Are we born perfect?

[PressingForward]

IN LDS DOCTRINE. Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam's or Eve's transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends "for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam" (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent (see Children: Salvation of Children). They are redeemed from the beginning by the grace of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:46-47), whose Atonement cleanses them of the effects of the Fall (D&C 137:10). The Prophet Mormon wrote the following words of Christ: "Little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them" (Moro. 8:8).

[marc]

"Be ye therefore perfect..."

The word perfect translated from Greek means "complete." (τέλειος)

Are we born complete? Perhaps we are born to become complete. Whether or not someone is born this way or that way may not be as important as how the rest of society treats that someone (love your neighbor as yourself). After all, each and everyone else is born some way or another. Beams and motes.

[LukeAir2008]

We are born in a perfect, sinless state but as fallen, natural humans that state doesn’t remain for long.

As fallen humans we are enemies of God and our natural inclination will be to do that which is contrary to the will of God.

The only priority of the natural man or woman is to satisfy their appetites. Our default setting is to be atttracted to the opposite sex and to desire to be with them but this can become distorted and we can seek satisfaction in a myriad of other ways.

We can then convince ourselves that this is how we were born and how we were meant to be rather than acknowledging that our lustful, carnal desires are due to our fallen state and are contrary to the will of God and contrary to our true identity.

We can remain in our lost and fallen state or we can repent and overcome our fallen state through the Atonement of Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[Jesef]

That’s a nice theory, but if mental illness is in any way involved then there very probably are genetic factors involved.

[JohnnyL]

We are born with what we are born with. For most people, that includes a lot of pre-birth trauma and birth trauma.

Along with that trauma, we are born with emotional DNA (already scientific study on this) passed down from our ancestors.

Then we have our traumas leading to physical problems/ other emotional problems, like bigger and bigger dominos.

Are we responsible for our choices? ONLY INASMUCH AS WE CAN BE. What we can be, we repent of; what we can't be, we rely on mercy.

As a baby is not responsible for what they don't know/ understand, we are not responsible for what we cannot control. Controversial? I imagine so. But think about it.

I was an expert at pushing buttons--didn't matter how long a member, how wonderful or godly a person was, I could have them wanting to do violence against me from seconds to a few minutes. Did every single good person have that choice? If so, why did they ALL choose the wrong?

As we experience negative trauma in life, that sets off pre-birth trauma. If you were LUCKY and didn't have much pre-birth trauma, most negative life incidents won't cause you trauma. If you aren't lucky, you'll have a whole lot of trauma.

People also experience effects from outside influences. Drugs of all sorts; allergens; smells; evil spirits; numerous other things.

This goes for all mortal problems and trials.

As mentioned earlier, the majority of truly homosexual people experienced sexual abuse before the age of 8, as victims. As a matter of fact, many people with evil attractions experienced trauma before the age of 8, as victims. Do we damn them for the unchosen results?

I'm wondering why there is no discussion between homosexual attraction and homosexual lifestyle.

Of course none of this condones a wicked lifestyle of any sort, including a homosexual lifestyle. Nor does it condone any sin that we could have avoided, but didn't; or could have chosen, but refused to. Even when it is uncomfortable or extremely difficult. We keep doing what we are supposed to do--being obedient and trying to do what is the best we know.

[brianj]

Does sinless equal perfect?

I expect some will argue they tautologous, but I disagree. Some of us get to skip most of mortality and become worthy mostly in the Spirit World, and some of us are blessed with time in the Spirit World as well as a lot of time in mortality. Both groups progress, we just do so differently.

[Yahtzee]

I tend to believe sexuality is a spectrum and with a certain environment, most people could experience same sex attraction. So most of me believes it's nurture. But I also know there are countless things that can go wrong in development. Someone mentioned intersex. It's real, it happens. There are xxy babies. I know their spirit has one gender, but their body didn't develop right. So I conclude a persons sexuality could also be affected by something in development. Now, I'm talking about a small percentage of the lgbtq population who might actually have a biological reason for their inclinations. The rest is choice and environment.
But I have a biological inclination for slothfulness because of autoimmune disease. It doesn't mean I get to sit on my butt all day. It means I have to try harder sometimes. It means life isn't fair. So no, I don't believe we are born perfect (just innocent, as stated), but i also don't believe our imperfections should be an excuse. Our weaknesses can become our strengths if we don't embrace them and make them define us.

[captainfearnot]

In my view, what we believe about the nature of LGBT people will evolve as our treatment of them does, just as it did with race.

How logical is it that a black man "come out of the closet" about his race?
Not logical at all - because you can't compare sexual preference and race, if you have any logical integrity.

Just because two things can be contrasted does not mean they cannot also be compared. Remember those compare/contrast writing assignments from grade school? Race and sexual orientation have differences, to be sure, but they also have similarities. Here, I was commenting on possible similarities between how the LDS church might evolve in its treatment of the two populations, which does not necessarily require similarity in biological vs environmental causes.

Why wouldn't we look to the past for guidance? It's like we have a car stuck in the snow and someone is offering an idea from the last time this happened. And you want to jettison the advice because the last time involved a car that was a standard transmission, and this one is an automatic. One difference does not negate all similarities.

Besides, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is inborn or completely voluntary, or a combination of both. With race, which no one will deny is inborn, all we had to do was shift the choice to premortality and we were able to justify our treatment of other races as if it had been a completely voluntary decision.

[Thinker]

Here, I was commenting on possible similarities between how the LDS church might evolve in its treatment of the two populations, which does not necessarily require similarity in biological vs environmental causes.

Sorry, but it still is not logical.
It's like trying to compare how the church treated blacks and people who prefer smoking, or prefer drinking, or prefer tatoos, or prefer... whatever.
PREFERENCE is not at all comparable to race.
I cannot "prefer" to be black etc.

Besides, it doesn't matter if homosexuality is inborn or completely voluntary, or a combination of both. With race, which no one will deny is inborn, all we had to do was shift the choice to premortality and we were able to justify our treatment of other races as if it had been a completely voluntary decision.

Who knows what it was like - and what choices we actually had in the pre-existence.
You don't know, I don't know - lds leaders don't know.
"This life is the time..." to focus on.

Also, you are mixing action in this life - choice of how to treat someone - with speculative choice from the pre-existence.
It's not just illogical, but also unethical.
A friend who left the church was trying to explain to me that children who are killed in abortion deserved being killed and that it was karma, yet she took no consideration of the need for the mother and father to take proper responsibility of the child they decided to conceive.
Sociopaths are taught and believe that their victims deserved what they did to them - they shift blame and take no responsibility.
It's not a line of thinking we should entertain, but it is one that I've seen in Leftist ideologies.

[captainfearnot]

Who knows what it was like - and what choices we actually had in the pre-existence.
You don't know, I don't know - lds leaders don't know.

That's the point. The people who were promoting the racist doctrines and policies of the past—members and leaders alike—thought they did know. They were as certain in their belief that pre-mortal valiance was a determinant of race as you are that homosexuality is a "preference."

Isn't it interesting how 20/20 hindsight fills us with doubt ("you don't know, I don't know—LDS leaders don't know") while the limited perspective of the present bestows such certainty?

[sevenator]

It's interesting to consider the phrase "age of accountability" in this respect.

The nature/nurture debate has gone on for a long time in a lot of different circles.

Nobody can say they were "born homosexual", because they don't remember their sexual preference from birth (because they didn't have one). They can say that they remember their first inclinations, but those tend to be influenced heavily, if not completely IMO, by environment. My simple contention for that statement is that if there weren't some environmental cue, then they would never notice.

I also believe that many misinterpret early signals, (i.e.- young boys thinking that "girls are gross and have cooties" and vice versa) or they never grow out of those early childhood sentiments. Some may cling to them for what they perceive to be safety.

But I digress...I am of the opinion that the answer to the question is that we are all born without sin, which led my feeble brain to the "age of accountability" thing. But if the question "Are we born perfect?" is a yes/no question, then I would say "no".

[Thinker]

That's the point. The people who were promoting the racist doctrines and policies of the past—members and leaders alike—thought they did know. They were as certain in their belief that pre-mortal valiance was a determinant of race as you are that homosexuality is a "preference."

Isn't it interesting how 20/20 hindsight fills us with doubt ("you don't know, I don't know—LDS leaders don't know") while the limited perspective of the present bestows such certainty?

You’re attempting red herring & other logical fallacies. Just because people made mistakes in the past doesn’t mean medical facts or common sense scriptures (which support medical facts) should not be believed. We know that men who prefer to have anal sex with other men don’t have the natural vaginal option, so they use the anus instead. We each understand undeniably clearly that the anus is anatomically designed as an “exit only.” Doctors warn of anal sex risks: anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection. They know this because they see the consequences many times & these are known medical facts. This applies even in 2 healthy males - but many with homosexual preferences are not healthy because of their lifestyles; they have high stats of STDs, HIV/AIDs & mental illness, according to the USCDC.

Why would you want to support or encourage behavior known to be harmful?

You were illogically comparing homosexuality with being black. That was one of the illogical points you were trying to make. Another illogical point you tried was comparing racial prejudice in scripture with seeing the wrong of homosexuality. Again, no logical comparison. Homosexual practice is considered sin - it’s plain in OT and Jesus suggested a higher law to avoid even just lusting. Being black is not sin. Jesus taught repeatedly to love those who are a different race, religion etc.

Homosexuality is a disordered sexual preference - as described in the old APA. The APA never utilized the scientific method to prove otherwise. Homosexual bullies harassed them until they changed it - but with no studies to support it. A man’s body is designed to mate with a female’s and visa versa. It’s not rocket science. Any preference different from that is a deviation or disorder (not of the natural order).

Just because you may have been swept up in herd mentality that tried to normalize & encourage homosexuality, doesn’t mean that everyone else will fall for such lies that defy physiological and medical facts besides hurting people.

[captainfearnot]

You’re attempting red herring & other logical fallacies.

You may be completely right in your position on homosexuality and the church's acceptance or rejection of it, and I may be completely misguided. But you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to logical fallacies.

Just because people made mistakes in the past doesn’t mean medical facts or common sense scriptures (which support medical facts) should not be believed.

Agreed. And I have never made such an argument.

You were illogically comparing homosexuality with being black. That was one of the illogical points you were trying to make.

I've already explained how I'm exploring similarities between the two while admitting that there are differences. If the differences are overwhelming to the point that the comparison becomes inapt then by all means demonstrate that by pointing them out. But you seem to think that any comparison between the two can be immediately dismissed on some "logical fallacy" grounds, which is absurd. In the first place, I'm not making a logical argument at all. I'm offering my conjecture on how the church might deal with the current shift in social norms, and I'm using information from how it dealt with similar shifts in the past to inform my guess. Yes, the two situations are not identical, obviously. The race issue was also not identical to the polygamy issue, but there are still similarities between the two that we can learn from.

Just because you may have been swept up in herd mentality that tried to normalize & encourage homosexuality, doesn’t mean that everyone else will fall for such lies that defy physiological and medical facts besides hurting people.

Agreed. And I have never made such an argument.

[brlenox]

I have got to agree with Robin Hood here.
And disagree 100% with kit kat. I don't not believe any of them are "born that way". I think sexuality and how to be a man or woman is all learned behavior.
You are born genetically AND YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT. That is God given and unalterable.
A man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man.
It's nonsense to think Bruce Jenner is a woman just because he had something cut off him. (If he did)
It's learned behavior, and a choice.
Yes a person can think they are horribly and irrevocably trapped in their sins. I have seen it many times with drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. They convince themselves they cannot possibly live without alcohol, drugs or even cigarettes.
However, their misconception is apparent when you consider they lived 10 or 20 years initially without those things, until they by choice took them up.

I was just born a drug addict is a good excuse, but not true. You developed an addictive personality in life, and then focused it on drugs.

The whole homosexual thing today is a real bandwagon. And of course there are many followers ready to jump on and ride along with the others. It gives them a sense of "belonging". But they belong to Satans army.
dc


Are we born perfect?

No. It's something we (hopefully) strive toward all our lives. With differing levels of success.

Yes I agree with you...mostly. I do agree that most is learned behavior. BUT do you not understand that genetically there are in fact male and female sex chromosomes abnormalities that can and do occur? What about those who are born with naturally occurring intersex variation. This means that a person has biological characteristics that are both female and male. What would this do to their psyche?

Irrelevant information that is frequently misused as a logical argument to justify the "Born this way" mentality. The primary chromosomal disorder is Klinefelters syndrome and generally is classed as an XXY arrangement. However, this excerpt pretty much says it all:

Sexuality

The parents of XXY boys are sometimes concerned that their sons may grow up to be homosexual. This concern is unfounded, however, as there is no evidence that XXY males are any more inclined toward homosexuality than are other men.

In fact, the only significant sexual difference between XXY men and teenagers and other males their age is that the XXY males may have less interest in sex. (http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/h ... 0/0852.asp)

There are a couple of other sex chromosomal syndrome that are rare such as Jacobson's syndrome but in no instance is there any correlation with homosexual probability.

[brlenox]

"Be ye therefore perfect..."

The word perfect translated from Greek means "complete." (τέλειος)

Are we born complete? Perhaps we are born to become complete. Whether or not someone is born this way or that way may not be as important as how the rest of society treats that someone (love your neighbor as yourself). After all, each and everyone else is born some way or another. Beams and motes.

Marc nails it on the head here. The issue is in correct word choice. We are born innocent which is a world away from perfect.

[Thinker]

You’re attempting red herring & other logical fallacies.

You may be completely right in your position on homosexuality and the church's acceptance or rejection of it, and I may be completely misguided. But you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to logical fallacies.

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."
You realized how utterly illogical it is to compare sexual preference with race - so you then tried to distract by bringing up pre-existence.
If you really had any better idea of logical fallacies you wouldn't just point the finger and say "you don't know what you're talking about" - but you would explain WHY. That itself is another logical fallacy you engaged in.

Just because people made mistakes in the past doesn’t mean medical facts or common sense scriptures (which support medical facts) should not be believed.

Agreed. And I have never made such an argument.

Yes you did. You suggested that if the LDS leaders were wrong about blacks being limited in church involvement, that the church should eventually come to see those with homosexual preferences as having the "right" to more church involvement as blacks have. You ignore medical facts that show that homosexuality is unhealthy - which scripture supports - but you're suggesting that the church will ignore such medical facts of homosexual practices and should "correct their mistake" by allowing those with homosexual preferences to openly practice their deviant lifestyle and maintain membership - as the church has evolved with blacks. But again, race is not logically comparable to sexual preference & homosexuality is an unnatural disordered sin that proves to hurt people, while being black is no such things.

You were illogically comparing homosexuality with being black. That was one of the illogical points you were trying to make.

I've already explained how I'm exploring similarities between the two while admitting that there are differences. If the differences are overwhelming to the point that the comparison becomes inapt then by all means demonstrate that by pointing them out. But you seem to think that any comparison between the two can be immediately dismissed on some "logical fallacy" grounds, which is absurd.
In the first place, I'm not making a logical argument at all. I'm offering my conjecture on how the church might deal with the current shift in social norms, and I'm using information from how it dealt with similar shifts in the past to inform my guess. Yes, the two situations are not identical, obviously. The race issue was also not identical to the polygamy issue, but there are still similarities between the two that we can learn from.

You're right - it's not logical at all. It's based on emotional reasoning. You are comparing some people's deviated DESIRES with race.

Just because you may have been swept up in herd mentality that tried to normalize & encourage homosexuality, doesn’t mean that everyone else will fall for such lies that defy physiological and medical facts besides hurting people.

Agreed. And I have never made such an argument.

Yes, you have attempted it - and in multiple ways.
You may not even realize but you fell for manipulative mind-control that began in the 1980's in books like, "Overhauling Straight America" & "After the Ball." And then you're trying to suggest that the church will also be lured into believing such nonsense, because you and others have. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issu ... _ball.html You tried to suggest that the church got with the times in overcoming racial prejudice - and that they will eventually "get with the times" of accepting homosexual sin as if it's gay rainbows - when homosexual lifestyles statistically prove to be harmful and sometimes fatal.

[captainfearnot]

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

Confusingly, "red herring" is the name of both a logical fallacy, and a rhetorical device. You've provided the definition of the latter. To be guilty of the logical fallacy of red herring, I would have to introduce a second argument (call it argument B) as though it refutes an argument to which it is not actually relevant (argument A). What is argument A and what is my argument B that I claim refutes argument A but actually only distracts from it? I'm not refuting anyone's argument—nor am I even making one, really. All I've done is offered my opinion on something that may or may not come to pass, (repeated here as a reminder:)

In my view, what we believe about the nature of LGBT people will evolve as our treatment of them does, just as it did with race.

I'm not arguing premise therefore conclusion. I'm just stating one of the things that leads me to this belief. It's like if I said, "I think Usain Bolt is going to win the 200m, just like he won the 100m." I'm not putting forth the logical argument that whoever wins the 100m must also win the 200m. Do you see the difference? I do happen to think that gay marriage is likely to play out similar to interracial marriage in the LDS church. But I'm not arguing that this result must logically follow. So you're tilting at windmills trying to dismantle a logical argument that does not exist. You might even say you are beating up a strawman, attacking an argument I'm not making.

If you really had any better idea of logical fallacies you wouldn't just point the finger and say "you don't know what you're talking about" - but you would explain WHY. That itself is another logical fallacy you engaged in.

Really? Which one?

[Thinker]

"A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue."

Confusingly, "red herring" is the name of both a logical fallacy, and a rhetorical device. You've provided the definition of the latter. To be guilty of the logical fallacy of red herring, I would have to introduce a second argument (call it argument B) as though it refutes an argument to which it is not actually relevant (argument A). What is argument A and what is my argument B that I claim refutes argument A but actually only distracts from it? I'm not refuting anyone's argument—nor am I even making one, really. All I've done is offered my opinion on something that may or may not come to pass, (repeated here as a reminder:)

I already explained it to you in my previous post.
You realized how illogical it was to compare race with sexual preference, so you created a new argument about pre-existence, to distract away from the other illogical argument.

In my view, what we believe about the nature of LGBT people will evolve as our treatment of them does, just as it did with race...
I do happen to think that gay marriage is likely to play out similar to interracial marriage in the LDS church. But I'm not arguing that this result must logically follow. So you're tilting at windmills trying to dismantle a logical argument that does not exist. You might even say you are beating up a strawman, attacking an argument I'm not making.

In your own quote you explained the comparison - "just as it did with race"!
I am refuting what you wrote - in comparing 2 things that are not logically comparable.
Strawman logical fallacy is if I were to twist what you said - but I didn't. I just quoted you, quoting yourself.

If you really had any better idea of logical fallacies you wouldn't just point the finger and say "you don't know what you're talking about" - but you would explain WHY. That itself is another logical fallacy you engaged in.

Really? Which one?

Ad hominem attack: "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
IE: "You don't know what you're talking about" rather than, "This is why I disagree.... " & then listing your reasons why.

[captainfearnot]

Really? Which one?

Ad hominem attack: "Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
IE: "You don't know what you're talking about" rather than, "This is why I disagree.... " & then listing your reasons why.

That's too bad. If you had said Appeal to Self-Evident Truth, you might have had me. Instead you just keep piling up evidence in support of my position. If you think the above is ad hominem then you really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to logical fallacies.

If you want my advice, you should get off this whole logical fallacy track and just talk about why my prediction about the future with regard to gays and the church is less likely come to pass than your own. Because as I'm sure you're aware, a logically fallacious argument does not necessarily preclude a true conclusion. To argue otherwise is to commit the logical fallacy fallacy.

[Thinker]

Nice try, CaptainFearnot. You did engage in ad hominem attack & I demonstrated clearly how. And you did it again when you attacked my character because you disagree.
Notice in this explanation of “ad hominem” what you told me (“you don’t know what you’re talking about” is listed as part of an example. http://iidebate.org/10-common-logical-fallacies/
I even suggested what to express instead of that but you didn’t apply it.
I’m done.
Thanks for the exchange.

[Finrock]

Nice try, CaptainFearnot. You did engage in ad hominem attack & I demonstrated clearly how. And you did it again when you attacked my character because you disagree.
I even suggested what to express instead of that but you didn’t apply it.
I’m done.
Thanks for the exchange.

Butting my nose in and offering what is likely an unwanted third party perspective: I saw no ad hominem in Captainfearnot's posts to you.

-Finrock

[brlenox]

Nice try, CaptainFearnot. You did engage in ad hominem attack & I demonstrated clearly how. And you did it again when you attacked my character because you disagree.
Notice in this explanation of “ad hominem” what you told me (“you don’t know what you’re talking about” is listed as part of an example. http://iidebate.org/10-common-logical-fallacies/
I even suggested what to express instead of that but you didn’t apply it.
I’m done.
Thanks for the exchange.

[Serragon]

As CaptainFearnot and I discussed earlier in this thread, there are great differences in the substantive issues between the churchs historical viewpoints on those of African descent and the historical view about homosexuality.

But to captain's point, this does not mean that the church will not deal with the issues similarly. The church might even perceive them to be much the same type of issue even though I do not.

We have already seen the attitude towards same sex attraction change from Pres. Kimball stating that the idea you are born that way is a lie from Satan to our current position which is at least somewhere on the path to acceptance of the born this way position.

And brenelox.. I think your previous post is in poor taste. Funny, but poor taste.

[brlenox]

As CaptainFearnot and I discussed earlier in this thread, there are great differences in the substantive issues between the churchs historical viewpoints on those of African descent and the historical view about homosexuality.

But to captain's point, this does not mean that the church will not deal with the issues similarly. The church might even perceive them to be much the same type of issue even though I do not.

We have already seen the attitude towards same sex attraction change from Pres. Kimball stating that the idea you are born that way is a lie from Satan to our current position which is at least somewhere on the path to acceptance of the born this way position.

And brenelox.. I think your previous post is in poor taste. Funny, but poor taste.

You'll get no argument from me on that observation (my poor taste), but I must add that every time I see someone head on into the ad hominem argument it becomes fast and clear that someone has reached the end of their capacity to intelligently discuss their points of view and they succumb to the defense which they think will obscure their defeat. When in reality there is no defeat when one simply acknowledges a better case or perspective. To a fault, I have yet to see anyone use this defense except when they feel pushed into a corner of their own making and they are attempting to shut down the discourse. Every single time...

As to your point, I believe you mistake a change of course with a change in emphasis. However, born this way as a gay defense is not President Kimball's observation. What you are referring to I believe is this statement:

God made man in his own image, male and female made he them. With relatively few accidents of nature, we are born male or female. The Lord knew best. Certainly, men and women who would change their sex status will answer to their Maker. (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng

Sufficiently different from your observation as to merit correction. However, perhaps you have a clearer quote that is of his that states what you claimed of which I am not familiar. If so please feel free to correct. I promise you will never see me claim ad hominem as I have no need to do so.

However, I will state that there has been a shift in emphasis. Few others sins engender the immediate unrighteous judgment of hellfire and damnation as does the status of LGBTQW within many of the LDS community. As we have approached it in the past in the church there has been a tendency to focus on it's Sodom and Gomorrah pre-destruction, evil condemnation of a wicked and perverse generation behavior...and surely the behavior is all of that. Sometimes it seems like we speak higher of adultery than we might these sins of Sodom. However, because of the exclusive nature of the condemnation, I feel that we as Saints have morphed into a behavior that fails to reflect on our role as members of God's church and this partially because of the sense of disgust and the nature of the condemnatory presentation over the years.

What I see now is a proper emphasis of we all are sinners and regardless of our sin we deserve to be treated with charity and a hope of inclusion into the body of the saints. I see a position where in the past the membership might have become comfortable condemning themselves through unrighteous judgment of an abomination of behavior, but now we are changing the emphasis to a proper role of repent and join with God's children. We are now better realizing that as we judge them harshly, we are binding our Father to judge us harshly.

I do not see this change as a move to acceptance of their (LGTBQW) mistaken talking points. However I do see it as a better acceptance of proper behavior of those who hope to crawl from beneath the burden of their own sinfulness along with others of differing sinfulness, that we might all someday be counted the children of God together.

[Thinker]

You'll get no argument from me on that observation (my poor taste), but I must add that every time I see someone head on into the ad hominem argument it becomes fast and clear that someone has reached the end of their capacity to intelligently discuss their points of view and they succumb to the defense which they think will obscure their defeat. When in reality there is no defeat when one simply acknowledges a better case or perspective. To a fault, I have yet to see anyone use this defense except when they feel pushed into a corner of their own making and they are attempting to shut down the discourse. Every single time...

You've got it backwards. When someone has nothing better to say, they call names (engage in ad hominem attack).
The reason I backed out is because it was starting to go in circles - and he was repeatedly engaging in ad hominem attack.

It's not a question of feeling picked on as much as wanting to discuss logically rather than have to deal with circular/repeated logical fallacies.
If we were in a court of law and CaptianFN repeatedly said, "You don't know what you're talking about" as his rebuttle - it will not only be overruled but he'll likely be laughed out of the courtroom & asked not to return.

And guess what, brlenox?
This forum has just 1 rule now and it includes NOT engaging in ad hominem attack...
"#1: Be kind and respectful.
“And see that there is no iniquity [on LDSFF], neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking” (D&C 20:54)
- No personal attacks (ad hominem) or threats. No defamation of character, libel, slander, etc."