your thoughts on this video?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Michelle »

Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.

Gage
captain of 100
Posts: 702

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Gage »

Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 12:02 pm Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.
its the same as the dumb argument about homosexuals and transgenders civil rights. We all know its not a civil issue.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by braingrunt »

I've said before, I think I chose my orientation. But it's complicated. So calling it "a choice" is problematic, while calling it "choices" is better.

People sometimes feel helpless when they are not. Some people believe that you cannot control dreams for instance, and I concede not perfectly. But I have not taught my kids to think that way, and they rarely have nightmares, and instead express excitement about what they are going to put on the "dream channel".
When it comes to mind and spirit I am cautious in telling my kids what they can't do because you know, faith is power; or at least disbelief is damning because it stops you.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Serragon »

All emotions can be cultivated and nurtured or starved to almost nothingness. This is true of love, anger, hate, and attraction. Once you understand this principle your perception of the world changes.

My wife and I have a great relationship because we have both chosen to love each other. We are not "in" love with each other as that signifies some outside influence that we have no control over.

If you are a person who is attracted to people of the same sex and you have let that become a defining characteristic, then you have gotten there by nurturing and choice.

User avatar
RocknRoll
captain of 100
Posts: 532

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by RocknRoll »

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm The church obviously believes strongly that homosexual influence plays a huge part in whither or not a person decides to have homosexual feelings.
Where do you get this? I haven't seen any example of where "the church obviously believes" this. Can you cite an example?
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm Isn't lust for hetrosexuals just attraction without acting on it?!
No. Attraction and Lust are not the same thing.
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm According to the Family Proclamation, if God's will is that only men and women marry, so they can raise a family and fulfil the Plan of Salvation,
Can you cite exactly where in the Proclamation it says "God's will is that only men and women marry". Pay specific attention to your words "only" and "marry".

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm therefore is not every other option contrary to His will? Obviously, temple marriages and sealings are for male and female only and all other marriage combinations are forbidden and against His will and plan.
ALL other marriage combinations? What about 'male and female and female and female'?

User avatar
RocknRoll
captain of 100
Posts: 532

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by RocknRoll »

Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.
Following this logic, then marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, would be "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible".
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm I personally believe that the "Morning and Gay" website is poorly done and that most of the information on it is posted because of the social pressures of the political left and to appease them to stop attacking the church.
If it's the "Mormonandgay" website you are referring to...that was put together with approval by the First Presidency.
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you do not approve of the revelation, given by God to Spencer W. Kimball, regarding blacks and the priesthood. Am I reading this right?

PS. And just to state my opionion about the video...I don't believe it was appropriate to stand and read her "testimony". Testimony meeting is for testifying of Christ and the truthfulness of His gospel. It didn't sound like a testimony to me.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sunain »

RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:25 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm According to the Family Proclamation, if God's will is that only men and women marry, so they can raise a family and fulfil the Plan of Salvation,
Can you cite exactly where in the Proclamation it says "God's will is that only men and women marry". Pay specific attention to your words "only" and "marry".
"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."

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."
Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”
https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-marriage?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-procl ... g&old=true
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:25 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm therefore is not every other option contrary to His will? Obviously, temple marriages and sealings are for male and female only and all other marriage combinations are forbidden and against His will and plan.
ALL other marriage combinations? What about 'male and female and female and female'?
Nope. Today, even when a man is sealed to a second wife after the first dies, his two wives are not sealed to each other.
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you do not approve of the revelation, given by God to Spencer W. Kimball, regarding blacks and the priesthood. Am I reading this right?
No. Continuing revelation is part of the church. I never said that I did not approve of that revelation. I am saying there will be no such revelation for homosexuals like many are hoping for. That's what others were also saying in the thread. Hence, that also leads into what I was saying that there is no progression for homosexuals except through change to hetersexuality by choice or as I quoted above, through the healing power of the resurrection.
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.
Following this logic, then marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, would be "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible".
See the above post about adoption and physical healing after Resurrection. It will never be naturally possible for homosexuals to bear children.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45750&p=789922#p789780
RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
PS. And just to state my opionion about the video...I don't believe it was appropriate to stand and read her "testimony". Testimony meeting is for testifying of Christ and the truthfulness of His gospel. It didn't sound like a testimony to me.
Agreed. This whole video incident may cause the First Presidency and the 12 to ponder and pray about the current role of testimony meeting.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Michelle »

RocknRoll wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 3:41 pm
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm God knows there is no progression for homosexuals unless they choose to progress and change to follow His commandments, one of which is to multiply and replenish the Earth. Homosexuality is therefore agaist His will since natural procreation isn't possible.
Following this logic, then marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, would be "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible".
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm I personally believe that the "Morning and Gay" website is poorly done and that most of the information on it is posted because of the social pressures of the political left and to appease them to stop attacking the church.
If it's the "Mormonandgay" website you are referring to...that was put together with approval by the First Presidency.
Sunain wrote: June 21st, 2017, 9:26 pm It's unfortunate that the church is slowly caving to social and political power rather than standing up for what we've always said. That's why people think the chruch will reverse it's stance on gays just like it did on blacks as discussed earlier in the forum thread. They believe if enough pressure is applied, the church will change.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying you do not approve of the revelation, given by God to Spencer W. Kimball, regarding blacks and the priesthood. Am I reading this right?

PS. And just to state my opionion about the video...I don't believe it was appropriate to stand and read her "testimony". Testimony meeting is for testifying of Christ and the truthfulness of His gospel. It didn't sound like a testimony to me.
RocknRoll,

You are either being disingenuous or willfully ignorant. There is nothing logical about a righteous infertile couples marriage between a man and a woman, where one or both are infertile, being "against His will since natural procreation isn't possible". 1. There is no willful disobedience. 2. The situation is temporary.

We can argue all day about whether someone with homosexual tendencies is being willfully disobedient or not. In reality, if they do not choose or become "healed" from those tendencies in the resurrection and choose a companion of the opposite gender, they cannot obtain Godhood. They cannot procreate.

The arguments and references have already been provided.

Suffice it to say: the defining characteristic of the LDS faith that has brought the greatest amount of persecution is the doctrine that we may one day become Gods. Godhood being defined be eternal increase.

All who are otherwise righteous, but do not merit eternal increase aka "natural procreation" in the eternities can only attain angelhood,being subject to the Gods.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sirocco »

If I was a God I'd live on a mountain and throw lighting at people, that would be my way...

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 12:02 pm Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.
I can see why this view can be perplexing; hopefully I can explain. Some members say homosexuals shouldn't marry because of the fact that they can't procreate. This sounds like these same members believe that the only reason to marry is if you can procreate. Following that logic, any man or woman who is infertile should not marry.

After the resurrection, everything changes. Men and women are no longer infertile and, if we believe elder Haven's talk which Sunain posted, then "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."
So, if these opinions are true, then after the resurrection homosexuality won't be a concern.

So what should infertile men and women and homosexuals do during this life while they're both experiencing a temporary problem? Should the infertile couple not marry because they are dealing with a temporary problem? Of course not- marriage is about a lot more than just having kids.

Should a homosexual couple not marry just because they can't have kids? Of course not- marriage is about more than having kids.

If you think homosexuals shouldn't marry, then that's fine, but your reasoning should make sense. If homosexuality will be "healed" after the resurrection, then no one has to worry about procreation in the eternities.

In addition, who are we to say we know all the possibilities of family union and procreation after this life? Just looking at the wide variety of breeding habits and family structures in the animal kingdom are enough to see that God created many different forms of family life- from bees and ants to lions and cows to asexual organisms and homosexual mating - all of these happen among instinctual life - these animals aren't choosing to rebel against God, this is how they were created.

And we should remember LDS doctrine, too. Many members support Joseph Smith in what today would be considered holy pedophilia. What about David and Solomon and all their wives and concubines? How about Lot and his incestuous relations with his daughters. How can we accept all these sexual deviances and claim these were righteous men and then at the same time claim that we "know" homosexuality is an abomination. I don't think that the church as a whole has been given any definitive revelation that says marriage in the eternities is only 1 man and 1 woman.

Food for thought-How was Jesus born? there was no sex involved at all, hence she was the Virgin Mary. So maybe you don't need a man and a woman after all...

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

Sunain wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 7:39 am
butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 1:28 amJust to be clear, are you saying you disagree with elder Ballard when he says "individuals do not choose to have such (homosexual) attractions"?
It's a very scary thing for many people if he's right. That would mean that no matter how righteous you are, how good of a parent you are, your child could be homosexual.
It also means that it's not something you could help them "repent" from. If they didn't choose homosexuality to begin with, then there was no sin. One must willfully choose to rebel against God in order for it to be sin. Elder Ballard says you can't choose homosexuality so therefore it cannot be a sin according to him.

I understand lust differently than you describe. I am very attracted to my husband but I have never lusted after him. Attraction is normal and good and actually based on several aspects of a person, not just sexuality.
Lust, however, is trying to satisfy your own selfish and carnal desires without regard to the other person.
A homosexual (or heterosexual) can be attracted to someone without ever lusting.

You state that homosexuality is against God's will because it doesn't allow for procreation. What about heterosexual couples who struggle with infertility- can we conclude that their marriage is against God's will because they can't have children?
If, whatever is causing a husband and wife to not bear children, can be healed in the next life, then can whatever is causing homosexuality also be healed in the next life?

If we want hope for homosexuals to follow God's plan, then we first must understand what makes them homosexual. Telling a blind man to repent in order to gain his sight shows that the doctor doesn't understand what causes blindness. According to elder Ballard, telling a homosexual to repent shows you don't know what causes homosexuality.

The only way to know is to ask God yourself, which is what those who have homosexual loved ones tend to do. And, not surprisingly, they're the ones who come back from the work of seeking and knocking and are filled with love and understanding for homosexuals instead of fear and condemnation.
The church is very clear, homosexual acts are a sin. I do disagree with Elder Ballard's opinion, but there is as you have said little or no proof either way to say when people become homosexual's.
I think what you mentioned here is a key point- we are dealing with opinions. Revelation straight from God is the only way to know the answers to homosexuality questions. I think a lot of people are mistaking culture and social norms for the Spirit.

We should err on the side of caution. Imo, I'd rather be too loving to a "sinner" than to wrongfully cast out an innocent. You'd think that if homosexuality was going to send you to hell, God would've put major warning scriptures about it in the BOM, where the fullness of the everlasting gospel is contained.

My opinion on the homosexual issue almost completely aligns with what Elder Bruce C. Hafen has said. I believe it is a psychological disorder. Social acceptance does not make it morally right.
Homosexuality 'not in your DNA,' says LDS leader

By Rosemary Winters

The Salt Lake Tribune
Published September 19, 2009 5:36 pm

People who are attracted to members of their own sex can change, an LDS general authority said Saturday, so they shouldn't let Satan persuade them they can't.

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, spoke at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International, a nonprofit group that helps Mormons "overcome homosexual behavior" and "diminish same-sex attraction." The event was held at the LDS Church's Joseph Smith Memorial Building in Salt Lake City.

Hafen promised attendees, "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

Whenever the devil -- whom Hafen referred to as "the adversary" -- tries to "convince you that you are hopelessly 'that way,' so that acting out your feelings is inevitable, he is lying," Hafen said. "He is the father of lies."

Last month, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution advising mental health professionals against telling their clients they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments.

No solid evidence exists that such efforts work, the APA concluded, and some studies suggest the potential for harm, including depression and suicidal tendencies. A task force reviewed 83 studies on sexual-orientation change conducted since 1960.

The "long-standing consensus" of the behavioral and social sciences, the APA noted, is that homosexuality is a "normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation."

Will Carlson of Equality Utah, which advocates on behalf of gay and transgender Utahns, when contacted by The Tribune, said, "These young men and women at Evergreen are experiencing normal attractions right now ... It's irresponsible for [Hafen] to suggest that if someone just wants to bad enough, they can be straight."

Hafen spent a large portion of his talk, held during a Sunday-like service, criticizing the gay-rights movement and denying a biological link to sexual orientation. Same-sex attraction is "not in your DNA," he said.

He attacked the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, deeming it politically motivated.

"In the early 1970s, the public and most lawyers, doctors and therapists saw homosexuality not as normal adult behavior but as a psychological disorder," he said. "We have witnessed primarily an aggressive political movement more than we've witnessed substantive change in the medical or legal evidence."

Lisa Diamond, a psychology professor and researcher at the University of Utah, in an interview with The Tribune , called Hafen's assertion "hilarious" and "absolutely untrue."

Homosexuality had been listed as a disorder, Diamond said, without any real scientific data. The APA reversed course after a pioneering psychologist, Evelyn Hooker, produced research to show there was no difference between the mental health of straight and gay individuals, she said.

"That moment really did represent, in fact, the triumph of science over prejudice," Diamond said.

There is "strong evidence" that there are "biological contributions" to sexual orientation, Diamond noted, but it's a complex process. She called arguments about the lack of a so-called "gay gene," a "smoke screen" for those who promote sexual-orientation change.

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... i_13377659
Interesting article. Do you know of anyone who was "healed" of their homosexuality as Brother Hafen suggests is possible? I'm wondering what success rate he has seen that makes him believe this way.
Even if you believe homosexuality is not physical but rather psychological, I don't see how that makes a big difference. For example, if someone has clinical depression, do we tell them to repent enough and desire to change enough and the depression will go away? Or if someone is schizophrenic, is the way they are to be healed is to be told they're an abomination?

If homosexuality is in fact a psychological disorder, then how will shaming and a call to repentance and "just try harder" going to help?

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sirocco »

Yeah I never understood that when people say being gay is a mental disorder, that it can be healed, mental disorders can't be healed.
I have one, there is no cure (I yammer about it in the autism thread).
And no, I don't think "gay frog water" gave me aspergers.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by passionflower »

Marraige has been degraded for centuries now. Today the institution is not in some perfect God inspired state.

You won't find anything scriptural to support the idea that God instituted marraige to create ideal romantic companionship. Therefore, just because people love each other they therefore should be able to marry is bogus. The Romantic companionship type marraige is strictly a modern construct, and anciently, "being in love" was considered a form of insanity. Think about it. When "in love" people do not think straight, are completely irrational, and cannot be objective about the object of their "love". This kind of love is also fleeting and undependable.

During biblical times marraiges were arranged by parents, usually the mother of the groom. There was no courtship, no dating, no dances or bars, and the two sexes were pretty much separated. I have friends in India and there, when parents decide their son is ready for marraige, they put an ad in the paper, if they haven;t had their eye on some girl ( like the daughter of a friend ) before then. these marraiges have a high degree of success.

No one would dream of matching up their son with another man. Why? Because no issue is possible. The real and serious reason for marraige actually is to produce offspring. Abraham would have been able to divorce Sarah if she had not produced the heir. This is why she had a handmaid, to insure her marraige, and this is where the idea of the "bridesmaid" comes from.

When we are doing sealing work in the temple, we are not trying to preserve ideal romantic companionships. We are trying to give parents children and children parents. It just so happens that a sealing of the parents has to occur before this can be done. The blessings of Abraham Isaac and Jacob relate to posterity, not "being forever with the one you love".

Two men or two women cannot multiply and replenish the earth. In the beginning God made male and female only and he made them for each other.

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by butterfly »

David13 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 7:51 am

You know, there is an understanding, obtained from seeking and knocking, that isn't "fear and condemnation" but an understanding of God's plan.

And it isn't being an apologist for sin.
What does it mean to you to be an apologist for sin? (I'm sincerely asking).
But tell me this, how does a 12 year old know anything about what they will become?

I know there are many 12 year olds who say they are (or will become) an attorney or a doctor, and after that freshman year of college, after grades come out, turn around and decide they will "be" something else.
dc
This was my first thought, too. Lots of 12 yr olds aren't interested in the opposite sex, it's completely normal that way. They're just getting out of elementary school, many of them won't really hit puberty for a few more years. How can they already know who they're attracted to when most of those hormones haven't even gotten started?
If it were an adult who spoke in this video about years of struggle with homosexuality then it would be a lot more credible. But 12 yrs old is really young to say you've completely come to know you're homosexual.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Michelle »

butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:14 pm
Michelle wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 12:02 pm Why do people try equate homosexuals not being able to reproduce with infertile couples? One can never reproduce, regardless of the resurrection because 2 males or 2 females will always be incapable of reproduction. The infertile heterosexual couple can, of course, expect to be made whole and capable of procreation.

I saw a Bill Nye video rant where he equated the egg lost through menstruation to abortion. What kind of scientist doesn't know the difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized egg?

This argument about homosexuals and infertile couples always strikes me as just as ludicrous. Really? I know our schools are being dumbed down, but the most basic biology class should have taught the need for males and females in human reproduction. To say nothing of the extensive yearly Sex Ed classes. If they can't even get that right, I'm not sure what justification they can present to continue funding such classes.
I can see why this view can be perplexing; hopefully I can explain. Some members say homosexuals shouldn't marry because of the fact that they can't procreate. This sounds like these same members believe that the only reason to marry is if you can procreate. Following that logic, any man or woman who is infertile should not marry.

After the resurrection, everything changes. Men and women are no longer infertile and, if we believe elder Haven's talk which Sunain posted, then "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."
So, if these opinions are true, then after the resurrection homosexuality won't be a concern.

So what should infertile men and women and homosexuals do during this life while they're both experiencing a temporary problem? Should the infertile couple not marry because they are dealing with a temporary problem? Of course not- marriage is about a lot more than just having kids.

Should a homosexual couple not marry just because they can't have kids? Of course not- marriage is about more than having kids.

If you think homosexuals shouldn't marry, then that's fine, but your reasoning should make sense. If homosexuality will be "healed" after the resurrection, then no one has to worry about procreation in the eternities.

In addition, who are we to say we know all the possibilities of family union and procreation after this life? Just looking at the wide variety of breeding habits and family structures in the animal kingdom are enough to see that God created many different forms of family life- from bees and ants to lions and cows to asexual organisms and homosexual mating - all of these happen among instinctual life - these animals aren't choosing to rebel against God, this is how they were created.

And we should remember LDS doctrine, too. Many members support Joseph Smith in what today would be considered holy pedophilia. What about David and Solomon and all their wives and concubines? How about Lot and his incestuous relations with his daughters. How can we accept all these sexual deviances and claim these were righteous men and then at the same time claim that we "know" homosexuality is an abomination. I don't think that the church as a whole has been given any definitive revelation that says marriage in the eternities is only 1 man and 1 woman.

Food for thought-How was Jesus born? there was no sex involved at all, hence she was the Virgin Mary. So maybe you don't need a man and a woman after all...
Wow Butterfly. I respectfully disagree with everything in your post.

2 Nephi 16: 9-10

9 And he said: Go and tell this people—Hear ye indeed, but they understood not; and see ye indeed, but they perceived not.

10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes—lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and be healed.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Sirocco »

passionflower wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:52 pm Marraige has been degraded for centuries now. Today the institution is not in some perfect God inspired state.

You won't find anything scriptural to support the idea that God instituted marraige to create ideal romantic companionship. Therefore, just because people love each other they therefore should be able to marry is bogus. The Romantic companionship type marraige is strictly a modern construct, and anciently, "being in love" was considered a form of insanity. Think about it. When "in love" people do not think straight, are completely irrational, and cannot be objective about the object of their "love". This kind of love is also fleeting and undependable.

During biblical times marraiges were arranged by parents, usually the mother of the groom. There was no courtship, no dating, no dances or bars, and the two sexes were pretty much separated. I have friends in India and there, when parents decide their son is ready for marraige, they put an ad in the paper, if they haven;t had their eye on some girl ( like the daughter of a friend ) before then. these marraiges have a high degree of success.

No one would dream of matching up their son with another man. Why? Because no issue is possible. The real and serious reason for marraige actually is to produce offspring. Abraham would have been able to divorce Sarah if she had not produced the heir. This is why she had a handmaid, to insure her marraige, and this is where the idea of the "bridesmaid" comes from.

When we are doing sealing work in the temple, we are not trying to preserve ideal romantic companionships. We are trying to give parents children and children parents. It just so happens that a sealing of the parents has to occur before this can be done. The blessings of Abraham Isaac and Jacob relate to posterity, not "being forever with the one you love".

Two men or two women cannot multiply and replenish the earth. In the beginning God made male and female only and he made them for each other.
Yeah falling in love was a horrid feeling, I still am a mess because of it :))

User avatar
Yahtzee
captain of 100
Posts: 710

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Yahtzee »

Sirocco wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 9:45 pm Yeah I never understood that when people say being gay is a mental disorder, that it can be healed, mental disorders can't be healed.
I have one, there is no cure (I yammer about it in the autism thread).
And no, I don't think "gay frog water" gave me aspergers.
Thank you, this is why I use the term "born that way". It's not like a mental illness where you can get counseling and pop some pills and feel differently. If they actually are homosexual (and I freely admit I think most are not), I believe it's very much like autism where they are simply wired differently. I've seen far too many abnormalities in people to believe there isn't a possibility of someone having an inborn disorder like this.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by passionflower »

butterfly wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 10:04 pm
David13 wrote: June 22nd, 2017, 7:51 am

You know, there is an understanding, obtained from seeking and knocking, that isn't "fear and condemnation" but an understanding of God's plan.

And it isn't being an apologist for sin.
What does it mean to you to be an apologist for sin? (I'm sincerely asking).
But tell me this, how does a 12 year old know anything about what they will become?

I know there are many 12 year olds who say they are (or will become) an attorney or a doctor, and after that freshman year of college, after grades come out, turn around and decide they will "be" something else.
dc
This was my first thought, too. Lots of 12 yr olds aren't interested in the opposite sex, it's completely normal that way. They're just getting out of elementary school, many of them won't really hit puberty for a few more years. How can they already know who they're attracted to when most of those hormones haven't even gotten started?
If it were an adult who spoke in this video about years of struggle with homosexuality then it would be a lot more credible. But 12 yrs old is really young to say you've completely come to know you're homosexual.
This is part of the sexualization of children which IMO is criminal. At the age of 12, a young girl should be more interested in playing soccer than with her sexual attraction with boys ( or girls ). I was a complete tom boy at this age and girls were smart and boys were still "stupid". Maybe that is actually all this girl is "feeling".

User avatar
Different
captain of 100
Posts: 296

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Different »

RocknRoll wrote: June 19th, 2017, 2:40 pm
Sunain wrote: June 19th, 2017, 1:51 pm
RocknRoll wrote: June 19th, 2017, 1:35 pm
Different wrote: June 17th, 2017, 7:08 pm Homosexuality is an abomination and whoredom before the father.
Says who?
The Lord.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/18.22
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/20.13
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/1.27
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-procl ... g&old=true
So, you believe all the stories in the Old Testament?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/18.22
This chapter also says you shouldn’t “uncover the nakedness” of a woman during her monthly cycle. [v. 19] Do you follow and advocate for this rule?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/lev/20.13
This chapter also says if you curse your father and mother [v. 9], commit adultery [v. 10], or are a wizard [v. 27] you should be put to death. Do you believe we should be following these regulations?

God also commanded Moses to stone a man to death for picking up sticks (Numbers 15: 32-36). Sorry, but the loving God I worship would never say such a thing.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/1.27
So, you’re going with Paul here? The same Paul that says “women should remain silent in the churches”? Or do you just pick and choose which teachings to follow and which to ignore?

https://www.lds.org/topics/family-procl ... g&old=true
I’ve read the The Proclamation many times. Maybe you could point out where it says homosexuality is an abomination. I can’t seem to see it.

What scripture in the Book of Mormon talks about homosexuality?
What scripture in the D&C talks about homosexuality?
What scripture in the Pearl of Great Price talks about homosexuality?

You're relying fully on the bible for your scriptural support. That same Bible that says it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery. That same Bible that says that eating shellfish is also an abomination. That same Bible that says women shouldn't wear makeup or gold jewelry. That same Bible that says sex outside of marriage is an abomination, but doesn't say anything about homosexuality within the bonds of marriage. Sorry, but the scriptures are not a reliable source to know the will of God on this subject, unless you are also willing to stone anyone wearing clothing made from two different kinds of thread.

I know you'll totally disagree with me on all points, but I just wanted to point out that there is more than one way to look at this for a believing LDS. (which I am).
It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Judging by your text I highly doubt your LDS or even a true Christian from another sect.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by oneClimbs »

Here's my contribution to the discussion for what it is worth: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/02/22/for-this-cause/

People like to look to the scriptures and find places where homosexuality is specifically condemned. Then they start saying that because we don't put wizards to death and eat shrimp that it's ok to practice homosexuality. Sigh. Then we get to the Proclamation and pointing out that it doesn't say that homosexuality is an abomination, seriously? Well, let's make a list of everything it doesn't condemn and have a party!

Consider the vision of the tree of life where they saw an iron rod and a narrow path. Hey, by the way, where are the warning signs every 5 feet or so, that say, "STAY ON THE PATH." Oh, that's right, those warning signs are not necessary because there is a path and an iron rod there. So if someone gives you directions and says, "Head due south for 5 miles," it wouldn't be a big deal to change direction and head due west after two miles because he never said not to?

If you justify whatever floats your boat because there isn't any specific language saying that you cannot do something, that is a recipe for disaster.

It's also disastrous for recipes. I was trying to make chocolate covered strawberries one day and after heating up the chocolate I thought I'd add milk to it to make it creamier. Hey, the recipe didn't say that I couldn't do that, so I did, and instantly the whole mix dried up and turned to something akin to dirt. I did not get any chocolate covered strawberries that day.

Man + Woman = One. Because in the beginning, as told through the archetypal Genesis account, woman was taken from man, out of one came two, and marriage reunited them. Jesus weighed in on this: "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Mark 10:6-8)

God provides the patterns and leaves it up to us to whether or not we choose to align with them or do our own thing. Yes, it can be painful and take much sacrifice to do this. It takes giving up whatever you may want more than anything and trust in God, that's called sacrifice. In marriage, man and woman surrender feelings, relationships, attractions, and all else to unite under the ordained pattern. For the rest of their lives, they choose only each other, the sacrifice only for each other, it is something that borders on worship in a sense. Indeed, to unite in that covenant, to obey, and trust, IS worship. No matter what we may feel, desire, or are attracted to, we can choose the path in front of us or we can go another way.

But isn't that unfair to someone who feels differently and struggles with it more? I would just say that sacrifice is love, and those who sacrifice more, love more. If you ask me, I think that those who may feel a natural attraction to the opposite sex may have it a little too easy and may not realize the depth of importance of what they are entering into. Maybe one who has to fight for it may come out appreciating it more in the beginning and perhaps have somewhat of an advantage that they cannot see or comprehend at the moment. Many never will with a world who tells them to follow their own path and that sacrifice is cruel and unnecessary.

Attraction isn't love, attraction may not even be a choice per se, but love IS a choice, love is not a feeling you are born with or are nurtured into, it is what is manifest when sacrifice is present. You choose to love your spouse just as you choose to love God and you may not be necessarily attracted to either at first. But then you sacrifice and there is love. You cleave to them and they cleave back, then you become something new because you are no longer what you were.

On a related note, I was with some of my business partners and one was named Adam. The other partner introduced us as "Adam and Steve." I said, "You may want to reconsider how you introduce us in the future." We all had a good laugh.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Fiannan »

Man + Woman = One.
Careful, I think that would be considered hate speech in places like Canada.

User avatar
Daley
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Daley »

So typical of Satan...

Hey yah! I have an idea! Let's just all go join a religion that is against our personal beliefs and make it our goal to change the belief system
Of that religion...

Makes a whole lot of sense.

You don't like the belief system of a religion then find one you do like...or start a new one yourself! That's been happening since the dawn of the dinosaurs, hence all the variety of religions nowadays.

Satans whole agenda is to force people in the direction he wants everyone to go.

We were all together in heaven during the Great War. We all heard the plan unfolded before us. The ones who chose to go through the veil of forgetfulness, clearly, have forgotten the plan and for this reason Satan and his followers have a huge advantage over us...they didn't obtain bodies, didn't cross the veil, and didn't forget. They know how to manipulate and twist the truth until a lie is believed to be the truth. They know how to play with our mortal sympathies by using women and children as means and many fall for this snare....it takes a strong man of God to rise above the deceit and see the truth and to stand strong above it and not allow wickedness in its hidden form to deceive him and still be able to lead his family around it. You can't be afraid to stand against the cunning of the devil. Guide with love but don't cave to lies because of the disguise so cleverly hiding evil. Don't be afraid to offend the devil...he is not the ally...he is the foe. The Devil's allies are becoming greater and greater....don't be concerned with trivial things but stand for what's right. Don't debate if it's right or wrong to allow a child, who is past the age of accountability, to preach from the pulpit an obvious doctrine of Satan that contributes to the destruction of part of Gods holy order....the proper family unit/government. It is a doctrine of Satan and not of Gods true church....no matter the source it is still not of God

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Benjamin_LK »

This whole deal was a setup for attention on how she spoke the truth to the evil satanic mormons.

User avatar
RocknRoll
captain of 100
Posts: 532

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by RocknRoll »


It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Tell that to Joseph Smith, who obviously believed it was Adam and Eve, and Fanny and Betty and... and...
Judging by your text I highly doubt your LDS or even a true Christian from another sect.
Doubt all you like, but actually I am a returned missionary, married in the temple (33 years now), true believing, temple recommend holding, tithe paying, weekly church attending, scripture studying, member of the LDS church. Who also happens to have a gay son. You, on the other hand, sound like a narrow minded, believe only what I hear in Sunday School, close to becoming FLDS, member. Am I close?

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: your thoughts on this video?

Post by Thinker »

I appreciate many comments in this thread. There are people who see this manipulative show for what it is, while expressing compassion for this girl who's not only too young to know for sure what she wants, but who seems to have parents who are more interested in their own agenda than they are in parenting well.
RocknRoll wrote: July 13th, 2017, 3:34 pm

It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
Tell that to Joseph Smith, who obviously believed it was Adam and Eve, and Fanny and Betty and... and...
Judging by your text I highly doubt your LDS or even a true Christian from another sect.
Doubt all you like, but actually I am a returned missionary, married in the temple (33 years now), true believing, temple recommend holding, tithe paying, weekly church attending, scripture studying, member of the LDS church. Who also happens to have a gay son. You, on the other hand, sound like a narrow minded, believe only what I hear in Sunday School, close to becoming FLDS, member. Am I close?
I empathize with your fear and other emotions due to helping raise a son with homosexual PREFERENCES, but it would do you well to study logical fallacies as well as homosexuality facts.

People want to pretend that homosexuality is "gay happy rainbows" when the facts reveal a much darker picture. The primary way males with homosexual preferences practice homosexuality is via anal sex. Doctors warn of anal sex risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture & bacterial infection. And those are for even healthy people engaging in anal sex. According to the US CDC & nation-wide health reports, males with homosexual preferences have much much higher rates of STDs & AIDs/HIV.

So, your illogical argument attempting to discredit the commandment against homosexuality in the bible because of other crazy things in there doesn't hold. The way to figure out if something's true is to research along with intuition (common sense like
"I do have lots of evidence that the anus is anatomically designed as an exit-only").

In this case, the bible is right in warning against homosexuality. Michael Glatz (ex-"gay rights" leader & ex-homosexual) said, "Homosexuality is death and I choose life."

Post Reply