Page 68 of 70
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 2:23 pm
by Thinker
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 10th, 2018, 6:21 pm
https://fox13now.com/2018/07/10/the-lds ... revention/
I wonder about the motivation behind this latest donation by the Church. I'm all for the Church giving money to charitable causes. However, every one of us has a reason and a motivation for the donations and charitable acts that we engage in.
Interesting to me that the Church did not comment on the donation, at least not at the time this article went to press.
What a load.
They didn’t site the “study” and actual statistics show that those practicing homosexuality have high rates of mental illness (which is associated with suicide). With their reasoning, they’re illogically suggesting the church caused them to develop homosexual preferences, caused them to act on it and caused them to have mental illness as a result.
What a load - so sad that the church bought $25,000 worth of it.
And sad we as members have no say in how sacred funds are spent.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 2:32 pm
by illyume
Thinker wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 2:23 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 10th, 2018, 6:21 pm
https://fox13now.com/2018/07/10/the-lds ... revention/
I wonder about the motivation behind this latest donation by the Church. I'm all for the Church giving money to charitable causes. However, every one of us has a reason and a motivation for the donations and charitable acts that we engage in.
Interesting to me that the Church did not comment on the donation, at least not at the time this article went to press.
What a load.
They didn’t site the “study” and actual statistics show that those practicing homosexuality have high rates of mental illness (which is associated with suicide). With their reasoning, they’re illogically suggesting the church caused them to develop homosexual preferences, caused them to act on it and caused them to have mental illness as a result.
What a load - so sad that the church bought $25,000 worth of it.
And sad we as members have no say in how sacred funds are spent.
With 16 million members, that means your individual contribution (if each member contributed equally) to this was approximately $0.0015, or just a little more than 1/10th of a cent. Is that really too horrifying a thing to accept?
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:03 pm
by EmmaLee
This is fun - #PedosArePeople #BornThatWay #HeartProgress #LoveisLove #StoptheHate
Mormonandpedo.lds.org
15 minute video - worth watching, IMO -
'The Left's Push for Pedophile Acceptance'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q6pDGN ... e=youtu.be
- pedos.jpg (65.17 KiB) Viewed 383 times
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:06 pm
by AI2.0
illyume wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 2:32 pm
Thinker wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 2:23 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 10th, 2018, 6:21 pm
https://fox13now.com/2018/07/10/the-lds ... revention/
I wonder about the motivation behind this latest donation by the Church. I'm all for the Church giving money to charitable causes. However, every one of us has a reason and a motivation for the donations and charitable acts that we engage in.
Interesting to me that the Church did not comment on the donation, at least not at the time this article went to press.
What a load.
They didn’t site the “study” and actual statistics show that those practicing homosexuality have high rates of mental illness (which is associated with suicide). With their reasoning, they’re illogically suggesting the church caused them to develop homosexual preferences, caused them to act on it and caused them to have mental illness as a result.
What a load - so sad that the church bought $25,000 worth of it.
And sad we as members have no say in how sacred funds are spent.
With 16 million members, that means your individual contribution (if each member contributed equally) to this was approximately $0.0015, or just a little more than 1/10th of a cent. Is that really too horrifying a thing to accept?
Regardless, why do any of you believe the donation came from tithing money. I'm certain it did not.
I don't have a problem with the church giving a donation. If some on this thread have a problem with this, they'll have to come to terms with it. We aren't in charge of how the church spends it's funds.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
by AI2.0
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
by EmmaLee
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:35 pm
by nightlight
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
What are you talking about? This Thread is about the acceptance of abomination...
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
by RocknRoll
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:41 pm
by EmmaLee
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pmJust because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
I'm not as concerned that the Church will accept it (although nothing would surprise me at this point) - but the world/society is well on the way.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:48 pm
by DesertWonderer2
Jack Vance 79 wrote: ↑June 20th, 2018, 7:00 pm
Posted this on another thread, but in case you missed it - Bishop Paul Augenstein has been released as bishop of the Parkway Ward, Riverton Utah Summerhill Stake. Check it out on the Meeting House Locator on lds.org (now a Bishop Green). It would seem (?) that Augenstein was released prematurely. How long before he appears on Mormon Stories etc?
Some good news for a change.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:55 pm
by mgridle1
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
Oh it's going to happen, absolutely no doubt about it. Why?
Because the EXACT SAME argument made for homosexuality can be made for pedophilia. You are born that way, it's all about love, you love who you love.
Pedophilia is an accepted practice in places like Afghanistan. First it will start with teenagers vs. adults, then it will go from there.
In fact, I don't believe the 2nd Coming of Christ occurs until AFTER pedophilia is legalized. It's got to get real bad . . . .
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 4:56 pm
by mgridle1
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
So if being gay isn't a sin, then being a pedophile isn't a sin either.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
by nightlight
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 5:26 pm
by mgridle1
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Cool, so I can be sexually attracted to little children (as in have sexual desires for little children) and as long as I don't "act on it", I'm 100% good in God's eyes . . .awesome to know we've got that cleared up now.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm
by illyume
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
AI2.0 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:12 pm
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Second-death-sufferer here. Doing pretty okay in my "suffering".
Also still pretty sure that things going on between two consenting adults is pretty different from things going on between an adult and someone entirely incapable of properly understanding or giving consent. But maybe for some people it's a little more difficult to see a distinction there.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 5:55 pm
by mgridle1
illyume wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Second-death-sufferer here. Doing pretty okay in my "suffering".
Also still pretty sure that things going on between two consenting adults is pretty different from things going on between an adult and someone entirely incapable of properly understanding or giving consent. But maybe for some people it's a little more difficult to see a distinction there.
I would expect that you would say that.
Someone entirely incapable of properly understanding or giving consent . . .hmm well you think you've got me, but you don't. Is 16 too young to give consent? What about 14? 12? 10?
Your vapid, logical, inconsistency is stunning.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/T ... 82734.html
https://transfigurations.org.uk/puberty-blockers/
According to your ideology, a kid at age 12 is old enough to make the decision to have puberty blockers, which will have DRAMATIC impacts on their emotional, mental, physical development, but can't make the decision who to have sex with?
Come on; if (according to the LGBTQ crowd) kids as young as 7 are old-enough to have puberty blockers, they are certainly old enough to determine who they will have sexual contact with.
A boy who is 12 can beg, plead, convince the entire world they are a girl-yet they can't convince the entire world they want to have sexual contact (it may not be sex) with an adult?
Please, if a 7 year old boy has the mental capacity to determine they are really a girl, then they certainly have the mental capacity to determine who, how and what kind of sexual contact they can have.
To claim otherwise, is entirely logically inconsistent.
Personally, I think both are nuts, parents who give their kids puberty blockers should be charged with child abuse.
Also still pretty sure that the decision to determine at a minor age that one is the opposite gender is not much different than determining who to have sexual contact with. But maybe for some people it's a little more difficult to see a distinction there.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 6:01 pm
by illyume
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:55 pm
illyume wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:41 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Second-death-sufferer here. Doing pretty okay in my "suffering".
Also still pretty sure that things going on between two consenting adults is pretty different from things going on between an adult and someone entirely incapable of properly understanding or giving consent. But maybe for some people it's a little more difficult to see a distinction there.
I would expect that you would say that.
Someone entirely incapable of properly understanding or giving consent . . .hmm well you think you've got me, but you don't. Is 16 too young to give consent? What about 14? 12? 10?
Your vapid, logical, inconsistency is stunning.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/T ... 82734.html
https://transfigurations.org.uk/puberty-blockers/
According to your ideology, a kid at age 12 is old enough to make the decision to have puberty blockers, which will have DRAMATIC impacts on their emotional, mental, physical development, but can't make the decision who to have sex with?
Come on; if (according to the LGBTQ crowd) kids as young as 7 are old-enough to have puberty blockers, they are certainly old enough to determine who they will have sexual contact with.
A boy who is 12 can beg, plead, convince the entire world they are a girl-yet they can't convince the entire world they want to have sexual contact (it may not be sex) with an adult?
Please, if a 7 year old boy has the mental capacity to determine they are really a girl, then they certainly have the mental capacity to determine who, how and what kind of sexual contact they can have.
To claim otherwise, is entirely logically inconsistent.
Personally, I think both are nuts, parents who give their kids puberty blockers should be charged with child abuse.
Also still pretty sure that the decision to determine at a minor age that one is the opposite gender is not much different than determining who to have sexual contact with. But maybe for some people it's a little more difficult to see a distinction there.
Nah, personally I'd set the minimum age for taking hormone therapy the same as the minimum age of consent. The numbers are always going to be somewhat arbitrary, but 18 seems a pretty good line to draw either way.
I'd let a kid dress and act whatever way they feel works best for them, but permanent reassignment seems a bit too far until the kid's matured.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 6:13 pm
by nightlight
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:26 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
EmmaLee wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:17 pm
It's as relevant as all the other posts on this thread not directly related to the OP, but thanks for just choosing mine to highlight.
Raise of hands, please - how many of you, 20 years ago, would have thought same-sex marriage would ever be made "legal" in the U.S.? And that the LDS Church would do a 180 and say being "gay" or "homosexual" was not a sin? Maybe I'm the only one (who will admit publicly to it anyway...) who never thought either would happen - but look where we are now. This is RELEVANT because this (what I posted here) is the (near) future, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Cool, so I can be sexually attracted to little children (as in have sexual desires for little children) and as long as I don't "act on it", I'm 100% good in God's eyes . . .awesome to know we've got that cleared up now.
Really? Don't dont put words in my mouth. That is disgusting, if you believe same sex attraction is the same as being sexually attracted to little children you are just plain wrong
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 6:25 pm
by mgridle1
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 6:13 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:26 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
RocknRoll wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 4:36 pm
In 1977 I never would have thought that Blacks would be given the priesthood. But in 1978, after the revelation, I wasn’t afraid that the church was now on a slippery slope that would ultimately give the priesthood to women. Just because the LDS church came to realize that being gay isn’t a sin, doesn’t mean they are on a slippery slope to accepting pedophilia as something other than sinful.
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Cool, so I can be sexually attracted to little children (as in have sexual desires for little children) and as long as I don't "act on it", I'm 100% good in God's eyes . . .awesome to know we've got that cleared up now.
Really? Don't dont put words in my mouth. That is disgusting, if you believe same sex attraction is the same as being sexually attracted to little children you are just plain wrong
How is it logically different?
Case A: Sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. God has forbidden relations with the same sex.
Case B: Sexually attracted to a child. God has forbidden relationship with children.
It is IRRELEVANT whether the object of the attraction can CONSENT to the attraction.
Case A: Someone of the same sex finds me sexually attractive-I NEVER gave my consent for it.
Case B: Someone finds my child sexually attractive-my child NEVER gave consent for it.
Yes it is logically EXACTLY the same. And it is the reason why pedophilia WILL become accepted unless homosexuality is rejected.
No, you are the one deceived. I am NOT wrong here. The problem is too many people are absolutely 100% enthralled and deceived by Lucifer and they REFUSE to see the connection.
They have been told over and over and over 1000 times, homosexuals are just like everyone else, love is love and then they see friends/neighbors/family members, come out as "gay" and they think . . .well it's not that bad, why would they choose to be homosexual? God made them that way.
You need to study history. Pedophilia or more commonly known as pedastry was common in the ancient world. There is a reason why it is not common in our culture and society . . . Sexuality is TRAINED, just like any other thing, it is trained/learned/molded/shaped.
You are being lead by Satan on this issue . . . and so are a whole host of other LDS members too and in fact a significant portion of the Church. May God have mercy on those who are deceived when they find out the awful truth.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 8:12 pm
by nightlight
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 6:25 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 6:13 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:26 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:21 pm
Don't get it twisted. People are not under condemnation for the attraction alone. Acting on the attraction mentally or physically is a sin. Living a homosexual lifestyle will get you excommunicated. Those who are excommunicated suffer the second death
8 Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved.
9 And now behold, my son, do not risk one more offense against your God upon those points of doctrine, which ye have hitherto risked to commit sin.
10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.
12 And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?
13 O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful.
Cool, so I can be sexually attracted to little children (as in have sexual desires for little children) and as long as I don't "act on it", I'm 100% good in God's eyes . . .awesome to know we've got that cleared up now.
Really? Don't dont put words in my mouth. That is disgusting, if you believe same sex attraction is the same as being sexually attracted to little children you are just plain wrong
How is it logically different?
Case A: Sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. God has forbidden relations with the same sex.
Case B: Sexually attracted to a child. God has forbidden relationship with children.
It is IRRELEVANT whether the object of the attraction can CONSENT to the attraction.
Case A: Someone of the same sex finds me sexually attractive-I NEVER gave my consent for it.
Case B: Someone finds my child sexually attractive-my child NEVER gave consent for it.
Yes it is logically EXACTLY the same. And it is the reason why pedophilia WILL become accepted unless homosexuality is rejected.
No, you are the one deceived. I am NOT wrong here. The problem is too many people are absolutely 100% enthralled and deceived by Lucifer and they REFUSE to see the connection.
They have been told over and over and over 1000 times, homosexuals are just like everyone else, love is love and then they see friends/neighbors/family members, come out as "gay" and they think . . .well it's not that bad, why would they choose to be homosexual? God made them that way.
You need to study history. Pedophilia or more commonly known as pedastry was common in the ancient world. There is a reason why it is not common in our culture and society . . . Sexuality is TRAINED, just like any other thing, it is trained/learned/molded/shaped.
You are being lead by Satan on this issue . . . and so are a whole host of other LDS members too and in fact a significant portion of the Church. May God have mercy on those who are deceived when they find out the awful truth.
I do not think those are fair nor accurate comparison at all... but I will admit I'm having a hard time with what the general Authority are saying on the subject of same-sex attraction. I've always thought if you're experiencing continued same-sex attraction you have not been born again, you're not putting off the natural man, you have not crucified your natural man as the Apostle Paul would say. those who do not put off the natural man are without God. How does that aligned with recent statements made by the GA? I don't know. I have a hard time just outright saying the GA is wrong though.
All that really matters for me is that I have taken off my natural man. I do not live by my carnal nature. I use to have sex with different women that I found found attractive... would my hell have been any worse than someone who is living a homosexual lifestyle? ?? No, I don't think it would.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 11th, 2018, 11:26 pm
by Thinker
illyume wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 2:32 pm
Thinker wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 2:23 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: ↑July 10th, 2018, 6:21 pm
https://fox13now.com/2018/07/10/the-lds ... revention/
I wonder about the motivation behind this latest donation by the Church. I'm all for the Church giving money to charitable causes. However, every one of us has a reason and a motivation for the donations and charitable acts that we engage in.
Interesting to me that the Church did not comment on the donation, at least not at the time this article went to press.
What a load.
They didn’t site the “study” and actual statistics show that those practicing homosexuality have high rates of mental illness (which is associated with suicide). With their reasoning, they’re illogically suggesting the church caused them to develop homosexual preferences, caused them to act on it and caused them to have mental illness as a result.
What a load - so sad that the church bought $25,000 worth of it.
And sad we as members have no say in how sacred funds are spent.
With 16 million members, that means your individual contribution (if each member contributed equally) to this was approximately $0.0015, or just a little more than 1/10th of a cent. Is that really too horrifying a thing to accept?
Yes. Any amount of support using Christ’s name for anti-Christ causes is too much.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 12th, 2018, 4:47 am
by mgridle1
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 8:12 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 6:25 pm
NIGHTLIGHT wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 6:13 pm
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:26 pm
Cool, so I can be sexually attracted to little children (as in have sexual desires for little children) and as long as I don't "act on it", I'm 100% good in God's eyes . . .awesome to know we've got that cleared up now.
Really? Don't dont put words in my mouth. That is disgusting, if you believe same sex attraction is the same as being sexually attracted to little children you are just plain wrong
How is it logically different?
Case A: Sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. God has forbidden relations with the same sex.
Case B: Sexually attracted to a child. God has forbidden relationship with children.
It is IRRELEVANT whether the object of the attraction can CONSENT to the attraction.
Case A: Someone of the same sex finds me sexually attractive-I NEVER gave my consent for it.
Case B: Someone finds my child sexually attractive-my child NEVER gave consent for it.
Yes it is logically EXACTLY the same. And it is the reason why pedophilia WILL become accepted unless homosexuality is rejected.
No, you are the one deceived. I am NOT wrong here. The problem is too many people are absolutely 100% enthralled and deceived by Lucifer and they REFUSE to see the connection.
They have been told over and over and over 1000 times, homosexuals are just like everyone else, love is love and then they see friends/neighbors/family members, come out as "gay" and they think . . .well it's not that bad, why would they choose to be homosexual? God made them that way.
You need to study history. Pedophilia or more commonly known as pedastry was common in the ancient world. There is a reason why it is not common in our culture and society . . . Sexuality is TRAINED, just like any other thing, it is trained/learned/molded/shaped.
You are being lead by Satan on this issue . . . and so are a whole host of other LDS members too and in fact a significant portion of the Church. May God have mercy on those who are deceived when they find out the awful truth.
I do not think those are fair nor accurate comparison at all... but I will admit I'm having a hard time with what the general Authority are saying on the subject of same-sex attraction. I've always thought if you're experiencing continued same-sex attraction you have not been born again, you're not putting off the natural man, you have not crucified your natural man as the Apostle Paul would say. those who do not put off the natural man are without God. How does that aligned with recent statements made by the GA? I don't know. I have a hard time just outright saying the GA is wrong though.
All that really matters for me is that I have taken off my natural man. I do not live by my carnal nature. I use to have sex with different women that I found found attractive...
would my hell have been any worse than someone who is living a homosexual lifestyle? ?? No, I don't think it would.
I never said the bold. Honestly, I have no idea which hell is "worse", I don't even think it really matters-which is "worse". They are both gross sin and certainly both according to scripture among the worst that man can do (murder being top). I don't think it's useful to try and pick out which one is worse than the other.
I understand you don't think it's a fair comparison; as this wickedness and evil progresses and spreads across the land, I do believe if you are truly seeking God, reading the scriptures, putting off the natural man the answers will come to you. I think what you have said about the natural man is 100% correct.
As to your question about the GAs, I don't have the answers. I have no idea why the Church is allowing this evilness into its ranks. I have lots of ideas-I don't really know which one (if any) is correct.
I feel very confident that the current middle way is unsustainable long-term. Long-term, you can not say identifying as a homosexual is not a sin and not eventually accept homosexuality. It is just logically not feasible to do. To identify as something, but to not act in accordance with that identity will only bring about cognitive dissonance and much mental anguish. It is a delusion to say one is xyz but then one doesn't do the things that xyz does. I can't identify as a father if I don't have children. I can't identify as as astronaut if I haven't trained as an astronaut. I can't identify as a lawyer if I haven't taken the classes and passed the bar. I can't identify as a boy if I don't have male part, I can't as a teenager if I'm 50. If I do identify as xyz without doing the things that xyz does-it's called delusion, lies, craziness. It becomes total fantasy with no basis in reality. You inherently act out what you identify as (or more precisely you act out how you THINK one would act when you identity as xyz)
As an organization they have only labeled it "sin" when only outward behavioral interactions with others are manifested. This is very, VERY dangerous and I don't know if they completely thought this one through.
This is critical to understand-the Church's current policy is that you can have an open homosexual as a Primary leader, as a Young Men's leader, as a EQP, as a Bishop, as a SP, as a Mission President, as a Temple President, as a GA, as an Apostle, as President of the Church. The ONLY requirement for position at Bishop and above is that they are married in the temple with a temple recommend.
And there are PLENTY of cases of men who are married who claim they are homosexual. Just stop and think about that for a second.
The only thing that would stop an openly homosexual married to a woman from becoming a Bishop is if the ward refused to sustain him.
Now, do you REALLY want, as a parishioner, a man who being Bishop of your ward who is "married" but is an open homosexual? Do you want him teaching your ward, your children, calling individuals to positions?
This is NOT theoretical-there is currently a woman in a Utah singles ward serving as Relief Society President who claims she is bisexual and her husband is homosexual-but they are married to each other and therefore they commit no "sin".
Do you honestly think this idea that you can be openly homosexual but as long as you don't "act on it" is going to last very long?
In my opinion, there is a sifting occurring as the world get more and more wicked in preparation for Christ's coming. And in my opinion, if you want to be ready for it as President Nelson said, the Spirit and following the Spirit is going to be critical.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 12th, 2018, 5:10 am
by mgridle1
And here is another one.
One can be an open homosexual and serve a mission. Do you really want your son (or daughter) being companions with an open homosexual for 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 4-6 months?
But if your child complains in any way, the sin is on him b/c he isn't "tolerant" enough. As long as the companion doesn't "act on it" he's good, right?
You'd never want your son or daughter serving with a random member of the opposite-sex like this. There is no sin as long as the male & female didn't "act on it" so why can't random men/women be missionary companions? But open homosexuals get a pass.
This policy has really only been in-place for maybe a year, at most 2 and it takes time for these situations to actually play out-but play out they will b/c remember "identifying as a homosexual is not a sin" . . .what complete and utter BS.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 12th, 2018, 6:46 am
by Aprhys
I will wager anyone $1,000 that there will be homosexual marriages in the temples within 20 years. I have three older kids in their late teens and early 20's. One is a recently returned missionary. They all agree that what my wife and I have taught them is "old-fashioned and bigoted." These kids are not alone. They will be the leaders on the church and I have no doubt that they will push this. Sad.
Re: Apostasy in Riverton (Bishop Paul Augenstein)
Posted: July 12th, 2018, 8:45 am
by RocknRoll
mgridle1 wrote: ↑July 11th, 2018, 5:55 pm
I would expect that you would say that.
Someone entirely incapable of properly understanding or giving consent . . .hmm well you think you've got me, but you don't. Is 16 too young to give consent? What about 14? 12? 10?
Well, according to the law, it's 18.