Stacey Harkey comes out


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some thoughts:

First - I have some investment property and have a small group of contractors in the construction industry that I deal with on a professional basis.  For me professional relationships are a honest straight-forward expression of my personal relationships - meaning that I do not maintain professional relationships if it conflicts with my personal relationships.  Several or my contractors have WoW issues - in particular smoking (tobacco).  When I discover their issues - I quickly express my concern - as lovingly as I can.  I may say, "Jack, I see that cigarette in your hand and I am concerned.  Mostly for how that effects your health and the health of those close to you (your family and friends).  If I can help you, I want you to know I am here with my respect and concern - so every time I see you light up I will say something.  Not to cause problems or hurt and if it bothers you, I will shut up about it - but I want you to know I am here for you to help you with this matter."

Second thought: There are such things as habitual and addictive behaviors.  These behavior are different from genetic behaviors especially for intelligent species.  I will define an intelligent species as a species that has power to exercise will to determine any and all cognitive behaviors.   Cognitive behaviors are behavioral responses that an individual is aware of whenever they occur.  For example your heart beats even when you are unconscious - that is a non-cognitive response.  When someone your are attracted to walks into the room and you notice them - everything you do after that is a cognitive response.   All cognitive responses are learned and all habitual and addictive behaviors are cognitive responses.  The primary difference between addictive and habitual behaviors is that addictive behaviors are supported by either natural or artificial drugs enhancing feelings of pleasure.  

The human brain is wired such that when an addictive behavior is established - it is permanently linked to pleasure responses.  Now I have not itemized all that we currently know about the science of cognitive and non-cognitive behaviors related to addictive behaviors.  But I intended to demonstrate that sexual attractions is 100% an acquired cognitive behavioral response in human.  If it was not - then there would not be such a thing as a sex crime or rape and no one would be able to claim sexual harassment.   

Third Thought - What I want to establish here; is that G-d did not make anyone with the passions and desires that define what we are.  We humans have our own will and it is the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that G-d is not responsible for our will and desires - but rather that we will someday stand before G-d and make an accounting for our will (cognitive responses), passions and desires along with our responses in dealing with the trials of passions, desire and will that we face in mortality.   Humans can school and control their passions and desires or they can be controlled by their passions and desires.  I do not believe for a second G-d makes anybody to be controlled by their passions and desires.  It is a lie told to others as well as individuals to themselves that G-d is responsible for the will, passions and desires of anybody.  - one last observation.   I am not an expert in LGBTQ but I do believe there is a common denominator - at least in the LGBTQ individuals I have encountered.  That common denominator is a propensity to have been involved in and continue to be involved in masturbation.   They may not necessarily be directly involved in LGBTQ but it seems to me that those involved (especially at an early age) to have a stronger proclivity towards activities contrary to the divine law of chastity than those that avoid that habit. 

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

True.

Just remember that when people start crying about how I'm not saying they are following the spirit. In...Three...Two...One..... It's ok for you to say i'm non-believing, but my accusations are so much worse because they break through your cognitive dissonance just a little bit. Also, spare me the mormonlese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Answer this 8 year old question: Why would god create people who are gay if it's something the majority of people are going to act on? That doesn't sound like a loving god or loving leaders to parrot the thought. It's one reason I believe gay marriage will be solemnized in the Temple once the older generation follows the spirit or dies off.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/3.25-26?lang=eng&clang=eng#p24

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Murder is wrong just like pedophilia because a person is harming another person. 

Doing something to someone or yourself that might destroy potential for exaltation is harmful in the eternal sense. If someone murders me it doesn't harm me at all in the grand eternal scheme of things. If someone convinces me to break the law of chastity and turn away from God and His commandments and I fail to overcome this...whoo boy.

Why is it that you have no eternal perspective on this matter whatsoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Doing something to someone or yourself that might destroy potential for exaltation is harmful in the eternal sense. If someone murders me it doesn't harm me at all in the grand eternal scheme of things. If someone convinces me to break the law of chastity and turn away from God and His commandments and I fail to overcome this...whoo boy.

Why is it that you have no eternal perspective on this matter whatsoever?

I do have eternal perspective. My positions that gays will get married in the Temple eventually is pretty clear. That means they’ll also be exalted. God will work it out in the end for gays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tyme said:

It's ok for you to say i'm non-believing

Do you believe there's anything wrong with homosex? Do you have faith that God gave us this commandment and would have us obey it?

If not then you are non-believing and faithless in that thing.

Do you deny being non-believing and faithless in those things?

8 minutes ago, Tyme said:

but my accusations are so much worse because they['re based on lies]

True.

10 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Also, spare me the mormonlese.

I, legit, googled 'mormolese'. Nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2018 at 4:10 PM, Tyme said:

I do have eternal perspective. My positions that gays will get married in the Temple eventually is pretty clear. That means they’ll also be exalted. God will work it out in the end for gays

You having some cuckoo position that contradicts everything ever taught or said about eternal families and the sanctity of marriage between man and women in the gospel is not an eternal perspective.

An eternal perspective is seeing the eternities according to God's revealed word. Not making up whatever crap we feel like and calling it an eternal perspective.

You might as well have said, "I have an eternal perspective because I believe that in the eternities we'll all have four arms and trunks for noses -- like Ganesh."

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

Will the Church Ever Change Its Doctrine and Sanction Same-Sex Marriages?

Central to God’s plan, the doctrine of marriage between a man and woman is an integral teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and will not change:

“As a doctrinal principle, based on the scriptures, the Church affirms that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly affirms defining marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.4.10).

Source: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/frequently-asked-questions?lang=eng (it's the last question on the page, scroll down)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Murder is wrong just like pedophilia because a person is harming another person. Come up with something better then we will talk.

How is pedophilia wrong?  How does that harm a child?  All they do is show how much they love them in the most natural way possible.  What does consent have to do with it.  Children don't know what's good for them.

Why is harming someone wrong?  And don't just say it hurts people. That's circular reasoning.

But that's really all you have, isn't it?  And you don't even see the round room you've imprisoned yourself in.  Have you ever tried peeing in corner?

You don't even see the nonsense of your arguments.  They are EXACTLY the same as the non-sensical arguments I just made.  But you're so freaking blind that you can't ever admit it.  And you have the temerity to believe you're more in tune with the Spirit than the Prophet?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Maybe my "gaydar" doesn't work. What were the tells? That he's funny? Well-spoken? Kind of chunky?

I just found out yesterday that my manager is homosexual*. I had kind of thought he was, but didn't know for sure until yesterday. I'm sure it would be obvious to some, but not to me. On the other hand, I had a manager fifteen or so years ago that I was just 99.999% sure was gay. It was just so obvious. But guess what? Not gay.

"Gaydar", like "Jewdar", may be a real thing, but I'm not convinced. Some homosexuals are over-the-top in their mannerisms, but I doubt that anyone can reliably distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals through casual conversation and public observation. Maybe 60% or even 70% correct, but that's not what I consider reliable.

*Apropos of nothing, my manager is probably the kindest manager I have ever had. I told him exactly that in this morning's one-on-one, because I thought he deserved the feedback. He's also clever and quite funny.

I live in the SF bay area I am a self proclaimed gay spotter.  Funny thing is growing up here and living here I find that most people can't tell if someone is gay or not. In fairness to others who do not have a lot of contact with individuals of that persuasion you would have a hard time knowing.  98% are just regular joes or gals who want to live life and be left alone like you and me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Answer this 8 year old question: Why would god create people who are gay if it's something the majority of people are going to act on? That doesn't sound like a loving god or loving leaders to parrot the thought. It's one reason I believe gay marriage will be solemnized in the Temple once the older generation follows the spirit or dies off.

So, you create God in your own image.  Why do you think you're so adamant about this?  You believe you know more about God's will than the prophets.  You believe you know more about right and wrong nearly every Christian on earth.

You're not really in a good position to think so highly of your spiritual instincts.  Just learn enough to get on the right road.  Then we can talk.  Right now, you're trying to move in one direction while looking in the other.  You've got your tent facing Sodom and Gomorrah but want to come into the waters of baptism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

Answer this 8 year old question: Why would god create people who are gay if it's something the majority of people are going to act on? That doesn't sound like a loving god or loving leaders to parrot the thought.

This brilliant argument summarizes why I don't believe people are born with any mental, physical, or emotional deficiencies. If you think they are, then you are wrong and a hater. I can't wait for your type to hurry and die off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

 My positions that gays will get married in the Temple eventually is pretty clear.

1. This will never happen 

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

 That means they’ll also be exalted. 

See #1 (assuming they reject the teachings of Christ in the second coming / spirit world and pursue their homosexual lifestyle).

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

God will work it out in the end for gays

This I do agree with, but everyone knows this. 

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Vort said:
1 hour ago, Tyme said:

Answer this 8 year old question: Why would god create people who are gay if it's something the majority of people are going to act on? That doesn't sound like a loving god or loving leaders to parrot the thought.

This brilliant argument summarizes why I don't believe people are born with any mental, physical, or emotional deficiencies. If you think they are, then you are wrong and a hater. I can't wait for your type to hurry and die off.

Glad we are all on the same page!

I have a friend who was “diagnosed” with ADHD and had severe anger issues. I also worked with a guy in a group home who claimed to have schizophrenic attacks. Oh how I laughed in both their faces and told them to stop making things up. God loves us, he would give us these disorders! Right @Tyme!?!?

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

Answer this 8 year old question: Why would god create people who are gay if it's something the majority of people are going to act on? That doesn't sound like a loving god or loving leaders to parrot the thought. It's one reason I believe gay marriage will be solemnized in the Temple once the older generation follows the spirit or dies off.

Oh please... your question is a variation on the Question of why does God let Bad things happen to Good people.  That has been answered and repeatedly.  Because this life is a test to prove if we will follow him or if we will follow our own desires.  Everyone faces this test even while the precise nature of the individuals test varies, it is the same test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Fether said:

Glad we are all on the same page!

I have a friend who was “diagnosed” with ADHD and had severe anger issues. I also worked with a guy in a group home who claimed to have schizophrenic attacks. Oh how I laughed in both their faces and told them to stop making things up. God loves us, he would give us these disorders! Right @Tyme!?!?

Everyone knows ADHD is a made up disease!

:devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, but . . . suffice it to say, I doubt Harkey’s the only gay Studio C cast member.  And I don’t think there’s anything they’re doing with JK Studios that couldn’t have been done via BYUTV.

My only rebuttal to this would be (which maybe someone already shared) is the ability to make the monies themselves instead of BYUtv via endorsements. If they are on their own, then their contracts and increase in monies would definitely be a temptation in my situation.

Continue to make what BYUtv gives you, or have the opportunity to earn a lot more through a different avenue. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2018 at 8:05 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I had a nasty feeling that the original Studio C cast’s separation from BYU preceded some or all of them visibly breaking with Church standards to some degree.  It’ll be interesting to see if Harkey plans to uphold the Church’s teachings on the Law of Chastity.  Time will tell, but from the article’s quotations . . . I’m thinking “no”.

My daughter grew up with one of the original Studio C group. That girl isn't breaking with church standards although she is very supportive of Stacey Harkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

Inform me what is wrong with two consenting adults having sexual relations without saying that it's merely sin. I want a logical argument. Something I've seen nobody do.

Maybe because men weren't physically designed to have sex with each other. Neither are women with women. The puzzle pieces don't fit. If they were meant to have sex with each other there would have been some God -given  or ( evolutional if you're more inclined that way) accommodation made in the human body to have that happen in a way that is physiologically natural. Since there isn't, the sex act is done in ways that are not natural and are in fact harmful to the body.  True that men and women also have sex sometimes in ways that weren't meant to happen. And the dangers are the same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

If anyone ever figures out a way to solve this paradox other than not saying anything at all, let me know.... :) 

And yes, i do it too.

image.png.292dba98d20ed3e3dcc8df977b3db79a.png

In order to answer a paradox it must first be a paradox. You could put a mule with a man in this scenario and ask the same question and ask how the paradox would be solved.

But here you go, "God initiates, Satan imitates." ;)

EDIT: But then again, I may have misunderstood the meaning behind this post. 😊

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, carlimac said:

My daughter grew up with one of the original Studio C group. That girl isn't breaking with church standards although she is very supportive of Stacey Harkey.

In defense for @Just_A_Guy, although he is very articulate at defending himself. I don't believe his post was about someone supporting Stacey as breaking any standard with the Church. The post appears to follow this line of thought:

1) Not an accusation but a thought as to whether or not some or all were not keeping Church standards as a reason for the separation from BYUtv, which may or may not be true.

2) And whether or not Stacey will continue to live the Lord's standards, or if he will give into the natural man.

The caveat -- only time will tell, which is an accurate assessment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

In order to answer a paradox it must first be a paradox. You could put a mule with a man in this scenario and ask the same question and ask how the paradox would be solved.

But here you go, "God initiates, Satan imitates." ;)

EDIT: But then again, I may have misunderstood the meaning behind this post. 😊

Thank-you.

So i guess what i meant is that so often, any attempt to say, "you're judging" is held up as a hypocritical judgmental statement towards the person who uttered it.  And so in a way, looks like a repeating image on, and on, and on.  

Hmm - as i explain it, that maybe was not as obvious as i originally thought it was.....

Anyways, extending that, i think in a way, maybe people create images of God in their own mind so they can escape that paradox.  They take a series of preconceptions, attach them to the idea of God, and voila!  One no longer has to argue a principle on it's merit (whatever merit is).  One merely has to pull out the trump card and say, " i know that image makes no logical sense, that everything in your conscience says it's not what i am telling you it is, that you've seen indications up and down the ying yang that it's total bunk.  But, Hey, buddy, don't blame me. *i* didn't make the rules!  God said so!"

And that's not really a criticism.  i mean, i have my own image of God, just like everyone else does.  And one can chase my logic back only so far, until i, too, have to pull out that trump card and also say, "Because God said so!"

To be honest, i am incredibly conflicted when it comes to our need to regress virtually all questions of moral significance back to religious belief - which when it comes right down to it, is often no more than just a stubborn insistence that a person's personal view of that which cannot be empirically known is empirically correct by virtue of a bunch of people who are wrong about just about everything at some time or another (ie us) saying it is correct.  And the beautiful thing is, we have a book from which we can cherry pick passages whose meaning can be can be twisted with varying amounts of context or lack thereof into conveying whatever meaning the person doing the picking, and twisting, and interpreting wants it to say.

Really, that is more or less what it comes down to for things like homosexuality - at least in my opinion.  People can't really tell you why, other than "my God [prophet, my way of interpreting the bible, pastor, bishop, cardinal, pope, etc.,] said so!" (less the 'my').  And that works great as long as you are certain about your sources.  But at least for me, the more i look at the sources, the more i realize that the whole thing is just someone's opinion, blown way up out of proportion, and decorated with some "thus saith the Lord's". 

And again, i can't really criticize it, because i am doing exactly the same thing for all my beliefs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share