Mormons Building Bridges founders tacitly acknowledge: “We’ve been taken over by anti-Mormons”.

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I understood that.

The item I was discussing

You're still saying the same thing.  And ignoring my comments. You know what?  Have a nice day.

[mirkwood]

On 5/14/2020 at 2:37 PM, Carborendum said:

 Were you talking about their facebook page?

Yes

[Traveler]

There are a few subjects associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that cannot be discussed with those associated favorably with the LGBTQ community.  Perhaps foremost on that list are the two subjects of 1) Agency and 2) Repentance.

I have some good gay friends but the two above subjects are off limits.  I realize that not everybody is ready for the 2nd coming.  I also realize that I am not going to decide who will meet with Christ when he comes.  I am not that sure of my own standing.  Two things I believe everyone must answer to the L-ord are.  First - our agency  And Second our willingness to repent.  I have not met many but I have met one from the LGBTQ community that believed they have Agency - and are willing to repent.

I understand that we should welcome all G-d's children to church - regardless of whatever sin they have committed.  I understand how cruel the LGBTQ community will be towards someone from their community that wants to repent and become a Saint of G-d and marry in the Temple of G-d to an eternal companion - and how difficult it is for the repentant to overcome labels.  The difficulty for me is dealing with someone that says they want to be a Latter-day Saint in one breath and then in the next say that being gay is not a sin and does not need repentance.

I have a good friend - in fact I talked with him just today (first time in over a year) - that has difficulty with the WoW and smoking.  He has been trying to quit for years.  Today he told me he is still struggling with smoking.  I told him I appreciate his telling me and I support him.  But never has he blown the smoke for his cigarette in my face or told me that quitting or thinking someone ought to quit is  xenophobic. 

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

30 years ago two people (one was a Fundamentalist Christian, the other was not committed to religion, though was respectful) were discussing gambling. The non-religious one loved bingo and said, "Some Christians believe it is okay to gamble in moderation." The Fundamentalist replied, "I suppose they're okay with fornicating in moderation too." I thought that was funny 30-years ago. Sadly, today, too many supposed believers would say it depended on the circumstances (were they really in love, etc.).  

[priesthoodpower]

5 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

30 years ago two people (one was a Fundamentalist Christian, the other was not committed to religion, though was respectful) were discussing gambling. The non-religious one loved bingo and said, "Some Christians believe it is okay to gamble in moderation." The Fundamentalist replied, "I suppose they're okay with fornicating in moderation too." I thought that was funny 30-years ago. Sadly, today, too many supposed believers would say it depended on the circumstances (were they really in love, etc.).  

Is this a good comparison? I feel there is no moderation or fine line in Fornication, you either do it or not and it is breaking a commandment.

What is gambling? We all have countless stories of people that "take a chance" or "gamble" when starting a business or buying a home etc.. We can call it investment opportunities but for the most part its a gamble. "Get rich quick" Multi-level marketing companies have swept through Mormon communities hard in the 80s and 90s and still to this day doing more harm then good.

If we determine that gambling in moderation is when you gain/lose money slowly over time (starting a business) and gambling in excess is when you gain/lose money fast (bingo game) then everyone gambles in moderation.

Edited May 18, 2020 by priesthoodpower

[prisonchaplain]

There is a saying that if you have to explain a joke it is no longer funny. The gambling/fornication episode was a common joke 30 years ago. Gambling and fornication do not compare--at least they didn't. That is what made it funny. Alas, today, far too many compromised Christians believe that "love is love," some marriages are loveless so it would be better to divorce, and that perhaps it is wise to make sure about compatibility before marriage, etc. Then there is the whole same-sex attraction discussion. In other words, the whole point is that what used to be a jest has become an actual discussion:

1: I think gambling is okay in moderation.

2: Really? I suppose you think it's okay to fornicate in moderation, too!

1: Well, it depends. Do the two love each other? Do they feel reasonably committed? Is there no coercion? After all, love is love . . .

[Traveler]

31 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There is a saying that if you have to explain a joke it is no longer funny. The gambling/fornication episode was a common joke 30 years ago. Gambling and fornication do not compare--at least they didn't. That is what made it funny. Alas, today, far too many compromised Christians believe that "love is love," some marriages are loveless so it would be better to divorce, and that perhaps it is wise to make sure about compatibility before marriage, etc. Then there is the whole same-sex attraction discussion. In other words, the whole point is that what used to be a jest has become an actual discussion:

1: I think gambling is okay in moderation.

2: Really? I suppose you think it's okay to fornicate in moderation, too!

1: Well, it depends. Do the two love each other? Do they feel reasonably committed? Is there no coercion? After all, love is love . . .

Often you and I agree - and seldom do I say much about it.   I appears that we agree, at least to some extent about intimacy and the divine covenant of marriage.  Sadly I have conversed with some in the religious community that think intimacy, even in marriage is carnal and sinful - and will end forever with death - as though intimacy is something for which repentance is required and does not lead to being spiritually "one" with G-d.

I do not think that G-d forbids intimacy outside of marriage because he does not like it.  I believe he is warning us that intimacy without a divine covenant is distinctive and has to power to destroy and eternally blind those that are not disciplined - not just in mortality but in eternity.  Creating life is an eternal attribute of G-d.  Without divine discipline such power can even destroy Love.  So for me, though I love humor - this is more sad than funny.

 

the Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

- this is more sad than funny.

The gambling/fornication bit was mildly funny 30 years ago, because no one took it seriously. Of course you can't fornicate in moderation. That's foolish. Oh, I see...if gambling is wrong we should not do that recreationally either. Okay, I get it. . . .  Today, the whole thing is just sad.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

The gambling/fornication bit was mildly funny 30 years ago, because no one took it seriously. Of course you can't fornicate in moderation. That's foolish. Oh, I see...if gambling is wrong we should not do that recreationally either. Okay, I get it. . . .  Today, the whole thing is just sad.

The idea was that gambling was not wrong per se, but only because of its ill effects. If you could gamble "in moderation" such that you suffered no ill effects, then gambling was fine. The "fornication" example was meant to say that gambling is just as wrong per se as fornication, even if you somehow avoid the ill effects.

Of course, today people don't believe that "fornication" exists. Sex outside of marriage is not considered wrong per se, but only the bad effects of such sex. So if you avoid disease and pregnancy (which is considered another disease), then there's no downside to extramarital sex. So the example no longer works, because people have become so corrupted that they no longer accept fornication as an actual thing.

[JohnsonJones]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

The idea was that gambling was not wrong per se, but only because of its ill effects. If you could gamble "in moderation" such that you suffered no ill effects, then gambling was fine. The "fornication" example was meant to say that gambling is just as wrong per se as fornication, even if you somehow avoid the ill effects.

Of course, today people don't believe that "fornication" exists. Sex outside of marriage is not considered wrong per se, but only the bad effects of such sex. So if you avoid disease and pregnancy (which is considered another disease), then there's no downside to extramarital sex. So the example no longer works, because people have become so corrupted that they no longer accept fornication as an actual thing.

It is a tragic result of Modern Western Morality.  As Western culture continues to "advance" it seems the further from the ways of the Lord it goes.  I find it hard to believe how people who claim to believe in the Bible excuse fornication so easily. 

It is true that the atonement covers sin, and that the Lord is very forgiving, but I don't think he approves of people taking it to the length that this means they can just sin now with abandon and then ask for forgiveness afterwards?  It seems as if it is a gross misunderstanding of the principle.

Maybe @prisonchaplain can give us better information, but I have heard, even among those evangelicals and hard Bible believing Christians that the immorality practiced now among them even comes close to 95% of all young people committing these types of sins.  It boggles my mind.

In my youth, (which was many decades ago) this type of stuff was unacceptable.  It wasn't even really discussed and girls who did so many times were quietly sent to some other relatives place (granted, I don't think Birth Control Pills existed at that time either, it came out later on and then gained a massive amount of popularity around when I got married I believe, though at the time the church actually taught against the use of it, something which has changed over the years from what I've seen) to be hidden from the rest of their peers when things went bad.

It is shocking how much the approach to sin has changed in my lifetime.  It truly has become an era where evil is called good and good is called evil in some ways...though I expect it will get worse.

Edited May 18, 2020 by JohnsonJones
being more accurate in my statement on the usage of BC.