cinepro Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 21 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know I've been a somewhat active poster today...but I've had a lot on my mind. I'm curious what others think about the church policy of placing an "*" asterisk on the membership records of every member who has confessed to some sin that the church considers grievous. Now don't get me wrong, a child molester should have appropriate restrictions placed in their records...but what of the young mad who has a homosexual experience or the young woman who has a lesbian encounter or the high priest who has an affair...BUT REPENTS...Why does the church place an asterisk on their membership that remains until the day they die? Why not after full reinstatement can't this Mark be removed? Or why is it needed in the first place? anyone have insight into this question? thanks CFR that the asterisk is removed after they die. 1
Kemara Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: All you're really saying here is that you are repelled more by one than the other. What does that have to do with sinfulness? Actually I said nothing of the sought. I pointed out that there is a significant difference, a difference that is very clear and undeniable. Are you seriously saying that there is no difference? 1
Gray Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Kemara said: Actually I said nothing of the sought. I pointed out that there is a significant difference, a difference that is very clear and undeniable. Are you seriously saying that there is no difference? I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But no, I don't think there's a substantive difference between the two. Sex outside of marriage is sex outside of marriage. 1
Kemara Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Wow Word of Wisdom? A very substantive, well reasoned and logical response . In truth, that really is about all you could say, as the differences are undeniable. Of course you could try the Gray strategy of attacking a position I never posited but that would be just as weak as your Wow.
Kemara Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But no, I don't think there's a substantive difference between the two. Sex outside of marriage is sex outside of marriage. Is there a biological difference? Is there an anatomical difference?
SmileyMcGee Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 41 minutes ago, cinepro said: CFR that the asterisk is removed after they die.
Gray Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Kemara said: Is there a biological difference? Is there an anatomical difference? Not an important difference, no. If cookies are out of bounds, it doesn't much matter if the one you ate was chocolate chip or an Oreo. 2
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 9 minutes ago, Gray said: Not an important difference, no. If cookies are out of bounds, it doesn't much matter if the one you ate was chocolate chip or an Oreo. I think someone once told Eve the same sort of thing about fruit on trees.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 2 hours ago, cinepro said: CFR that the asterisk is removed after they die. **Audible Laugh**
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kemara said: Word of Wisdom? A very substantive, well reasoned and logical response . In truth, that really is about all you could say, as the differences are undeniable. Of course you could try the Gray strategy of attacking a position I never posited but that would be just as weak as your Wow. So I'll provide my well reasoned logical response... Outlawed Sex is Outlawed Sex...it applies equally to both sexes man on man, woman on woman, man on woman, woman on man...what is wrong for one applies to all...from a logical standpoint...Now if you want to go illogical on me then I would have to agree with your assertion that all sex is equal but some sex is more equal than other sex Edited February 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Ahab Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 What's with this myopic view of sex, as in sexual relations, these days? Who put the idea in some people's heads that sex is all the same regardless of who or what is doing it, or did it? Sex between adult males and adult females is one thing. Sex between adult males, by themselves, males between males, is something else entirety. And sex between adult females is also another kind of thing that is different than the first 2 things I mentioned. What's next, people getting the idea that it doesn't matter if it is between adults and children? Or between people and animals? Sheesh. It must be that some people just want to accept ideas like that and intentionally blinding themselves to avoid seeing the differences between things like that. What a world. Getting dumber and dumber by the minute it seems. 2
ALarson Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 29 minutes ago, Ahab said: What's next, people getting the idea that it doesn't matter if it is between adults and children? That's an entirely different topic. When an innocent child is hurt, that is abuse. It's also committing a crime. 1
Kemara Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Not an important difference, no. If cookies are out of bounds, it doesn't much matter if the one you ate was chocolate chip or an Oreo. So there is a difference, whether you think it is important or not is not in question. The question is, "is there a difference", and you have begrudgingly admitted that there is one. The importance of the difference has no bearing on whether or not homosexual sex or heterosexual sex should be treated the same or not in the context of this thread. The very fact that there is a difference logically allows for each to be treated differently. Because the difference logically allows for the two to be treated differently, your and Johnnie Cake's position on this matter is untenable.
Kemara Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: So I'll provide my well reasoned logical response... Outlawed Sex is Outlawed Sex...it applies equally to both sexes man on man, woman on woman, man on woman, woman on man...what is wrong for one applies to all...from a logical standpoint...Now if you want to go illogical on me then I would have to agree with your assertion that all sex is equal but some sex is more equal than other sex Still waiting for the reasoned logical response, because what you have written here is completely illogical and mind numbingly stupid. The very fact that we are discussing homosexual sex and heterosexual sex clearly indicates that they are different. The very fact that we are talking about homo and hetero sexuality, as two subsets of our species, clearly denotes that they are different. The very fact that we "differentiate" (different-iate: nudge nudge wink wink) between the two clearly denotes that they are different. Therefore, from a logical standpoint, what is wrong with one does not necessarily apply to all. To deny the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex is absolutely ludicrous and requires the denial of an absolute fact. Water is wet, sugar is sweet, homosexual sex is different to heterosexual sex. The lengths that you must go too in order to maintain this position are preposterous, so much so that I am actually embarrassed for you. 2
Kemara Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Sorry, duplicate. Edited February 13, 2016 by Kemara
Avatar4321 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 9 hours ago, ksfisher said: Even if someone has repented and received forgiveness from God, do we want to put them back in a situation where they may eventually give in to a temptation and sin again? The asterisk helps protect the repentant member from this. a good example is Mosaiahs desire to keep his sons reverting back to their sins. He abolished the kingship to protect them 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2016 Author Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kemara said: Still waiting for the reasoned logical response, because what you have written here is completely illogical and mind numbingly stupid. The very fact that we are discussing homosexual sex and heterosexual sex clearly indicates that they are different. The very fact that we are talking about homo and hetero sexuality, as two subsets of our species, clearly denotes that they are different. The very fact that we "differentiate" (different-iate: nudge nudge wink wink) between the two clearly denotes that they are different. Therefore, from a logical standpoint, what is wrong with one does not necessarily apply to all. To deny the difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex is absolutely ludicrous and requires the denial of an absolute fact. Water is wet, sugar is sweet, homosexual sex is different to heterosexual sex. The lengths that you must go too in order to maintain this position are preposterous, so much so that I am actually embarrassed for you. Haha. Hyperbole, Edited February 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Kemara Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Haha. Hyperbole, It seems obvious to me that you have no idea what hyperbole means. Nothing in my post is exaggerated, embellished or overstated. Everything I have said is factual and you know it. Would you happen to know what 'debunked', 'refuted' and 'confounded' means?
rodheadlee Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 On 2/12/2016 at 6:16 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Oh and no annotation for serial hetro adulters It's not just to protect the children. It protects the adult offender from false future allegations. In the case of adultry there are minimal legal ramifications to the offender.
The Nehor Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: So I'll provide my well reasoned logical response... Outlawed Sex is Outlawed Sex...it applies equally to both sexes man on man, woman on woman, man on woman, woman on man...what is wrong for one applies to all...from a logical standpoint. This is like claiming that murder is murder and that distinctions like First and Second degree murder and manslaughter are illogical. Your premise that all sex is equal in the eyes of God is very odd. It is almost as if you are just making this stuff up to try to score cheap rhetorical points. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted February 13, 2016 Author Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Kemara said: It seems obvious to me that you have no idea what hyperbole means. Nothing in my post is exaggerated, embellished or overstated. Everything I have said is factual and you know it. Would you happen to know what 'debunked', 'refuted' and 'confounded' means? you insist on believing that sex between adults is different to support your worldview fair enough, while I accept that of course there are differences between the male body and the female body the actual act of engaging in sex between adults is still just sex between consenting adults irrespective of whether they are male or female. Look it up in a dictionary. The fact you hold to a dogmatic definition doesn't change its definition. Pretty much nothing you have claimed is factual...it's just grounded in your personal biases but that certainly doesnt make your biases factual. sex remains just sex Edited February 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, rodheadlee said: It's not just to protect the children. It protects the adult offender from false future allegations. In the case of adultry there are minimal legal ramifications to the offender. There are also certain offenses that once having been committed and resolved, but are then repeated, may result in more serious discipline. Future bishops and stake presidents must be aware these, not as some sort of oppression, but in the interest of justice, protection, accountability, and the unfortunate truths of human nature. It may seem unmerciful, but referred to this as a dog returning to its vomit. 2Peter2 "19While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." Edited February 13, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Kemara Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: you insist on believing that sex between adults is different to support your worldview fair enough, while I accept that of course there are differences between the male body and the female body the actual act of engaging in sex between adults is still just sex between consenting adults irrespective of whether they are male or female. Look it up in a dictionary. The fact you hold to a dogmatic definition doesn't change its definition. Pretty much nothing you have claimed is factual...it's just grounded in your personal biases but that certainly doesnt make your biases factual. sex remains just sex Understanding the inarguable fact that there are differences between male and female is not a world view or a personal bias it is a simple and incontrovertible fact. These facts are so simple and incontrovertible that even you, after much chagrin, were finally forced to concede the point. Understanding that the anatomical differences between male and female make the act of engaging in heterosexual sex and homosexual sex significantly different is not a world view or a personal bias it is a simple and incontrovertible fact. Your conflation of homosexual and heterosexual sex is not grounded in fact. Your bias, which denies a very simple reality, is the foundation for this conflation. Unfortunately, even after begrudgingly conceding the point on anatomical difference, you still tried to defend your indefensible and illogical worldview with appeals to your opinion. Following your unsubstantiated and illogical opinion you referred me to the authority of the all-knowing dictionary. Fine, I'll take you up on that. Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Full Definition of HOMOSEXUAL 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex Full Definition of HETEROSEXUAL1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex. The dictionary clearly and succinctly shows that the definition of homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is different. As such it is you who has changed the definition. I understand perfectly well that you would prefer to use the dictionary definition for the word 'Sex' and not have it characterised into homosexual and heterosexual sex. However, even this definition is not as much help to you as I suspect you had hoped. Full Definition of the SEX ACT 1 : COITUS - used with the 2 : an act performed with another for sexual gratification Definition of COITUS : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements Unfortunately for you, your appeal to the dictionary has failed spectacularly. Contrary to your claim that "the actual act of engaging in sex between adults is still just sex between consenting adults irrespective of whether they are male or female" it is clear from the dictionary (your source of authority) that homosexual and heterosexual sex is different. You have admitted an anatomical difference and have now been shown the definitional difference. Even though your position has the form and substance of fog I am fairly certain that you will keep pushing it but in so doing you will be nothing more than a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't even there. You have stated that "pretty much nothing" I have claimed is factual. Please show me the non-factual claims I have made and show me that these claims are at least the majority of the total number of my claims. Show me or retract the statement as intellectual honesty requires. Finally, have you considered changing your screen name from Johnnie Cake to Oz because the curtain has been pulled back on you. Edited February 13, 2016 by Kemara
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: you insist on believing that sex between adults is different to support your worldview fair enough, while I accept that of course there are differences between the male body and the female body the actual act of engaging in sex between adults is still just sex between consenting adults irrespective of whether they are male or female. Look it up in a dictionary. The fact you hold to a dogmatic definition doesn't change its definition. Pretty much nothing you have claimed is factual...it's just grounded in your personal biases but that certainly doesnt make your biases factual. sex remains just sex Oh man, I can't let you get away with that logic The dictionary establishes facts and what is right and wrong? And your personal biases do not enter into YOUR judgement at all right? And you are the ultimate judge of truth and facts? Come on- what happened to all that respect for the forum? Where has all this dogmatism come from? You sound like a fundamentalist. You know what is right for everyone. Edited February 13, 2016 by mfbukowski 4
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 On 2/12/2016 at 1:16 AM, Bernard Gui said: From a former bishop and ward clerk (me).... Some annotations can be removed upon repentance, rebaptism, and proper approval. In addition to a record annotation, when a member is under disciplinary restrictions, has a pending disciplinary council, or may be suspect of sinful activities moves to a new ward, there is a place on the membership record instructing the new bishop to contact the previous bishop. A new move-in is not to be given a calling unless the new ward has received the membership record without any restrictions or the new bishop has contacted the previous bishop.The purpose is to protect the new ward and its members from potential problems and to make sure the repentance process is completed. The only person who can know the reason for the annotation is the bishop.There are predators who take advantage of the system and find ways to work around it, but they would be rare if procedures are followed. I am personally aware of one such fellow who had been excommunicated, moved to a new area, and used a false name to get rebaptized. He was starting to groom new victims when his secret was discovered by an astute bishop's daughter. Perhaps zone leaders should ask for ID before baptisms. This is not some sort of vindictive unforgiving Scarlet Letter scheme, but rather it is a way the Church protects its members and itself. We can rest assured that it has come about from sad experience. With similar experience, I agree totally.
Recommended Posts