David Archuleta Reveals He Is Part Of LGBTQIA+ Community


Suzie

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.

There is an advertisement on TV about "good enough" - sorry I do not remember what was being advertised but the concept is that good enough is a road to failure.  I remember a quote from my first mission president, "Your best is not good enough and good enough is never your best."

I have a trusted friend that does construction work for me.  He struggles with a smoking addiction.  For years I have encouraged him to quit.  I do this because I know he wants to quit.  I offer any assistance or encouragement whenever I can.  A week ago he said he had quit for several days.  I praised him for his efforts.  On this day his #1 assistant was with him and I noticed that he also has a smoking addiction.  I pulled him aside and told him how much I like his boss and then asked him if he could refrain from smoking around his boss that was trying to quit.  He said he would and I thanked him.  I have discovered that such discussion are all but impossible with the LGBTQ+ community - even (and perhaps especially) those that have connections to the Church.

4 hours ago, LDSGator said:

That, and we just live in a society where things like this are more open now. We can talk about sexuality, mental illness, and things that were considered "taboo" just a few years ago. I'm not saying I think it's all good-I don't, some things should be kept private-but it's not the world we live in now.

To be clear, I don't think sexuality and mental illness are among those "things" we should be quiet about.  

It would seem that things are more open for discussion - but there seems to be a caveat.  That is - that we speak in "support" of the taboos?  We are warned in scripture not to call evil things good and also not to call good things evil.  I have discovered that speaking of such things from a perspective of religion is what is becoming taboo.  Though it is not as rejected - it does appear to me that even science is ignored if it does not support the desired narrative. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

It would seem that things are more open for discussion - but there seems to be a caveat.  That is - that we speak in "support" of the taboos?   

That's a great question. Like you, I'm afraid that there will be a day when Christians are not legally permitted to preach in public because their teachings will be considered "hate speech". However, we're not there yet by any stretch. Times like these will seem like a gentle walk in the park in 500 years, I'm afraid. 

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

it does appear to me that even science is ignored if it does not support the desired narrative. 

 

We agree completely on this one. I've always thought that everyone claims to "love science" until it conflicts with their values. That explains why the left believes there are 200+ genders and yet still claims to "love science" and I'm sure there are issues on the right that are the exact same thing.

Science is a harsh mistress who does not care about your political and religious views. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

That's a great question. Like you, I'm afraid that there will be a day when Christians are not legally permitted to preach in public because their teachings will be considered "hate speech". However, we're not there yet by any stretch. Times like these will seem like a gentle walk in the park in 500 years, I'm afraid. 

....

 

Judging from what I have seen during my lifetime - I do not think it will take 500 years.  I have often wondered how it was the the Nephits reversed things in just a few years once "secret combinations" took hold in their society.  I will offer some personal observations of criminal secret combinations in our society:

1. Open borders

2. Abolish ICE

3. Defund the police

4. Opposition to traditional families

5. Restrict the 2nd Amendment 

6. Make voter fraud easier - for example loosen restrictions for mail in ballets so that drug cartels (human smugglers) can threaten new residents (currently illegal) for their ballots with family members that are not protected in the USA. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Traveler said:

Judging from what I have seen during my lifetime - I do not think it will take 500 years.  I have often wondered how it was the the Nephits reversed things in just a few years once "secret combinations" took hold in their society.  I will offer some personal observations of criminal secret combinations in our society:

1. Open borders

2. Abolish ICE

3. Defund the police

4. Opposition to traditional families

5. Restrict the 2nd Amendment 

6. Make voter fraud easier - for example loosen restrictions for mail in ballets so that drug cartels (human smugglers) can threaten new residents (currently illegal) for their ballots with family members that are not protected in the USA. 

 

The Traveler

Very interesting. You aren't alone, many people agree with you my friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.

Some people are not good enough to be worth the air they breath. :D

But....

I think the fact that the question was A) In church/priesthood quorum and, B) not qualified, I think the implicit idea is "overall", rather than for something specific. That being said, I do understand that it could be helpful for some to consider the question with qualifications added, and/or by using an altered definition of the word "good".

I was just curious if anyone took the strong stand that, no...there is none "good" but God. If we were good enough we wouldn't need the Atonement. If we were good enough we wouldn't need to repent ever. If we were good enough we'd be translated. Etc. Good, in this case, being defined as righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Some people are not good enough to be worth the air they breath. :D

But....

I think the fact that the question was A) In church/priesthood quorum and, B) not qualified, I think the implicit idea is "overall", rather than for something specific. That being said, I do understand that it could be helpful for some to consider the question with qualifications added, and/or by using an altered definition of the word "good".

I was just curious if anyone took the strong stand that, no...there is none "good" but God. If we were good enough we wouldn't need the Atonement. If we were good enough we wouldn't need to repent ever. If we were good enough we'd be translated. Etc. Good, in this case, being defined as righteous.

It is my understanding that righteous does not quite mean what many (even within the church) seem to think it means.  Anciently it meant those that made and kept covenants with G-d.  On another note we are all unprofitable savants that are most likely not worth the air we breath.  It would appear that air breathing intelligent life is perhaps the most rare and precious stuff in the entire universe.

 

the Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
On 6/14/2021 at 8:28 AM, NeuroTypical said:

"Don't worry, you are good enough just the way you are." 

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong?

I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.

 

Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven?  TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
4 hours ago, Vort said:
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
On 6/14/2021 at 4:28 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Don't worry, you are good enough just the way you are." 

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong?

I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.

 

Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven?  TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. ;) 

I’m just here to add to the quote chain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fether said:
21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
4 hours ago, Vort said:
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
On 6/14/2021 at 7:28 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Don't worry, you are good enough just the way you are." 

Just out of curiosity. Did anyone happen to express the fact that this statement is, for all but the Savior Himself, 100%, absolutely, totally wrong?

I guess the question is, "Good enough for what?" Good enough to be worth the air you breathe? Sure. Good enough for the rest of eternity? Nope.

Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven?  TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. ;) 

I’m just here to add to the quote chain

I would never do such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven?  TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. ;) 

I have often wondered why so many people, including at times myself, seem so concerned about whether God loves them. If God loves the vilest sinner—or as some have asserted, God even loves Satan—then of what use is the love of God? It clearly doesn't make you better, or even worthwhile (in the case of God supposedly "loving" Satan).

Hours have been spent on this very forum, and I suspect some tears shed, over whether God loves someone or other and whether that love is "unconditional". Somehow, that seems to be an important topic for the emotional and psychological health of many. I don't really get it, though. If God didn't love us, that would be pretty devastating. But if God does love us, and everyone else as well, then what difference does the love of God make? Apparently none, especially if we believe those who proclaim God's love for Satan and other eternally lost beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have often wondered why so many people, including at times myself, seem so concerned about whether God loves them. If God loves the vilest sinner—or as some have asserted, God even loves Satan—then of what use is the love of God? It clearly doesn't make you better, or even worthwhile (in the case of God supposedly "loving" Satan).

Hours have been spent on this very forum, and I suspect some tears shed, over whether God loves someone or other and whether that love is "unconditional". Somehow, that seems to be an important topic for the emotional and psychological health of many. I don't really get it, though. If God didn't love us, that would be pretty devastating. But if God does love us, and everyone else as well, then what difference does the love of God make? Apparently none, especially if we believe those who proclaim God's love for Satan and other eternally lost beings.

I often ponder this.

I often unjustly get frustrated with people who lament God doesn't love them. It’s such a pointless conversation and concern to have. I equate it to someone lamenting that the sun is not going to rise. If it doesn’t love me, we are all dead and none of this matters. If his love is conditional, than all I have ever been taught is false and I might as well get over my sadness and do what needs to be done to make him love me . If God loves us unconditionally, than great… but his love for me is not going to save me in my sin so I might as well repent of what I am doing that is making me feel the lack of love.

All that being said, I recognize my thought process is not like most and this is a serious matter for many so I try to keep my opinions to myself when someone is sad about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sorry, someone here not good enough to be loved by your Father in Heaven?  TFP, that's a luciferian lie, not worth your time. ;) 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I have often wondered why so many people, including at times myself, seem so concerned about whether God loves them. If God loves the vilest sinner—or as some have asserted, God even loves Satan—then of what use is the love of God? It clearly doesn't make you better, or even worthwhile (in the case of God supposedly "loving" Satan).

Hours have been spent on this very forum, and I suspect some tears shed, over whether God loves someone or other and whether that love is "unconditional". Somehow, that seems to be an important topic for the emotional and psychological health of many. I don't really get it, though. If God didn't love us, that would be pretty devastating. But if God does love us, and everyone else as well, then what difference does the love of God make? Apparently none, especially if we believe those who proclaim God's love for Satan and other eternally lost beings.

Regardless of the semantics and meaning of what it is to be loved by God, I'm not sure what that has to do with our being good enough or not. If God's love is unconditional then speaking of goodness in terms of "enough for God's love" is like if I asked if someone is healthy enough, and they take it to mean I was asking if they were going to live forever. That's not really within the scope or point of asking the question. When asking whether we, individually, are good enough or not, God's love for us isn't the criterion we ought to be considering.

Am I good enough to qualify for God's love? That question, itself, seems to be based on some Luciferian lie. No, I'm not. Fortunately that doesn't matter. He loves me anyway. In fact, He loves me so much that He provided a way for me in the Atonement to be saved despite the fact that I will never be good enough on my own.

Maybe that's what NeuroTypical is saying. I'm not sure.

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

5 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Times like these will seem like a gentle walk in the park in 500 years, I'm afraid. 

You think we're that far away?

We're so used to civilization that we cannot fathom that we're on a knife's edge, always one generation from the abyss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Nothing is as good or as bad as it seems - 

Not really. I try to think as rationally as I can on this subject. Study after study says the world is getting better, and most of those studies show that a majority of people think otherwise. 


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/robasghar/2020/06/20/things-keep-getting-better-heres-why-your-brain-thinks-theyre-getting-worse/amp/

Google “is the world getting better”.’ Lots of interesting results. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Am I good enough to qualify for God's love? That question, itself, seems to be based on some Luciferian lie. No, I'm not.

And here I am, a graduate of Sister Diamond’s CTR-6 class, with her teaching aid that said “I know I’m something because God don’t make no junk”, and her lessons about how Jesus wants me for a sunbeam to shine for him each day.  Now I learn that my light is insufficient, dim, and inadequate?

 This is the age old battle about the proper role of works in the “grace vs works”.  Everyone line up!  In this corner, hailing from the land of Isaiah 64:4-9, we have the “faith without works is dead” crowd!  And wearing the red trunks, singing Psalm 139, and quoting GBH talks about how you don’t need to feel ashamed about your pitiful few coins for tithing, it’s the literal offspring of a loving Heavenly Father!

I wonder if the two combatants will ever realize they’re actually in the same corner?  It's not grace vs works, it's grace and works.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Study after study says the world is getting better,

I suppose a lot of it depends on what we all define as 'better'. Is it:

1. Poverty levels dropping, clean water, living standards, access to goods, etc.
OR
2. Moral compass, desire to follow God, service to mankind, adherence to the commandments, loving your fellow man, etc.
OR
Both

I believe #1 is better while at the same time believe #2 is unfortunately getting worse, namely here in the USA.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

I suppose a lot of it depends on what we all define as 'better'. Is it:

1. Poverty levels dropping, clean water, living standards, access to goods, etc.
OR
2. Moral compass, desire to follow God, service to mankind, adherence to the commandments, loving your fellow man, etc.
OR
Both

I believe #1 is better while at the same time believe #2 is unfortunately getting worse, namely here in the USA.
 

 

We obviously agree that clean water, poverty rates falling, and war declining is a good thing. No one would argue against that. I do think all those things show that we are getting better at “loving our fellow man” though.

I do see it differently with #2, only because I’ve heard it before. Many times. I think every Christian since AD 50 has thought the times they were living in were “Godless” and that Armageddon was twenty minutes away because people were so evil. So, could we be living in end times? Sure. But you’ll forgive me for being skeptical. I’ve seen this movie before. 
 

I remember reading a satirical post on Babylon Bee* once. It said “Man fails as a Christian because he doesn’t complain about how bad things are and wish for a world destroying flood.” It’s satire of course, but it’s also got some truth to it.
 

*99% sure it was the Bee, and it’s not verbatim. Going from memory. 
 

**and again, I’m not saying we aren’t living in end times. We might very well be, but I am correct that believers have said we are for a very, very long time. 

***More thoughts on "end times". Almost all of us here are doing well. I'm not saying we're Bill Gates rich, but we have internet access and more importantly, the time needed to go on boards like this. That's a good thing, a very good thing. But it's also eye opening. Do people who live in circumstances far worse than ours also think we're living in end times? Do they constantly worry about it (not saying anyone here is doing this)? Did people in Hiroshima in 1945 think we were? I don't know. Maybe. Something interesting to think about. Maybe we are looking for something to complain about because in comparison, our lives are spectacular and we feel like we need to worry about something. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I remember reading a satirical post on Babylon Bee* once. It said “Man fails as a Christian because he doesn’t complain about how bad things are and wish for a world destroying flood.”

Yay!  I'm not failing as a Christian! :)  (It can't be satire unless it has a foundation in truth - that's sort of the point of satire.)

The world has always been full of two types of people: Those who worry about things getting worse, and those who are emboldened at things getting better.  Human history is merely a large book with chapter after chapter of one side or the other being right.  Yes, my John Birch buddies saw the fall of the USSR as a ploy to disguise the commie's end game.  Yes, the citizens of Rome laughed and ate grapes while the empire fell.  Yes, right after Christ's ascension into heaven, many Christians began preparing for the 2nd coming and the end of all things.  Yes, the French court was chock full of people who were blindsided and surprised when Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette's heads hit the baskets - thinking things were on the brink of settling back down to normal.  

I figure the millennium will come when it comes.  I'm not invested in accurately predicting it.  That said, empires last no more than a couple of centuries, and the US has lasted almost 250.  That said, it's not like you can't still find Turks, Spaniards, Chinese, and Brits, even though all their empires have fallen (sometimes numerous times).

Yeah, I'm pretty positive that in 100 years, people will read the chapter about how stupid US culture and politics were becoming in the 20's.  Transgender women calling gay men transphobic, because they preferred biological males?  Corporate America lining up to instruct people on how to include their preferred pronouns in their emails, even though nobody can find an employee that has a weird one?  The black rights activists abandoning 50 years of progress and growth, to demand a return to segregation and discrimination based on race?  Portland and Seattle burning night after night for year after year is ignored, while a less violent mob at the capitol building is spotlighted?   The next chapter in those history books will say something like "but then X got elected, and Y happened, and Z laws were passed."   Will it then say "and that saw the end of things", or will it say "and that ushered in a constitutional and social renaissance that preserved the nation for another 200 years"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

We obviously agree that clean water, poverty rates falling, and war declining is a good thing. No one would argue against that. I do think all those things show that we are getting better at “loving our fellow man” though.

(I'm just poking the bear for a moment... 😉)

Couldn't all of those things also be done without any love for your fellow man, but rather simply out of self interest/gain?
Ex.
1. To avoid a peasant revolution, the monarchy decides..."We better get these villages clean water before they come slaughter us in our sleep".
2. We better pass out free money or reparations to the masses under the flag of fighting poverty, only in an effort to secure their votes.
3. War can be avoided or halted out of self preservation, wiriness or blood shed... but not because they love their enemy.

Love could be the 'cause'.
But...
So could self interest.
I think I'm getting old and pessimistic about govt. & organizations. I don't want to be this way and definitely didn't go looking for it, but I feel like they have brought this upon themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

(I'm just poking the bear for a moment... 😉)

Couldn't all of those things also be done without any love for your fellow man, but rather simply out of self interest/gain?
Ex.
1. To avoid a peasant revolution, the monarchy decides..."We better get these villages clean water before they come slaughter us in our sleep".
2. We better pass out free money or reparations to the masses under the flag of fighting poverty, only in an effort to secure their votes.
3. War can be avoided or halted out of self preservation, wiriness or blood shed... but not because they love their enemy.

Love could be the 'cause'.
But...
So could self interest.
I think I'm getting old and pessimistic about govt. & organizations. I don't want to be this way and definitely didn't go looking for it, but I feel like they have brought this upon themselves.

All true. It goes to show that motives are largely irrelevant, I guess. 

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...