Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 8 hours ago, theplains said: I understand the concept of challenges, which I accept. What 'challenges' [in the context of LGBT] do you consider as being sinful to God? Thanks, Jim Like Jesus, I don't consider challenges to be sins. It is not a sin to be born blind. It is not a sin to have same sex desires. It is not a sin to be ignorant. These are all challenges which can help us develop character. Can you think of any challenges which are sinful? 3
strappinglad Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Can thoughts be sinful , or must only actions be sinful? Can thoughts cause the Holy Ghost to depart ? If so, then they cause a separation from God and is that not one definition of the results of sin?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 2 hours ago, strappinglad said: Can thoughts be sinful , or must only actions be sinful? Can thoughts cause the Holy Ghost to depart ? If so, then they cause a separation from God and is that not one definition of the results of sin? What if one is born with same sex attraction? Is that a sin? Is opposite sex attraction a sin? The Law of Chastity never suggests thought control, only action. The Brethren have never found fault with someone with same sex attraction who leads a celibate life, and such can certainly qualify for a temple recommend. 1
Calm Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 My opinion... Thoughts are internal behaviour and can be judged in the same fashion as our external behaviour; but just as some of our external behaviour---such as breathing and eyes blinking---are not completely under our concious control, so are some thoughts. It is not a sin to breathe, to startle when frightened, to cry when sad; it is not a sin for thoughts to pop into our heads. Thoughts only become sins when we exercise the wrong sort of control over them, just as our actions become sins when we place ourselves physically into situations we could and should have refrain from. 1
USU78 Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 On 7/26/2016 at 1:37 AM, california boy said: I am so sick of being compared to a thief a drunkard a drug addict a whatever. Being gay is Like being straight. Do we compare anyone having sex that is straight a thief, drinkard or as Scott said only yesterday a cocaine addict? Do we say their love is like being addicted to porn? I am so getting tired of the way Mormons look at gays Who needs the abuse and demeaning attitudes. Let's have yet another thread about those sinful gays where we can comment on how much better OUR love is. God approves of our love. God condemns gay love. We need to talk about this again because I feel so much better about my own sins when I can talk about the sins of the gays. Heaven forbid if they actually fall in love like I did. They are just like thieves and drunkards when they do that. I on the other hand are on the road to celestial glory because I love the right kind of person. End of rant. Continue on with your discussion on how sinful and discussing gays are. Our favorite topic on this board Drama Queen much? 1
strappinglad Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The Law of Chastity never suggests thought control, only action. Funny story. When I was in the MTC our language study group were told to control our dreams so that we didn't have inappropriate ' results ' from those dreams. My internal response to such a statement was ' good luck with that guys !' 1
USU78 Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 On 7/26/2016 at 2:39 PM, CountryBoy said: Is there a reason we have a new of these every few days? Because the mods, praise be, permit now what they used to regulate strictly 1
Jeanne Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 20 minutes ago, USU78 said: Drama Queen much? That was uncalled for.
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 On 7/26/2016 at 0:37 AM, california boy said: I am so sick of being compared to a thief a drunkard a drug addict a whatever. Being gay is Like being straight. Do we compare anyone having sex that is straight a thief, drinkard or as Scott said only yesterday a cocaine addict? Do we say their love is like being addicted to porn? I am so getting tired of the way Mormons look at gays Who needs the abuse and demeaning attitudes. Let's have yet another thread about those sinful gays where we can comment on how much better OUR love is. God approves of our love. God condemns gay love. We need to talk about this again because I feel so much better about my own sins when I can talk about the sins of the gays. Heaven forbid if they actually fall in love like I did. They are just like thieves and drunkards when they do that. I on the other hand are on the road to celestial glory because I love the right kind of person. End of rant. Continue on with your discussion on how sinful and discussing gays are. Our favorite topic on this board Insofar as this applies to me, my points were theological and not personal Instead of attempting to refute my logic and theology to show how I was wrong, it seems you responded this way to my post just above yours. It was not my intention to make it personal, actually I am trying to find one RATIONAL reason consistent with Mormon beliefs to accept gay marriage. I cannot find any at all. On the other hand, I wish I could make this entire post part of my siggy. This is the central contradiction as I see it in the gay position today regarding the church THIS is your attitude toward the church and yet you WANT your children to be baptized and learn to think this way! To me it is an unfathomable position. I cannot possibly see any way such a position can be justified. As I have said before- to me, this would be tantamount to child abuse to raise my children thinking this way about my personal values. 3
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Because the mods, praise be, permit now what they used to regulate strictly It is clear there are fewer and fewer substantive threads, so like the media, they go for the sensational stuff. I am not sure what the advantages of that approach are. Notice that we used to get actual scholars and authorities on topics posting here, and yes there are still a few but they are seen less and less of late. Virtually all the topics now are about gays and questions of historical or scientific accuracy of "Mormon truth claims" and the same people battling the same points over and over and over and over again. I am not sure how we can change that. Edited July 28, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Calm Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 3 hours ago, USU78 said: Because the mods, praise be, permit now what they used to regulate strictly Do you report such threads?
Calm Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am not sure how we can change that. If you are not reporting where you think people have gone off, I would suggest doing so. Even if at times there are delays, I have found overall mods are being responsive to my complaints. I myself have however been reporting much less.
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Calm said: My opinion... Thoughts are internal behaviour and can be judged in the same fashion as our external behaviour; but just as some of our external behaviour---such as breathing and eyes blinking---are not completely under our concious control, so are some thoughts. It is not a sin to breathe, to startle when frightened, to cry when sad; it is not a sin for thoughts to pop into our heads. Thoughts only become sins when we exercise the wrong sort of control over them, just as our actions become sins when we place ourselves physically into situations we could and should have refrain from. Sin is always voluntary- a decision made to put our will ahead of God's. If it's not voluntary, it's not voluntary. I will now quote that great theologian, Bob Dylan Quote And if my thought-dreams could be seenThey’d probably put my head in a guillotineBut it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only http://bobdylan.com/songs/its-alright-ma-im-only-bleeding/ Incidentally I recommend reading all the lyrics which though not great poetry are still highly relevant today I especially like "He not busy being born is busy dying" Edited July 28, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
ALarson Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It is clear there are fewer and fewer substantive threads, so like the media, they go for the sensational stuff. I am not sure what the advantages of that approach are. Notice that we used to get actual scholars and authorities on topics posting here, and yes there are still a few but they are seen less and less of late. Virtually all the topics now are about gays and questions of historical or scientific accuracy of "Mormon truth claims" and the same people battling the same points over and over and over and over again. I am not sure how we can change that. Looking through the topic titles (in the General Discussions forum), I see a great variety of topics listed and it's up to each individual which ones they choose to participate in. I agree that some topics seem to pop up more frequently, but maybe that's because there is interest right now in those (or they would die out rather quickly as I've see this happen too).
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: Looking through the topic titles (in the General Discussions forum), I see a great variety of topics listed and it's up to each individual which ones they choose to participate in. I agree that some topics seem to pop up more frequently, but maybe that's because there is interest right now in those (or they would die out rather quickly as I've see this happen too). Excellent point. A good example is the thread I started about whether church leaders in the 20th century made any efforts to keep certain information from going public. Almost immediately someone expressed disgust at yet another attempt to wrongly discuss the "factual" basis of the LDS church's foundational beliefs. Of course, the actions of church leaders in the 20th century are only tangentially related to the church's foundational beliefs, but that doesn't matter to some. Obviously enough people are not tired of rehashing the same issues, or that thread would have died a quick death, though I note with some irony that the thread is no longer about the OP but a discussion of seer stones. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Excellent point. A good example is the thread I started about whether church leaders in the 20th century made any efforts to keep certain information from going public. Almost immediately someone expressed disgust at yet another attempt to wrongly discuss the "factual" basis of the LDS church's foundational beliefs. Of course, the actions of church leaders in the 20th century are only tangentially related to the church's foundational beliefs, but that doesn't matter to some. Obviously enough people are not tired of rehashing the same issues, or that thread would have died a quick death, though I note with some irony that the thread is no longer about the OP but a discussion of seer stones. Indeed a perfect example of my point Yes you had a nice title to your thread, but as usual it was a re-hash of an already closed thread about the same topic- the status of "evidence" for Mormonism And now here you are again, responding to me without responding to me. This little silly tactic of not responding to me directly but yet responding in a veiled way is typical of you John. You are seldom direct but respond tangentially in a politically correct way. I find it sly, cunning, and frankly quite transparent. I know. Soon you will apologize and take your marbles and go home and not post for 6 months, and then come back and do the same again so yet again you can play the victim It is the same pattern again and again with us here John, between you and me I wish we could hash it out and get it over with. It is your subtle manner that gives me the willies. Say it directly, say what's on your mind and let's talk it out Directly. Face to face. Here or somewhere else will do. Just say what you want to say and say it directly to me- that is all. -- "Someone" Edited July 28, 2016 by mfbukowski
ALarson Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Indeed a perfect example of my point Yes you had a nice title to your thread, but as usual it was a re-hash of an already closed thread about the same topic- the status of "evidence" for Mormonism I think you are mistaken that this thread was closed.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Indeed a perfect example of my point Yes you had a nice title to your thread, but as usual it was a re-hash of an already closed thread about the same topic- the status of "evidence" for Mormonism And now here you are again, responding to me without responding to me. This little silly tactic of not responding to me directly but yet responding in a veiled way is typical of you John. You are seldom direct but respond tangentially in a politically correct way. I find it sly, cunning, and frankly quite transparent. I know. Soon you will apologize and take your marbles and go home and not post for 6 months, and then come back and do the same again so yet again you can play the victim It is the same pattern again and again with us here John, between you and me I wish we could hash it out and get it over with. It is your subtle manner that gives me the willies. Say it directly, say what's on your mind and let's talk it out Directly. Face to face. Here or somewhere else will do. Just say what you want to say and say it directly to me- that is all. -- "Someone" You know what? You're right, and I will once again stay away from you. Apologies. Look, I tried to get along with you, and it just doesn't work. I know I contributed to that, but it's hopeless. FWIW: 1. My thread wasn't closed and still isn't, so why would I start the same thread twice? 2. My thread used the title of the essay that I linked to, but you apparently assigned significance to my use of that title. 3. My thread has absolutely nothing to do with the "status of the evidence." I'm really tired of the constant attacks, Mark. Edited July 28, 2016 by jkwilliams
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 39 minutes ago, ALarson said: Looking through the topic titles (in the General Discussions forum), I see a great variety of topics listed and it's up to each individual which ones they choose to participate in. I agree that some topics seem to pop up more frequently, but maybe that's because there is interest right now in those (or they would die out rather quickly as I've see this happen too). Either you agree or you don't I am not going through every thread to show that they all end up on the same topics despite their titles The ARGUMENTS could be numbered, and like that old joke we could just number them "Well I think Argument 57 applies here!! So there!" "No way! I hereby cite rebuttal A-473! Refute THAT!" That's all we need 1
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Either you agree or you don't I am not going through every thread to show that they all end up on the same topics despite their titles The ARGUMENTS could be numbered, and like that old joke we could just number them "Well I think Argument 57 applies here!! So there!" "No way! I hereby cite rebuttal A-473! Refute THAT!" That's all we need Or we could just say "There are no facts!" and all go home and have ice cream.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 4 hours ago, USU78 said: Because the mods, praise be, permit now what they used to regulate strictly Shakespearean cadence here, nicely done. 3
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 21 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think you are mistaken that this thread was closed. You know, after checking, you are absolutely correct I apologize I still maintain that the two threads were discussing the same topic regardless of title
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: You know, after checking, you are absolutely correct I apologize I still maintain that the two threads were discussing the same topic regardless of title They weren't. As the originator of both threads, I would know that. My guess is that you skimmed both threads and decided I was doing the old Cartesian duality you keep accusing me of doing. It's pretty damn tiring, Mark.
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Indeed a perfect example of my point Yes you had a nice title to your thread, but as usual it was a re-hash of an already closed thread about the same topic- the status of "evidence" for Mormonism And now here you are again, responding to me without responding to me. This little silly tactic of not responding to me directly but yet responding in a veiled way is typical of you John. You are seldom direct but respond tangentially in a politically correct way. I find it sly, cunning, and frankly quite transparent. I know. Soon you will apologize and take your marbles and go home and not post for 6 months, and then come back and do the same again so yet again you can play the victim 27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: You know what? You're right, and I will once again stay away from you. Apologies. Look, I tried to get along with you, and it just doesn't work. I know I contributed to that, but it's hopeless. .....I'm really tired of the constant attacks, Mark. Another response without a response, and an apology, and making yourself a victim to my "attacks" Let's just hope the 6 month absence happens too, but this time I have my doubts Direct John, Direct. Arguments not innuendo. Logic. I know you can do it- we have done it in the past but you still do not want to get to the central issue- the nature of facts THAT has been the argument from the beginning. You are inconsistent that and you know it but you have avoided that issue for years. The nature of truth. You refuse to go there.
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Or we could just say "There are no facts!" and all go home and have ice cream. Cute but you know this is in fact the issue- you say so yourself You maintain that there are no facts on one side and deny it on the other. This is the central conflict indeed John. It is two-faced. THAT is the problem at its core. "Man speak with forked tongue" This is core philosophy on which you know you have taken both sides, and that does not work
Recommended Posts