consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: The "light" you have seen is a false light, one dictated by political correctness. I was far from being politically correct when the light appeared to me. Your conclusion is therefore false.
danielwoods Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 14 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Since it's such a serious sin to engage in homosexuality, and since we know people can't choose whether they're gay or not, why did God create gay people to go through such a challenge in life that if they acted on their natural instinct they'd be apostates. Before you bring up the question why did God create the disabled, malnourished, etc none of those things prevents salvation, in fact those challenges help for a better chance at salvation. Homosexuality doesnt. I don't believe they are born that way. "Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons summarize the science: "Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models." In other words, homosexuality is a psychological malady, not something people are born with." https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/for-the-first-time-a-majority-of-americans-believe-homosexuals-are-born-tha 1
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 35 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: This life could quite properly be called the 'pre-resurrection life,' a state of existence that's somewhat analogous to the pre-mortal life. So after the final judgement, when each individual in the human race will be resurrected and assigned to either the celestial kingdom, terrestrial kingdom, telestial kingdom, or outer darkness, will it also be unfair and improper at that time to assert that the assignments of individuals to one of these four kingdoms came as a direct consequence of the thoughts and actions they chose while dwelling in mortality? As I have said before, the great thing about a belief in the premortal existence is it accounts for why people are born in disparate circumstances here on earth. On the other hand, the terrible thing about a belief in the premortal existence is it accounts for why people are born in disparate circumstances here on earth. 1
Ahab Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Sanpitch said: It always amazes me how those who love the opposite sex have so much advice for those who love the same sex. What about it amazes you? We're supposed to love everybody. Just not have sex with everybody. 1
Calm Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: I agree...but what else can they say? Why do they have to say anything? There are millions, even billions in the world today living through hardships. Why insist on an answer to why do some experience homosexual feelings when we have no knowledge on why certain people are born in areas where they will never receive a decent education or job, clean water, the chances to be a doctor, physicist, etc? 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, consiglieri said: As I have said before, the great thing about a belief in the premortal existence is it accounts for why people are born in disparate circumstances here on earth. On the other hand, the terrible thing about a belief in the premortal existence is it accounts for why people are born in disparate circumstances here on earth. Humans may find themselves in all sorts of miserable circumstances on earth either because of their own bad choices, because of the bad choices of others, because of happenstance or, possibly, because of bad choices they made before they came to this earth. But the infinite and eternal atonement of Christ is the great equalizer that makes it possible for each and every son and daughter of God to put the past forever behind them - whatever that past might be-- and enter into a bright and optimistic new world, in the sure hope of eternal life. It is just the Lamanite converts to the sons of Mosiah amply prove: one can be born under a curse, for whatever reason, and yet reap the fullness of eternal glory as if the curse never existed in the first place. The reason why many don't understand these glorious Gospel doctrines is because they are spiritually immature.
SteveO Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel I was going to write a big thing in response. And then I stumbled across this article that I read a number of years ago. Either our trials bring us closer to God and make us stronger, or they'll destroy us. But ultimately we make the choice of which road we choose. From the essay: "Life in this universe is full of polarities and is made full by them; we struggle with them, complain about them, even try sometimes to destroy them with dogmatism or self-righteousness, or retreat into the innocence that is only ignorance, a return to the Garden of Eden where there is deceptive ease and clarity but no salvation. William Blake, the prophetic poet, taught that “without contraries is no existence,” and warned that “whoever tries to reconcile [the contraries] seeks to destroy existence.” Whatever it means that we will eventually see “face to face,” now we can see only “through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor.13:12), and we had better make the best of it. So, as we know it in human terms, the “gospel” is not—and perhaps, given the paradoxical nature of the universe itself, cannot ever be—a simple and clear set of unequivocal propositions." 1
Calm Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Love the article, thanks for posting it, Steve-O.
Calm Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 49 minutes ago, danielwoods said: I don't believe they are born that way. "Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons summarize the science: "Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models." In other words, homosexuality is a psychological malady, not something people are born with." https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/for-the-first-time-a-majority-of-americans-believe-homosexuals-are-born-tha The rest of the article refers to genetic causes which are not all possible biological causes. The article does not do a very good job at addressing nongenetic biological possibilities.
Jeanne Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 34 minutes ago, Calm said: 52 minutes ago, consiglieri said: As I have said before, the great thing about a belief in the premortal existence is it accounts for why people are born in disparate circumstances here on earth. On the other hand, the terrible thing about a belief in the premortal existence is it accounts for why people are born in disparate circumstances here on earth. Why do they have to say anything? There are millions, even billions in the world today living through hardships. Why insist on an answer to why do some experience homosexual feelings when we have no knowledge on why certain people are born in areas where they will never receive a decent education or job, clean water, the chances to be a doctor, physicist, etc? You;re right. They don't have to say anything..and they don't. Which is why we have a "what the heck" moment when it comes to teachings of the Savior. ""
RevTestament Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 21 minutes ago, Calm said: The rest of the article refers to genetic causes which are not all possible biological causes. The article does not do a very good job at addressing nongenetic biological possibilities. such as?
Bob Crockett Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I was far from being politically correct when the light appeared to me. Your conclusion is therefore false. But just about everything you offer is guided by principles of political correctness, and so was that post. If you don't believe in the Church, you don't believe in the existence of a Jesus, and you're not a Church attender, as you have often said, then isn't it a reasonable thing to observe that your posts are guided by principles of political correctness? Unfortunately, those of us that are within the Church and have surrendered our worldly conclusions to priesthood direction (I am a libertarian and opposed Prop 8, but contributed many thousands of dollars for its passage, as well as much time, because I was requested to do so) are kind of stuck on positions like homosexuality, women's right to the priesthood, abortion, etc. But you have no such restrictions. It is very equivalent to my Catholic Republican friends, the faithful Catholics at least, who oppose capital punishment because the Pope has requested Catholics to do so. And the faithful Catholic politicians who oppose abortion, even though Democrats, even though they'd probably rather support it. Just sayin'. That post of yours about your dancing friend hits political correctness on all levels. Edited January 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett
Calm Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: such as? Hormonal variations in the pregnancy environment, for one off the top of my head.
danielwoods Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Calm said: The rest of the article refers to genetic causes which are not all possible biological causes. The article does not do a very good job at addressing nongenetic biological possibilities. And I don't think the article I linked to had that purpose or intention. It was an over view, and it linked to this article which stated: "Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way." and "In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be. “Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.” “Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes." http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/ Which still probably doesn't answer your question. However, it does answer the question of whether sexual identity is developed over time or is genetically determined.
Ahab Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: such as? Intelligence. It stands to reason that since people can see someone of the opposite sex as being sexually attractive that people of the same sex should be able to see that too.
Calm Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Except your quote stated homosexuality was a psychological malady. If there are biological influences people are born with even if sexuality is fluid in expression, this quote is wrong. 1
danielwoods Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 33 minutes ago, Calm said: Except your quote stated homosexuality was a psychological malady. If there are biological influences people are born with even if sexuality is fluid in expression, this quote is wrong. I didn't see where the article(s) stated that there were biological influences. Rather, it stated that the studies show the opposite is true, that it's not based on biological influences, but psychosocial influences.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: Just a word of caution - I actually got physically ill/sick to my stomach reading about this, and had to stop and make myself some breakfast - which did not consist of the innocent flesh of other people.... I'm sorry that you were that disturbed, but the reality of genuinely coming to know past places and ways is often rather shocking, especially when we've been repeatedly conditioned to see and 'understand' both the past and the foreign as merely slightly different flavours of our familiar (and therefore comfortable) here and now. (Cf. Thinking's post above.) Quote I am quite glad I was not born into one of these tribes and not subjected to these things against my will. But that's the thing: if you had been born into one of these societies, it all would just have been the way the world is. Your 'will' wouldn't have had anything to do with it. One of the great benefits of being able to go back just 40 years and see how alternative realities -- including sexualities -- were socially constructed for these people is that we (hopefully!) start to be able to see how thoroughly our current realities have been socially constructed too. Otherwise, we're as 'trapped' by would-be totalising discourses (linguistic, cultural, etc.) as the boys you've been reading about. Edited January 13, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Bob Crockett Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, danielwoods said: I didn't see where the article(s) stated that there were biological influences. Rather, it stated that the studies show the opposite is true, that it's not based on biological influences, but psychosocial influences. Given the absence of a genetic marker where should be one, I think we should leave ourselves open to the possibility that biological influences may be lacking. I mean, if there are "biological influences," that would be reflected in a genetic marker. Science has progressed to the point that if such marker exists it should be found. The absence of the marker is a huge deal, but not necessarily conclusive as there aren't markers for talent or ingenuity. But, until there is evidence, we should hold to the possibility that it is environmental. Edited January 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: But just about everything you offer is guided by principles of political correctness, and so was that post. You are not a good mind-reader, Bob. My opinions are not guided by political correctness. I am about the least politically correct person on the planet.
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: You;re right. They don't have to say anything..and they don't. Which is why we have a "what the heck" moment when it comes to teachings of the Savior. "" I agree. If this whole scenario were playing out on the pages of the New Testament, which side would Jesus be on, and which side would the Pharisees be on? It is a question worth thinking about. 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You are not a good mind-reader, Bob. My opinions are not guided by political correctness. I am about the least politically correct person on the planet. It is also politically correct to claim that you are not politically correct. I can't read minds; I only read your posts. Your post about your dancing friend meets several objectives of political correctness -- not all dancers are gay, but the gay dancers were born that way. I agree with the first principle, and as to the second, I think that this is the exact obverse of the climate change argument. It is politically correct to argue for climate change. But there's lots of evidence for climate change, just not so much for the cause of it. It is politically correct to argue that gays are born that way. But there's no evidence for it, at least genetic. I just don't see the major religions as being limited to your notions of correctness. Homosexuality is a sin, they teach. But, modern NT atheistic scholars, the type favored by LDS apologists, argue for different interpretations of the NT, forgetting the 2000 years of Biblical commentary to the contrary. And so it goes. You're chained to political correctness, of all the posters on this board. Your avatar screams political correctness -- you might as well have had Sean Penn. What is "political correctness?" Adopting a particular very popular point of view without regard to the evidence in support or against it. Edited January 13, 2016 by Bob Crockett
consiglieri Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: It is also politically correct to claim that you are not politically correct. I can't read minds; I only read your posts. Your post about your dancing friend meets several objectives of political correctness -- not all dancers are gay, but the gay dancers were born that way. I agree with the first principle, and as to the second, I think that this is the exact obverse of the climate change argument. It is politically correct to argue for climate change. But there's lots of evidence for climate change, just not so much for the cause of it. It is politically correct to argue that gays are born that way. But there's no evidence for it, at least genetic. I just don't see the major religions as being limited to your notions of correctness. Homosexuality is a sin, they teach. But, modern NT atheistic scholars, the type favored by LDS apologists, argue for different interpretations of the NT, forgetting the 2000 years of Biblical commentary to the contrary. And so it goes. You're chained to political correctness, of all the posters on this board. Your avatar screams political correctness -- you might as well have had Sean Penn. What is "political correctness?" Adopting a particular very popular point of view without regard to the evidence in support or against it. Or you could just ask me what I think about things and why instead of guessing. Funny that when you guess, you do so in the most demeaning way possible.
Sanpitch Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 5 hours ago, Ahab said: What about it amazes you? We're supposed to love everybody. Just not have sex with everybody. I had said: "It always amazes me how those who love the opposite sex have so much advice for those who love the same sex." Your are probably right from your point of view, that they will be rewarded a hundred or a thousand years down the road. My view is that if they are banned from living from the one they love and they spend their life on this earth alone as far as a close companion goes. They miss out on close physical relationships. They are supposed to live alone, they can't live with the opposite sex and they can't live with the same sex generally. Of course I'm not into old scriptures like most people are or new statements from church leaders that may be right and may be wrong.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, consiglieri said: Maurice asked me, "Do you like girls?" "Yes!" I replied enthusiastically. Maurice: "If I told you to stop liking girls and instead to start liking boys, could you do it?" "No!" I replied emphatically. "Well," Maurice said, "It's the same way with me. Only the opposite." Thank you for sharing your experience, which provides a perfect illustration of why the 19th-century invention of homosexuality necessitated and entailed the simultaneous invention of heterosexuality. Edited January 14, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Recommended Posts