Jump to content

Anonymous Mormon

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Anonymous Mormon's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. Jesus taught in Mat 5 that there are instances where divorce is acceptable but the people of his time were doing it too liberally: 31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. In the recent thread on LGBT issues, the issue of divorce was discussed and examples were given of divorces in cases where a spouse comes out as gay, where one of the spouses chooses not to have sex, etc. I want to better understand people's view on when divorce is acceptable because an individual is not being fulfilled sexually or their marriage no longer matches their sexual preference, versus when it is wrong and selfish to get a divorce. For example, I have a close family member who is likely going to divorce. Her husband says that she has gained too much weight and is no longer attracted to her, which is a root cause of the issue. Is it okay for a husband to say he is no longer attracted to his wife because she is fat and thus wants a divorce or is that selfish? (I personally put this in the selfish category) In our community a man came out as gay. He announced on Facebook that he loved his wife and the family they created and that his wife was his 'best friend,' but after all these years and multiple kids he was getting a divorce because he was gay. Everyone posted positive glowing comments about how brave this man was. Is the fact that this man acknowledges that he is more sexually attracted to other men than his 'best friend' wife a good reason to divorce or is this selfish? (I personally put this in the selfish category as well, just like the above) What about some other examples of marriages where the couples have been married for a decade or longer, have multiple kids, are good friends and get along well, and go to church and hold temple recommends, but they feel their sexual needs are not being met. For example: A woman just does not like sex and they don't have sex more than once a year - is the husband selfish for getting a divorce? A man feels like his sexual needs are not being met unless he has sex at least 3 times a week, but they are averaging sex once every 10 - 20 days - is the husband selfish for getting a divorce? A man feels that his sexual orientation is women in their 20s and his 45 year old wife who is otherwise an average looking person just doesn't meet his needs - is the husband selfish for getting a divorce? (note: I use the term sexual orientation in the way I have heard it being used recently with pedophiles - it seems to be becoming the prevailing belief in scientific literature that pedophilia is an orientation that can't change (like being gay) - so one would expect that sexual attraction to young 20 years olds can also be a sexual orientation? - I don't want to even search the term so I am not going to Google the studies to show this, someone else can do this) A man feels his sexual needs are not being met because his wife won't participate in certain types of sex acts or specific sexual positions - is the husband selfish for getting a divorce? A woman feels betrayed sexually because her husband regularly views pornography but he feels that that his sexual needs are not being met by just having sex with his wife and he disagrees with the church's stance that pornography is sin - "it's how men are," he says and he thinks the church just wants to shame men into obeying otherwise petty commandments (and his bishop continues to let him renew his temple recommend) - is the wife selfish for getting a divorce? So when is divorce wrong and selfish and when it should be pushed for and even celebrated on Facebook because someone is finally living up to their true potential for sexual fulfilment, orientation, and preferences?
  2. @Tacenda- From most of your posts, you seem to be anti-tithing and do not think that the church should ask for tithing or expect members to pay it. Your comment above and this quote seem to back up this viewpoint. (if I mis-state your view, I am sorry - just going off of your posts). I feel good about my tithing because I believe that it allows God's word to be spread amongst the nations and for ordinances to be performed. This is why I pay tithing, to assist my brothers and sisters around the world in hearing the Gospel and receiving their ordinances. But, Tacenda, I ask you to do a thought experiment with me for a minute. Imagine that God does indeed love all his children and wants them to get his word and ordinances. Assuming that this is the case, how would he do this without tithing. How would he handle things such as: Missionary training? Handing out Books of Mormon and / or Bibles? Having places for his saints to meet after they accept his word (especially in fledgling branches)? Would God's church have a website - who would build it? Legal expenses for those that sue His church? Would God want to have mobile apps for communicating his word amongst his children? Who would build it? How would God get the temple ordinances to the people? How would God provide adequate training world wide to try to prevent issues like clergy abuse? Etc. I just can't imagine how God could take his word to the world if everything was built 100% on donated time and local donations which would usually barely cover local needs (like they used to do for buildings). How do you see God taking his word to the world without some kind of funding for it and if so, where does this funding come from? I personally have no qualms giving 10% of my income to the church to be used in spreading God's word. I do not donate my tithing money to be used for humanitarian needs. As Jesus said, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." The work of the church is to do the Lord's work that he did on the earth, not to feed the poor (Christ didn't spend his time feeding the poor - he spent it preaching his word). I donate time and money outside of my tithing for the purpose of feeding and clothing the poor.
  3. I don't understan what you mean by this. I said "I hope that we can all respect the opinions of each other and assume good intent. Regardless of where everyone is on this spectrum, I don't think they are coming from a place of hate and don't wish any harm on any LGBT individuals." And you respond with the above about 'impact,' 'discrimination against homosexuals,' 'neglicence,' and a a need for more love. Do you consider BYU having an honor code that students have to abide by to be discrimination? What about alcoholics, fornicators, the lazy who don't get good grades, atheists, men with beards, nudists, Satanists, cheaters, and those who live with opposite-sex roommates? Does BYU discriminate against anyone in the above categories? Unless there is some dark secret of things happening today at BYU to homosexuals that I am not aware of, I really feel like rhetoric with claims of "discrimination" is exactly the lact of respect and assuming good intent that I would like to see less of in conversations like this.
  4. As I stated a few posts ago, I don't think that most people who are demanding a revelation at this point would actually accept one: For me personally, I accept the Proclamation on the Family as guidance from God's prophet and thus revelation. Here is what President Hinckly said when he proclaimed it to the world: I think it's pretty clear from President Hinckley's quote that the prophets, seers and revelators of this church have all agreed with the standards outlined in the proclamation. Most people who are asking for a revelation would only accept anything as revelation if it agrees with their opinion and if it didn't they would reject it. The majority of the people I know in the church are actually not looking for a revelation to confirm what has been warned and forewarned. Instead, they follow the admonition of Alma: We have the testimonly of the current Brethren, the past prophets and the scriptures. They all say homosexual practices are sinful. Why is additional revelation even needed? (especially if most people demanding it won't accept it any way unless it jives with their pre-conceived notion)
  5. I agree with this completely. As can be seen from this board, there are a spectrum of opinions on this event.. I hope that we can all respect the opinions of each other and assume good intent. Regardless of where everyone is on this spectrum, I don't think they are coming from a place of hate and don't wish any harm on any LGBT individuals.
  6. There are lots of things the church has never received a specific revelation about. Here are four that I can come up with off the top of my head: Physical Abuse of children Spousal abuse (emotional & physical) Beastiality Pedophilia Does that mean that the above is or is not a sin? I think all of these have lots of conference talks and other church teachings about them. The church has not changed its teachings on same-sex relationships. It has always taught that it is a sin. The issue at hand is that the world changed its norms and now wants the church to change theirs. And the common refrain from many is that because there is no 'revelation' then it isn't a sin, even though the church has had that doctrine since the beginning. Ironically, the majority of the people on this board who demand a revelation on this topic are the same ones who claim that President Nelson is not able/worthy of getting revelation from God. I would bet that the majority of this people, like yourself, who are asking for a revelation would not accept it as from God if President Nelson came out with one. So the burden is back on you. Would you accept a revelation saying "Same-sex relationships are not from God and will never be accepted by God for ever eternally" if it came from President Nelson? What if it came from all 15 brethren? Describe a situation in which you would accept a revelation from the church against same-sex relationships? (My guess is that you like others advocating for this couldn't accept one because you have made up your mind on the issue and don't believe the church can express God's will)
  7. In my opinion, this post is exactly what the "we show love and support for the LGBT community" "this is not a protest" protest was all about. The people who organized it disagree with the honor code and with the church's stance on same-sex relationships. They say that the church has never had a revelation on the topic and want the church to change their opinion. So they are organizing a day to show love and support and if you don't join in you are hateful.
  8. Although it is couched as "showing love and support to those that identify as LGBT" I think this is actually a passive-aggresive protest against the BYU Honor code and the church's law of chastity. According to KUTV (LINK) in the original invitation Tweet to this event the group planning the "not-protest" said: The founder further said: I personally feel like this is an attack on the honor code, which is a direct reflection to the standards outlined in the new church handbook. I am closely connected to BYU and am a strong supporter of the Proclamation to the Family and would not feel comfortable supporting this group or activity. On the other hand, if the group had said something close to what California Boy says they are saying and if they had actually said: The Prophet has stated several times that members should show love and support to the LGBT community. We as a BYU community want to show support to those LGBT students and faculty who seek to uphold the church's standards, BYU's honor code (and handbook), and the principles taught in the proclamation on the Family the world. We know it is not easy to be LGBT and to uphold God's standards and that not all who try do it perfectly. But we honor, love and support you all for your efforts to live up to the standards taught by the Prophet, the church, and the commandments of God. Now that kind of statement I could get behind and would support 100%. The current statement is much more of a protest of the BYU Honor code hiding as a message of Love and Support with actual implications that if you support the church's standards you are "hating" those who are "marginalized" "vicitims" of the BYU Honor code: (in other words, the actions taken by BYU's Board of Trustees [I assume this means enforcing the same honor code rules as they were before the change] are directly affecting marginalized victims) PS - Although I do consider this a protest hidden under the guise of "show us love or you are hateful of those marginzalized and victimized by BYU's honor code" just so it can be allowed on campus, I think it is very effective. I also applaud the impressive lighting of the Y as a form of protest because it was not violent or destructive, but definitely received attention. Even if I don't like the message, I must recognize that the tactic is super impressive and effective. I wish all protests on both sides of the aisle were as creative and didn't resort to name calling, destruction, and illegal activity like this protest did.
  9. The Equality Act just passed the House again and is headed to the Senate. This makes me wonder, if it passes in its current form in the Senate, what specific real-world impact would it have on the Church (and the Church's appendages such as BYU)? What are specific real-world scenarios we would expect to see with its passing that will influence church policy, members, and institutions? IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not interested in people's opinions about the Church's stance on the Equality Act or LGBT issues - that was already hashed out here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71857-church-statement-on-equality-act/ (and I doubt anyone has changed their views) If you want to talk about your feelings and opinions on whether the church is right or wrong on LGTB issues, start a new thread please. This thread is only intended to discuss real-world impacts that this specific legislation would / could have on the church if it passes. Thanks!
  • Create New...