Jump to content

T-Shirt

Members
  • Posts

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About T-Shirt

  • Birthday 10/26/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Everett, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,449 profile views

T-Shirt's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post

Recent Badges

615

Reputation

  1. Were they gay before or after you kissed them?
  2. I was watching the Easter program by the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square and I noticed something I found to be interesting. During the program, they had six people narrating the account of the resurrection from the Book of John. They quoted exactly, word for word, from the King James Version. There was one place, however, that they varied in one word. While quoting John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father", they changed the word, "Touch" to "Hold". This is not earth shattering, but I found it interesting that they chose to make that change. In everything else I am aware of, when something produced by the Church reenacts scripture, they always follow closely the wording of the King James Version. Maybe this has been done before, but I am not aware of it. The change seems to tell the story more accurately and aligns more closely with many other translations. Other translations render it as, "Do not hold on to me", "Don’t cling to me", "Do not cling to me", "Stop clinging to Me", "Do not hold Me", "Stop holding on to me" and so on. I have often heard people comment on why Mary wasn't allowed to touch Jesus, however, I don't think there was ever any restrictions on touching. To me, it seems, the account shows that Mary embraced Jesus, and held Him tight. It appears that, in the interest of time, Jesus had to cut the hug short so He could go do the other things He needed to do. I think it was more like Him gently telling Mary, at a certain point, that she had to let go of Him, as there were other pressing matters. You can see it here at about the 19:03 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDkqt7ie78I
  3. Now that's the Response we all knew was coming. Well played!
  4. What does funding women's sports have to do with allowing biological men to compete in women's sports? Why have you completely changed the subject? Could it be that you can't defend your position on the real topic? At least give us a comeback with some famous Nehor insults and lame humor.
  5. That is easily double the number of members in the population. Ignoring this real biological occurrence would be equivalent to saying members of the church are not worth considering and statistically insignificant. Both statements may be true. But if you are intersexed, then it becomes just as impactful in your life as being a member of the Church. People have been medically transitioning every since it was medically possible. It is not just a recent thing. Lili Elbe was the first well-known recipient of male-to-female sex reassignment surgery, in Germany in 1930 That is 5% of all Sexual Differentiation cases, not total births. There are many types of sexual differentiation, which are classified as rare. A true hermaphrodite is the most rare of all DSD's. According to one study, it is estimated that DSD's represent about 1 in 5500. That would equate to roughly 1.4 million DSD's in the world and true hermaphrodites are just 5%of that number or about 72,000. That's about one in 110,000.
  6. He was God, but not exalted. There is another possibility, which I have heard of and am open to, but do not necessarily subscribe to. The idea is that Jesus, like the Father had lived a mortal life on another world and was married and exalted. In our pre-earth life, He gave up his resurrected body, to aid the Father in His plan for us and came to our earth as a mortal again. This would negate his need to be married in this world. I believe he was not exalted until after His resurrection and ascension to the Father. I am open to the possibility that He was married in mortality, and if I had to choose one or the other, I would say, yes. However, I don't think it was necessary for Him to have been married while on earth, if it was His primary mission to come to earth to make an atonement and establish His church, then it is consistent with Church doctrine that his marriage could have happened in the next life.
  7. You don't know, "exactly". You know very little. I generally don't watch many women's sports. However, when my daughter played, I went to every game, from t-ball through high school. I was very interested in her games. If she had gone on to play in college or professionally, I would have continued. I am concerned about women's issues in general. Most people are. This is detrimental to women's sports and to women's issues in general. It throws a giant glass of ice water in the face of all women. Whether a person is in favor of equal funding or not is a totally separate matter and has no relevance to this. In addition, there are no, "hysterics", just another of your usual overgeneralized, hyperbolic statements. Non sequitur This is utter nonsense. The problem here is that when you have no argument you resort to insults and odd attempts at humor. There is no "spike in people demanding fairness" that is your, totally made up, overgeneralization.
  8. You don't know these people and what their interests are. You have no idea, at all, when they took an interest in women's sports or their level of participation, you just make stupid general observations based on nothing other than your misinformed political ideology and what you can find on Google, weeding out , of course, what you consider to be right wing nonsense. I hear more complaints and concerns from parents of girls who are heavily invested in sports than anything. They are ignored. My daughter played sports throughout school and went on to coach Junior High basketball. I went to all of her games as she grew up and this concerned parent will tell you, allowing biological men to play women's sports is a terrible idea. It will ruin women's sports and will have the effect of tossing aside any concern for biological women and their personal development. They are feeling abandoned and betrayed.
  9. Of course it is. I understand that the answers are not satisfying to some. Those are my words and it is only part of the answer. You know perfectly well the answer to this, it has been given over and over again. I understand that you and others are not happy with the answer. You are speculating here, something the Church is very careful not to do, it only creates more problems. God created all people and all are His children, however, we don't know if God created people to be gay or to be born blind or epileptic or any manner of other things. We don't know. The Church is not going to make up an answer. To quote Elder Renland, "Reason cannot replace revelation. Speculation will not lead to greater spiritual knowledge, but it can lead us to deception or divert our focus from what has been revealed... Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive." Clearly not. Elder Oaks just spoke to this. We do know, and it has been taught repeatedly, that if a gay person stays in the Church and remains faithful to the commandments, no blessing will be withheld from them. He also explained that the Church does not promote living the requirements of the lesser kingdoms, that is not their purpose. However, as he explained, if there are those who choose to live their mortal lives in a way that is incompatible with exaltation, as the Church understands it, they will still be blessed with glory, "all of which are more wonderful than we can comprehend." It will be better than anything we can experience in mortality. We understand through modern revelation that no one will be lonely. They will be surrounded by and visited by loved ones. We don't know exactly what this will look like as little has been revealed. We cannot force revelation. We are intended to live by faith and it is not the plan for us to know everything. What the Church teaches on the matter is very clear. They do not have all the answers, but what is known is clear. Not true. It offers the chance of exaltation to all of God's children. For those who choose otherwise, it offers glory beyond comprehension. That may not satisfy you, but it is actually a lot that is offered. You no longer believe in revelation, so I understand that this troubles you. For the faithful Latter-day Saints, we trust that God has revealed sufficient for now and believe more will yet be revealed, but we have to be patient and faithful. The leaders of the Church have stated that they pray regularly to know the Lord's will on these things. They are not going to make up answers just to satisfy those demanding more answers. We don't know how life is created in the eternities and I don't believe we will know this until the Lord comes, and maybe not even then. But we do know that there is a divine pattern in father, mother and families. This is where, we believe, the greatest blessings can be found. It is not helpful to be insulting. I am honestly trying to answer as best as I can. I am trying hard to not be defensive. It is statements like this that can provoke and arouse defensiveness in others. I will try to avoid doing so. They have said, repeatedly, that we don't have all of the answers. That does not equate to no answers. Based on what has been revealed, many answers are given, unsatisfactory as they may be some. I don't agree with you at all that they are, "condemning an entire population of God's children." I don't know you well, but it appears, by your statement, that even though you have lost your faith in the Church, you haven't lost your belief in God. I am glad of that.
  10. From the Church website: According to this explanation, the Proclamation on the Family is clearly established doctrine.
  11. First of all, there is no need to be insulting, it is not helpful and does not entice me to want to further interact with you. That being said, I cannot access any of the studies that you posted. All I can read are the abstracts, several of which admit to the controversial nature of their position.
  12. They have answered it, unfortunately it is not satisfying to some. What clarification do you expect? A gay lifestyle does not mesh with the restored Gospel. This, understandably, puts the Church and gay members in an awkward position. There is no good answer that will satisfy all involved. In order for the Church to maintain its core beliefs about the plan of salvation, it must always remain that this lifestyle is not compatible, no matter how good the people are. They have to try, as best as they can, to be loving and inviting without compromising what they believe to be eternal truth. Elder Oaks explained that the Church operates with the purpose of promoting exaltation and that all teachings, doctrines and ordinances are focused on that one thing. The ordinances are designed to bring us to exaltation, and therefor, a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the divine destiny of the faithful, rightfully, cannot be included in these ordinances. I am sure many wish it could be, but it is not compatible. About all that can be said is that those with same-sex attraction who wish to remain in the Church and work towards exaltation, must of necessity, remain celibate their entire life, unless they can, in the rare occasion, marry a member of the opposite sex and make it work. That isn't tenable for most. This is a hard thing, I understand that and I believe the leaders of the Church understand it as well. It is heartbreaking. As much as we wish those of this community would desire to remain in the Church, it is understood that some may have to find their own path of happiness outside the Church. and I respect that decision. We don't love them less. This is quite clear, there can be no more clarity. I think those who say they want more clarity are only asking for the Church to condone their desired lifestyle. I don't think that will ever happen. Some have suggested that the Church could offer a compromise by allowing gays who are married or dating in a chaste relationship to be baptized and hold callings just not receive temple ordinances. This, in my opinion, would make matters worse. There would soon be problems of a class system in the Church and it will never satisfy the advocates of a gay lifestyle. It would create even more criticism from outside the Church with even more cries of bigotry and homophobia. It would create more problems than it tries to solve. Unfortunately, there is not a good satisfying answer for all involved, but the position of the Church is crystal clear.
  13. This statement is a social construct. A very new one that society is being bullied into believing. Fortunately, for now, only a very small portion of society believes it.
  14. 38.7.7 Individuals Whose Sex at Birth Is Not Clear In extremely rare circumstances, a baby is born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex). Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary. Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity experience emotional conflict regarding the gender decisions made in infancy or childhood and the gender with which they identify. Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency.
  15. That is utter nonsense and a terrible argument. Uhhh... they were married. This is truly bizarre. You are here arguing that Adam and Eve were not married when you don't believe they even existed.
×
×
  • Create New...