What LGBTQ+ hath wrot

[Vort]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

2 hours ago, Vort said:

An Al-Anon Choir would not be putting forth alcohol consumption as a desirable end or suggesting that intoxication was somehow good.

Quick pedantic point of order: Alcoholics Anonymous, or AA, is for alcoholics trying to be better.  Al-Anon is for spouses and loved ones of alcoholics, trying to be healthy and make healthy relationship choices.

Duly noted and fixed.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

 I remember when I attended

But...but...you told me you dropped out of high school and became a hog farmer in rural Arkansas! 

[Midwest LDS]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

But...but...you told me you dropped out of high school and became a hog farmer in rural Arkansas! 

Lol oh yeah that's me. Salt of the Earth, fix things with my hands sort of guy😉... Sounds awful😁

Edited November 2, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Lol oh yeah that's me. Salt of the Earth, fix things with my hands sort of guy😉... Sounds awful😁

Amen brother. I can't even change a tire. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Do you really and honestly believe that the First Presidency personally approves every decision made by, for example, the Tabernacle Choir management? I find that belief to be, as you word it, silly.

My belief is that the first presidency was aware that this was planned. Had they felt the same way you do, I’m sure they would have requested that it be changed. But it wasn’t changed. 

So either they know less about church events than we do... or they don’t care/are happy about it.

i can’t possibly imagine pres Nelson feeling the same way many of you do and still letting it go. The only thing that would stop him is fear of publicity. Is our prophet motivated by public image? Is he just so I’m aware of what happening in the church? Or does it not bother him that this is happening? If you have a separate reason as to why this wasn’t shot down, please let me know.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Nissan said:

This is incorrect.

It all comes down to a world-view; is it inborn or is it learned behavior. If it is inborn then there is nothing we can do so whatever.

If it is learned however . . . .that brings a whole slew of other questions.  I believe it is learned-why? Because throughout history and time, different cultures and different societies have had different levels of homosexuality.  We see it in our own culture-as homosexuality has gained more acceptance-more people identify as homosexuals.

I too believe it is learned. I fail to see how your point voids mine.

If two people wish to engage in homosexual acts, no one is being forced to do anything or is being attacked. Pedophilia, adultery, rape, etc cannot say that. That is why I make the difference.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

So either they know less about church events than we do... or they don’t care/are happy about it.

 

My thoughts completely. 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

[1]You can’t possibly be so blinded by your own opinion to not see how adultery harms more people than homosexuality. 

 

[2]I find this comment very silly. If the first presidency was against such an action, it would not have happened. Either they supported it or didn’t think it was a big deal.

1.  Why?  In either case it harms people who love the sinner, are part of a community unit with them, and have certain expectations of the sinner by virtue of that shared community.  And the offense against God, and the spiritual toxicity of the sin towards the sinner him/herself, is the same in both cases.  

Obviously, if a couple has children, adultery has the added collateral damage of hurting those innocents as well; but if the gay community really were concerned about children, then they wouldn’t celebrate parents who abandon their opposite-gender spouse for the hope of a same-gender sex partner.

But they do.

They do not care about the children.

(Nor do most of them give a rat’s patootie about the suicide epidemic, which has been exploited to benefit their side, not ours.  But that’s a different rant.)

The difference between sodomy and adultery is less than many of us who know and love gay family members, would like to acknowledge.

2.  Option 3:  Someone in the temple presidency (or their designees for such issues) a) thought the FP would support it, or b) knew darned well that the FP wouldn’t support it, but decided to triple-dog-dare the FP to brave the PR nightmare that rescinding the invitation would inevitably create.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

8 hours ago, Nissan said:

We are finally getting with the times.

Few words are more chilling.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

They. do. not. care.

"they" care much more than you think they do. There are bad heterosexual parents who break up families and there are bad homosexual parents who break up families. 

I also refuse to believe that anyone says "I don't care how my kids think, I'm going to live my life the way I want to." No, it doesn't work that way. 

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

My belief is that the first presidency was aware that this was planned. Had they felt the same way you do, I’m sure they would have requested that it be changed. But it wasn’t changed.

Your first two words are the important part here.

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

So either they know less about church events than we do... or they don’t care/are happy about it.

See your first two words above. Your logic holds only if your premise is correct. (Strictly speaking, it doesn't hold even then, but I'm willing to accept it at face value. But only given your first two words above, which I disbelieve.)

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

i can’t possibly imagine pres Nelson feeling the same way many of you do and still letting it go. The only thing that would stop him is fear of publicity. Is our prophet motivated by public image? Is he just so I’m aware of what happening in the church? Or does it not bother him that this is happening? If you have a separate reason as to why this wasn’t shot down, please let me know.

Because the Temple Square presidency (or the SL Temple presidency, or whatever administrative body is charged with approving such things) decided for whatever reason not to run it by the First Presidency. Or possibly because the First Presidency, though perhaps privately displeased at the idea, decided to allow these men to make the decision as per their calling and then reap the spiritual results of that decision. I don't know. But I doubt the FP approved this. I admit I might be wrong, and your "silly" label might be correct.

PS "Silly", in this context, means "stupid". The specific definition is, "having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish". Just so you understand the natural inferences of your statement.

[Nissan]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I too believe it is learned. I fail to see how your point voids mine.

If two people wish to engage in homosexual acts, no one is being forced to do anything or is being attacked. Pedophilia, adultery, rape, etc cannot say that. That is why I make the difference.

 

There is a reason why homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible.  If homosexuality is learned then what else is learned? We are seeing the progression.  The progression was first homosexuality was deemed a serious sin, then it was deemed a mental disorder, then it was deemed inborn. First transgenderism was deemed a serious sin, then a mental disorder, now it is being deemed as inborn.  So much so that small children are being told from a young age that they are transgender and that they should transition. 

If a child is able to determine that they are homosexual, they are old enough to determine they are transgender then they are old enough to determine they should have sexual experiences with those who are older.

Homosexual acts are condemned because of what it leads to-which is absolutely no moral standard around sexual activity.  You claim pedophilia that someone is being forced.  Yet we have children as young as 7 who are said to be a different sex.  If a child can determine they are not a boy at age 7, then they most certainly have the where-withall to determine they can have sexual experiences.

What you are arguing in effect, is that even though homosexuality is learned-it's not a sin.

 

[Nissan]

17 minutes ago, Fether said:

The only thing that would stop him is fear of publicity. Is our prophet motivated by public image? Is he just so I’m aware of what happening in the church? Or does it not bother him that this is happening? If you have a separate reason as to why this wasn’t shot down, please let me know.

With the apostasy policy was declared a revelation from God, massive internal pushback inside the Church occurred and then it was discarded.  Correlation isn't causation . . .but at some point-we get the leadership and church we deserve.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

If two people wish to engage in homosexual acts, no one is being forced to do anything or is being attacked. Pedophilia, adultery, rape, etc cannot say that.

What do you mean? If an underage child consents to sex, s/he's not being "forced". The age of consent is a purely arbitrary legal matter. The age of consent could legally be changed to six years old, at which point pedophilia would almost cease to exist as a crime. Do you think that somehow changes the nature of the act?

If the participants in adultery freely consent to the relationship, no one is being "forced". Consensually speaking, how is this at all different, in any way, from homosexual acts?

Rape is different, but only because of the definition of the word. By definition, rape is nonconsensual sex. So claiming that rape is nonconsensual is circular.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, MormonGator said:

[1]"they" care much more than you think they do. There are bad heterosexual parents who break up families and there are bad homosexual parents who break up families. 

[2]I also refuse to believe that anyone says "I don't care how my kids think, I'm going to live my life the way I want to." No, it doesn't work that way. 

1). Really?

When was the last time we saw a gay rights group do a training or support group for gay parents who want to stay on a straight relationship for the children’s sake?

Actions speak louder than words.  Priority one here is sexual fulfillment.  Kids (and any other obligation to third parties) are way down on the scale.

2). No, they don’t say it.  They may not even subconsciously think it.  They just act in a way that shows it.  

Doesn’t matter if it’s Josh Weed, or my best friend from grade school who is still a stand-up guy and an intriguing thinker, but nonetheless decided he was gay and left his wife after two kids and ten years of marriage.  

It wasn’t the kids’ welfare who motivated their decision to leave.  It was their own desire to seek sexual fulfillment elsewhere.  So the kids had to watch their parents go through a divorce, and now they shuttle between houses every other weekend and one afternoon per week and are forced to sit in Facebook-ready “family pictures” that purport to show a happy and complete family—the parent’s family, mark you, not the child’s—whilst pretending that the child’s other parent simply doesn’t exist. 

[Nissan]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

"they" care much more than you think they do. There are bad heterosexual parents who break up families and there are bad homosexual parents who break up families. 

I also refuse to believe that anyone says "I don't care how my kids think, I'm going to live my life the way I want to." No, it doesn't work that way. 

Do you have kids?

Because yes absolutely parents say that.  I doubt a 2-3 year old toddler wants their mother shuttling them off to day-care every day.  I bet they would say, "mommy, I want to stay with you all day" . . .but the parent says "I'm going to live my life the way I want to".

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

1). Really?

Yes. No one twirls their mustache, spins a cape and says "I'm going to inflict pain and misery on my loved ones to further my own selfish agenda." Well, maybe @mirkwood does, but 99% of humanity doesn't think like that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Nissan said:

Do you have kids?

Sadly not. But my personal experiences have nothing to do with this. 

Just now, Nissan said:

Because yes absolutely parents say that.  

Nope, don't believe it. 

 

[Nissan]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Yes. No one twirls their mustache, spins a cape and says "I'm going to inflict pain and misery on my loved ones to further my own selfish agenda." Well, maybe @mirkwood does, but 99% of humanity doesn't think like that. 

Yes they do-all the time.  The couch it in different terms, they proclaim with their lips that they won't do that-but their actions absolutely say differently.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Nissan said:

Yes they do-all the time.  The couch it in different terms, they proclaim with their lips that they won't do that-but their actions absolutely say differently.

Nope. They almost always have good intentions. Now, that's not saying their actions are good, but I stand by everything I said, 100%. 

[Nissan]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sadly not. But my personal experiences have nothing to do with this. 

Nope, don't believe it. 

 

Yes, it does have everything to do with it.  Why? Because as a parent you realize that if you really cared what your child thinks, you'd give them a candy bar for dinner every night.

Caring about what your child thinks and feels is a real quick way to be enslaved to a toddler monster and a 8-year-old tyrant.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nissan

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Nissan said:

Yes, it does have everything to do with it.  Why? Because as a parent you realize that if you really cared what your child thinks, you'd give them a candy bar for dinner every night.

Nothing to do with the bigger discussion at all actually, but okay. 

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, Nissan said:

There is a reason why homosexual acts are condemned in the Bible.  If homosexuality is learned then what else is learned? We are seeing the progression.  The progression was first homosexuality was deemed a serious sin, then it was deemed a mental disorder, then it was deemed inborn. First transgenderism was deemed a serious sin, then a mental disorder, now it is being deemed as inborn.  So much so that small children are being told from a young age that they are transgender and that they should transition. 

If a child is able to determine that they are homosexual, they are old enough to determine they are transgender then they are old enough to determine they should have sexual experiences with those who are older.

Homosexual acts are condemned because of what it leads to-which is absolutely no moral standard around sexual activity.  You claim pedophilia that someone is being forced.  Yet we have children as young as 7 who are said to be a different sex.  If a child can determine they are not a boy at age 7, then they most certainly have the where-withall to determine they can have sexual experiences.

What you are arguing in effect, is that even though homosexuality is learned-it's not a sin.

 

You know... of everything I have read, I’ve actually really appreciated this. This actually helped me connect some beliefs I have about homosexuality. 

Literally... something just clicked in my brain and I’m beginning to see you points. By providing a stage with the Tabernacle at Temple Square, we are providing learning opportunities for others to learn to be homosexual... particularly saints.

I’m ganna munch in this for a bit, but that comment actually... changed my mind..? I’ve never felt this online before.

[Nissan]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Nothing to do with the bigger discussion at all actually, but okay. 

Actually it does have everything to do with the bigger discussion.  You just don't see it. . . b/c sadly you don't have children (I wish you did).

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yes. No one twirls their mustache, spins a cape and says "I'm going to inflict pain and misery on my loved ones to further my own selfish agenda."

Translation: People justify their selfish actions so as to avoid taking responsibility for them.

Hardly world-shaking news.

"My children would be unhappy in a home with such tension. My children are happier when I'm happier. So therefore, I must do whatever I think will make me happier. It's for the children." Oh, yes, we see exactly this sort of lying justification every single day of our lives, throughout society all around us. People are petty and selfish, and freely sacrifice the well-being of their children so that they can follow their gonads. Happens all the time. My father-in-law was a survivor of exactly such enlightened self-interest. It's a miracle he made it out in one peace, to say nothing of managing to establish a reasonably successful marriage with a woman who was herself badly damaged by Nazi atrocities (another instance of enlightened self-interest).

Edited November 2, 2019 by Vort