President Nelson Speaks to Young Adults in Las Vegas - Feb 17, 2018

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Isn't it best to let them explain for themselves how they make it work for them? Even if you don't like their analogies?

Exactly this. I could definitely write out a whole response to Cinepro's comments. But it's clear that it won't make any difference. He has already decided which narrative he is going to consider valid, and all others are simply embarrassing mental gymnastics to him.

I wish I could say I was surprised. Unfortunately, I've seen that far too many times the exhortation to listen to LGBT individuals experience only applies to certain approved LGBT experiences.

[smac97]

On 2/20/2018 at 1:25 PM, rockpond said:

This is where I get tripped up with his statement as well.  How is loving someone ever something we shouldn't do?  Or is he talking about love of things? 

A man, married to Ann, "falls in love" with another woman, Beth.

That is "something we shouldn't do."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 2/20/2018 at 1:26 PM, cinepro said:

Quote

Being tempted to misuse the appetites we have is different than being tempted by having appetites. 

As I pointed out, the idea that external forces are influencing us in that way is extremely problematic,

I don't see that as problematic at all.

Sexual attraction is a function of biology and personal choices.  It can be deployed appropriately (in accordance with God's will), or not (which can involve influence from the Adversary).

On 2/20/2018 at 1:26 PM, cinepro said:

regardless of whether you theorize they are influencing the "use" of our appetites or giving us the appetites to begin with. 

In the end, it's a distinction without a difference.

We all have appetites.  We are ultimately accountable for whether we control those appetites appropriately.  Consider the following:

• Scenario A: A married man may use pornography or adultery to satisfy his sexual appetite. 
• Scenario B: A may constrain himself from the things in Scenarior A, and instead foster a healthy and loving relationship with his wife, which could include sexual activity, as a way of satisfying his sexual appetite.

It is a basic tenet of Christianity that we can be influenced by good (the Spirit) or evil (the Devil).  As to the latter, an excellent form of temptation is to take an otherwise God-given attribute and misuse it. 

So a man may use his physical strength to help a neighbor move in, or he may use it to beat up that neighbor during a disagreement about football. 

A woman may use her intellectual gifts to obtain a degree and practice medicine, or she may use it to swindle family members out of their savings.  

And so on, ad infinitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 2/20/2018 at 1:47 PM, ALarson said:

Ok, I can see that.  So God instills these appetites (ie. love), but Satan turns them ...into desires and actions that derail derail the best of spiritual intentions.  

What do you think he's referring to when he states: "These appetites are absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life"?  What action involving love is "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life" other than sex?

Companionship.  Service.  Self-sacrifice.  Nurturing.

My wife has had six children.  I have watched her spend years and untold amounts of effort providing our children with food, clothing, shelter, affection, emotional support and guidance, and so on.  Without these things, life dwindles rather than thrives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 2/20/2018 at 1:57 PM, ALarson said:

Quote

Love makes people stick around and care for their children and other family members.  Without it, children would be abandoned st birth, women left on their own when pregnant, elderly parents abandoned, etc.

True.  But those actions are not "absolutely essential for the perpetuation of life".

They are.  They can be.  One of my sons contracted a severe case of croup when he was two.  We rushed him to the hospital, where he received necessary medical attention that enabled him to live.

His life was saved that day because he had people "stick around and care for" him.

And that is just one example of many.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

They are.  They can be.  One of my sons contracted a severe case of croup when he was two.  We rushed him to the hospital, where he received necessary medical attention that enabled him to live.

Of course.  But you are speaking about someone giving "necessary medical attention" to keep someone alive.  

That's  different than the fact that many children survive to adulthood without being loved as a child.  It's sad and even tragic.  But it happens.  One can have their physical needs taken care of and live without love.  

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Companionship.  Service.  Self-sacrifice.  Nurturing.

Again, those are wonderful to give and receive and they are important to live a happy life.  But they are not absolutely essential to perpetuate life.  Humans would not die off if every person didn't receive ALL of them.  They'd not be as happy or as fulfilled, but they could live.  Once again, many children survive to adulthood without love being a part of their childhood even from birth.

Procreating should involve love.  That is what is absolutely essential to perpetuate life (sex, procreating).

The human race would die off without procreating....without eating....and without drinking.  Pretty simple really.

Edited February 22, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 2/20/2018 at 2:27 PM, ALarson said:

No, I completely understand what you're saying and agree.  But love is not absolutely essential for the perpetuation (continuation) of life.  Eating, drinking and sex ARE absolutely essential appetites if one does not want the human race to die off.  (And yes, I know there are other ways now to reproduce, but you get my point I hope).

The word that comes to mind is "dwindle."  As in "to become smaller and smaller; shrink; waste away."

Consider D&C 45:

Quote

26 And in that day shall be heard of wars and rumors of wars, and the whole earth shall be in commotion, and men’s hearts shall fail them, and they shall say that Christ delayeth his coming until the end of the earth.

27 And the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound.

Without love, marriages die.  Families die.  Parenting and communities diminish.  Whither away.  They dwindle.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 2/20/2018 at 2:55 PM, ALarson said:

I'm not going to continue arguing this.  It seems silly to claim that every child who isn't loved is not going to survive. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting something that specific and precise.  I think the concept being discussed is more cumulative and in the aggregate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 22, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The word that comes to mind is "dwindle."  As in "to become smaller and smaller; shrink; waste away."

Consider D&C 45:

Without love, marriages die.  Families die.  Parenting and communities diminish.  Whither away.  They dwindle.

Thanks,

-Smac

We're just going to have to disagree here.  Pres. Nelson gave a very precise statement naming love, eating, and drinking as things that are "absolutely essential" to "perpetuate life".  

Many people live without love and human kind could continue without it (albeit not ideally).  However, the human race would die off without sex or procreating, (but would still exist without love).

No one can live without eating and drinking....the human race would die off without these just as it would without procreating.

If you can't see this, I'm not going to continue arguing it with you.  I work with abused children (and some who have made it to adulthood)....I can tell you they lived even though they never once felt or received love.

Edited February 22, 2018 by ALarson

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

The problem with this absolute statement, cinepro, is that there are many gay LDS who do find that the Church has a lot to offer them, and they remain active and worthy despite their undeniable SSA. Of the gay members within the Church, this is not a small number. I have some in my ward, and have had more in past wards. You and others make it seem and sound bleak and hopeless for all of them as a group, and I know many who take issue with this. They find joy and value in keeping their covenants in the Church --- really and truly, not just whistling past the graveyard (granted, some are also whistling past the graveyard, too).

 

 

Isn't it best to let them explain for themselves how they make it work for them? Even if you don't like their analogies?

 

 

Suicide at worst, and ex-mormon at best? No other alternatives or shades of experience and outcome possible at all? I don't think the hypberbolics are helpful. I know one (a mother of two) who, after being reinstated from disfellowshipment, had a heart-to-heart with the stake president about how it's going to be making it to the age of 94 not being able to act on how she really feels. But, she is anything but suicidal or trending inexorably ex-mormon. She has a strong testimony, and that's why she is going to endure. Because it's worth it to her, even though it is hard. 

Is Josh Johanson still married and active? That would be wonderful! 

That's fair, and if I overstepped in my comments to generalize to all gay LDS, then I take it back.  Having lived in a ward that encompassed a predominantly gay portion of Los Angeles, I too have known several gay LDS who attend and keep the faith.  But I also knew a few who struggled to reconcile their sexuality with the gospel until they had to choose one or the other for their own sanity.  So I do admit there is a spectrum, and if a gay LDS can make it work for them, then I think that's wonderful.

But at the very least, the Church should acknowledge that it works for some people, but not for others.  I am skeptical about just how many people this will work for, and I suspect as gay LDS become more aware of the idea that society in general is more accepting of them, we'll see the numbers of people who stay in the Church dwindling, especially if the Church continues to treat them like they're in a special Mormon Island of Misfit Toys .

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We're just going to have to disagree here.  Pres. Nelson gave a very precise statement naming love, eating, and drinking as things that are "absolutely essential" to "perpetuate life".  

Many people live without love and human kind could continue without it (albeit not ideally).  However, the human race would die off without sex or procreating, (but would still exist without love).

No one can live without eating and drinking....the human race would die off without these just as it would without procreating.

If you can't see this, I'm not going to continue arguing it with you.  I work with abused children (and some who have made it to adulthood)....I can tell you they lived even though they never once felt or received love.

You sure?

Sorry, I had to take this opportunity.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Rich Hansen said:

Scott,  your posts suggest that you are knowledgeable on the LDS understanding of Satan.  

I have a few questions if you don't mind.  Let' suppose a person is Satan agnostic.  Can they be baptized into the LDS church?  Can they receive temple ordinances?  Can they achieve celestial glory? 

Is there an upside to belief in Satan?

Is there a downside to disbelief?

Thanks.

 

I'm not a Church spokesman.

There are sources that can give you an authoritative message on "the LDS understanding of Satan."

Go to LDS.org. There are reference works there, for example, such as "Guide to the Scriptures."

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

A man, married to Ann, "falls in love" with another woman, Beth.

That is "something we shouldn't do."

Thanks,

-Smac

Evidently publicly talking about it is something Ann shouldn't do either.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't see that as problematic at all.

Sexual attraction is a function of biology and personal choices.  It can be deployed appropriately (in accordance with God's will), or not (which can involve influence from the Adversary).

As I've said countless times before, I'm glad I'm not the guy in the COB that has to try and figure out how to solve the Church's problem with homosexuals.  Because what they've done didn't work, what they're doing right now isn't working, and I don't see a path forward that reconciles the problem.  It will take someone much more creative, diplomatic, and/or inspired than anyone that's come before to figure it out. 

And through the entire process, I expect to see those who fight to maintain the status quo most vocal in their insistence that those feelings are like wanting apple pie, so just like how I skip apple pie when I'm on a diet, they just need to go on a lifelong sex diet.   Or that because there are a few places in the scriptures that speak against it, we should stand like a rock and not ignore those passages the way we ignore all the other tons of passages that stay stuff we want to ignore.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Edited February 22, 2018 by cinepro

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As I've said countless times before, I'm glad I'm not the guy in the COB that has to try and figure out how to solve the Church's problem with homosexuals.  Because what they've done didn't work, what they're doing right now isn't working, and I don't see a path forward that reconciles the problem. 

I think what they are doing right now is being actively fought against.  Let's give it time.

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It will take someone much more creative, diplomatic, and/or inspired than anyone that's come before to figure it out. 

Even then, we'll still face some pretty stiff opposition.

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

And through the entire process, I expect to see those who fight to maintain the status quo most vocal in their insistence that those feelings are like wanting apple pie, so just like how I skip apple pie when I'm on a diet, they just need to go on a lifelong sex diet.   

Plenty of people are asked (commanded, even) to go on a "sex diet."  That part of discipleship.

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Or that because there are a few places in the scriptures that speak against it, we should stand like a rock and not ignore those passages the way we ignore all the other tons of passages that stay stuff we want to ignore.

You speak as if we don't have tons of moder prophetic guidance on this subject.  We do.  

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Indeed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We're just going to have to disagree here.  Pres. Nelson gave a very precise statement naming love, eating, and drinking as things that are "absolutely essential" to "perpetuate life".  

He's right.  

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Many people live without love and human kind could continue without it (albeit not ideally). 

Could, but probably wouldn't.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

However, the human race would die off without sex or procreating, (but would still exist without love).

Maybe, maybe not.

We are told that in the last days "the love of men shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound."  Consider how many lives have been taken by elective abortions.  Plenty of sex, yes, but the otherwise natural consequence of it has been snuffed out, and continues to be snuffed out every year.  By the millions.  Because their mothers lacked sufficient . . . love.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Again, those are wonderful to give and receive and they are important to live a happy life.  But they are not absolutely essential to perpetuate life. 

In the aggregate, they are.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Humans would not die off if every person didn't receive ALL of them.  They'd not be as happy or as fulfilled, but they could live.  Once again, many children survive to adulthood without love being a part of their childhood even from birth.

Procreating should involve love.  That is what is absolutely essential to perpetuate life (sex, procreating).

The human race would die off without procreating....without eating....and without drinking.  Pretty simple really.

"As of 2010,  about 48% (3.3 billion people) of the world population lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility."

I think you are being far more precise and legalistic than Pres. Nelson intended.

Thanks,

-Smac

[TOmNossor]

When I read the article in question, I thought of myself.  Since it was delivered to younger folks, I thought more of my younger self.  I have desires to love in ways I should not love.  Frequently this involved desired relationships with the opposite sex (being socially awkward limited my ability to have inappropriate relationships fortunately -and unfortunately not many appropriate during those younger years).  Sometimes it had to do with worldly recognition, money, or power.

I submit that if you didn’t think of yourself at all, you are either a much better person than I am (which is quite possible) or you merely think you are a much better person than I am.  Scriptures and talks from our Prophet are most powerful when we apply it to our lives rather than when we apply it to the lives of others.  It is all too common, I know because I do it, to think I am better than others and/or my sins are not as bad as their sins.  I like messages focused on the horrors of coffee or alcohol, because I do not care (anymore) about coffee or alcohol.

Concerning the course of this thread:
If you have same-sex attractions, I think you should see yourself in President Nelson’s words.  I think there is a better way that few find.  If you find it you will likely be among those who are better people than I am.

If you do not have same-sex attraction, keep reading:
If God is the pragmatist I think He is AND if the powerful arguments against same-sex marriage are totally muted because we live in a society that sells sex as a commodity and/or treats it casually (TV shows, Advertising, “harmless flirting”, … AND prostitution, pornography, …) I think it possible that the church’s views on SSM will change. 

If this happens, I will not cease to believe the prophet is the prophet and that God is in charge.  I also think I will continue to believe that if as a society we could have taken a BETTER course 100 years ago we would be in a better place where folks with same sex attraction were not encouraged to participate in homosexual sex.  This pragmatic understanding will not be taught as that would defeat its purpose, but unless we withdraw to a compound there may come a time when it hurts individuals and the church more to teach that homosexual sex is inappropriate (regardless of where we could/should have been if sex had not been perverted).  As I understand the data, homosexuals (in San Francisco-SF & Salt Lake City) have higher incidences of what SF culture would call problems (suicide being one) than heterosexuals in SF.  Of course folks with Aspergers also have higher incidences of problems than neurotypical folks, but our society doesn’t celebrate isolation, difficulty with social queues, and other Asperger problems like we celebrate sex.  Therefore the folks with Aspergers are given tools to interact with neurotypical folks not encouraged to pursue social isolation or other courses that seem more NATURAL but would lead to less happiness and fulfillment ultimately.

If you have SSA and you continued to read anyway, my best guess is that it would be wrong for you to only hope for the future day when what you do (or want to do) will no longer be called sin by God’s church like it is no longer called sin by society.  Most of the time I am a sinner who keeps on trying.  Life is better when I am a sinner who keeps on trying.  Sometimes I am a sinner who thinks God’s ways are just too hard.  These are darker days, but fortunately God still forgive me and lets me return to being a sinner who keeps on trying.  

All that being said, because the gospel message is for me and I have thousands of demons yet to slay, I will be little affected by a change in the churches policy on SSM.  SSA is not among my demons so I can charge along as before.  And I will continue to TRY to see myself in the messages from the scriptures.  I am the prodigal.  I am the “good son.’  I strive to be the father.
Charity, TOm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Quote

They are.  They can be.  One of my sons contracted a severe case of croup when he was two.  We rushed him to the hospital, where he received necessary medical attention that enabled him to live.

Of course.  But you are speaking about someone giving "necessary medical attention" to keep someone alive.  

My son is alive today because my wife and I loved him enough to ensure that a medical threat against his life was addressed and overcome.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's  different than the fact that many children survive to adulthood without being loved as a child. 

That's your spin.  Pres. Nelson said nothing about "children surviv{ing} to adulthood."  

He was speaking about the necessity of love in general.  He's right.  

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

It's sad and even tragic.  But it happens.  One can have their physical needs taken care of and live without love.  

I think you are speaking in inaccurate absolutes.  How many people are raised "without being loved as a child,"  as in no love at all?

Consider this:

Quote

All of us have an intense desire to be loved and nurtured. The need to be loved, as Bowlby’s and others’ experiments have shown, could be considered one of our most basic and fundamental needs. One of the forms that the need to be loved love takes is contact comfort—the desire to be held and touched. Findings show that babies who are deprived contact comfort, particularly during the first six months after they are born, grow up to be psychologically damaged.

...

We know that the desire to love and care for others is a hard-wired and deep-seated because fulfillment of this desire enhances our happiness levels. In other words, expressing love or compassion for others benefits not just the recipient of affection, but also its perpetrator.

And what’s more, it appears that even small acts of kindness generate just as much happiness as do lofty acts. In an interesting set of studies, participants were either given $5 or $20 as part of an experiment. Participants in both groups were then asked to either spend the money on themselves or on others. Those who spent the money on others, it turned out, grew happier than those who spent it on themselves. More interestingly, the amount of money spent on others didn’t make a difference to happiness levels: those who spent $5 derived just as much happiness as those who spent $20. Michael Norton, one of the co-authors of these studies summarizes the deep-seated and universal nature of the need to love in his excellent TED talk.

If the need to love is hardwired and universal and is also a powerful determinant of happiness, how come many of us aren’t aware of it? Why, for example, don’t we respond to the question, “What would make you most happy?” with “serving others” of "showering love on someone" than with "money" or "being loved"?

And this:

Quote

As a doctor, it’s my job to figure out what patients really need. Some need antibiotics. Some need pain pills. But everyone needs love.

During medical school I cared for burned children. One of my patients was a 3-year-old with severe burns over most of his body. His roommate, an older boy, had just burned one arm. Yet the older child withered in the corner while the younger one jumped all over the playroom despite his contracted and painful limbs. Why? The younger boy’s family kept hugging and kissing him. The older boy had no visitors.

Give both a read.

I don't know that we have much empirical data for people who go their entire lives without ever loving or being loved in return.  But in the aggregate, I'd say that such people do not last.  They wither.  For lack of . . . love.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You sure?

Sorry, I had to take this opportunity.

Ha!  That brings back memories....love some of those old Mormon movies.

Johnny Lingo was my favorite....  

Edited February 22, 2018 by ALarson

[Rich Hansen]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not a Church spokesman.

 

Good to know.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My son is alive today because my wife and I loved him enough to ensure that a medical threat against his life was addressed and overcome.

That is wonderful.  I have a daughter who as her parents, we have done the same.  

However, IMO, we are talking about 2 different things (for me, I'm not just looking at isolated cases even though they can be heart breaking or wonderful like your example) and we just seem to be talking past each other.  I agree that there are people who may have died if someone didn't love them enough to act and save them.  That's not at all what I'm claiming here.  

I've stated my beliefs and feelings several times and won't keep doing that.  If you disagree, I'm ok with that as well.  

Edited February 22, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That is wonderful.  I have a daughter who as her parents, we have done the same.  

However, IMO, we are talking about 2 different things (for me, I'm not just looking at isolated cases even though they can be heart breaking or wonderful like your example) and we just seem to be talking past each other.  I agree that there are people who may have died if someone didn't love them enough to act and save them.  That's not at all what I'm claiming here.  

I am speaking in the same context, I think, as Pres. Nelson did.  Love is vital.  Perhaps not in precisely the same way food or clothing or shelter is vital, but vital nonetheless.

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've stated my beliefs and feelings several times and won't keep doing that.  If you disagree, I'm ok with that as well.  

Sounds good.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The word that comes to mind is "dwindle."  As in "to become smaller and smaller; shrink; waste away."

Consider D&C 45:

Without love, marriages die.  Families die.  Parenting and communities diminish.  Whither away.  They dwindle.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are acting as if love, marriage and families is important to a healthy life.