The Clock Is Running On This False Prophecy

[Stargazer]

Okay. I'll give you a rep point for that.

I'm not sure I merited it, so I'll give you one in return for your graciousness.

Oh! The amity! I don't know if I can take it any longer! Stop it before my head explodes!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Stargazer

[mfbukowski]

Nope, not taken down... Copy/paste error on my part.  I've corrected it in my post.  My apologies.  And here it is again...

 

http://mormonstories.org/fiona-and-terryl-givens-and-the-crucible-of-doubt/

Don't know about the podcast, but this book is an absolutely life changing book and absolutely teaches why doubt is essential to making a testimony.

If everyone read this book, there would be no need for FairMormon or this board or apologetics.

[Stargazer]

Yesh it was a typo.  Interesting that some here think I am headed to be a son of perdition because I choose the very human condition to share my life with someoeone that I love completely.  And yet some are so surprised when they wonder why gay members don't feel welcome in the church.

I don't think he was seriously entertaining the idea of you being a SoP. The bar for that particular status is surely higher than anything you've probably achieved. I think he was joking around with your typo. A bit inanely, in my humble opinion, but whatever.

As to a gay couple in an LDS church meeting, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they felt out of place.

I like you, CB, and I don't want to cause offense, so if the following grosses you out or strikes you as offensive, please forgive me:

For the sake of a relatively equivalent example only, let's say that my and my daughter decided to share our lives together as husband and wife because we love each other completely. Do you think that God, who is well known for having forbidden this relationship in very strenuous terms, is just going to shrug His shoulders and say, "Well, since you love each other completely, I guess I'll allow it after all"? Heck, it's heterosexual, so what's not to like, right? So, the LDS Church is shortly going to give the OK for fathers and daughters to be sealed together as husband and wife in the Temple.

There are just four words for this: Ain't going to happen.

CB, I hope that you are happy in your relationship, but I just don't see SSM as being something that God is going to ultimately cave in on for eternity, any more than He is going to cave in on the matter of my daughter and I. No matter how right it feels.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Yes, but how do you pronounce it? 

 

\ə-ˈpä-fə-səs\

 

[Tacenda]

I don't think he was seriously entertaining the idea of you being a SoP. The bar for that particular status is surely higher than anything you've probably achieved. I think he was joking around with your typo. A bit inanely, in my humble opinion, but whatever.

As to a gay couple in an LDS church meeting, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they felt out of place.

I like you, CB, and I don't want to cause offense, so if the following grosses you out or strikes you as offensive, please forgive me:

For the sake of a relatively equivalent example only, let's say that my and my daughter decided to share our lives together as husband and wife because we love each other completely. Do you think that God, who is well known for having forbidden this relationship in very strenuous terms, is just going to shrug His shoulders and say, "Well, since you love each other completely, I guess I'll allow it after all"? Heck, it's heterosexual, so what's not to like, right? So, the LDS Church is shortly going to give the OK for fathers and daughters to be sealed together as husband and wife in the Temple.

There are just four words for this: Ain't going to happen.

CB, I hope that you are happy in your relationship, but I just don't see SSM as being something that God is going to ultimately cave in on for eternity, any more than He is going to cave in on the matter of my daughter and I. No matter how right it feels.

Stargazer, I know you mean well, but you are comparing completely different things, gays are not having sex with their parents, that's incest. The comparing like that is just so inappropriate.

[rockpond]

I don't think he was seriously entertaining the idea of you being a SoP. The bar for that particular status is surely higher than anything you've probably achieved. I think he was joking around with your typo. A bit inanely, in my humble opinion, but whatever.

As to a gay couple in an LDS church meeting, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they felt out of place.

I like you, CB, and I don't want to cause offense, so if the following grosses you out or strikes you as offensive, please forgive me:

For the sake of a relatively equivalent example only, let's say that my and my daughter decided to share our lives together as husband and wife because we love each other completely. Do you think that God, who is well known for having forbidden this relationship in very strenuous terms, is just going to shrug His shoulders and say, "Well, since you love each other completely, I guess I'll allow it after all"? Heck, it's heterosexual, so what's not to like, right? So, the LDS Church is shortly going to give the OK for fathers and daughters to be sealed together as husband and wife in the Temple.

There are just four words for this: Ain't going to happen.

CB, I hope that you are happy in your relationship, but I just don't see SSM as being something that God is going to ultimately cave in on for eternity, any more than He is going to cave in on the matter of my daughter and I. No matter how right it feels.

 

Where are Scott & Hamba to flag this as "emotional blackmail"?  

[california boy]

I don't think he was seriously entertaining the idea of you being a SoP. The bar for that particular status is surely higher than anything you've probably achieved. I think he was joking around with your typo. A bit inanely, in my humble opinion, but whatever.

As to a gay couple in an LDS church meeting, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they felt out of place.

I like you, CB, and I don't want to cause offense, so if the following grosses you out or strikes you as offensive, please forgive me:

For the sake of a relatively equivalent example only, let's say that my and my daughter decided to share our lives together as husband and wife because we love each other completely. Do you think that God, who is well known for having forbidden this relationship in very strenuous terms, is just going to shrug His shoulders and say, "Well, since you love each other completely, I guess I'll allow it after all"? Heck, it's heterosexual, so what's not to like, right? So, the LDS Church is shortly going to give the OK for fathers and daughters to be sealed together as husband and wife in the Temple.

There are just four words for this: Ain't going to happen.

CB, I hope that you are happy in your relationship, but I just don't see SSM as being something that God is going to ultimately cave in on for eternity, any more than He is going to cave in on the matter of my daughter and I. No matter how right it feels.

 

I know you mean well.  I guess I am just screwed for eternity for being gay and loving my boyfriend.  It is actually the only reason I am not still a member of the church.  No matter what else I do in this life, eternity is not going to be a great place for me.  God is going to condemn me forever for that simple but compelling need to find human companionship in this life.  I can not be a part of His church or partake of the blessings He offers to all his other children.  Yeah I get it. God will never change. I can't live without my boyfriend that I love so deeply.  So I guess I am screwed. 

[JLHPROF]

Stargazer, I know you mean well, but you are comparing completely different things, gays are not having sex with their parents, that's incest. The comparing like that is just so inappropriate.

 

A sin is a sin.  At least according to scripture homosexual sex is just as offensive in the eyes of God as incestuous sex.

So the comparison is appropriate, even if one is more acceptable in society today than the other.  At least as far as this religious discussion board is concerned.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, I know you mean well, but you are comparing completely different things, gays are not having sex with their parents, that's incest. The comparing like that is just so inappropriate.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Incest is a forbidden relationship and it is not worse nor better in the scriptures than homosexual relationships. By giving it a name, "incest", do you think this distinguishes it sufficiently that it can't be used to compare with homosexuality, which is not called "incest"? Would brother-sister work out better with you? That, at least, was de jure permitted (and required) among the Egyptian Pharaohs, and even among Hawaiian royalty.

By your reaction you actually make my point. We (and I to an extent) have grown to accept homosexual relationships, whereas if we had lived 100 years ago we would have been scandalized if we were confronted with an example.

I was trying to find a sexual relationship that is equally forbidden by the Lord (and wil you not agree with me that incest and homosexuality are both such?), in order to emphasize the point that having forbidden it, the Lord isn't going to turn around in the end and say "Oh, nevermind". If you think otherwise for homosexuality, then it seems that you must for incest as well.

[Swampfox53]

The 40 year prediction would be equil to one generation. The same amount of time Moses and followers wandered in the wilderness. Time enough for out with the old and in with the new but don't get your hopes up.

[KevinG]

Are those 24 hour days or "epoch" days?

[Scott Lloyd]

Where are Scott & Hamba to flag this as "emotional blackmail"?  

No, that's not emotional blackmail.

 

Now, california boy's "poor, pitiful me" post immediately following yours, on the other hand. ...

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Are those 24 hour days or "epoch" days?

So is that how its going to go? After the deadline comes and goes, they will merely redefine the terms?

 

What I suspect will happen is a continual moving back of the deadline; hence my time stamp.

 

And the clock now stands at 39 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, 1 day, 7 hours, 56 minutes, 45 seconds and counting down.

[KevinG]

So is that how its going to go? After the deadline comes and goes, they will merely redefine the terms?

Proof that logical black holes slow time as you approach their event horizon.

[rockpond]

No, that's not emotional blackmail.

 

Now, california boy's "poor, pitiful me" post immediately following yours, on the other hand. ...

 

It's awesome how your definition of "emotional blackmail" works.

[Tacenda]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Incest is a forbidden relationship and it is not worse nor better in the scriptures than homosexual relationships. By giving it a name, "incest", do you think this distinguishes it sufficiently that it can't be used to compare with homosexuality, which is not called "incest"? Would brother-sister work out better with you? That, at least, was de jure permitted (and required) among the Egyptian Pharaohs, and even among Hawaiian royalty.

By your reaction you actually make my point. We (and I to an extent) have grown to accept homosexual relationships, whereas if we had lived 100 years ago we would have been scandalized if we were confronted with an example.

I was trying to find a sexual relationship that is equally forbidden by the Lord (and wil you not agree with me that incest and homosexuality are both such?), in order to emphasize the point that having forbidden it, the Lord isn't going to turn around in the end and say "Oh, nevermind". If you think otherwise for homosexuality, then it seems that you must for incest as well.

Most likely in your scenario there is a victim, the daughter!! Believe me, I know of women that were sexually abused by either their father or step father! There is a difference, in a gay relationship that really doesn't happen, maybe, but not usually. I guess you're going to have to try again, wait don't try again, it's useless. Edited February 19, 2015 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

Most likely in your scenario there is a victim, the daughter!! Believe me, I know of women that were sexually abused by either their father or step father! There is a difference, in a gay relationship that really doesn't happen, maybe, but not usually. I guess you're going to have to try again, wait don't try again, it's useless.

When it comes to sexual depravity, society tends to put an age limit on victimhood; they call it "the age of consent." Thus many folks are apt to see teenage prostitutes as victims; not so much after the prostitutes turn 18.

 

Given the current trajectory it would hardly surprise me if, in the near future, people began more and more to regard incest as merely a matter of personal choice, provided the participants are adults.

[Stargazer]

Most likely in your scenario there is a victim, the daughter!! Believe me, I know of women that were sexually abused by either their father or step father! There is a difference, in a gay relationship that really doesn't happen, maybe, but not usually. I guess you're going to have to try again, wait don't try again, it's useless.

You think that in every incestuous relationship, no matter which, when, or how it begun, there MUST be a victim, and it must be the daughter? Why? I agree that there may be a victim in many cases, but it doesn't have to be that way, always. If the relationship began in adulthood with full consent, who is the victim then? But that doesn't matter, because such a relationship, besides being highly illegal, is against God's law. No matter if they love each other deeply and wholly.

I have a cousin who was born as a twin, and his twin was his sister. Their mother gave them both up for adoption. Many years later they happened to meet, found that they had many things in common, and started to consider marriage. Then they discovered to their horror that they were brother and sister. They very nearly got married, and if they had done, who would have been the victim? There do happen to be siblings out there who intentionally marry and just never tell anyone. As long as they keep quiet about it who is going to know? But besides being illegal it is still against God's law.

That is my entire point: regardless of whether we believe we have every excuse a reasonable person might accept as valid, if God has forbidden it, and cannot accept it because He has forbidden it, it isn't going to stand in the eternities. No matter how much it gives us in this life.

On the other hand, if all this life is an accident of the vibration of random particles in a universe and when we die our consciousness is snuffed out like the candle in the wind, then all of this doesn't matter one hoot-n-holler. Then all we are is just dust in the wind. And eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow it's all over.

So which way do you want to bet?

[Stargazer]

Most likely in your scenario there is a victim, the daughter!! Believe me, I know of women that were sexually abused by either their father or step father! There is a difference, in a gay relationship that really doesn't happen, maybe, but not usually. I guess you're going to have to try again, wait don't try again, it's useless.

Another example from my own family. My stepmother's favorite brother came back from the Korean War and found a woman he thought to marry, but before it got so far he was seduced by his own uncle into a homosexual relationship that lasted something like of 30 years, until the uncle's death. The entire family basically ignored the obvious and regarded them simply as "housemates" (I knew differently because my stepmother's brother once unsuccessfully propositioned my own brother, who told me about it - I guess the uncle/nephew relationship was an "open" one). Now, this was technically an "incestuous" relationship, but dear Tacenda there was no victim involved. They were both "of age" and the relationship was entirely consensual. Quite apart from the nature of the relationship I thought the world of both of them. They were individually and together great guys and fun to be around, caring, helpful, and I just accepted them as they were.

It happens that my stepmother's brother much later married his last gay partner's female widow, after his partner died of AIDS, and he is now in his 90s living as a heterosexual, with a number of stepchildren (and stepgrandchildren) who love him like a parent/grandparent -- and who wouldn't? My step-uncle is a peach of a guy, and I love him, too. Gay or straight.

[Stargazer]

I know you mean well. I guess I am just screwed for eternity for being gay and loving my boyfriend. It is actually the only reason I am not still a member of the church. No matter what else I do in this life, eternity is not going to be a great place for me. God is going to condemn me forever for that simple but compelling need to find human companionship in this life. I can not be a part of His church or partake of the blessings He offers to all his other children. Yeah I get it. God will never change. I can't live without my boyfriend that I love so deeply. So I guess I am screwed.

Of course I mean well. And of course God will never change. Now, whether you are screwed for eternity or not isn't MY call. I have no idea what God is going to do about the situation you find yourself in -- the situation of being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. I accept that you love your boyfriend with all your heart, and I don't blame you for it. Or him, for that matter. What this means for the eternities is something I do not dare to predict, but what is inescapable is that all the evidence points one way: God does not condone your relationship. Although I do believe that God treasures love itself as a very important matter.

You're not ignorant of all this, CB. I know that I haven't written anything that is new to you. So why are you reacting all wounded about it? At this point though, I think that perhaps I should have just deleted my post before posting it. You know the score, and so do I, then why make a point of it? Well, too late now.

As I said to Tacenda, "if all this life is an accident of the vibration of random particles in a universe and when we die our consciousness is snuffed out like the candle in the wind, then all of this doesn't matter one hoot-n-holler. Then all we are is just dust in the wind. And eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow it's all over."

Platitudes and song lyrics aside, I don't know which way you believe this will fall out in the end, for all that I believe I know which way things will be. And I doubt seriously that I am in any way qualified to advise you regarding these things, if they do go the way I believe. I do know that I wish for you all that is good and well, and hope sincerely for your eternal wellbeing. Whether we're sputtering candles or stars of glory in the end.

[Stargazer]

Where are Scott & Hamba to flag this as "emotional blackmail"?  

Oh, please.

Nothing I wrote is new to California Boy. I simply stated something he already knows. He may not believe in it, but it is definitely nothing new.

Besides, nothing I wrote could possibly be considered "emotional blackmail". I stated a simple fact (or, at least something I sincerely believe is fact) and made no threats of emotional withdrawal unless he did what I wanted. CB is free to do whatever he wants or needs to do and I will not judge him for it, or indeed, think less of him, regardless of what that is. In fact, I didn't even suggest any course of action to him!

Rockpond, I disagree with you frequently (whether I express it or not), but I don't usually find your comments lacking common sense. I assume therefore that this one will be the rare exception.

[rockpond]

Oh, please.

Nothing I wrote is new to California Boy. I simply stated something he already knows. He may not believe in it, but it is definitely nothing new.

Besides, nothing I wrote could possibly be considered "emotional blackmail". I stated a simple fact (or, at least something I sincerely believe is fact) and made no threats of emotional withdrawal unless he did what I wanted. CB is free to do whatever he wants or needs to do and I will not judge him for it, or indeed, think less of him, regardless of what that is. In fact, I didn't even suggest any course of action to him!

Rockpond, I disagree with you frequently (whether I express it or not), but I don't usually find your comments lacking common sense. I assume therefore that this one will be the rare exception.

 

Stargazer... I apologize, it wasn't meant to be serious (that was why I put in the "smiley").  But, you weren't a part of other conversations about "emotional blackmail" so that probably didn't make sense to you.  So I'm sorry for unwittingly pulling you into an inside joke.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer... I apologize, it wasn't meant to be serious (that was why I put in the "smiley").  But, you weren't a part of other conversations about "emotional blackmail" so that probably didn't make sense to you.  So I'm sorry for unwittingly pulling you into an inside joke.

Oops! Then I better apologize myself in turn! I saw the smiley, but I guess I wasn't paying attention.

I did see the conversation about the emotional blackmail in passing, but blew it off since it didn't involve me, that is, until your smiley-ed post. Then I got stupid about it. I'll be more careful and forbearing about things like that in the future!

[carbon dioxide]

When it comes to sexual depravity, society tends to put an age limit on victimhood; they call it "the age of consent." Thus many folks are apt to see teenage prostitutes as victims; not so much after the prostitutes turn 18.

 

Given the current trajectory it would hardly surprise me if, in the near future, people began more and more to regard incest as merely a matter of personal choice, provided the participants are adults.

The main argument against incest for adults is deformed children.  What if they decided to have their tubes cut so they can't have kids.  That pretty much takes care of that primary argument. 

[carbon dioxide]

People keep bring up gays and gay marriage but what about the bisexuals.  It seems only fair that if the gays get their cake, the bisexuals get their cake too.  They get to marry one male and one female.  Can't say they must choose one or the other.  That would not be nice and is discrimination.  They should be allowed to practice their orientation in marriage without restriction.

Edited February 20, 2015 by carbon dioxide