The Nehor

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Bullseye!! Great observation! Many thanks!

For the reasons cited above, it’s wisdom in God that the rebellious members of the church be allowed to coexist with the valiant members for now because it would do the church more harm than good if the rebellious were cast out of the church at this point in time. Two likely reasons why aggressively pruning the vineyard at this point in time would do more harm than good are: 1) Many who are now in a state of arc-steadying rebellion will eventually realize the error of their ways and repent with full purpose if heart. 2) It’s needful for the valiant to be tested and tried in the refiner’s fire that will occur as a consequence of having to temporarily rub shoulders with the rebellious who will persecute the humble followers of Christ

Yes, all those persecutions you are enduring right now. Care to lay them out for the whole class? I bet they make the martyrs of the fifth seal look like amateurs by comparison. They were only murdered for their faith. Imagine if they had faced real persecutions like the “woke” menace and people saying mean things on the interwebz.

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I see nothing to object to in this post.

It's been a banner day- both you and Teancum got "Likes". Miracles really DO happen! 🍻

Okay, THAT IS IT! Now you are going down. I am going to…..

Wait, what did you say?

Oh……uhhhhhhh……never mind.

51 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Just because all fallen desires will, eventually, disappear doesn't mean our choices to act on those desires in this life won't have an affect on our immortal state.

But I suspect you know our teachings well enough to know that.

I grant that in most models we have of the afterlife evil desires are eventually removed but I think it very much matters how and when and why they go away.

In most conceptions of the Spirit World I am familiar with your evil desires go with you and either are burned away by the Atonement somehow or you atone for them yourself through hell or some combination of the two. Those desires instantly vanishing on death is not something I get from the Book of Mormon’s teachings on death and the spirit or what is taught in other scripture or from the teachings of the apostles.

This won’t change much of anything. It is basically an application of common-law marriage to Quebec because Quebec unlike all other Canadian provinces operates under the Napoleonic Code which has barriers to common law marriage. The only US state that operates under the Napoleonic Code is Louisiana and I have no idea if they have some kind of common law setup.

Recognizing couples as defacto married for legal purposes probably helps genealogy more than it hinders it. You have more records establishing that people are married.

12 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You are manipulating words...

No one here is claiming that one needs to repent of attraction- one need only repent if they acted on that attraction- straight or gayqueer.

True, though that is a recent innovation. President Kimball didn’t teach that. Back then the attraction itself was sin brought on by evil choices. Glad I didn’t die back when that was the standard. I would be so damned. Or more damned.

That isn’t what I was talking about though.

I am asking why God would consider it a grave sin if it will literally die with the fallen body. Surely logically the worst sins are stuff that the spirit will continue to crave after death like using other people or preying upon them.

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Does CFR have any meaning here any more? 
Of course it’s only been a 24 hour wait.

If it helps I have looked for declarations that all same gender attraction will end at death and the only quote I could find was from a Seventy.

Also this seems a strange thing to need to repent for if that is the case. Doesn’t repentance mean changing? If you did suddenly lose that attraction at death how did it harm the spirit at all to practice it in mortality? It is fixed magically at death. Problem solved. Why be so up in arms about how dangerous it is?

Also generally when people seek to forsake sin in general there is over time a lessening of the desire for that sin. Yet this basically never happens with this one particular sin. Makes you think…..

33 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It's pretty cool when our chosen God just so happens to not like all of the same people and things that we don't like.

It's almost as if He's sometimes created in our own imagine... er, I mean, we're created in His.  Except for people doing stuff we don't approve of.  They're created in a different image.

It was eye-opening when I realized that for many the primary difference between God and Satan is that God is going to win. God is the stronger bully so join him and you get to win too.

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

My belief is that exalted men and women will be resurrected with anatomically correct human bodies, including fully functional reproductive systems. Even now we all know that on this fallen earth healthy men have millions of living, active human seeds flourishing within their bodies at any given moment. This means all that would be necessary for exalted men and women to be able to theoretically produce millions of spiritual offspring would be for the reproductive systems of exalted women to be modified so as to to produce millions of eggs, and then countless millions of progeny would then be possible.

It’s key to understand that exalted men and women possess glorified resurrected bodies of flesh and bone, but their children will be spirits, and since spirit has far less material mass than flesh, this may very well mean that millions of spiritual offspring would be able to grow within an exalted woman’s womb because the physical mass of spirit bodies is materially far less dense than the matter of resurrected bodies. Because the physical mass of spirit is far, far less materially dense than the matter we are accustomed to in this universe, it may be theoretically possible to compress the finer physical mass of millions of gestating spirit children into the limited space of an exalted woman’s womb. It’s also theoretically possible that the millions of spiritual seed produced by exalted men, and the millions of spiritual eggs produced by exalted women, would be able to combine to form new life and gestate to maturity in a sacred places that exist somewhere outside of the wombs of exalted women.

I anticipate that there will be many here who will dismiss my ideas are crazy, but I have to chuckle because, following puberty, the physical body of the fully human Jesus Christ had millions of living male seed living and moving within his body at any given moment, thereby powerfully demonstrating it’s possible for the eternal God to have a functioning human reproductive system, without his functioning human reproductive system robbing him of his holiness and divinity.

That sounds like exalted beings are actually some kind of human-insect hybrid.

7 hours ago, gopher said:

I hate to interrupt the slap fight between Nehor and SMAC,

Why? Someone should. They be crazy.

On 4/8/2024 at 8:56 PM, Calm said:

Point 83

I would love to know how credible most scholars find this book given from what little I have been able to find it paralleled a lot of the sentimental anti polygamy novels at the time, where women were dying upon learning their husbands had taken another wife, etc.

I think I will read some of it tonight to see how credible it reads.

https://archive.org/details/womenofmormonism00froi

a brief dip….

Does anyone know a woman who fits this description….a prominent apostle, bosom friend of Joseph, who married a 17 year old recent convert from an Eastern state, on her own as she had left her family, in Nauvoo.  She had refused at first and only said in jest she would marry him if there was a revelation.  Three days later she was called to a meeting with other church leaders and told there was such a revelation.  Other details was she stayed with him till he died 20 years later.  So she would have been 37 when he died in about 1860-1865.

Heber C Kimball has several possibilities as long as I don’t insist on 17 years old and not precisely 20 years, but haven’t checked to see if they were with family or not.  Anyone heard a story about him getting turned down and then accepted by a 17 year old on her own?

I started reading the book but haven’t gotten too far. I found the idea that Utah polygamy was worse than the chattel slavery of the South a little odd….and wrong. Also I admit to a chuckle at the author suggesting that monogamous marriage in the rest of the United States was a model of gender equality. Marriage in 1882 being an equal relationship…….yeah…..no.

Also had to have the fun islamophobic digs at people in Turkey and Syria.

Also kind of cute how they talk about the founding of “Mormonism” as an elaborate scam to bring in polygamy and that the early believers were inoffensive and had equality between men and women until Joseph Smith dropped the bomb and brought out the evil within.

It is a nice piece of propaganda. It flatters the listener and tells them what they want to hear.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  This is me not assenting to your censorious proclivities.

I don’t think the word “censorius” means what you think it means.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Surgical procedures."  The form of eugenics that dares not speak its name.

Eugenics and the practice of transgendering children

Well, that is an article. Who wrote this weird thing? Ah, that name sounds familiar. Should look that up and……

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Sheila Jeffreys?

LOL

Welcome to the alt-Left Smac! Well, I can’t actually welcome you since I think they are all crazy and won’t pretend I am one of them.

Sheila Jeffreys is a political lesbian. In other words she thinks women should abstain from all sexual contact with men. All of it.

She thinks transgender people are just replicating heterosexual norms and she does not see that as a good thing. She also doesn’t like regular heterosexuality. She sees transgender surgery as the equivalent of painful beauty practices women practice like leg waxing. She claims gay male culture has poisoned lesbian culture.

She has also called marriage a form of prostitution.

You know how I and some others have criticized you for only seeing things from a masculine point of view, making women’s issues about you, and passing judgment on women for holding views you think are unfair without understanding why? This woman would have done that except on steroids. She dehumanizes men and mind-reads ALL their motivations. She does the same thing to all transgender people. One of her critics described her movement as full of: "anti-intellectualism, emphasis on innate knowledge, fetishisation of tiny ideological differences, heresy hunting, conspiracy theories, rhetorical use of images of disgust, talk of stabs in the back and romantic apocalypticism.”

Here is what she thinks of gender:

“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. They are gender abolitionists, and understand gender to provide the framework and rationale for male dominance. In the radical feminist approach, masculinity is the behaviour of the male ruling class and femininity is the behaviour of the subordinate class of women. Thus gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create.”

She wants to abolish it. Mandatory non-binary status for all!

“The opposite of heterosexual desire is the eroticising of sameness, a sameness of power, equality and mutuality. It is homosexual desire.”

Homosexual Superiority!

“The bonding of women that is woman-loving, or Gyn/affection, is very different from male bonding. Male bonding has been the glue of male dominance. It has been based upon recognition of the difference men see between themselves and women, and is a form of the behaviour, masculinity, that creates and maintains male power… Male comradeship/bonding depends upon energy drained from women.”

Male bonding is vampiric and sucks energy from women.

“Male supremacy is centered on the act of sexual intercourse, justified by heterosexual practice.”

Heterosexual sex itself destroys any hope of men and women being equal.

She is nuts!!!! Oh wow, you sure can pick them smac.

Now on to the article:

“There is the expectation that they will be moved onto cross-sex hormones at 16 and receive surgery to amputate their genitals at 18.”

That is not anything like a universal transgender journey or even desire. Then again she thinks transgender men are lesbians who want a male body so they can get women. She is not playing with a full deck.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

If an adult wants to sterilize himself or herself, and if he is mentally competent to consent to the medical procedure, we are still left with the ethical question here.  I think this deserves some discussion.

It does but you aren’t discussing it. You are posting article dumps.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't expect you to.  I was, however, hoping that other readers might review some of the links and come to their own conclusions.

They probably know how to use Google.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I pretty much never "debate" you in any meaningful sense.  You essentially never have anything substantive to say.  Just potshots, insults, and provocations.

Untrue, you rarely respond to my rebuttals of your article dumps. You just dump more articles. You aren’t discussing. I end up rebutting other people. I am the one actually engaging.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Other readers, however, might be more open to the materials I provided.

Hopefully I pointed out the folly of that.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I noted previously: "We are getting lots and lots of mixed messaging about the long-term effects and efficacy of 'gender affirming care.'"

On the one hand we have the majority of the developed world’s medical and psychiatric establishment and on the other hand we have insecure men who are weirdly afraid of drag shows and anything that blurs masculinity and femininity joining hands with alt-left loonies who consider heterosexual sex an oppressive evil and want to abolish gender completely. So who can know who we should trust? A lot of mixed messaging if you trust all messages equally. /s

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

If medical treatment is ethical and worthwhile, I will either support it or be indifferent to it.

I don’t think you will. I think that even if the entire medical establishment unanimously agreed that gender-affirming medicine was ethical and worthwhile you would still reject it on religious grounds. Don’t pretend you are weighing the evidence on this. You’re not. You are looking for supporters for a viewpoint you already hold.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

As it is, however, people like you don't want to have discussions about this topic.  You just want to shout down any viewpoint you dislike, using emotionalisms, insults and taunts

As I said you don’t actually discuss these issues. I don’t shout you down. I shoot down your message. You don’t defend it. You just go back to repeating your position without addressing anything others say and go on posting articles about things you don’t understand.

I love discussing these issues. I don’t need to shout you down. I actually understand (to an extent) the topic we are discussing.

Quote

See?

Yeah, no. You don’t get to propagandize against medical care that helps people and whine that people who desperately want or need said care and the loved ones of those who want or need said care and then get weird over how those people don’t think you are their friend or ally or that they aren’t ‘respecting your position’ or something. Grow up.

On 4/5/2024 at 6:19 PM, Calm said:

The stats on being ProLGBTQ rights with Utah being the second most supportive, only behind Hawaii, even in front of California (86% vs 79%).

This is self-reported. Many Utahans are either personally convinced they are pro-LGBTQ rights when they are not or are genuine but elect people who don’t actually represent that view.

Utah ranks in the bottom half of states on LGBTQ rights by most of the measuring systems used to rate LGBTQ rights by state. Utah is in the bottom half of all the ones I know of.

1 hour ago, longview said:

Which I do rely on. Please read my third sentence. It can be very disconcerting when the captioning goes off pace or it has glitches or even stops working every so often.

Wait, people read past the first sentence of a post before responding?

Weird.

8 minutes ago, longview said:

But it did force EVERYBODY to wear masks.  Thus preventing the hearing-impaired people from being able to lip-read.  Even with captioning turned on, it is still NOT quite a 100%. 

They had closed captioning.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I believe Brigham encouraged women unhappy in plural marriages to marry monogamously if they could.  Too spaced out to find the quote now.  Maybe someone else remembers?

Basically he granted the divorce and told them not to get plural married again and then come back for another divorce.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Lots of women divorced without penalty.  Utah was the divorce capital of the US for awhile because Brigham made it so easy for women to do so.  

This is true but this depended heavily on whether the woman had somewhere to go or if divorce would leave her destitute.

In the 1800s divorce was outright illegal in most of the United States. There were “divorce colonies” you could go to to get a divorce. Indiana was popular for a while. Later so was Nevada and the Dakota territory.

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You would condemn yourself if you deliberately stopped being righteous, and then you wouldn't be helping anyone and the earth woul be "utterly wasted".

If I am going down I am taking the whole earth WITH ME!!!!!

*evil laugh*

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I would say that until there are a people willing and striving to do all the musts to the best of their ability as opposed to finding excuses not to do them that we will never be prepared for the return of the Savior.

Since the Savior will burn the wicked when he comes wouldn’t deliberately not being righteous enough put off the Second Coming and thus be an act of charity towards said wicked.

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Notably mentioned “they are not magic.” 

Wait, I thought they were trying to convince people to wear them. Why would they say this?

5 minutes ago, why me said:

It is actually happening. When we look at Africa, there can be a intolerance of difference. If we look at the middle east, there is great intolerance toward difference. And if we look at certain countries in Asia, it is no different. But I think that church members are rather tolerant of difference and much more non-judgemental. I don't see the lds church excommunicating LBTG members. And I am sure that if a gay or lesbian couple would join the church, they would be welcomed. I have never heard of any discrimination

Africa’s intolerance of LGBT people is to a large extent imported from British colonialism. American religious leaders have encouraged harsher anti-gay laws in various African nations. It was actually a nice reminder for those here not to trust these people. They would do the same in the US and elsewhere if they could. Some members of the Church are involved with these efforts.

And no, the experience of LGBT LDS in South America and Africa is not generally one of acceptance and love. In Africa it is often ‘hide it completely’ or risk imprisonment or death.  When you are in a homophobic culture the local church leaders generally do little to nothing to blunt that stigma.

If you have never heard of any discrimination then yeah….you are just guessing. And you are guessing wrong. Read stories.

Here we go. Here is the response on garments.

10 hours ago, why me said:

The lds church is a world wide church with members outside the Western paradigm. I think that in many parts of the world there is much more intolerance toward 'others' whoever ehy may be or whatever they may be. But I think that inside the lds church there is a great deal of tolerance, regardless of geographical location. If a gay lds couple marries in a civil marriage outside the lds church and are members of the lds church, I don't see an excommunication forthcoming if they are having sexual relations. I just see acceptance of their 'difference'.

You see this actually happening or you imagine/like to think it is happening?

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Some are doing the passport thing.  Most men just can't afford that option.   So they just stay home and are just not dating at all.  That is why there are lots of videos on youtube of women complaining about where have all the men gone.   They are still around.  They are not dead.  They just are not apparently going to deal with the mindset of many younger women today.  They don't see the benefits being greater than the risks and they have their porn which is good enough for them.   We will see the day when half of all 50 year old women in the country will be childless and single.   It is coming.

And I am pretty sure it hurts the men more. The women complaining about how there are no good men to date would probably say they are happier being single than lowering their standards.

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

No sex slaves here.  Except when we agree to be. 🤪

I have no idea what you are talking about and have certainly never been and/or had a sex slave. NEVER!!!!!!

😈