Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/209-213-dr-william-bradshaw-a-life-of-science-service-and-compassion/

Please watch Part 4. It is so informative about the discussion that was previously locked.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

http://mormonstories...and-compassion/

Please watch Part 4. It is so informative about the discussion that was previously locked.

I don't know that I can do that. According to some I am a died in the wool bigot homophobic (review some of the recent posts in now closed threads). Besides I think I have lost the key that opens my mind. The last I saw it it was somewhere between my scriptures and my inspiration.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know that I can do that. According to some I am a died in the wool bigot homophobic (review some of the recent posts in now closed threads). Besides I think I have lost the key that opens my mind. The last I saw it it was somewhere between my scriptures and my inspiration.

I certainly hope that I didn't label you as a bigot or homophobic. If I did so, I sincerely apologize.

[Tacenda]

I don't know that I can do that. According to some I am a died in the wool bigot homophobic (review some of the recent posts in now closed threads). Besides I think I have lost the key that opens my mind. The last I saw it it was somewhere between my scriptures and my inspiration.

My...your mind is closed and locked shut (on this subject) but I hope not for good. This Dr. Bradshaw is a true believing LDS just as yourself. If you ever get time and want to listen I'd love your opinion.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I certainly hope that I didn't label you as a bigot or homophobic. If I did so, I sincerely apologize.

I don't know whose posts they were. Usually once the scuffle is over I only remember it in generalities. I am comfortable enough with who i am that I don't let others characterizations of me merit any angst on my part.

[BCSpace]

The Lord and his Church has rejected homosexuality as a legitimate condition for eternal life. I accepted this with an open mind long ago. There has been no change in the Church or it's doctrine nor has there ever been a need for it. There has been no new information in many decades that I haven't considered or has put the Church into conflict with anyone but those who reject God and support, encourage, and nurture a sinful lifestyle. We have always had compassion for any sinner and have not compromised with sin. That is the deck that has been dealt and despite many attempts, no additional cards have been added to it. One should feel free to start a different church if one doesn't accept the LDS Church.

Edited August 13, 2012 by BCSpace

[wenglund]

http://mormonstories...and-compassion/

Please watch Part 4. It is so informative about the discussion that was previously locked.

I watched the first 12 minutes open-mindedly looking for information related to the previous discussion, and found precious little. Is the information you had in mind towards the end? If so, could you summarize it for me.

Granted, Dr. Bradford did talk about several things about homosexuality that he believed were myths. It wasn't all that clear whether he had in mind alleged myths about SSA and/or SS behaviors. One of the supposed myths was that homosexuals weren't born that way. I suspect that he was there referring to SSA's rather than SS behaviors. Even still, while he may be convinced it is a myth, the debate is far from over. And, besides, as mentioned in the previous thread, it isn't relevant to public policy issues since they concern behaviors/relationships.

He also said it was a myth that homosexuality is perverse. While this may be true for SSA, it is demonstrably false with SS behaviors and relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My...your mind is closed and locked shut (on this subject) but I hope not for good. This Dr. Bradshaw is a true believing LDS just as yourself. If you ever get time and want to listen I'd love your opinion.

I think he means that he knows what the scriptures teach on the matter and that is enough. God created or instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, Christ is Matthew 10 reaffirmed that doctrine...it does not matter what any well meaning member say, unless the Prophet or the 12. They have their orders that will not change.

[Tacenda]

I watched the first 12 minutes open-mindedly looking for information related to the previous discussion, and found precious little. Is the information you had in mind towards the end? If so, could you summarize it for me.

Granted, Dr. Bradford did talk about several things about homosexuality that he believed were myths. It wasn't all that clear whether he had in mind alleged myths about SSA and/or SS behaviors. One of the supposed myths was that homosexuals weren't born that way. I suspect that he was there referring to SSA's rather than SS behaviors. Even still, while he may be convinced it is a myth, the debate is far from over. And, besides, as mentioned in the previous thread, it isn't relevant to public policy issues since they concern behaviors/relationships.

He also said it was a myth that homosexuality is perverse. While this may be true for SSA, it is demonstrably false with SS behaviors and relationships.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Keep listening Wade, you'll hear it touches on nearly everything in past discussions. If you listen I'll take back every bad thing I said about you, wink wink. That was one of my dad's old expressions he'd say only to people with a sense of humor.

[Tacenda]

I think he means that he knows what the scriptures teach on the matter and that is enough. God created or instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, Christ is Matthew 10 reaffirmed that doctrine...it does not matter what any well meaning member say, unless the Prophet or the 12. They have their orders that will not change.

I got that and applaud him for it. And should have said something .

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I got that and applaud him for it. And should have something.

There are many grey areas in life and gospel debate...this is not one of those issues.

[wenglund]

Keep listening Wade, you'll hear it touches on nearly everything in past discussions. If you listen I'll take back every bad thing I said about you, wink wink. That was one of my dad's old expressions he'd say only to people with a sense of humor.

Rather than risking wasting any more of my time (I willingly watched a third of the video and you failed to deliver), how about you give several examples of his comments that you believe touch on past discussions in a meaningful way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Rather than risking wasting any more of my time (I willingly watched a third of the video and you failed to deliver), how about you give several examples of his comments that you believe touch on past discussions in a meaningful way.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Still ain't going to cut it. If you'd listened to all of it I might need to deliver! But I'm going to go to a family party here soon, so I'll come back and check to see if I still need to.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[TAO]

Still ain't going to cut it. If you'd listened to all of it I might need to deliver! But I'm going to go to a family party here soon, so I'll come back and check to see if I still need to.

Tacenda, though you may want them to listen to it all for this thread, you do realize that they don't have to listen to it all to make a valid argument. They are quite correct... the argument isn't over, and I suspect the argument will continue for a very very long time, because people will continue to disagree with each other.

Respectfully,

-TAO

Edited August 13, 2012 by TAO

[wenglund]

Still ain't going to cut it. If you'd listened to all of it I might need to deliver!

Fine. You just gave me a disincentive to risk wasting any more of my time watching the video. So, I am out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

http://mormonstories...and-compassion/

Please watch Part 4. It is so informative about the discussion that was previously locked.

Tacenda

I spent an hour watching the podcast you recommended. It was an hour of Dr. Bradshaw giving his opinion so I claim the right to respond with my opinion. It was a very impassioned and eloquent plea for, what I see as, special dispensation for homosexual people to be awarded special dispensation based on sexual preference.

I listened to a man who, to me, was hurting because his son is not able to participate in a full LDS experience because he has chosen to reject LDS teachings. I can certainly relate as I have children who have made choices that has put them outside the church experience and I long for the day that they might repent and come unto the tree of life and partake. It would certainly be easier to get them there if the church would relax the silly rules about the Word of Wisdom and chastity. In fact the church could sure make my life easier if they would only relax some of those standards. I am the quintessential Neanderthal and have this urge to have my posterity spread across the world but find that hard to do within the strictures placed upon me by the church. My point here being that just because one has trouble controlling ones appetites, whatever they may be, it does not warrant changing church standards.

I certainly agree that some members of the church could certainly treat their homosexual brothers and sister better. They could certainly be more tolerant of people like my kids who have their set of problems. Tolerance however does not translate to legitimizing immorality.

Now this turn to what this movement wants from the church. What comes across to me is that they want the church to legitimize homosexual behavior and accept same sex marriage as a legitimate door to all church ordinances including temple ordinances. There is of course the denials of this but it can not help but be in the back of their minds. The clues are there. Also I have been watching this for fifty years and it is always just one step more.

I posted somewhere on another thread that it had always puzzled me that someone would join a religion then start in to change that religion in to something that it now is not just to accommodate their favorite sin.

My mind is still with my scriptures and my inspirational guidance. I can not see changing the church to accommodate someone else's sin while holding me to mine.

[Tacenda]

Fine. You just gave me a disincentive to risk wasting any more of my time watching the video. So, I am out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What? Because the end is pretty conclusive, but whatever. Can I ask why? I guess I don't understand what I said to turn you away from listening

Edited August 13, 2012 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

What because the end is pretty conclusive. But whatever.

No. Because all you have given me so far is reason to believe I may be wasting more of my time. You can't even muster a couple of examples. If it isn't important enough to you to do even that little bit when you are the one wanting me to watch the rest of the video, then it certainly isn't important to me. Again, I am out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2012 by wenglund

[USU78]

What because the end is pretty conclusive. But whatever.

When and if homophile advocates, by homosexual and other, choose to accept the proposition that G-d has spoken on the issue and has never withdrawn His Word on the subject, and that they themselves fall short of G-d's Word, I don't think there's any room for conversation.

If you cannot humiliate yourself sufficiently to recognize the fault lies in yourself and not in the ( a ) Church, ( b ) Society, or ( c ) Family, then you can never accept any other person's opinion. IOW, when they stop accusing ( a ) Church, ( b ) Society and ( c ) Family of being responsible for their narcissistic tendency to both threaten and follow through on threats of suicide, then maybe I'll listen.

So long as the slander remains unwithdrawn, they make themselves my enemy.

[ERayR]

What because the end is pretty conclusive. But whatever.

Tacenda Read my post above. The end was pretty conclusive of what? Not all of us suspend reason when emotion is involved. Just so I am not accused of being hard-hearted too please note I cry for commercials. One can be emotional and at the same time able to sift and examine the issues. I was not unmoved by the mans apparent pain and emotional pleas.

[Tacenda]

No. Because all you have given me so far is reason to believe I may be wasting more of my time. You can't even muster a couple of examples. If it isn't important enough to you to do even that little bit when you are the one wanting me to watch the rest of the video, then it certainly isn't important to me. Again, I am out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would but I'm away from my computer and cannot listen to the specific portions, in one ear and out and need to be reminded of things.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Tacenda

I spent an hour watching the podcast you recommended. It was an hour of Dr. Bradshaw giving his opinion so I claim the right to respond with my opinion. It was a very impassioned and eloquent plea for, what I see as, special dispensation for homosexual people to be awarded special dispensation based on sexual preference.

Can we all get forgiven for our weaknesses...this is the real question. If there is a God...he has standards. Men are not naturally wired for monogamy...yet somehow we do it. If my nature has me being attacted to every woman I deem beautiful, then I was born this way; right. Same sex attraction is real...we may not be able to control how we feel but we can control how we act.

[ERayR]

No. Because all you have given me so far is reason to believe I may be wasting more of my time. You can't even muster a couple of examples. If it isn't important enough to you to do even that little bit when you are the one wanting me to watch the rest of the video, then it certainly isn't important to me. Again, I am out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade it was an emotional plea and emotional issues do affect some people.

[selek1]

Wade it was an emotional plea and emotional issues do affect some people.

Mostly those who prefer emotion to reason, and the praise of Babylon to the laws of God.

[KevinG]

Did someone just imply my mind was closed?

I am all for opening my mind as long as its not so far open my brains fall onto my shoes.