Satan Really Is An Evil Genius

[Gray]

And how does something trump love?

If acting a certain way is believe to e bad for someone (say getting drunk and driving) is it love to attempt to stop a person from doing so because he is harming himself and may tragically harm others or is it love to step aside and let the person continue to act in such a way because he feels good when he does for some reason and he gets angry when you try and stop him?

 

On the other hand, gay people in committed gay relationships experience positive outcomes and better emotional health. It turns out that marriage is good for more than just straight people.

 

If gay marriage were actually harmful to those in it, then you might have a point. But it's the opposite. 

Edited May 23, 2014 by Gray

[Tacenda]

I think part of the point of religion is to develop to the point where you are confident in your own moral compass. If your moral compass amounts to, "whatever I'm told is right is good enough for me" then I think there has been no moral development at all.

Thank you Gray...

[Gray]

I have a friend who loves beer. But, when he returned to activity in the church, gave it up because he loves the Savior and obeying his commandments more than he loves beer.

When we are able to look past our own will and our own desires we will truly be able to say, "not my will, but thy will be done." And that is love.

 

I don't believe gay marriage is contrary to the will of God.

[Gray]

Wait, what? Religion of the heart? Seriously? Who said that?

 

And no, it is not about being true to what we feel is good and right. It is about humbling yourself to accept a better good and right beyond our full understanding. We certainly wouldn't need revelations if "Follow your heart" was what the faith was about. According to people I know in Wicca that sounds more like their creed.

 

I think that's the opposite of what it's about. Just following orders will only make you as good as the people you've fallen in with. If you can't be trusted to figure out what's right and wrong, then you probably can't be trusted to find the right leaders who will reliably tell you what is right and wrong.

 

Where does revelation manifest itself, if not in the heart? Especially on moral issues. 

 

Faith is in vain if it doesn't lead us to be able to discern right and wrong for ourselves. 

[Gray]

When folks resort to arguing over the purported offensiveness of a word--despite it having been shown to be properly used in a scriptural context--and impute the wrong motives to its user (shall I say, pervert the motives of its user?), they have lost the real argument on content. You still haven’t a valid argument that worthy people with SSA are denied temple marriage whereas I have shown that they are not, in theory and in practice.

 

I never said I was using “inflammatory” (intended to arouse angry or violent feelings) language, but that my use of what was called a “charged” (filled with excitement or emotion) word was proper, because that is how the verb “pervert” (and its related forms) is used in scripture.

 

Technically the word "cult" can be applied to any religion. Are we wrong then to take offense when the word is aimed at us?

[CV75]

Technically the word "cult" can be applied to any religion. Are we wrong then to take offense when the word is aimed at us?

I don't worry about it, especially on board threads.

[Gray]

I don't worry about it, especially on board threads.

 

I think most do take offense. But, I'm not your dad, so I won't say more about it. 

[CV75]

I don't think Jesus ever said there was anything greater than love. Or any other great religious leader, for that matter. 

And He clearly used the husband/wife, bridegroom/bride and marraige imagery to emphasize that and how love and covenant are one and the same.

 

I think part of the point of religion is to develop to the point where you are confident in your own moral compass. If your moral compass amounts to, "whatever I'm told is right is good enough for me" then I think there has been no moral development at all. 

“Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” (Isaiah 50:11). This does not contradict or countermand D&C 56:26, 27, but gives us a context in which our agency is properly directed in relation to the revealed covenants.

 

If gay marriage was actually harmful to those in it, then you might have a point. But it's the opposite. 

We are our brothers' keepers; what people do affects more than just themselves, as well as what concenting adults do, as well as how God structures His covenants with and for His children.

 

I don't believe gay marriage is contrary to the will of God.

You've been saying that, but have not provided a solid basis for that belief other than your own moral compass.

[CV75]

I think most do take offense. But, I'm not your dad, so I won't say more about it. 

I've risen above it, that's all.

[The Nehor]

I think that's the opposite of what it's about. Just following orders will only make you as good as the people you've fallen in with.

So if you follow orders from a perfectly good Being you will be as good as He is. Not seeing the problem.

[Gray]

And He clearly used the husband/wife, bridegroom/bride and marraige imagery to emphasize that and how love and covenant are one and the same.

 

“Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” (Isaiah 50:11). This does not contradict or countermand D&C 56:26, 27, but gives us a context in which our agency is properly directed in relation to the revealed covenants.

 

We are our brothers' keepers; what people do affects more than just themselves, as well as what concenting adults do, as well as how God structures His covenants with and for His children.

 

You've been saying that, but have not provided a solid basis for that belief other than your own moral compass.

 

Re: bridgegroom imagery. That's an argument from silence.

 

Re: Isaiah: That's some great, poetic imagery. As far as what the text is trying to convey, that's a matter of interpretation.

 

Re: moral compass. What better basis can there be for each of us individually? 

[Gray]

So if you follow orders from a perfectly good Being you will be as good as He is. Not seeing the problem.

 

The problem with that idea is that a perfectly good being does not issue orders. 

 

And the other problem with that is if you still need God to lay it all out for you after some time as a believer, you haven't been progressing as a moral agent. I think Jesus articulated a framework for working out the answers to these issues ourselves. 

Edited May 23, 2014 by Gray

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So if you follow orders from a perfectly good Being you will be as good as He is. Not seeing the problem.

And how do you determine what that perfect being wants if not through the Holy Ghost?

[Ahab]

And how do you determine what that perfect being wants if not through the Holy Ghost?

And how does any person know when they are being directed or following directions from the Holy Ghost or what the Holy Ghost agrees with?

Or to put it more simply, how does anyone know when they are following God, our Father, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost and whoever else is conveying a message from our Father?

That's what the final judgment will finally determine, I think. If any one of us is following Satan while believing they are following God then in the final analysis they will still be found to be following Satan while believing that is who they should have been folliwing. And likewise, if any of us is really following God our Father right now then we will still be found to be following God our Father through those our Father has spoken through.

All of us are free to change directions and follow either our Father or Satan at any time, whether it's on only one issue or on many issues.

[CV75]

Re: bridgegroom imagery. That's an argument from silence.

 

Re: Isaiah: That's some great, poetic imagery. As far as what the text is trying to convey, that's a matter of interpretation.

 

Re: moral compass. What better basis can there be for each of us individually? 

Not all moral compasses function well (See D&C 93:29-39). So a better basis than an individual moral compass spinning on its own is a moral compass aligned with others to a true source--an individual moral compass is useless because there is no other witness for standardizing purposes. This sifts out the problems you see with interpertation.

 

Obviously it would be unproductive to discuss how well another person’s moral compass is functioning, which is why we show what the covenants actually are instead. You haven’t shown that God’s covenants draw the compass to point to gay “marriage.”

 

"Argument from silence?" Are you taking a class or something? LOL -- as pointed out in earlier posts, scriptures and history abound with Bridegroom and related imagery.

[canard78]

So how about instead of just getting rid or not using an abbreviation of the word "homosexuals" we instead go ahead and get rid of homosexual behavior entirely. I've already eliminated that behavior in my personal life...

 

That's thrown a bit of a curve ball.

 

I didn't realise you were attracted to people of the same sex.

[Gray]

Not all moral compasses function well (See D&C 93:29-39). So a better basis than an individual moral compass spinning on its own is a moral compass aligned with others to a true source--an individual moral compass is useless because there is no other witness for standardizing purposes. This sifts out the problems you see with interpertation.

 

Obviously it would be unproductive to discuss how well another person’s moral compass is functioning, which is why we show what the covenants actually are instead. You haven’t shown that God’s covenants draw the compass to point to gay “marriage.”

 

"Argument from silence?" Are you taking a class or something? LOL -- as pointed out in earlier posts, scriptures and history abound with Bridegroom and related imagery.

 

It's true that individual moral compasses can be defective or broken. I think the point of religion is to learn to develop your own so that it works properly. But simple obedience, while a starting point, quickly becomes a crutch that can actually keep your moral compass weak and undeveloped. You have to stand on your own two feet if you want to learn to walk.

 

I think Jesus is reported to have taught principle a that does point to gay marriage. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Simply put, those gay members who follow the church's counsel and abstain from marriage have very negative outcomes, and those who do find a same sex spouse tend to have very positive outcomes. 

 

True principles don't lead the majority who practice them to unhappiness. But members those who abstain from marriage, by and large, are unhappy.  

 

Re: argument from silence: "An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence." That kind of reasoning is fallacious. You're not taking me from point A to point B. 

Edited May 23, 2014 by Gray

[Ahab]

That's thrown a bit of a curve ball.

I didn't realise you were attracted to people of the same sex.

It's always amazed me that some people think women are or should be the only people to see men as sexually attractive. I'm not sexually atttracted to all men but there are many who are sexually attractive to me, and many are sexually attracted to me as well. Which is as it should be. I and many other men are very obviously sexually attractive and only the... well let's just say there is no good reason any person should not be able to see that, whether they are men, themselves, or women. Edited May 23, 2014 by Ahab

[The Nehor]

The problem with that idea is that a perfectly good being does not issue orders. 

 

I could not disagree more. That is the only kind of being whose orders can be followed without worry. I would say "without question" but in my experience God likes questions as long as they do not interfere with obedience.

 

A lot of the scriptures are orders. Should we chuck them?

 

And the other problem with that is if you still need God to lay it all out for you after some time as a believer, you haven't been progressing as a moral agent. I think Jesus articulated a framework for working out the answers to these issues ourselves. 

 

Eventually you do not need God to lay it all out for you because you are becoming like God. We do not get very far on this path in this life so it is good to have God check your math.

 

If by "ourselves" you mean a person and the Holy Ghost with a pinch of prayer then I agree. If you mean without those aids then I disagree.

Edited May 23, 2014 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

And how do you determine what that perfect being wants if not through the Holy Ghost?

 

Theophany works...so do angelic visitations, the Light of Christ does a bit of it too.

[CV75]

It's true that individual moral compasses can be defective or broken. I think the point of religion is to learn to develop your own so that it works properly. But simple obedience, while a starting point, quickly becomes a crutch that can actually keep your moral compass weak and undeveloped. You have to stand on your own two feet if you want to learn to walk.

 

I think Jesus is reported to have taught principle a that does point to gay marriage. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Simply put, those gay members who follow the church's counsel and abstain from marriage have very negative outcomes, and those who do find a same sex spouse tend to have very positive outcomes. 

 

True principles don't lead the majority who practice them to unhappiness. But members those who abstain from marriage, by and large, are unhappy.  

 

Re: argument from silence: "An argument from silence (in Latin argumentum ex silentio) is a conclusion based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence." That kind of reasoning is fallacious. You're not taking me from point A to point B. 

If you think the point of religion is to learn to develop your moral compass, it isn’t really just your “own” moral compass, is it? This is why you can’t show that God’s covenants draw anyone’s compass to point to gay “marriage” -- His religion doesn't take us in that direction.

 

CFR that the Church’s general policy and counsel to gay members is that they abstain from marriage. As I pointed out, gay people do marry (in the traditional sense) in the Church and raise families.

 

And of course people who want to marry but cannot may find that a source of unhappiness—but the Church does not counsel them to be unhappy; on the contrary, the Church offers all sorts of counsel (and the means) for single people in this life to find happiness in Christ and the option for marriage in the life to come. Even married people have to turn to Christ for true happiness.

 

You asserted earlier that the reason gay “marriage” is not mentioned in scripture is because it is a new development. It doesn’t have much of a history; that speaks for itself as to why it is not acknowledged by the Lord in scripture while traditional marriage is. It perverts His covenant, which hadn’t been done to this extent until the prophesied wickedness of the latter days.

 

Now if you want to get off on a tangent about how argumentum ex silentio can occur without the principle even having a history to document, count me out!

[Gray]

If you think the point of religion is to learn to develop your moral compass, it isn’t really just your “own” moral compass, is it? This is why you can’t show that God’s covenants draw anyone’s compass to point to gay “marriage” -- His religion doesn't take us in that direction.

 

CFR that the Church’s general policy and counsel to gay members is that they abstain from marriage. As I pointed out, gay people do marry (in the traditional sense) in the Church and raise families.

 

And of course people who want to marry but cannot may find that a source of unhappiness—but the Church does not counsel them to be unhappy; on the contrary, the Church offers all sorts of counsel (and the means) for single people in this life to find happiness in Christ and the option for marriage in the life to come. Even married people have to turn to Christ for true happiness.

 

You asserted earlier that the reason gay “marriage” is not mentioned in scripture is because it is a new development. It doesn’t have much of a history; that speaks for itself as to why it is not acknowledged by the Lord in scripture while traditional marriage is. It perverts His covenant, which hadn’t been done to this extent until the prophesied wickedness of the latter days.

 

Now if you want to get off on a tangent about how argumentum ex silentio can occur without the principle even having a history to document, count me out!

 

Re: moral compass. Not at all, unless you think that morality is completely arbitrary and subjective. The compass doesn't point to magnetic north because it just decided to - it points that way because there is a magnetic north.

 

Re: church's policy. In the past some church leaders encouraged gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex. They no longer make that recommendation. But either option is inferior to gay marriage in terms of outcomes.  In any case, to meet your CFR:

 

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

 

"Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex. "

 

Re: people who want to marry. Yes, gay people who can marry are advised to take a course that will more likely than not lead to unhappiness.

 

Re: "perversion"  - if anything not explicitly mentioned in scripture is a perversion, than what does that say about the development of LDS temple worship? I don't think your position is defensible. 

[Gray]

I could not disagree more. That is the only kind of being whose orders can be followed without worry. I would say "without question" but in my experience God likes questions as long as they do not interfere with obedience.

 

A lot of the scriptures are orders. Should we chuck them?

 

 

Eventually you do not need God to lay it all out for you because you are becoming like God. We do not get very far on this path in this life so it is good to have God check your math.

 

If by "ourselves" you mean a person and the Holy Ghost with a pinch of prayer then I agree. If you mean without those aids then I disagree.

 

Re: could not disagree more. The problem with that idea is that we do not get orders from God. We get it from human beings. 

 

Re: scriptures. The scriptures are best understood as vehicles for moral teachings, not literal words from God. IMO

 

Re: "eventually you do not need...". I think we can get a lot farther than you think toward having an adequate framework towards moral discernment.

 

Re: your last line. Yes,that's what I mean. 

[CV75]

The compass doesn't point to magnetic north because it just decided to - it points that way because there is a magnetic north.

In terms of D&C 93, the compass points “north” because that is the direction from which the light shines, and we have the agency to follow the compass or ultimately corrupt the compass and in turn ourselves. Agency trumps the compass. Well-honed agency keeps it in good working order, and ignorance and rebellion ruin it, which is is how God’s laws and covenants are corrupted.

 

Re: church's policy. In the past some church leaders encouraged gay people to marry someone of the opposite sex. They no longer make that recommendation. But either option is inferior to gay marriage in terms of outcomes.  In any case, to meet your CFR:

 

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

 

"Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to marry those of the opposite sex. "

That fails to meet the CFR. There is no Church counsel to abstain from marriage and “the Church does not necessarily advise” those with SSA to marry today, meaning it can be advisable under the right circumstances.

 

 

Re: people who want to marry. Yes, gay people who can marry are advised to take a course that will more likely than not lead to unhappiness.

if I can decipher what you're trying to say here, they are only counseled in the ways of righteousness and righteousness never was unhappiness once the blessings are fully understood, which is the purpose for spiritual counsel.

 

Re: "perversion"  - if anything not explicitly mentioned in scripture is a perversion, than what does that say about the development of LDS temple worship? I don't think your position is defensible. 

I don’t think you can demonstrate that LDS temple worship, particularly the covenants that are made, is an example of perverting the ways of the Lord. I've demonstrated how SS"M" does pervert His ways, and without resorting alone to the absence of its mention in scripture, which you seem to think is OK to use to justify it.

 

The mention of marriage alone as it is typically/traditional described in scripture is sufficient to show that any other alteration from the man-woman union was, is, or would be a deviation from it. “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin [or pervert the ways of the Lord]; for there are divers ways and means …observe the commandments of God [or] perish.” (Mosiah 4:29-30).

Edited May 23, 2014 by CV75

[The Nehor]

Re: could not disagree more. The problem with that idea is that we do not get orders from God. We get it from human beings. 

 

Maybe you do. I don't.

 

 

Re: scriptures. The scriptures are best understood as vehicles for moral teachings, not literal words from God. IMO

 

I would take it as a mixture of both and it is not limited to moral teachings. If it were it would be kind of sad.

 

 

Re: "eventually you do not need...". I think we can get a lot farther than you think toward having an adequate framework towards moral discernment.

 

I think we can travel far but I do not think it is primarily us doing it.