This sentence  ^^ has some similarities to a self contradicting statement. You move forward by going back?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[askandanswer]

On 11/9/2018 at 1:33 AM, Vort said:

We should take bets: Will he win in the European courts?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/europe/dutch-man-legal-age-scli-intl/index.html

Isn't this just a legalising of the frequently practiced idea of (usually) women who are 40 simply saying they've been 25 for the last 15 years? It's not all that uncommon where I come from  

[Tyme]

6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Question - Your information states you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but you make it sound here as though you are not baptized... can you explain?

No offense taken, so let me be equally blunt with my position, and please don't take offense either. Anyone who can't see that the church leadership can never allow homosexuality to be anything but the sinful behaviour it is, is not sufficiently well versed in the plain doctrines taught on chastity by ancient and modern prophets alike. I can agree that no one should be commiting hate crimes against homosexuals or anything related thereto, but accepting sin is not loving. The woman taken in adultery was told by the Saviour to go and sin no more. The same applies to all who break the Lord's laws. Just because I might naturally want multiple female sexual partners doesn't mean I get to petition the brethren to give the go ahead for my "favourite" sin (for lack of a better way to put it at the moment - and I am loyal to my wife, for the record). 

Just because some people are naturally inclined to steal, bear false witness, murder, and so on doesn't mean we change doctrine to accomodate sin. It means it's time to double down on helping people be free of such by drawing on the powers of heaven.

The doctrines of salvation, the commandments of God, are put in place to lead us to happiness. Not to let us wallow in shallow pleasures on the path of least resistance which keep us from ever putting in the work to get the sense of accomplishment and satisfaction that accompany true happiness. Self-mastery is an important step to happiness. It's true freedom.

This is where we go down divergent paths in our thinking. I don’t think being LGBT is a choice. I’m sure some choose but most don’t.

An example: A gay Mormon who doesn’t want to be gay but is. There are plenty of gays who don’t want to be gay. If it’s a choice, how do you explain that?

[jerome1232]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It may be that in 20-40 years things will change, which will be weird if they do as to reconciliation with the Bible.

Aww you see, that's what modernized interpretations/translations of the Bible are for!

 

[jerome1232]

I like to be blunt on occasion.

"blacks and the priesthood is to yesterday as homosexual sealings are to today".

How can you seriously think that? Have you actually studied anything about the priesthood ban?

You know what, I see how they are the same, because ever since homosexuality was spoken out against WAAAAAY back in Leviticus it was mentioned that this was a temporary thing and at some point in the future it would be lifted, exactly like the priesthood ban.

[Tyme]

11 minutes ago, jerome1232 said:

Aww you see, that's what modernized interpretations/translations of the Bible are for!

 

Go ahead and educate me. Post all the scriptures that reference homosexuality being wrong.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

This is where we go down divergent paths in our thinking. I don’t think being LGBT is a choice. I’m sure some choose but most don’t.

An example: A gay Mormon who doesn’t want to be gay but is. There are plenty of gays who don’t want to be gay. If it’s a choice, how do you explain that?

Again, I believe you've been looking at the wrong place.  "Being gay" isn't a sin.  This is where we agree.  It is the choice to act on it that is the sin.  It is no different for hetrosexuals.

I find many women attractive.  It's an impulse/instinct.  I have no control over that.  But do I dwell on that fact?  Do I entertain thoughts of acting on that impulse?  Do I wonder what it would be like to have sex with those women?  If so, I've committed adultery in my heart.  And if I ACTUALLY follow through with real action, then I'm held under even greater condemnation.

16 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Go ahead and educate me. Post all the scriptures that reference homosexuality being wrong.

Here you go.

Quote

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .

Whether by mine own voice of the voice of my servants...

What do you think marriage is about?  If you have same-sex marriage, how will you have children in eternity?  Male and female is part of our eternal identity.  Those characteristics don't change.

[jerome1232]

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

This is where we go down divergent paths in our thinking. I don’t think being LGBT is a choice. I’m sure some choose but most don’t.

An example: A gay Mormon who doesn’t want to be gay but is. There are plenty of gays who don’t want to be gay. If it’s a choice, how do you explain that?

I guess this is where words get funny. Identifying as LGBT is absolutely a choice, just like identifying as a Latter-day Saint is.

Someone who struggles with gender dysphoria, or same-sex attraction can choose not to undergo gender reassignment surgery, or to not have sexual/romantic relations with their own gender for many reasons, one of which could be their devotion to God and their determination to follow his covenant path as best as they can despite their particular individual struggles.

[Tyme]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Again, I believe you've been looking at the wrong place.  "Being gay" isn't a sin.  This is where we agree.  It is the choice to act on it that is the sin.  It is no different for hetrosexuals.

I find many women attractive.  It's an impulse/instinct.  I have no control over that.  But do I dwell on that fact?  Do I entertain thoughts of acting on that impulse?  Do I wonder what it would be like to have sex with those women?  If so, I've committed adultery in my heart.  And if I ACTUALLY follow through with real action, then I'm held under even greater condemnation.

Here you go.

Whether by mine own voice of the voice of my servants...

What do you think marriage is about?  If you have same-sex marriage, how will you have children in eternity?  Male and female is part of our eternal identity.  Those characteristics don't change.

There are so many children that need to be adopted. A gay couple can provide a family for many of those children. Those children could then be sealed to their parents. That is how they have children in eternity.

just imagine for a second you’re told you can’t marry who you love. How would you feel? Would you want to be a member of the church? I think you should become abstinent and not be married since you believe that’s possibe.

im looking for scriptures from the cannon — bible, boom d&c etc. there were many leaders proclaiming that blacks shouldn’t have the Priesthood. Yet, it still eventually happened. Can you explain to me how that is different from what’s going on today with gays? I’m all eyes.

[Tyme]

13 minutes ago, jerome1232 said:

I guess this is where words get funny. Identifying as LGBT is absolutely a choice, just like identifying as a Latter-day Saint is.

Someone who struggles with gender dysphoria, or same-sex attraction can choose not to undergo gender reassignment surgery, or to not have sexual/romantic relations with their own gender for many reasons, one of which could be their devotion to God and their determination to follow his covenant path as best as they can despite their particular individual struggles.

Im still waiting on those scriptures.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Tyme said:

There are so many children that need to be adopted. A gay couple can provide a family for many of those children. Those children could then be sealed to their parents. That is how they have children in eternity.

You're talking about in mortality.  I'm talking about bearing and birthing children in eternity.

[Tyme]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You're talking about in mortality.  I'm talking about bearing and birthing children in eternity.

Surrogate...

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Tyme said:

just imagine for a second you’re told you can’t marry who you love.

Now your conflating two things that will disprove your own point.  There is love and there is sex.  You can LOVE anyone of any sex.  No one says anything against that.  But when you talk of "romantic" love, then you're saying that sex = love.  And that isn't the case. That's a "snuck assumption".  Sex is something that two people who love each other CAN do to strengthen their bond.  But do to so is a choice.

And to answer your question, if the Lord told me that I couldn't marry a woman, then I'd obey the Lord.  End of story.  You think that I haven't thought about this.  I have.  There are all sorts of sob stories we can invoke.  But the bottom line is:  Do we obey the Lord?  That's all.

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Surrogate...

You believe we will have surrogates in eternity.  And what scripture did you get that from?