Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If we decontextualize things sufficiently well, we can imagine all sorts of things about G-d's views on sexual misbehavior.

Notice, please, that G-d merely points out the likely consequences of poor choices.  He doesn't necessarily make them happen, at least not in the Mormon view of things.  David, I imagine, would be puzzled by your using his excellent quote to justify unwarranted and insupportable novelties.

Look I quoted the line because it works well with how I view scripture.  You don't like how I used it, please show me how it is erroneous.  I used it for convenience at this point though, because Gray posted upthread and it works perfectly.  

 

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Eating pork  ...  plainly negotiable.  Eating poop  ...  plainly nonnegotiable.  

Turning fundamental cosmology and temple covenants on their heads:  more akin to eating poop, in my view.

That comparison is rather offensive to me.  But to each his own, as they say

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Look I quoted the line because it works well with how I view scripture.  You don't like how I used it, please show me how it is erroneous.  I used it for convenience at this point though, because Gray posted upthread and it works perfectly.  

We owe a duty to contextualize others' statements when using them to support our positions in arguments.  If our use is sufficiently decontextualized such that the real meaning by the real person who wrote or said something does damage to that person's intent, we are being dishonest.

Quote

That comparison is rather offensive to me.  But to each his own, as they say

Your inability to recognize scriptural references astonishes me.  Please re-read Ezekiel.  I was plainly and unambiguously comparing Peter's tablecloth vision with Ezekiel's barbecuing over people poop coals.  Peter ate upon command [pork as a negotiable]; Ezekiel did not eat [poop as a non-negotiable].  We have to presume an honest critic is sufficiently well versed in the most basic underpinnings of how Mormons view the world if we are to take him seriously.  So, please, spare us the Crocodylus dakruonoi.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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?

 

Exorcisms are overrated.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not clear on what you mean by "I'll  have to believe it when I see it."

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

 

 

If you disbelieve a point of doctrine, so be it. Just say so. But don't imply or pretend that the Church doesn't teach or embrace the doctrine just because you personally don't believe or understand it.

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you disbelieve a point of doctrine, so be it. Just say so. But don't imply or pretend that the Church doesn't teach or embrace the doctrine just because you personally don't believe or understand it.

 

Are you stating that the Mormon belief is that the only reason there is sin in this world is because of Satan and that if he wasn't here, there would be no sin at all anywhere on the earth?  For example, it is not possible for a person to think or act upon premarital sex without satan's help?

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, cinepro said:

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.

 

 

There is enough inclination to sin in our mortal forms without the devil bugging us to damn people during the Millenium. I expect the enticement to sin to be much weaker in the Millenium and after death. It will still exist but it will be like C.S. Lewis describes temptation when heaven is at hand:

“Pains he may still have to encounter, but they embrace those pains. They would not barter them for any earthly pleasure. All the delights of sense, or heart, or intellect, with which you could once have tempted him, even the delights of virtue itself, now seem to him in comparison but as the half nauseous attractions of a raddled harlot would seem to a man who hears that his true beloved whom he has loved all his life and whom he had believed to be dead is alive and even now at his door.”

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you stating that the Mormon belief is that the only reason there is sin in this world is because of Satan and that if he wasn't here, there would be no sin at all anywhere on the earth?  For example, it is not possible for a person to think or act upon premarital sex without satan's help?

I do not. I do believe there would be less sin.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you stating that the Mormon belief is that the only reason there is sin in this world is because of Satan and that if he wasn't here, there would be no sin at all anywhere on the earth?  For example, it is not possible for a person to think or act upon premarital sex without satan's help?

I never said that or anything close to it.

What I did say is plainly written in black and white for anyone who cares to read it.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

We owe a duty to contextualize others' statements when using them to support our positions in arguments.  If our use is sufficiently decontextualized such that the real meaning by the real person who wrote or said something does damage to that person's intent, we are being dishonest.

Well, I'm not being dishonest.  It is what it is.  You have a problem and I don't realize it, I welcome some schooling.  If you're wrong, then I'll be able to see.  

Quote

Your inability to recognize scriptural references astonishes me.  Please re-read Ezekiel.  I was plainly and unambiguously comparing Peter's tablecloth vision with Ezekiel's barbecuing over people poop coals.  Peter ate upon command [pork as a negotiable]; Ezekiel did not eat [poop as a non-negotiable].  We have to presume an honest critic is sufficiently well versed in the most basic underpinnings of how Mormons view the world if we are to take him seriously.  So, please, spare us the Crocodylus dakruonoi.

That has nothing to do with the problem with the comparison.  

 

I guess I got in trouble again, USU.  So I'll just edit this post to help clarify.  It's not the language that is offensive.  it's the idea of comparing a non-negotiable in the Bible - eating poop, to being gay that I find offensive.  If it works for you, fine.  But just know it doesn't for me.  

Edited by stemelbow
I can't post anymore.
Link to comment
7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well, I'm not being dishonest.  It is what it is.  You have a problem and I don't realize it, I welcome some schooling.  If you're wrong, then I'll be able to see.  

That has nothing to do with the problem with the comparison.  

Of course it does.  It's the central question.  Peter, faced with what to do about full fellowship with goyische proselytes, receives the vision that proselytes should have full fellowship.  Ezekiel, accompanying the exiles to Babylon, receives the vision that the captor nation's ways preclude full fellowship with them:  thus the Jews will remain Jews in an alien camp until freed.

Greeks:  negotiable; Babylonians:  non-negotiable.  Pork:  negotiable; People-poop-barbecue:  non-negotiable.

Nothing wrong with earthy metaphors, except for city boys' squeamishness.  You aren't obligated to take offense at the Bible's actual language.

You will be removed if you continue with the sly insults.

Link to comment

I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between desire and attraction here. 

Joshua Johanson explains this quite thoroughly in his FAIR presentation entitled "Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire."

In general, it seems that eliminating all temptation isn't really a part of God's plan. Do you believe that God can heal people of physical illness or injury? If so, why does the Church still encourage people to seek the best medical treatment?

Edited by kllindley
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Of course it does.  It's the central question.  Peter, faced with what to do about full fellowship with goyische proselytes, receives the vision that proselytes should have full fellowship.  Ezekiel, accompanying the exiles to Babylon, receives the vision that the captor nation's ways preclude full fellowship with them:  thus the Jews will remain Jews in an alien camp until freed.

Greeks:  negotiable; Babylonians:  non-negotiable.  Pork:  negotiable; People-poop-barbecue:  non-negotiable.

Nothing wrong with earthy metaphors, except for city boys' squeamishness.  You aren't obligated to take offense at the Bible's actual language.

Except God was apparently okay with using human dung for fuel, it was Ezekiel who had a cow about it, so God was nice and allowed him to use cow dung as an alternative...apparently the point he wanted made about just required dung as fuel.

"Very well," he said, "I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement"

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4.htm

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except God was apparently okay with using human dung for fuel, it was Ezekiel who had a cow about it, so God was nice and allowed him to use cow dung as an alternative...apparently the point he wanted made about just required dung as fuel.

"Very well," he said, "I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement"

http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4.htm

 

I was getting ready  for supper...but..ya know..I rhink not..hot lunch to ye;all!!:P

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said that or anything close to it.

What I did say is plainly written in black and white for anyone who cares to read it.

 

Obviously it was not clear to me.  That is why I asked for a clarification from you.  I am trying to figure out what you think the relationship is between satan and sinning.  If you don't want to clarify, then you certainly have that option.  Pointing me back to the post that I was confused about does not clear up your comment.  How could it?

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Obviously it was not clear to me.  That is why I asked for a clarification from you.  I am trying to figure out what you think the relationship is between satan and sinning.  If you don't want to clarify, then you certainly have that option.  Pointing me back to the post that I was confused about does not clear up your comment.  How could it?

I don't concede that my post wasn't clear.

When you start out a question with "Are you stating that ..." and then go off on something that bears no relationship to or does not reasonably follow from what I did say, I have to conclude that your object is not so much to seek clarification but rather, to distort.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede that my post wasn't clear.

When you start out a question with "Are you stating that ..." and then go off on something that bears no relationship or does not reasonably follow from what I did say, I have to conclude that your object is not so much to seek clarification but rather, to distort.

Ha.  Scott wins funniest post of the day with this response!

Link to comment

 

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between desire and attraction here. 

Joshua Johanson explains this quite thoroughly in his FAIR presentation entitled "Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire."

In general, it seems that eliminating all temptation isn't really a part of God's plan. Do you believe that God can heal people of physical illness or injury? If so, why does the Church still encourage people to seek the best medical treatment?

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. 

Quote

The point is we don’t choose our attractions. It would be like trying to debate why I like apple pie. I don’t know, I just do, but I can still choose whether I want to eat it or not.

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." 

 

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

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." 

 

Thanks for the straight-splaining. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you disbelieve a point of doctrine, so be it. Just say so. But don't imply or pretend that the Church doesn't teach or embrace the doctrine just because you personally don't believe or understand it.

 

Scott,  your posts suggest that you are knowledgeable on the LDS understanding of Satan.  

I have a few questions if you don't mind.  Let' suppose a person is Satan agnostic.  Can they be baptized into the LDS church?  Can they receive temple ordinances?  Can they achieve celestial glory? 

Is there an upside to belief in Satan?

Is there a downside to disbelief?

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.  

The problem with this absolute statement, cinepro, is that there are many gay LDS who do find that the Church has a lot to offer them, and they remain active and worthy despite their undeniable SSA. Of the gay members within the Church, this is not a small number. I have some in my ward, and have had more in past wards. You and others make it seem and sound bleak and hopeless for all of them as a group, and I know many who take issue with this. They find joy and value in keeping their covenants in the Church --- really and truly, not just whistling past the graveyard (granted, some are also whistling past the graveyard, too).

When discussing homosexuality, with all due respect to Brother Johanson, it really

isn't worthwhile to distinguish between desire and attraction.

Isn't it best to let them explain for themselves how they make it work for them? Even if you don't like their analogies?

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.

Suicide at worst, and ex-mormon at best? No other alternatives or shades of experience and outcome possible at all? I don't think the hypberbolics are helpful. I know one (a mother of two) who, after being reinstated from disfellowshipment, had a heart-to-heart with the stake president about how it's going to be making it to the age of 94 not being able to act on how she really feels. But, she is anything but suicidal or trending inexorably ex-mormon. She has a strong testimony, and that's why she is going to endure. Because it's worth it to her, even though it is hard. 

Is Josh Johanson still married and active? That would be wonderful! 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, USU78 said:

We owe a duty to contextualize others' statements when using them to support our positions in arguments.  If our use is sufficiently decontextualized such that the real meaning by the real person who wrote or said something does damage to that person's intent, we are being dishonest.

Your inability to recognize scriptural references astonishes me.  Please re-read Ezekiel.  I was plainly and unambiguously comparing Peter's tablecloth vision with Ezekiel's barbecuing over people poop coals.  Peter ate upon command [pork as a negotiable]; Ezekiel did not eat [poop as a non-negotiable].  We have to presume an honest critic is sufficiently well versed in the most basic underpinnings of how Mormons view the world if we are to take him seriously.  So, please, spare us the Crocodylus dakruonoi.

USU78, have you ever played Balderdash? I think you should make one up with all the words you come up with. Between you and Kiwi, you're making my head spin. Where do you two come up with these words, lol!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...