jkwilliams Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, MDalby said: I was asked once why Mormons have so many kids and I answered, because then we know what hell feels like and it will make us appreciate heaven. I've been asked many times by non-Mormons why I have such a large family (I have 6 kids), and I always say we just figured we would stop when we felt it was time to stop having kids. I know you're joking, but I don't regret having my kids, not even the difficult times, and there have been many of those. Having a large family made no financial sense, but I'm glad we did. 2
MDalby Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 I have 5 children and if we could change some decisions, we probably would have had one more. I have 12 grandchildren and we love having the large family. I never felt like our home was in turmoil or sacrificed anything due to a large family. 1
CV75 Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: I do think, by and large, gay people will find it rough going in the church, but some people manage to do just fine. I've never met anyone who has said it's impossible for gays and lesbians to be "successful" in the church, which is what I disagreed with you about. I have been around here long enough to know my position is pretty much the same as most "critics." Theologically speaking, there is no place for gays and lesbians in the plan of salvation; the assumption I have heard from church leaders and members is that faithful gays and lesbians will be "made whole" in the next life, but until then, they will have to suck it up and live without sex and intimacy. Just like everybody else with any other special, unique, heart-string pulling circumstance they must deal with in life! It's a test! And because of that, there is a place for everyone in the plan of salvation.
The Nehor Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: My concern is that the LDS Church has taken heaven and made a hell of it. Mormons have defined hell as a lack of progression and created a church to match the definition. I think it is more correct to define it as happiness and misery and which one we choose. Perdition chooses misery outright. Most want a mixture of the two. 1
Ahab Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: I keep waiting for heaven and/or hell to become a different place. Or different places for different people Heaven and hell are many places. Not just 2 places, but many. Possibly an infinite number of heavens and hells, although each place that is a heaven can be referred to generally or collectively as heaven, and each place that is hell can be referred to generally or collectively as hell. For example, this planet has several places that can be referred to as heaven. In the first few chapters of Genesis you can see how it, or those places, are described. Generally anything above the earth, which we commonly refer to as the sky, or the atmosphere, or the expanse beyond the atmosphere. And in the book of Revelation we are told that we will someday have another heaven as well as a new Earth, when this Earth passes away or becomes what we sometimes call celestialized. A new heaven because this Earth (or planet) will be moved to another region of space with different things around us in that heaven. And just as there is a heaven on this Earth or above and around this Earth every other planet has its own heaven on or above or around it, with everything above the earth on every Earth or planet also being a heaven or a part of heaven/Heaven. 1
Ahab Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 33 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I think it is more correct to define it as happiness and misery and which one we choose. Perdition chooses misery outright. Most want a mixture of the two. Given the fact that we "must needs have" opposition in all things, I want there to be just enough misery to balance all of happiness so neither one never will fade away.
The Nehor Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Given the fact that we "must needs have" opposition in all things, I want there to be just enough misery to balance all of happiness so neither one never will fade away. I would rather just have misery as a remote memory.
Jeanne Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: Heaven and hell are many places. Not just 2 places, but many. Possibly an infinite number of heavens and hells, although each place that is a heaven can be referred to generally or collectively as heaven, and each place that is hell can be referred to generally or collectively as hell. For example, this planet has several places that can be referred to as heaven. In the first few chapters of Genesis you can see how it, or those places, are described. Generally anything above the earth, which we commonly refer to as the sky, or the atmosphere, or the expanse beyond the atmosphere. And in the book of Revelation we are told that we will someday have another heaven as well as a new Earth, when this Earth passes away or becomes what we sometimes call celestialized. A new heaven because this Earth (or planet) will be moved to another region of space with different things around us in that heaven. And just as there is a heaven on this Earth or above and around this Earth every other planet has its own heaven on or above or around it, with everything above the earth on every Earth or planet also being a heaven or a part of heaven/Heaven. Thanks for all this info and your thoughts. So.,,this means that if I tell someone to go to ........they could just about wind up anywhere! One would have to wonder what heaven we are shootin' for. Thanks for reminding me of some things that i had long forgotten. 1
Ahab Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I would rather just have misery as a remote memory. I'd rather be fully aware of everything there is to know, including the state of how everything is everywhere.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 6 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Reminds me of that guy at the Malheur occupation who said he was Captain Moroni. On his Facebook page, he had written that his idea of hell was endless church meetings. Reminds me of something Peter Lorre said to Humphrey Bogart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i_g3wzP6xU .
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Reminds me of something Peter Lorre said to Humphrey Bogart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i_g3wzP6xU . I used to worry about what people thought of me, but I got over it.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 6 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I used to worry about what people thought of me, but I got over it. And rightly so.
canard78 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 11 hours ago, Ahab said: All it takes is the ability/power to see that both sexes have their own pluses and minuses, with nothing wrong about either sex, per se. Men who think/feel that only men are sexually attractive just need to open themselves up more... in their heart and mind, etc... to seeing how women are also sexually attractive too. And vice versa for women who feel/ think only women are sexually attractive, or for so-called "straight" people who feel/think that only the opposite sex is sexually attractive. We all are, each in our own way, whether male or female. No... Brain hurts... Ugh... Ahab. You're bisexual (based on what you've described). Just because you are, doesn't mean anyone could be. Lots of men who are straight could not possibly find a way of being sexually attracted to men. It's simply not in their biological makeup. 1
Ahab Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 5 hours ago, canard78 said: No... Brain hurts... Ugh... Ahab. You're bisexual (based on what you've described). Just because you are, doesn't mean anyone could be. Lots of men who are straight could not possibly find a way of being sexually attracted to men. It's simply not in their biological makeup. As I said, all it takes is the ability/power to see that both sexes are sexually attractive. That each person is sexually attractive, whether male or female. Like you, for example. You are a man, right? Do you really think women are the only people who are supposed to be able to see that you are sexually attractive? That no man is supposed to be able to see that you are? That not even God can see that both men AND women are sexually attractive creatures? I've got news for you, bro. People who can't see that both sexes are sexually attractive are not seeing something that some other people are able to see. When you are made "whole" one day, maybe then you will be able to see that. And feel it too. All the way through your spiritual core.
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 31 minutes ago, Ahab said: As I said, all it takes is the ability/power to see that both sexes are sexually attractive. That each person is sexually attractive, whether male or female. Like you, for example. You are a man, right? Do you really think women are the only people who are supposed to be able to see that you are sexually attractive? That no man is supposed to be able to see that you are? That not even God can see that both men AND women are sexually attractive creatures? I've got news for you, bro. People who can't see that both sexes are sexually attractive are not seeing something that some other people are able to see. When you are made "whole" one day, maybe then you will be able to see that. And feel it too. All the way through your spiritual core. Understanding that others find someone sexually attractive is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to that person. No amount of opening my mind is going to make me attracted to people I am not attracted to by nature.
Ahab Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Understanding that others find someone sexually attractive is not the same thing as being sexually attracted to that person. No amount of opening my mind is going to make me attracted to people I am not attracted to by nature. What do you mean by "by nature"? I'm saying that you should be able to see with your eyes and feel in your heart/mind that both sexes are sexually attractive. That you should not be denying or refusing to accept that ALL people are, each in their own way. You are capable of realizing that. Don't be afraid. I'm not saying you should want to have sexual relations with everyone on this planet. You still should reserve sexual relations for only those you are married to, and your spouse (or spouses) should still be of the opposite sex.
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Ahab said: What do you mean by "by nature"? I'm saying that you should be able to see with your eyes and feel in your heart/mind that both sexes are sexually attractive. That you should not be denying or refusing to accept that ALL people are, each in their own way. You are capable of realizing that. Don't be afraid. I'm not saying you should want to have sexual relations with everyone on this planet. You still should reserve sexual relations for only those you are married to, and your spouse (or spouses) should still be of the opposite sex. I can't decide if it's the creepiness or the condescension that bugs me more, but I'm out.
Ahab Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I can't decide if it's the creepiness or the condescension that bugs me more, but I'm out. If you were hoping that I'd agree that you can't agree with me on this issue then naturally you should feel disappointed.
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Just now, Ahab said: If you were hoping that I'd agree that you can't agree with me on this issue then naturally you should feel disappointed. Nope, I don't expect you to agree with me, but life's too short to deal with condescension and creepiness.
Ahab Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Nope, I don't expect you to agree with me, but life's too short to deal with condescension and creepiness. Condescension and creepiness are in the the eye of the beholder, kinda like beauty, I guess. I was simply saying that you should be able to see as I see.
Gray Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: What do you mean by "by nature"? I'm saying that you should be able to see with your eyes and feel in your heart/mind that both sexes are sexually attractive. That you should not be denying or refusing to accept that ALL people are, each in their own way. You are capable of realizing that. Don't be afraid. I'm not saying you should want to have sexual relations with everyone on this planet. You still should reserve sexual relations for only those you are married to, and your spouse (or spouses) should still be of the opposite sex. Ahab, if someone is not bisexual they're just never going to have this perspective.
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Ahab, if someone is not bisexual they're just never going to have this perspective. Apparently, anyone with an open mind can become bisexual.
Ahab Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Ahab, if someone is not bisexual they're just never going to have this perspective. You do realize I'm not a "practicing" bisexual now, don't you? The only reason I ever was was because I could see that both sexes are sexually attractive and I allowed myself to get into situations of having sexual relations with each sex. I would never do that again now, with anyone of the same sex, or with anyone of the opposite sex either unless I was married to her. But I can still see that each sex is sexually attractive, each in its own way, and there is no good reason that anyone should not be able to see that. It's not as if only the opposite sex should be able to see that. It is a fact that each sex IS.
Gray Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: You do realize I'm not a "practicing" bisexual now, don't you? The only reason I ever was was because I could see that both sexes are sexually attractive and I allowed myself to get into situations of having sexual relations with each sex. I would never do that again now, with anyone of the same sex, or with anyone of the opposite sex either unless I was married to her. But I can still see that each sex is sexually attractive, each in its own way, and there is no good reason that anyone should not be able to see that. It's not as if only the opposite sex should be able to see that. It is a fact that each sex IS. Yes, I realize that. But being bisexual is an orientation, even if you're not "practicing". For those of us who are more polarized on the spectrum, we're just not going to feel the same way about both sexes. We might be able to understand it intellectually but we can't experience what you feel about it. In theory I get why straight women, bisexual people and gay men might find Chris Hemsworth attractive. But I'm not sharing in the experience of feeling that attraction. 1
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 27 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, I realize that. But being bisexual is an orientation, even if you're not "practicing". For those of us who are more polarized on the spectrum, we're just not going to feel the same way about both sexes. We might be able to understand it intellectually but we can't experience what you feel about it. In theory I get why straight women, bisexual people and gay men might find Chris Hemsworth attractive. But I'm not sharing in the experience of feeling that attraction. Exactly. The idea that you can change your sexual orientation and attractions simply by having an open mind has no relation to reality. 1
Recommended Posts