Conference Priesthood session — gone?
- HereWeGo
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1220
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I had recently unblocked Atticus so I could follow your posts and then noticed that your name had changed.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Why do you care about the thought process of some pathetic despicable troll?
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I recognize the softened language and find it very concerning myself. However, it is nevertheless not true that the Church no longer considers homosexual acts (particularly homosexual sex) to be sinful.Serragon wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 4:38 pmit is simply the truth. Check your handbook if you don't believe me.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 4:26 pmCome on man. Normally you're pretty level-headed but right now you're stooping to the level of the haters who hurl false accusations. You're better than this.Serragon wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 4:17 pmWhen they say sexual activity, they are referring to fornication. Unless you believe hand holding, kissing, dating, and having a relationship sexual relations.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 3:02 pm
A quick check in the new For Strength of Youth Guide shows that what you are saying about the church no longer saying that homosexual acts are sinful is false.
"Sexual feelings are an important part of God’s plan to create happy marriages and eternal families. These feelings are not sinful—they are sacred. Because sexual feelings are so sacred and so powerful, God has given you His law of chastity to prepare you to use these feelings as He intends. The law of chastity states that God approves of sexual activity only between a man and a woman who are married. Many in the world ignore or even mock God’s law, but the Lord invites us to be His disciples and live a standard higher than the world’s."
"I am attracted to people of my same sex. How do these standards apply to me? Feeling same-sex attraction is not a sin. If you have these feelings and do not pursue or act on them, you are living Heavenly Father’s sacred law of chastity. You are a beloved child of God and a disciple of Jesus Christ. Remember that the Savior understands everything you experience. Through your covenant connection with Him, you will find strength to obey God’s commandments and receive the blessings He promises. Trust Him and His gospel."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng
It is good that they say you should not pursue or act on any attraction to the same sex. But this is extremely weak sauce, especially when you consider the changes over the last few years to the handbook and to the Law of Chastity as taught in the temple. It is a watering down of just how serious the sin of homosexuality is.
So you can look at one small sentence in the new FTSOY booklet to try and say the church is still maintains that homosexual acts are a sin. But the changes to the handbook and to the definitions of what constitutes serious sin beg to differ. The allowance of openly gay and practicing (not going all the way though!) homosexual missionaries begs to differ. The allowance of openly and practicing homosexuals and advocates into leadership begs to differ.
The church's stance on homosexuality has changed, whether you want to believe it or not. They no longer consider it sin. At worst, they may consider a "transgression". There is no longer anything to overcome. There is no longer anything to repent of. Just the normalization of a sexual fetish and constant affirmation that the church will support you as you make this fetish your identity.
The church has never said that it's okay for two men or two women to date each other, hold hands, make out, etc. I agree that the church's softening stance has blurred this considerably, which I see a major problem with, but they absolutely still consider sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman to be sinful. This has not changed. So please stop saying it has.
You are correct that the church has not stated that it is OK for same sex people to hold hands, date, etc. The change is that they no longer say it is wrong. This is how they play both sides. Those who want to believe it is still an abomination can say that they have never said it was OK. Those who wish to indulge their fetish can say that they no longer say it is wrong. All things to all people, but standing for nothing.
The FTSOY used to say that homosexuality was a perversion and an abomination unto the Lord. It used to say that it was a serious sin and if anyone was attempting to persuade you to engage in that behavior or you were struggling with those desires you should talk to your parents and/or Bishop. Now... it's probably best if you don't pursue them.
The church's stance on homosexuality has changed, and I suspect will continue to change in the future. It isn't hating. I'm not stooping. I am simply showing you the truth that you would rather not see.
Members in same-sex sexual relationships are subject to church discipline and aren't considered to be in good standing. The church also does not baptize people who are in same-sex sexual relationships unless they cease the practice and fully repent first.
- HereWeGo
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1220
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Sorry that you are so angry. I really don't hate you or think you despicable. I was genuinely interested in the change. I understand if you don't want to answer. I have actually seen changes in you recently that interest me.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 10:41 pmWhy do you care about the thought process of some pathetic despicable troll?
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I'm not angry at all. I just have very little respect for you and honestly have a really hard time assuming good intentions on your part after how you treated me in the past.HereWeGo wrote: ↑October 5th, 2022, 9:17 pmSorry that you are so angry. I really don't hate you or think you despicable. I was genuinely interested in the change. I understand if you don't want to answer. I have actually seen changes in you recently that interest me.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 10:41 pmWhy do you care about the thought process of some pathetic despicable troll?
Edit:
The simple answer to your question is that I have had multiple aliases on this forum over the last few years. I asked the Creator to merge my accounts under the single name of LDS Watchman, since that's the name of my blog (which I had since before I ever joined the forum). He was kind enough to do that for me.
- HereWeGo
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1220
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I really appreciate your reply. I apologize for treating you poorly in the past. I have been seeing you post things recently that I like. You have probably noticed that I have liked some of them. I hope we can have civil relations in the future.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 5th, 2022, 9:26 pmI'm not angry at all. I just have very little respect for you and honestly have a really hard time assuming good intentions on your part after how you treated me in the past.HereWeGo wrote: ↑October 5th, 2022, 9:17 pmSorry that you are so angry. I really don't hate you or think you despicable. I was genuinely interested in the change. I understand if you don't want to answer. I have actually seen changes in you recently that interest me.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 10:41 pmWhy do you care about the thought process of some pathetic despicable troll?
Edit:
The simple answer to your question is that I have had multiple aliases on this forum over the last few years. I asked the Creator to merge my accounts under the single name of LDS Watchman, since that's the name of my blog (which I had since before I ever joined the forum). He was kind enough to do that for me.
I think it was a good idea to merge your accounts.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Thanks for the apology and the goodwill. I would like to have civil relations with you, too. Life's too short to have bad relations on some random internet forum.HereWeGo wrote: ↑October 5th, 2022, 9:59 pmI really appreciate your reply. I apologize for treating you poorly in the past. I have been seeing you post things recently that I like. You have probably noticed that I have liked some of them. I hope we can have civil relations in the future.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 5th, 2022, 9:26 pmI'm not angry at all. I just have very little respect for you and honestly have a really hard time assuming good intentions on your part after how you treated me in the past.HereWeGo wrote: ↑October 5th, 2022, 9:17 pmSorry that you are so angry. I really don't hate you or think you despicable. I was genuinely interested in the change. I understand if you don't want to answer. I have actually seen changes in you recently that interest me.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 4th, 2022, 10:41 pm
Why do you care about the thought process of some pathetic despicable troll?
Edit:
The simple answer to your question is that I have had multiple aliases on this forum over the last few years. I asked the Creator to merge my accounts under the single name of LDS Watchman, since that's the name of my blog (which I had since before I ever joined the forum). He was kind enough to do that for me.
I think it was a good idea to merge your accounts.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I don't think the church is priming for women to be ordained. I think the brethren are just tired of the angry woke feminists who scream and shout "sexism and misogyny" every Priesthood session. I wish they wouldn't pander to them and just stuck to their guns, but it is what it is.Christianlee wrote: ↑October 1st, 2022, 2:07 pm When my boys were growing up I took them to the Priesthood session. We always went out for ice cream and tried to make it special. My own choice to serve a mission came from President Kimball’s stirring call to young men to go during Priesthood session.
In April the Saturday night schedule was just for women. This month it is for both men and women together. Has the LDS Church become a feminized church? Is the Priesthood being made less than special for the young men? What is the agenda? Are they priming for women to be ordained?
It's truly a tragedy that the Priesthood session is apparently gone forever. I loved going with my Dad and looked forward to going with my sons. But like so many things I loved about the church of my youth and young adulthood, the beloved Priesthood session is gone with the wind.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I think if the person has enough faith and determination it can be completely overcome in this life. Having said that, I think for many it will need to be overcome at some point in the eternities.cyclOps wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2022, 10:28 amI agree with all of that. How and when can it be overcome? I don’t have any experience with homosexual attraction so all I know is it can be overcome through Jesus Christ. See my post linked below where I tried to articulate more completely my thoughts on this subject.LDS Watchman wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2022, 9:34 amI agree. Being attracted to someone doesn't automatically mean that you lust after them and desire sex with them.cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 10:38 pmTo me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pm
No. I am married. God tells me what I am to do
"That whosoever looketh. on a woman to lust after her hath committed. adultery with her already in his heart"
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lust
"Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy"
Sexual desire for any woman not my wife is ungodly.
What about this is so complicated?
Do I need to tell you that every time I pass a candy store, I have a lust to take candy?
No!
Did you stop being heterosexual when you got married? No. Does that mean you lust after other women? No. Therefore I don’t think someone who is homosexual automatically falls into the category of someone who lusts after others.
However, I think there's a danger in comparing heterosexual attraction and homosexual attraction. They aren't the same thing. Heterosexual attraction is natural and from God, when kept with in its proper bounds. Homosexual attraction is unnatural and not from God. Ultimately it needs to be completely overcome, not kept just kept in check.
viewtopic.php?p=1307650#p1307650
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4798
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
there have been no mortal or church consequences for 90% of immorality . . . lgbtq is just immoralityspiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:19 pmI'm not following. Is that a big nothing?
As in no consequences for unrepentant apostasy (which in the case would be proclaiming the word of homosexuality) and no consequences for unrepentent immorality?
I'm trying to understand what you are saying and I do not.
- Valheim
- captain of 50
- Posts: 50
- Location: Sweden
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
it does concern me how much of the youth has pretty much embraced a "not my problem", "to each their own" viewpoint.
Concerning to see the statistics on lgbt. Honestly, even having to say lgbt shows how far this whole thing has moved.
Concerning to see the statistics on lgbt. Honestly, even having to say lgbt shows how far this whole thing has moved.
- thaabit
- captain of 100
- Posts: 231
- Location: Utah