Why would any straight person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What about the statistics cited here?  Is this also a "sad and disgusting situation, for sure?"

How would it be to be a media darling, all your sins covered up or defined out of existence, in the name of a false compassion that lacks brains and true charity?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

They haven't chosen to cut themselves off by God. 

If I break my covenant with G-d, I cut myself off with my own right hand.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

It is wonderful when any sexual child abuse is exposed, when the victims are acknowledged and helped, and when the perpetrators are caught and punished.

No argument here.  And the coverer-uppers deserve what they get.  The institution, however, has been unfairly singled out especially, as smac97 as pointed out, when others' perhaps greater sins are ignored/excused.

[USU78]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would say, Smac.  that something causes it.  There could be many factors to consider and it's quite possible social opprobrium plays a factor.  Until it's more socially acceptable I don't know how we would gauge and measure this.

Or, perhaps, one could look at places where we have a generation of "social[ ] acceptab[ility]" in places like Holland and Denmark and see if the percentages of homosexual pedophilia go down.

Otherwise, it's just wishy-hopey nonsensical avoidance of a difficult and supremely important wrong committed against the innocent, as ALarson correctly points out.

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

We do get cranky when people take away our civil rights.  I know you would prefer that we remain quiet and just disappear.  Didn't happen with women.  Didn't happen with blacks.  Probably not going to happen with gays.  

Have you noticed how quiet things have been from the gay community about gay marriage since it became legal?  Only time you now hear from the gay community is when some legislature is trying to pass laws allowing "christians" to legally discriminate against them.  And they aren't the only ones screaming.

Women are defined by their lack of a Y chromosome.  Blacks are defined by certain observable physical characteristics.

Homosexuals are defined by their behavior.

One of these things is not like the other.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why did you not respond to my post here: Posted Monday at 9:03 PM

Good for you.  You are one of the handful of people on this board willing to give up their wife, and family not only for this life but for eternity.  

Do you not think that some gay fathers are also willing to give up whatever is necessary for their children?  I stayed in a marriage based of a false lie told to me by my church leaders until all of my children were grown and out of the house.  So yeah, I actually did sacrafice a lot for my children.  This is not just a theory, this is my life.  I think only one person made some kind of positive remark of this small 25 year sacrifice for my children.  You were not among them.  So why didn't you respond to my post.  Did you not think sacrificing 25 years of staying in a marriage that I didn't really want to be in was not a big enough sacrifice?

[Mystery Meat]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

You bring up some interesting points.  I think this discussion forum is at it's best when it makes us think about our positions. So think about this.  Let's say a member has a problem with ponography.  He tells himself he is never going to look at it again.  A week passes and he fails again.  This happens for months, maybe years, maybe never overcoming his addiction.  Should the church kick him out?  Is he choosing to follow the Savior?  Do you beiieve it would be more helpful to call this person an apostate and kick them out of the church?  

Yes God told us to multiply and replenish the earth.  So are you saying that those who don't have biological children are sinning?  Does someone who is celibate multiply and replenish the earth?  Do you think a gay person should be encouraged by the church to marry someone of the opposite sex to multiply and replenish the earth?  Should a spouse who is fertile divorce his wife and find someone who can have children?  Or perhaps, like others, gay members are through no fault of their own are just not able to do that.  Kinda like a lot of other people who not fault of their own can not.

Hope that gives you something to think about.

The difference between the porn addict above and someone in a gay relationship is that the porn addict never quits in his efforts to overcome. Whereas the gay individual has thrown in the towel and decided to stop trying to keep the commandments.

Also, infertility does not disprove Storm's point, nor does it strengthen yours. Infertility is an exception, one that can often be treated. There is no exception to the rule that two individuals of the same sex will be able to conceive and have a baby. It is a stupid argument to raise to try and make a point in order to justify blatant disregard of one of the Lord's commandments.

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Good for you.  You are one of the handful of people on this board willing to give up their wife, and family not only for this life but for eternity.  

Do you not think that some gay fathers are also willing to give up whatever is necessary for their children?  I stayed in a marriage based of a false lie told to me by my church leaders until all of my children were grown and out of the house.  So yeah, I actually did sacrafice a lot for my children.  This is not just a theory, this is my life.  I think only one person made some kind of positive remark of this small 25 year sacrifice for my children.  You were not among them.  So why didn't you respond to my post.  Did you not think sacrificing 25 years of staying in a marriage that I didn't really want to be in was not a big enough sacrifice?

25 years is a minuscule amount of time when compared to eternity.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there has.  

You substantially mischaracterize Elder Nelson's remarks.  Substantially.  Heavily.  Shame-on-you-edly.

Here's what he said:

• "Filled with compassion..."
• "We wrestled at length to understand the Lord's will..."
• "Ever mindful of God's plan of salvation of and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children..."
• "We considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios..."
• "We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration..."
• "The Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord..."
• "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation..."
• "It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson..."

These remarks, you suggest, can be reduced to something as trite and facile and dismissive and inaccurate as "the senior leadership felt good about the newest policy."  No thanks.

Right.  Elder Nelson and the rest of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency, all got it wrong.  Fifteen men with literally hundreds of year of experience in the Church and with the Spirit cannot discern whether their first-hand experience was revelatory.  We should instead rely on your assessment as a non-witness that it "doesn't feel like a revelation to {you}," the acceptance of which necessarily requires us to conclude that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were collectively deluded, deceived or lying.  I do not accept that proposition.  As between believing them and believing you, I'll go with the former.

Also, I reject the notion that historic Christianity is categorically wrong the issue of homosexual attraction and conduct.  We have erred in some material respects in how we have addressed the issue, but the identification and condemnation of the underlying conduct as sin is, I think, scriptural and in accordance with the will of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Just wondering.  Can you even acknowledge that some people have trust issues with the church?  Are all of their trust issues totally groundless?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It did work for him and as proof he had children with her.

He just decided to switch sexes leaving his wife who he had been married to for 25 years.

Oh My Gosh.  Are you now a sock puppet for me?  I spent 25 years in a marriage I did not want to be in.  I did it on a lie told to me by members of the church.  And now it is "He just decided to switch sexes".  You got a lot of (I want to say something here that rhymes with malls)

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh My Gosh.  Are you now a sock puppet for me?  I spent 25 years in a marriage I did not want to be in.  I did it on a lie told to me by members of the church.  And now it is "He just decided to switch sexes".  You got a lot of (I want to say something here that rhymes with malls)

Define "lie" as used by you in this post, please.

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Women are defined by their lack of a Y chromosome.  Blacks are defined by certain observable physical characteristics.

Homosexuals are defined by their behavior.

One of these things is not like the other.

Really?   So it is ok to discriminate against Jews?  Muslins?  Mormons?  You would be on board if the same good "christians" that took away the civil rights from gays to vote on a proposition to take away the right to marry from Muslins?  Americans can now take away any civil rights from anyone that doesn't have the right chromosome?  Seriously?  That is your position?

[Mystery Meat]

Just now, california boy said:

Oh My Gosh.  Are you now a sock puppet for me?  I spent 25 years in a marriage I did not want to be in.  I did it on a lie told to me by members of the church.  And now it is "He just decided to switch sexes".  You got a lot of (I want to say something here that rhymes with malls)

Look CB, we are dealing with general principals here, I do not mean to make this about you specifically. I do have a lot of sympathy for you. You were given some pretty crappy advise by Church leaders. You call it a lie; I think lie requires intent to deceive and I see no evidence that they had any such intent. Was it a mistake to give it? Yes, no question. It was even irresponsible. Priesthood leaders are in fact fallible. But the ultimate responsibility for your choices is you. If you didn't think marriage was right for you, then you shouldn't have done it. You can't pass the buck onto anyone else. As someone who used to look at porn, I received a lot of crap counsel from local leaders and from the pulpit at General Conference. Had I followed much of it, I would likely still be looking at it today. But I considered their advice and applied what I thought was appropriate in accordance with the Spirit and set aside what I didn't. Had I followed their advice and still continued to struggle with pornography, that would have been my fault, not theirs. None of this bad counsel, mind you, in any way lessons the importance or genuineness of the Lord's counsel to avoid pornography like the plague. This faulty counsel, while bad, was coming from good, righteous men who had my best interests at heart. To call them liars would be petty and passing the buck. So while I can understand your trust issues, I do not think they are completely justified or well placed either.

I am not your judge and have no desire to be. You have made choices that I think are contrary to the revealed mind and will of the Lord. You have that right. But I don't have to accept or approve of your actions or validate your reasons underlying them. There is never a good reason to violate the commandments of God.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Really?   So it is ok to discriminate against Jews?  Muslins?  Mormons?  You would be on board if the same good "christians" that took away the civil rights from gays to vote on a proposition to take away the right to marry from Muslins?  Americans can now take away any civil rights from anyone that doesn't have the right chromosome?  Seriously?  That is your position?

One is entitled to life, liberty and property without respect of sex, belief, religious practice, or one's skin's melanin content or the presence or absence of epicanthic flaps.

One is entitled to believe what one will and put that belief into practice without respect of sex, belief, religious practice, or one's skin's melanin content or the presence or absence of epicanthic flaps.

One is entitled to say what one will, with few restrictions, without respect of sex, belief, religious practice, or one's skin's melanin content or the presence or absence of epicanthic flaps.

One's behavior can and must be regulated by the State.

You think the State should be able to compel or prohibit behavior by retailers, employers and landlords, but should not be able to compel or prohibit behavior by you.

Your position is logically incoherent.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But...as a consequence a terribly high percentage of Catholic Priests have been child molesters.  Terrible is the best word I could come up with.  It's claimed then, that the life they chose to live has caused them, often, to be sexual deviants because of their lack of sexual maturity and development. 

CFR that a "terribly high percentage of of Catholic Priests have been child molesters".  Either prove it or retract it; your choice.  

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

The difference between the porn addict above and someone in a gay relationship is that the porn addict never quits in his efforts to overcome. Whereas the gay individual has thrown in the towel and decided to stop trying to keep the commandments.

Also, infertility does not disprove Storm's point, nor does it strengthen yours. Infertility is an exception, one that can often be treated. There is no exception to the rule that two individuals of the same sex will be able to conceive and have a baby. It is a stupid argument to raise to try and make a point in order to justify blatant disregard of one of the Lord's commandments.

Address again why a person who can have children that is married to someone who can't have children should be under condemnation from you.  Address again how a couple who can not have children by medical help is under condemnation from you.

I agree it is a stupid argument that gay marriage is wrong because they can't have children. To make that claim, you also have to condemn every single other marriage who can not have children.  There may be other reasons why the church has a problem with gay marriage.  This is not one of them.

[Storm Rider]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh My Gosh.  Are you now a sock puppet for me?  I spent 25 years in a marriage I did not want to be in.  I did it on a lie told to me by members of the church.  And now it is "He just decided to switch sexes".  You got a lot of (I want to say something here that rhymes with malls)

Cal, what was the lie that you were told?  Is this meant in the sense of learning to love your wife or something else?  I know that we can fall in and out of love with our spouse, but from your statement I think you are talking about something else.  

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

25 years is a minuscule amount of time when compared to eternity.

So I should have stayed in a marriage that I didn't really want to be in based on a lie told to me by church leaders for eternity?  That is my punishment for believing that church leaders spoke for God?

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Define "lie" as used by you in this post, please.

A lie is when someone tells you a promise that comes from God when it does NOT.  A big lie is when telling something to someone effects the rest of their life based on that false promise.

[Storm Rider]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just wondering.  Can you even acknowledge that some people have trust issues with the church?  Are all of their trust issues totally groundless?

I think most of us can understand an individual with trust issues.  I personally can understand how an individual can have trust issues between themselves and the church leadership.  It is not that trust issues are groundless; it is that they are real for the individual.  It may or may not have much, if anything, to do with another person.  This is not a basis to excuse others or overlook their actions, but some individuals are very distrustful regardless of the actions of others.  

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just wondering.  Can you even acknowledge that some people have trust issues with the church?  

I certainly can.  But such an acknowledgement is not really germane to me assessing competing claims of what is or is not God's will.

Faith (and conforming our behavior to it) can be a difficult thing, particularly when an individual has skewered priorities.  There is, I think, substantial latitude for us to have messed up priorities in life.  Many of us spend too much time at work, or at play, or at activities that are not particularly healthy or productive.  But over time we can sort out these priorities.  The problem, I think, is when we take a particular facet of the human existence and give it priority over everything else, including God.  Take, for example, the rich young ruler described in Matthew 19:

Quote

 16 ¶And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do nomurder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt notsteal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt lovethy neighbour as thyself.

 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

 23 ¶Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This young man was good and righteous in many ways.  But the Savior declared that the young man "shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven" because, I think, the young man valued his wealth, his "great possessions," over obeying God.

Valuing wealth over obedience to God is, of course, still a problem in our day.  But I also think that there are those among us that value other things over obedience to God as well.  Things like sexual conduct, romantic love, substance abuse, worldly praise, unauthorized polygamy, same-sex marriage, and so on.  When an individual elevates one or more of these things above obedience to God, that individual may - like the rich young man described above - "hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."  I think that's why the Church is not content to disregard violations of The Law of Chastity.  I think we should avoid a lot of flak if the Brethren just avoided the whole same-sex marriage / homosexual conduct thing.  But to do so would be to abandon an important part of its mandate.

Quote

Are all of their trust issues totally groundless?

"Totally groundless?"  No.  Predominantly groundless?  Yes.  

Predominantly groundless due to ignorance and/or inexperience, yes.  

Predominantly groundless because Nephi "beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters," yes.  

Predominantly groundless because "the works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught."  

Predominantly groundless because "there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever."  

Predominantly groundless because many of us, though we may be "honorable men of the earth," have nevertheless been "blinded by the craftiness of men," or because we run the risk of being "not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 9, 2016 by smac97

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Good for you.  You are one of the handful of people on this board willing to give up their wife, and family not only for this life but for eternity.  

Do you not think that some gay fathers are also willing to give up whatever is necessary for their children?  I stayed in a marriage based of a false lie told to me by my church leaders until all of my children were grown and out of the house.  So yeah, I actually did sacrafice a lot for my children.  This is not just a theory, this is my life.  I think only one person made some kind of positive remark of this small 25 year sacrifice for my children.  You were not among them.  So why didn't you respond to my post.  Did you not think sacrificing 25 years of staying in a marriage that I didn't really want to be in was not a big enough sacrifice?

Note the key word is "willing" -- just like the sacrament prayer.

I do not read all your posts -- just the ones between us. I'm not going to go back and read the one you're referring to, but any sacrifice we make for our children in good faith is laudable, especially when the praise is unsolicited!

[Mystery Meat]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Address again why a person who can have children that is married to someone who can't have children should be under condemnation from you.  Address again how a couple who can not have children by medical help is under condemnation from you.

I agree it is a stupid argument that gay marriage is wrong because they can't have children. To make that claim, you also have to condemn every single other marriage who can not have children.  There may be other reasons why the church has a problem with gay marriage.  This is not one of them.

This is easy. A man and a woman who get married and discover that one or both of them is sterile did not make a choice to be sterile (excepting, of course, couples who took preventative measures to eliminate the chance of pregnancy, in which case that is a choice and violation of divine commandment). A gay or lesbian couple who gets married, however made a choice to, in effect, be sterile. No two gay men or lesbian women will ever be able to conceive, procreate, multiply or replenish. Period.  

Putting a sterile couple in the same category as gay and lesbian couples would be like lumping a chain smoker with lung cancer in with someone who never smoked but still got lung cancer (10-20% of lung cancer deaths occur in people who never smoked). One made a choice that led directly to the disease, while the other simply had bad genetics. One abused a sacred gift from God and paid the price, one did not and still paid a price. One's choice was a sin, the other's was not. 

It is the same thing here. One actively chose not to multiply and replenish, the other did not. Even though neither of these couples will conceive, the man and woman maintained righteous desires.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

A lie is when someone tells you a promise that comes from God when it does NOT.  A big lie is when telling something to someone effects the rest of their life based on that false promise.

You just lied, by that definition.

A lie exists where the speaker of the lie knows what he is saying is false.

Assuming arguendo that what you were promised did not come to pass or otherwise turned out not to be true, it is still not a lie unless the speaker knew what he said was not true.

When, however, a sought-after blessing is not forthcoming, notwithstanding a promise that it would, we might well look at ourselves to determine the 'why not' of the situation.

You falsely accuse another of lying, wholly without evidence, knowing you have no evidence.

That, my friend, is a lie.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

CFR that a "terribly high percentage of of Catholic Priests have been child molesters".  Either prove it or retract it; your choice.  

He retracted it already.  See here.

Thanks,

-Smac