Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,588 Excellent

About cinepro

  • Rank
    It's pronounced "cinepro"

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern California

Recent Profile Visitors

11,220 profile views
  1. Ultimately, these discussions about the Church and people with SSA lead me back to the sad realization that the Church still doesn't have much to offer someone with those attractions. Your post is an excellent elucidation of that fact. When discussing homosexuality, with all due respect to Brother Johanson, it really isn't worthwhile to distinguish between desire and attraction. What he describes is more of a thin attempt at mental gymnastics to reconcile what the Church teaches with what is obvious to him from his own experience. I mean, he makes an analogy between his attractions to other men, and his attraction to apple pie. There is a word for people whose desire for sex is similar to their desire for apple pie. It's called "asexual". And the word used to describe a marriage between a person with a normal sex drive and someone who desires sex about as much as someone desires apple pie is "divorce." And I suspect (but hope I'm wrong) that the word used to describe someone with a normally functioning but homosexual sex drive who is told that eternal happiness awaits only if they can suppress those desires for the rest of their lives is "suicide" at worst, and "ex-mormon" at best. Frankly, his whole talk is kind of embarrassing, and I suspect people would have been rolling in the aisles if his talk wasn't so obviously necessary, because we're desperate for someone to tell us that "Yes, there is a way to reconcile the reality of homosexuality with a belief in the LDS version of the Gospel."
  2. I mean when I see it during the millennium. If people change and suddenly married men are no longer taking second glances at the voluptuous neighbor bending down to do her gardening, and engaged couples no longer have any desire to have sex until the moment after they get married, and people no longer have any desire to eat things they shouldn't eat, or drink things they shouldn't drink, and I stop getting emails from African Princes with offers to help get money out of the country, then I'll push back my hat, scratch my head, and say "Well aaaaahhhl be...!" Until then, I'll chalk it up to a scriptural turn of phrase that people think they understand but really doesn't make much sense.
  3. A question for those who support the theory that Satan and his minions are the source of actual temptations such as the desire to engage in homosexual behavior. Is it your belief that these temptations can be eliminated through some combination of righteousness and Priesthood power? For example, do you believe that a righteous Priesthood holder could eliminate homosexual desires by raising his arm to the square and casting out the temptation using the Priesthood? I'm not referring to being able to resist the temptation. I'm talking about having the actual evil spirits and their attendant influence removed so that the temptation is fully removed. The follow up question for anyone who would say "yes." Why has the Church totally abandoned this idea in its approach to homosexuality? Wouldn't the most effective and logical approach be to tell LDS who experience these temptations to simply live righteously and use the power of the Priesthood to eliminate the desire?
  4. It appears LDSLiving is published by Deseret Book, so while it's not on par with a proclamation in General Conference, I think having this article published is at least tiny indicator that the meeting hasn't met with any acrimony from Salt Lake City.
  5. Which has more scriptural support? The idea that homosexuality is bad, or the idea that black skin is curse from God?
  6. That's one of those ideas that I don't think works, so I'll have to believe it when I see it. Besides, I'm not even sure how solid the idea of "Satan being bound" really is. I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it … I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it.
  7. I'm just saying that I believe if Satan took a month off and he and his minions agreed not to "tempt" anyone, people would still eat stuff they aren't supposed to (like meat during the summer), drink stuff they aren't supposed to (like coffee and alcohol), and still love like they should not love. When I'm tempted to eat a steak in July, I don't think it's Satan putting that idea in my mind. I think it's because I'm hungry, and steaks taste good. When I'm tempted to click on a link that promises to show me Kate Upton's bikini top falling off, I don't think it's an invisible, disembodied spirit that makes me think about clicking it. I think I've got more than enough natural hormones and heterosexual interest in the female form to inspire me to think about it. And maybe it's the Holy Ghost that reminds me that God doesn't want me to click that link, but I would also probably remember that it would be disrespectful to my wife to click on it, and that might be enough. But if tomorrow I woke up and suddenly, for the first time in 40+ years, I had an intense desire to engage in homosexual activity, then I might be convinced that an evil spirit was tinkering with my thoughts.
  8. I'm just saying that the things President Nelson is referring to don't need a theory involving evil spirits to explain why humans do them. If someone wants to argue that such spirits are needed to explain such behavior, I would be interested in seeing the evidence for that. There may be other things that humans do because evil spirits tinker with our minds and get us to think and do things we otherwise wouldn't, but as far as "eating", "drinking" and "loving" things that we shouldn't, from what I can tell the human brain seems more than capable of having those tendencies and addictions on its own. Supernatural explanations are usually only needed to explain things that are otherwise inexplicable.
  9. He prefaces his comment by classifying these appetites as being "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life." In order for humanity to survive, we need to do three things: eat food, drink water, and have procreative sex. So that limits how creative we can get in interpreting what "love" he was referring to.
  10. As I pointed out, the idea that external forces are influencing us in that way is extremely problematic, regardless of whether you theorize they are influencing the "use" of our appetites or giving us the appetites to begin with. In the end, it's a distinction without a difference.
  11. Here is what President Nelson is quoted as saying: If "love as we should not love" isn't referring to sexual attraction, then what is it referring to? What other kind of "love" is there that Satan would use to attack us, and what other kind of "love" is there that is equated with an "appetite"? What other kind of "love" is "necessary for our survival"?
  12. It wasn't a "rhetorical question" if you were trying to make a logical argument for the "evil spirit" theory of where sexual urges come from. The idea that there are righteous and evil spirits battling over whether or not we are attracted to men or women (and whether or not we are married to that man or woman) raises a lot of un-rhetorical questions that people usually ignore.
  13. That does appear to be true, considering the number of children that are the result of un-married unions (including several good LDS I've known who had unmarried parents at the time they were born). At the very least, the "evil spirit" theory would more logically lead to evil spirits doing everything they could to either give people homosexual urges, or to get them to not have heterosexual sex.
  14. Time for a Richmond VA Temple

    The rumor is that in the case of the Newport Beach, CA Temple, yes, they took checks. (Newport Beach is a very affluent area filled with LDS who didn't like driving up to west LA).
  15. Think about what you are saying here. What is adultery or fornication, and how does it "happen"? You are suggesting that our desire to have sex with another person comes from the influence of disembodied spirits, either angels or devils, that exist among us and at inopportune times somehow dip their fingers into our brains and monkey with the works to make us feel sexually attracted to someone. Is that really the best explanation for what happens? What happens then, when a man and woman are engaged? From what I understand, it is often common for two people, even devout LDS, to feel intense sexual attraction during courtship. So, according to your theory, these attractions are being instigated by Satan and his minions. But then they get married, and that night, they still feel the exact same attractions. Only now you are suggesting that at the point they got married, the baton was passed from all the evil spirits hanging around to the Holy Ghost who is now encouraging them to have righteous intimacy. Everything is fine with the righteous spirits juicing up the couple for each other to make them want to have as much sex as possible (sometimes the righteous spirits are hitting the button on one half of the couple a little more than the other, but that's nothing a little counseling can't help with), until one day, one of the partners sees an attractive person that they are not married to. Suddenly, the righteous spirits are shoved out of the way, and the evil spirits return and start hitting the exact same buttons to make them feel like having sex with this other person. But then they go home that night and their spouse is looking pretty good, and the good spirits rush back in and hit the "sex" button that was previously being pushed by the bad spirits. Does that sound like a good explanation for how adultery happens? (And if satan's minions had that kind of power, why wouldn't they just make everyone attracted to the same sex? Why bother with hetersexual attractions which can lead to marriage and procreation according to God's plan when they could short-circuit God's plan and win just by giving people homosexual urges? Although it occurs to me I may have been the first person to ever realize this and the spirits that have been haunting my office trying to get me to look at the picture of the French figure skater whose top fell off might be reading this even as I type. What have I done..?) Anyway, how about this as an alternate explanation about how "adultery happens"? Our bodies are an intricate, massively complex system which includes a massively complex, hormone riddled sex drive that is both very basic, and very complex, but which operates solely without any influence from supernatural forces. And while there is a lot that appears to be common in the human experience when it comes to sex, there is a lot that is unique and not well understood. But "adultery happens" from the exact same drives and urges from which married sex happens. It is no different, except that it is directed to someone they are not married to, and they don't resist the urge. Just as sometimes married people have to control their urges to have sex (health reasons, staying at the in-laws, etc.), unmarried people also have to control those urges. Is that really too far-fetched?