LDS LIVING--Lesbian says, "heavenly father made me to be gay."

[TrueIntent]

Well, that's me done with LDS Living.

Why must we be so all or nothing? There is lot's of good content on LDSliving...I don't agree with all of it, but there is some I agree with.

Yeah, and the brownies I'm bringing to you are mostly good. Only a few have poop in them, so just spit those out.

You're right..Christ taught we shouldn't be lukewarm....don't worry, I'll be back with information from the scriptures to prove my points. No poop.

[Gage]

The only thing that has changed with homosexuality is man and society has accepted it as normal and ok. That's it. Doesn't mean people are now born gay, doesn't mean god has changed his mind about it. Man has decided that's it ok and normal, God hasnt. God has destroyed every society that that lost its way morally. Not just picking on homosexuals, every society that went down the moral gutter, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, they all suffered the same fate, we will be no different. This society will not repent, because just like the ones before us, we feel there is nothing to repent for, this is all normal behavior and acceptable. Man is deciding what is right and wrong, not God. That is why all the doom prophesied will come to past, that you can be sure of.

[eddie]

My earthly Dad told laid down some strict rules at our house;

" We don't drink or smoke, we follow the 10 commandments, we are pure in heart and we have nothing to do with homosexuality! I admired and honored my Father, I never doubted that he meant what he said. I knew by the way he guarded and loved us that he would not steer us the wrong direction. I did not want to dissapoint my earthly Father.
When our Heavenly Father says homosexuality is an abomination, I take that seriously and don't want to offend Him. I don't understand why someone who understands the will of God would make such a
choice? To me when it's declared an abomination, there is no choice,

[oneClimbs]

I would like to at this point applaud TrueIntent in all seriousness. Specifically for stating that they are going to go to the scriptures and come back with their findings. This is a mark of wisdom and humility and TrueIntent has earned my respect for that. I will refrain from further comments until the results are in.

With that, I have a few suggestions. First, pray and seek guidance on this project.

Second, those results may be worth a new thread, here’s a potential title for example: “I searched the scriptures to make a doctrinal case for homosexuality and here is what I found.”

Third, take your time. Collect all the information first, then weed out the weakest arguments, no one will accept them and they shouldn’t have to. Taking verses like “love one another” and saying that includes gay marriage isn’t legitimate, you can say thay includes just about anything including bestiality or incest which are two other things Jesus never preached against.

Last of all, to make a doctrinal analysis, you need to understand what constitutes doctrine. Elder Bednar gave a good definition if you’d be willing to accept it as a benchmark for what constitutes a doctrine: “A gospel doctrine is a truth of salvation revealed by a loving Heavenly Father. Gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and pertain to eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Farher’s sons and daughters. [...] Gospel doctrines answer the question of “why?”

I’m interested to see what your search through the scriptures produces. Feel free to use the entirety of the standard works. I’ll also allow the Apocrypha, the Nag Hammadi library, any Coptic texts or anything else in the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Quran. No, that’s not a joke, I’m serious. I’m giving you a wide range of texts to work with.

As far as any modern prophets or revelation, let’s set that aside for now, I think round two could involve modern revelation but first let’s examine sacred texts and just see what’s there.

What do you think TrueIntent? Agree to the terms? Any adjustments?

[TrueIntent]

My earthly Dad told laid down some strict rules at our house;

" We don't drink or smoke, we follow the 10 commandments, we are pure in heart and we have nothing to do with homosexuality! I admired and honored my Father, I never doubted that he meant what he said. I knew by the way he guarded and loved us that he would not steer us the wrong direction. I did not want to dissapoint my earthly Father.
When our Heavenly Father says homosexuality is an abomination, I take that seriously and don't want to offend Him. I don't understand why someone who understands the will of God would make such a
choice? To me when it's declared an abomination, there is no choice,

I plan to discuss the true meaning of the word "abomination". More knowledge leads to greater understanding.

[TrueIntent]

I would like to at this point applaud TrueIntent in all seriousness. Specifically for stating that they are going to go to the scriptures and come back with their findings. This is a mark of wisdom and humility and TrueIntent has earned my respect for that. I will refrain from further comments until the results are in.

With that, I have a few suggestions. First, pray and seek guidance on this project.

Second, those results may be worth a new thread, here’s a potential title for example: “I searched the scriptures to make a doctrinal case for homosexuality and here is what I found.”

Third, take your time. Collect all the information first, then weed out the weakest arguments, no one will accept them and they shouldn’t have to. Taking verses like “love one another” and saying that includes gay marriage isn’t legitimate, you can say thay includes just about anything including bestiality or incest which are two other things Jesus never preached against.

Last of all, to make a doctrinal analysis, you need to understand what constitutes doctrine. Elder Bednar gave a good definition if you’d be willing to accept it as a benchmark for what constitutes a doctrine: “A gospel doctrine is a truth of salvation revealed by a loving Heavenly Father. Gospel doctrines are eternal, do not change, and pertain to eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Farher’s sons and daughters. [...] Gospel doctrines answer the question of “why?”

I’m interested to see what your search through the scriptures produces. Feel free to use the entirety of the standard works. I’ll also allow the Apocrypha, the Nag Hammadi library, any Coptic texts or anything else in the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Quran. No, that’s not a joke, I’m serious. I’m giving you a wide range of texts to work with.

As far as any modern prophets or revelation, let’s set that aside for now, I think round two could involve modern revelation but first let’s examine sacred texts and just see what’s there.

What do you think TrueIntent? Agree to the terms? Any adjustments?

The 5tev3....thank you for taking me seriously. While I'm not totally familiar with all those works, I am with some of them, and I love to study the Old Testament, which is one of my favorite books of study, and I plan to take cultural practices at the time into account, and well as possible translation errors....I see things through the "temple ordinances" for whatever reason, that's one of they ways I come to an understanding of stuff. Hopefully I will do this topic some justice, and hopefully it can be a platform for deeper discussions on the true nature and character of God and his plan for us...as I believe we all play an intricate role in the plan. We are all one family. It may take me some time to get my thoughts together, I'm making notes now on these topics. I feel like there are some great essays already on the subject, but they are written in verbiage not familiar to Mormons (lots of Old Testament referances). I'm going to attempt to break it all down, so that LDS folk in general can understand it. Thanks again....you'll be hearing from me.

[Fiannan]

If your're trying to establish a secular or pluralistic basis for the immorality of homosexuality in society, then we would have to conclude that anyone who chooses not to procreate, for whatever reason, is being equally immoral. On that basis everyone should be judged according to how their actions would affect society if everyone in the world did the same thing. This would likely condemn those who choose to have 12 kids along with those who choose to have zero.

Luckily there is room in our culture for a small percentage of couples who want huge families to have as many children as they want, and there is also room for a certain number of couples who don't want any kids to refrain, without any undue catastrophic effects.

From a biological perspective a lesbian who has artificial insemination and makes children is far more valuable to the society than a straight couple (both possessing health and intelligence) who choose not to have children. And in my personal opinion it will go better for her in the afterlife than the double income no kids couple.

On another point, are you saying that a family in which both parents are intelligent and healthy (and make 12 kids) are in any way negative to society? Creating a hypothetical scenario in which everyone did that is absurd as it is entirely unrealistic while suicidal birthrates in developed nations are near the level of zero kids.

[Fiannan]

Well, that's me done with LDS Living.

Why must we be so all or nothing? There is lot's of good content on LDSliving...I don't agree with all of it, but there is some I agree with.

And the Satanic Bible has some really good advice on having a mindset on attaining one's goals and having a positive attitude on life. Of course there are some other things in it that might be objectionable to an LDS reader but hey.

[captainfearnot]

From a biological perspective a lesbian who has artificial insemination and makes children is far more valuable to the society than a straight couple (both possessing health and intelligence) who choose not to have children. And in my personal opinion it will go better for her in the afterlife than the double income no kids couple.

That's interesting. I'm not sure how that supports your argument that the morality of sexual contact should in any way be based on whether that contact might result in offspring, though.

On another point, are you saying that a family in which both parents are intelligent and healthy (and make 12 kids) are in any way negative to society? Creating a hypothetical scenario in which everyone did that is absurd as it is entirely unrealistic while suicidal birthrates in developed nations are near the level of zero kids.

I was trying to apply the same reductio ad absurdum to having too many kids as I understood you to be using to establish the immorality of having too few. Obviously, a hypothetical scenario in which every couple has 12 kids is absurd and unrealistic. So is the hypothetical scenario where everyone in society becomes homosexual and therefore does not reproduce.

[Fiannan]

That's interesting. I'm not sure how that supports your argument that the morality of sexual contact should in any way be based on whether that contact might result in offspring, though.

Who said anything about morality? I am speaking biology here. Care to address that?

So is the hypothetical scenario where everyone in society becomes homosexual and therefore does not reproduce.

From a purely biological perspective there is not a dime's worth a difference between a same-sex couple that chooses not to have babies and a heterosexual couple that chooses not to have babies. My point again is that a lesbian who reproduces at least passes her genes (and probably here ancestor's basic ideas on culture) to the next generation while a woman who does not have children won't make any imprints on future generations.

Biology and feelings don't mix. The world is not fair, get over it.

[oneClimbs]

If we are making decisions based on theoretical ideas that have no basis in doctrine, it all sounds innocent at first but then we end up gassing people and burning their bodies en masse. Think about the eugenics movement for a minute. Origin of the species comes out, Sir Francis Galton applies natural selection to human society and produces this eugenics theory. Scientists begin to speculate that we may have the secret to eradicating disease and produce a healthy humanity. All sounds good so far right? Then the government, Hollywood, universities, etc. all start pushing sterilization, first voluntary, then by force (often done in checkups without the person's consent). Hitler picks it up and then applies these principles to the sick and infirm, then various classes and races of people. Then you have millions slaughtered in terrible wars all for nothing, for a false ideology.

See, the doctrines they ignored are agency, compassion, the worth of souls, sacrifice for others, service, etc. They set the doctrine aside to trust in the arm of the flesh. When I see talking about "biological perspectives" or "overpopulation" or "great essays" I think about how people have got it wrong on the past and how they are getting it wrong today. Do you see the problem? Am I explaining this clearly enough?

This is why I wanted to support TrueIntent's search for a doctrinal argument in the scriptural record. Not anywhere else (for the time being), not in science, essays, philosophies of men, or even modern revelators, etc. But in doctrine, revealed from heaven, demonstrable in the standard works, in scripture. Doctrines that are based on eternal truths and pertain to the eternal progression and exaltation of Heavenly Father’s sons and daughters.

Let's see a true, doctrinal argument here. If someone is willing to take this challenge, I think the results of such a study would be valuable, because thus far, I have yet to see ANYBODY make a doctrinal argument as to why same-sex relationships should receive the blessing of God and have a place in his plan. Note I said YET, so if there is one to be made, let's hear it because all I hear are the philosophies of men in an ever-shifting world without ANY justification or doctrinal foundation. History has proven that this is a recipe for disaster, this is how we go off the rails and into apostasy.

So please, TrueIntent, in this world of impatience and hasty judgements, please take your time. If it takes you years, then fine. Please be thorough, do the topic justice, don't just find a few verses of scripture and throw them together.

[eddie]

Love is not kissing up and essentially saying, “Sure - go ahead hurt yourself & others, anything you want I just want MYSELF to seem like a good guy so I will go along with whatever harmful insanity you want.”

Love is acknowledging what is, while striving for what is best.
According to US nation-wide gathered health reports, those practicing homosexuality have many more cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV, mental illness & anal sex complications.

Thinker, a lot of your reasoning in opposition to homosexuality seems to center on the health risks associated with it. This seems like a non-sequitur to me for several reasons.

First of all, is it your opinion that if the health risks associated with homosexuality could be completely mitigated, then it would cease to be immoral? Somehow I doubt it. Same sex contact would still be deemed immoral by the church, I'm guessing, so why even bring up the health risks at all?

Secondly, anal sex is not synonymous with homosexuality. There are plenty of gays who never do it, and there are plenty of straights who do. If your crusade is against anal sex, then why would the sexual orientation of the participants matter?

Then there are the health parameters in which gays, as a population, fare better than straights. If we can find studies that show that gays are less likely than straights to be obese, for instance, is that relevant to the morality of homosexuality? Of course not.

Finally, is increased risk to personal health and safety always immoral? If it's immoral to engage in anal sex because of the health risks, is it also immoral to ride a motorcycle to work? Is it immoral to be overweight? My life insurance application asks me if I smoke, if I'm overweight, and if I race cars, scuba dive, or pilot private planes, but it doesn't ask me if I engage in anal sex.

Seems like there are lots of things we can do that put our lives at risk for the sake of fun and recreation, but most of us don't consider all of them to be immoral. We generally allow adults to assess risks to their person and make their own decisions accordingly.

Why would anyone encourage behavior KNOWN to be harmful?

Gay adults, like straight adults, can study the statistics on their own (or not, as they choose) and decide what activities they want to engage in accordingly. If being gay (or acting on same sex attraction, as the church seems to put it nowadays) is a sin, then people who want to live the LDS version of a moral lifestyle must refrain from it. But I don't think it follows that homosexuality is immoral because anal sex carries a health risk.

I see your point here, and yes homosexual behaviour would still be a sin even if no health risks occurred, but the health risks homosexuals themselves and to the general population are very real. There are pregnant wives who have innocently contracted AIDS from their philandering husbands and then passed this on to the unborn child. Other people through no fault of their own became victims of STD's, especially HIV/AIDS, just by going to the dentist, etc. Homosexual behaviour has ended up victimizing and killing an amazing number of innocent people over the years. It is not responsible for any society to allow the spread of disease in favor of allowing adults to assess the risks for themselves. I am sure this couldn't be what you mean.



Unlike True Intent attempts to assert, gay people, male or female, do strongly tend to have multiple sex partners and are now main carriers of STDs. In Africa this is a real real issue, and AIDS is taking a most destructive tole on the population there. Teaching abstinence is not popular today, just safe sex. Homosexuals are still by far the largest at risk group for AIDS and all STD's for that matter, with black people in the forefront of this. If gay men are as nonpromiscuous and true blue as True Intent says, then what IS the cause of the present world wide HIV/AIDS epidemic? And if anybody thinks this epidemic is calming down, think again. Right now there is a strain in Africa that is resistent to drug therapy ( which the US gives $30,000,000 a year to African nations to pass out) It seems a number of black africans over there, when they stopped feeling sick, would stop taking their drugs, and go back to their highly sexual lifestyle as if nothing is wrong. Well, we all know this creates resistant strains, and that's exactly what we have.

Have you ever seen anyone in the last throes of this disease? Or syphilis, for instance? I have, and it isn't pretty. With friends like lovey-dovey=self- validating True Intent, who needs enemies?

Do you people seriously not read what you write.....gay people, male or female, do strongly tend to have multiple sex partners and are now main carriers of STDs. So do straight people...what about the AIDS rate in africa....Can't you hear what you say? I didn't apply a blanket statement to gays just like I won't to heterosexuals...Heterosexuals are promiscuous...you can't dump your views on an entire group of people and dismiss the facts.. You sound like a bigot....You can not dismiss the Entire continent of Africa and their AIDS epidemic...you can still get killed for being gay in those counties..that's not from gay people ....These comments are just insane. Do you people who claim to follow Jesus Christ, even read what you write.

And I beseech you to listen to what you write. In trying
To convince us what's wrong is right, you are becoming angry and frustrated. I can love and try to help, but I will
never follow your path, I can never justify it, I will not even let it enter my mind.

[Finrock]

TrueIntent -- the statement that you highlighted, where she says that being a lesbian is a privilege and a blessing, is where she has turned the corner from praying for healing and change and release from her same-sex attraction, into deciding that there is nothing wrong with her attraction, and even calling it a privilege and a blessing, and that it's nothing to be ashamed of.

That is why it's a huge problem, to those of us who know it's a grievous sin, to have this printed in a magazine read by many LDS members.

Our weaknesses are privileges and they are blessings because these weaknesses that we have help us to become more reliant in God and on His grace and mercy. We should not feel ashamed for our weaknesses or guilt either. All of us fall short of the glory of God. So, in that sense I agree with the person in the article. We should not be motivated by guilt and by shame. Those are poor and damning motivators. We should be motivated by our love for God and for others knowing that when we fall, make a mistake, act in error, etc. this isn't a surprise to Heavenly Father. Its not like He says, "Oh, wow, I didn't expect you to screw up that bad! Man, that's more than I can handle, you're on your own buddy!" No, HF doesn't say that. He knows that we will fail, falter, and make errors, that we will sin. He is ever present, always ready to guide us in the paths of righteousness, regardless of our weakness. Those weaknesses can be made in to strengths and that is how these things were designed.

However, we can't suppose that our weakness is the end goal and what we ought to become.

-Finrock

[eddie]

Moral agency is the ability to act and not be acted on...

[captainfearnot]

Who said anything about morality?

I did, in my comment directed toward Thinker. I was responding to her argument that the health risks involved with anal sex are relevant to the moral standing of homosexual relations. Then you seemed to be responding to that argument to say that a better grounds for the immorality of homosexuality is its inability to produce offspring, which would lead to a society's demise if widespread. But if I misread you I apologize. I think we are in agreement about the biology.

From a purely biological perspective there is not a dime's worth a difference between a same-sex couple that chooses not to have babies and a heterosexual couple that chooses not to have babies. My point again is that a lesbian who reproduces at least passes her genes (and probably her ancestor's basic ideas on culture) to the next generation while a woman who does not have children won't make any imprints on future generations.

I agree completely.

[shadow]

TrueIntent -- the statement that you highlighted, where she says that being a lesbian is a privilege and a blessing, is where she has turned the corner from praying for healing and change and release from her same-sex attraction, into deciding that there is nothing wrong with her attraction, and even calling it a privilege and a blessing, and that it's nothing to be ashamed of.

That is why it's a huge problem, to those of us who know it's a grievous sin, to have this printed in a magazine read by many LDS members.

Our weaknesses are privileges and they are blessings because these weaknesses that we have help us to become more reliant in God and on His grace and mercy. We should not feel ashamed for our weaknesses or guilt either. All of us fall short of the glory of God. So, in that sense I agree with the person in the article. We should not be motivated by guilt and by shame. Those are poor and damning motivators. We should be motivated by our love for God and for others knowing that when we fall, make a mistake, act in error, etc. this isn't a surprise to Heavenly Father. Its not like He says, "Oh, wow, I didn't expect you to screw up that bad! Man, that's more than I can handle, you're on your own buddy!" No, HF doesn't say that. He knows that we will fail, falter, and make errors, that we will sin. He is ever present, always ready to guide us in the paths of righteousness, regardless of our weakness. Those weaknesses can be made in to strengths and that is how these things were designed.

However, we can't suppose that our weakness is the end goal and what we ought to become.

-Finrock

Taking pride in our weaknesses tends to twist and make the weakness an honor, which it isn't. Weaknesses aren't trophies. We are never, ever justified by weaknesses. If we don't have some sort of negative feelings for our weaknesses then there is no motivating factor to change them. The gay movement is trying and succeeding in the delusion that homosexuality isn't a weakness but a strength that should be honored and celebrated. It's sickening.


31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;
32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;
33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Isaiah saw the gay pride movement IMO but it can be applied to any weakness-

9 ¶ The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

They flaunt their weaknesses, "they hide it not". It doesn't matter what the weakness or what the sin is, celebrating it will bring a woe upon your soul.

[shadow]

It is most disappointing that LDS Living would publish this article.

"Not only are there apostates within our midst, but there are also apostate doctrines that are sometimes taught in our classes and from our pulpits and that appear in our publications" -President Benson

Granted, LDS Living isn't considered a church publication, but it shows "apostates are within our midst."

[Finrock]

TrueIntent -- the statement that you highlighted, where she says that being a lesbian is a privilege and a blessing, is where she has turned the corner from praying for healing and change and release from her same-sex attraction, into deciding that there is nothing wrong with her attraction, and even calling it a privilege and a blessing, and that it's nothing to be ashamed of.

That is why it's a huge problem, to those of us who know it's a grievous sin, to have this printed in a magazine read by many LDS members.

Our weaknesses are privileges and they are blessings because these weaknesses that we have help us to become more reliant in God and on His grace and mercy. We should not feel ashamed for our weaknesses or guilt either. All of us fall short of the glory of God. So, in that sense I agree with the person in the article. We should not be motivated by guilt and by shame. Those are poor and damning motivators. We should be motivated by our love for God and for others knowing that when we fall, make a mistake, act in error, etc. this isn't a surprise to Heavenly Father. Its not like He says, "Oh, wow, I didn't expect you to screw up that bad! Man, that's more than I can handle, you're on your own buddy!" No, HF doesn't say that. He knows that we will fail, falter, and make errors, that we will sin. He is ever present, always ready to guide us in the paths of righteousness, regardless of our weakness. Those weaknesses can be made in to strengths and that is how these things were designed.

However, we can't suppose that our weakness is the end goal and what we ought to become.

-Finrock

Taking pride in our weaknesses tends to twist and make the weakness an honor, which it isn't. Weaknesses aren't trophies. We are never, ever justified by weaknesses. If we don't have some sort of negative feelings for our weaknesses then there is no motivating factor to change them. The gay movement is trying and succeeding in the delusion that homosexuality isn't a weakness but a strength that should be honored and celebrated. It's sickening.


31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;
32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;
33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Isaiah saw the gay pride movement IMO but it can be applied to any weakness-

9 ¶ The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

They flaunt their weaknesses, "they hide it not". It doesn't matter what the weakness or what the sin is, celebrating it will bring a woe upon your soul.

Either you didn't read my post carefully or you are just making a general comment unconnected to what I've said. In any case, its is a mistake to assume that the only motivators for change and action are negative ones.

-Finrock

[captainfearnot]

Yeah, and the brownies I'm bringing to you are mostly good. Only a few have poop in them, so just spit those out.

I get the reference, and the metaphor has long been used with the youth to guide their choices regarding entertainment media. But do you really think it applies here? I don't think grappling with ideas that we disagree with is the same as consuming objectionable entertainment.

If we eschew anything that contradicts our current views, we contribute to the problem of ideological silos that plagues the political and cultural landscape today. Everyone now has the ability to surround themselves with only validating voices, if we choose, and to the degree that we avail ourselves of that ability, we become more polarized and less able to find common ground or even communicate effectively. (If everyone did this, who would the missionaries talk to?)

Everyone had to "eat the poop" just to participate in this thread. Of course I don't think we are defiled for having considered a viewpoint that we may disagree with. On the contrary, I think we are edified, because it helps us refine our own views when we analyze them in the context of contrary ideas. There is a worthwhile exchange going on here, which wouldn't be possible if we all refused to subject ourselves to intellectual adversity.

[sandman45]

one of the apostles acknowledges that "we don't know".....
I also believe that the church is currently teaching gay members to live a celibate lifestyle...that they will have to backtrack on that. This is an extreme teaching, and we shouldn't expect others to live a lifestyle that leadership and priesthood holders would struggle to live themselves (this is my personal opinion).

Why can't the Apostles ask?

We sustain them as Prophets, Seers and Revelators right?

Or maybe we already got the answer many years ago... God and his prophets are not going to force people into anything. So if the answer was already given ( I believe it was ) then we know what is happening now... the Saints (members) did not like it and now they are getting what they want not necessarily what God wants.

[eddie]

Schools are promoting homosexuality in the name of anti-bullying.

Ephesians 4:14

"That we no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine of men and by the sleight craftiness henceforth, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."
Talk to your children daily, de-brief them, if my children were young they would not be in public school.

[Elizabeth]

http://mommyunderground.com/disgraceful ... rd-spiral/

"The liberal media knows no bounds when it comes to attacking conservatives and traditional family values, withtelevision reporting and programming, have become increasingly left-leaning in recent years.
It is a rare occurrence to tune into primetime or late-night television and find anything appropriate for families to watch together. The LGBT agenda, vulgar language, provocative sexual scenes, and anti-family sentiments fill the airwaves.

But one new show set to premiere on Netflix begs the question, how much further downhill can the entertainment industry go in its effort to gain ratings with disgraceful liberal rhetoric?

A new animated series, Big Mouth, is the creation of Nick Kroll, famous for working on another anti-family cartoon, Family Guy.
And like anything that promotes the liberal agenda and offends conservatives, late-night host Stephen Colbert was thrilled to promote the show by interviewing its writer.
LifeSite News reported:

Colbert introduced Kroll with great fanfare and eventually asked about the show. “Is this the kind of show that parents would sit down and watch with their children?”
Kroll smiled and said jokingly, “Steve, I’m going to leave that up to each and every individual parent.” Then he admitted, “It’s very dirty.”

“Big Mouth” features graphic masturbation, nocturnal emissions, “puberty fairies,” a giant condom creature, and “aching pubes.” A personified masturbation pillow falls in love with its abuser and wants to be more than just a “fling.”

Kroll got a lot of laughs with the line that his show “is kind of like the sex-ed video I wished I had gotten to see, but also, like, filthy.”

After Colbert promised a donation to the Puerto Rico hurricane relief for every celebrity that posts their 13-year-old “pubescent” picture on social media, he made the sign of the cross.

Colbert and his leftist colleagues seem to think it is funny that impressionable young people will tune into the show they jokingly refer to as “filthy.”
Because of his late-night time slot, Colbert is able to push the envelope during every show with his offensive behaviors and disgusting remarks.
He was in the news earlier this year for a verbal tirade against President Trump, full of offensive language which left even the most jaded viewers shocked.

Pro-family and Christian activists are warning parents about the offensive material presented inBig Mouth and chastising Colbert for continuing to promote morally reprehensible content on television.
Besides the vulgar language and imagery described in Big Mouth — including showing the genitals of young teens — critics point to the show becoming the latest to promote acceptance of sexualizing children.

Others express fears the show will become must-see TV for pedophiles and those who view child pornography.

Big Mouth obviously degrades and objectifies young women by making them nothing more than fodder for sexual fantasies, and normalizing sexual encounters and experimentation at a young age.

Because the show is animated, it gives the impression of innocence and fun – and will likely appeal to tweens and teens. And because of the animation, the explicit images depicted are not thought to be offensive in nature to the left.

This program, however, is taking American television further down a slippery slope, where the next television show will likely show images such as these played by live actors.The more shows like this that are allowed to appear – even on less regulated cable networks – the further television programming will fall into degradation.

Newsbusters reported:
The problems with the show are as follows: 1. Explicit depictions of young teens engaging in sexual activity. 2. The producers have labeled the show as aimed at young people. 3. The writer was originally working for Family Guy. That show is not meant for young adults. From what the trailer portrays, it seems doubtful that young adults will be watching the show. More likely, adults will be watching these scenes with graphic depictions of a young teenage girl’s private parts.

In 2011, conservative author and actor Ben Shapiro wrote a book called Primetime Propaganda, in which he recorded numerous television executives from major affiliates. In nearly every interview he conducted, the media execs admitted that Hollywood pushes the liberal agenda while targeting conservatives – and they have no intention of stopping.
“Television has been perhaps the most impressive weapon in the left’s political arsenal,” Shapiro argues in the book.

With television shows increasingly pushing liberal propaganda, it becomes even more imperative for conservative parents to monitor what their children and teens are watching.

Liberal television personalities like Stephen Colbert will continue to push – and encourage – the left’s disturbing agenda with the purpose of purging the airwaves of anything promoting conservative values or that is appropriate for families and children.

Pro-family groups are encouraging a boycott of Netflix – and Stephen Colbert’s late-night programming – in the hopes that a response from American families will slow the pace of immoral television shows debuting on the airwaves.
But with the media, Hollywood studios, and corporate television networks all in the left’s back pocket, it appears the worst is yet to come."

[Mark]

6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the Lord’s vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence.

[bbsion]

It is most disappointing that LDS Living would publish this article.

Homosexuality is a joke, it is so seriously bizarre and so past ridiculous that is incredulous that any sane person could entertain this insanity. To think that anyone who lives this lifestyle could still expect exaltation in eternities, as has been suggested here on another thread, is troubleing to say the least.

It's sad that you would make this kind of a comment. For these people, it is a real experience....and for religious gay people, it is an overwhelming experience....it is real to them...and they don't take it lightly....can you imagine...there will be people all over the church and BYU campus reacting to this young girl who showed her "face"...with these same kind of hurtful comments. To have someone be called bizarre, or not sane, for something they genuinely believe is hurtful. You don't have to approve, or accept, or even believe what she believes....but it is real to her. You will find that God loves us infinitely, all of us, and I can not believe that he would send people to this earth to have an experience in which they will be never-endingly tormented by something they believe, and that feels real to them...we should assume she is doing her best....and we should do ours. This isn't the kind of comment that fosters love of others...period. Let me repeat what it feels like you are saying...."you aren't worthy of being in God's presence..your own creator...you would be insane and ridiculous to think that you, could be like him, and partake of his glory...because you believe he created you this way" This is why...the church published this article...so you could have time to learn to love others...and communicate that love..... so that people like you dont destroy the church.

I am not trying to take what you said out of context. I just wanted to address the bolded parts of your statement (not that I agree with the logic). Couldn't a similar argument be made for pedophiles and bestiality? Both of those are obviously seriously bizarre and ridiculous types of attraction. Beyond dispute, neither exist in the Celestial Kingdom. And guess what.... neither does homosexuality. You are letting your emotions cloud your judgment. Regarding those who embrace homosexuality we must forgive them for they know not what they do. Not indulge them in their sin.

[TrueIntent]

It is most disappointing that LDS Living would publish this article.

Homosexuality is a joke, it is so seriously bizarre and so past ridiculous that is incredulous that any sane person could entertain this insanity. To think that anyone who lives this lifestyle could still expect exaltation in eternities, as has been suggested here on another thread, is troubleing to say the least.

It's sad that you would make this kind of a comment. For these people, it is a real experience....and for religious gay people, it is an overwhelming experience....it is real to them...and they don't take it lightly....can you imagine...there will be people all over the church and BYU campus reacting to this young girl who showed her "face"...with these same kind of hurtful comments. To have someone be called bizarre, or not sane, for something they genuinely believe is hurtful. You don't have to approve, or accept, or even believe what she believes....but it is real to her. You will find that God loves us infinitely, all of us, and I can not believe that he would send people to this earth to have an experience in which they will be never-endingly tormented by something they believe, and that feels real to them...we should assume she is doing her best....and we should do ours. This isn't the kind of comment that fosters love of others...period. Let me repeat what it feels like you are saying...."you aren't worthy of being in God's presence..your own creator...you would be insane and ridiculous to think that you, could be like him, and partake of his glory...because you believe he created you this way" This is why...the church published this article...so you could have time to learn to love others...and communicate that love..... so that people like you dont destroy the church.

I am not trying to take what you said out of context. I just wanted to address the bolded parts of your statement (not that I agree with the logic). Couldn't a similar argument be made for pedophiles and bestiality? Both of those are obviously seriously bizarre and ridiculous types of attraction. Beyond dispute, neither exist in the Celestial Kingdom. And guess what.... neither does homosexuality. You are letting your emotions cloud your judgment. Regarding those who embrace homosexuality we must forgive them for they know not what they do. Not indulge them in their sin.

Ok...let me separate the difference. Im going to assume (maybe wrongly, but I don't think so)....but that pedophiles and people practicing beastiality do it to gratify their lusts...they don't care if the child or animal does not like it, or if it harms them. In a relationship between husband and wife, there is a physical gratification sexual act that takes place, but it is because they both consent, they both supposedly are in love...and they do it more than just to procreate...they do it to express love, and those who have married in the name of God, have made a covenant between them and God, not them and the government to uphold their marriage. Homosexuals do the same thing in relationships (some do not, just like some heterosexuals have sex with others they are not married or in a committed relationship with.). So then the next argument would be....sex is only for marriage....I would say sure...under the Law (marriage is a manmade institution with a marriage license, UNLESS you make a covenant between you and the Lord...then it becomes a sealing). ...i believe scriptural there is the law and spirit of the law...Paul says that those "under the spirit are not under the law"...As members who choose exaltation, we are supposed to be living under the law UNTIL we offer a broken heart and contrite spirit, and then covenant to follow the spirit. ( I have been studying, and will attempt to prove when I get done finishing this topic...that there are gross errors in translation that limits most members understanding on this topic...which is why people can't tell the difference between beastiality, pedophila.....and homosexuality)....its actually very hurtful to people who have experienced these judgements.

I would also argue...love the person, hate the sin mentality, means you still "remember" the sin, and cast a judgement. I have found that a better move for me, is to mentally walk in someones shoes....cast no judgement, and let the Lord be the judge of their intentions...because grace will cover what we can not...and the amount of grace is dependent upon the individual...who am I to judge. It has also helped me, after studying some of these topics in the scriptures, to see that there were deliberate translation errors--so that it would cause others to err. it tells me, exactly what Jesus Christ, that one must exceed the righteousness of a pharisee before one can enter heaven...he didn't say sinner...he said pharisee...they couldn't see their sin, but it was in the judgement they cast. Anyway....im still studying the topic...it may take me a week or so to write my thoughts, but hopefully we can be more open minded after you read what I put together. I prefer the "I dont know, or I won't judge stance, or Im a sinner who sins differently stance, or maybe it's not a sin at all, but an error in understanding".