a new low for LGBTQIA

Discuss the last days, Zion, second coming, emergency preparedness, alternative health, etc.
Post Reply
I AM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2456

a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by I AM »

so ridiculous


"LGBTQIA safe sex guide" that claims the word ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdDcqiX3Dwc

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by gardener4life »

Well it doesn't surprise me that other extensions are being added after the Q part. Eventually this will I think keep progressing until it sounds like reading a chapter out of the Old Testament.
Last edited by gardener4life on August 21st, 2018, 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Red
captain of 100
Posts: 613

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Red »

What’s the I and A stand for?

I AM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2456

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by I AM »

Red wrote: August 21st, 2018, 6:32 pm What’s the I and A stand for?
-------------
?
like one guy said
"I relate to Toucans so can I put 2 T'"s"

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Original_Intent »

Red wrote: August 21st, 2018, 6:32 pm What’s the I and A stand for?
My guess is "Intersex" and "asexual".

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Juliet »

This term is degrading but no need to get offended considering the maturity of the situation. I don't get offended when my two year old acts out of taste.

If we are not growing love for family then we digress. This shows how the family really is the basic unit of society and without it we just cannot attain to mature attitude and development.

Lizzy60
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8520

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Lizzy60 »

Glenn Beck talked about this new vocabulary on his morning radio show today. It was hilarious, but also really sad, because the folks passing this off are serious.

mgridle1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1276

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by mgridle1 »

And the following is a reason why the Church made a big, big mistake by allowing homosexuals into the Church by saying as long as they didn't "act on it", homosexuals weren't in sin.

I give you the following from a blog post from a man who is an open homosexual serving as a Stake Executive Secretary in a Stake in Florida.
https://nerdygaymormon.tumblr.com/post/ ... idents-son
------------------
Although I post a lot on my blog about me & my thoughts and experiences, I don’t actually talk about my life and thoughts that often with people in real life.
I enjoyed someone being genuinely interested in me, asking questions that went beyond the surface, seeing me as a whole person. 😊
Much better than any of the first dates I’ve been on the past few month
----------------
Yet this guy is "worthily" serving at a Stake Leadership level . . .yeap . . .this was predictable.

There is no such thing as an open homosexual who DOESN'T act on it. The guy puts #queerstake on a lot of his posts, he openly advocates that somehow, someway, God puts female spirits in male bodies and that's how we get transgenders (SMH).

I can't wait for this evil sickness to get rooted out of the Church.

I AM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2456

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by I AM »

Lizzy60 wrote: August 21st, 2018, 7:22 pm Glenn Beck talked about this new vocabulary on his morning radio show today. It was hilarious, but also really sad, because the folks passing this off are serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Telling Pride March I'm 'Toucansexual'

ElizaRSkousen
captain of 100
Posts: 746

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by ElizaRSkousen »

Did any of you see Matt Walsh's response? I haven't laughed so hard in a while

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34795/wa ... =mattwalsh

User avatar
abijah
pleb in zion
Posts: 2577

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by abijah »

ElizaRSkousen wrote: August 21st, 2018, 8:21 pm Did any of you see Matt Walsh's response? I haven't laughed so hard in a while

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34795/wa ... =mattwalsh
control a peoples’ language and you control that people. george orwell knew that.

hence the promotion of this anti-body, anti-gender & anti-truth vocabulary.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by gardener4life »

Basically the agenda for these people is to do a massive campaign to change the doctrine by removing and disarming the idea of personal worthiness and accountability in not just our church but others. They try to do it through several ways including saying they have no agency (no choice), claiming they aren't acting on it, trying to say that you are judging them, saying its racism or inequality, etc. There are other tactics also.

This will mean mass disease also in our civilization, as this idea snowballs. (Do you ever watch certain shows on TV and wonder why their faces look so yellow under the makeup? People are hiding that they have STDs and Hep-C etc. California recent litigation was to change the law to make not disclosing STDs to partners as not being a crime.)

They want control of religion to disarm people and to stop them from going up against them. (The one world religion is a push to put themselves in charge of churches and control what is said.)

User avatar
Craig Johnson
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991
Location: Washington State.

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Craig Johnson »

mgridle1 wrote: August 21st, 2018, 7:52 pm And the following is a reason why the Church made a big, big mistake by allowing homosexuals into the Church by saying as long as they didn't "act on it", homosexuals weren't in sin.

I can't wait for this evil sickness to get rooted out of the Church.
No, the church did not make a mistake. The way that a few "leaders" at the mission, stake and ward level are using their freedom and positional power to abuse church teachings is the cause. You cannot throw people out of the church or deny them baptism because they say they are struggling with overcoming homosexuality, but are not doing it. If they are lying that is on them. This is a delicate situation and must be handled carefully and not because of modern thinking, but because people will always be struggling to overcome something, part of the reason the church exists, He called us all to repentance, all of us sinners. One of us is not a better sinner than someone else and no calling is more important than any other. When all of us are no longer sinners there will likely be no more cause to have a church.

mgridle1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1276

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by mgridle1 »

Craig Johnson wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 12:02 am
mgridle1 wrote: August 21st, 2018, 7:52 pm And the following is a reason why the Church made a big, big mistake by allowing homosexuals into the Church by saying as long as they didn't "act on it", homosexuals weren't in sin.

I can't wait for this evil sickness to get rooted out of the Church.
No, the church did not make a mistake. The way that a few "leaders" at the mission, stake and ward level are using their freedom and positional power to abuse church teachings is the cause. You cannot throw people out of the church or deny them baptism because they say they are struggling with overcoming homosexuality, but are not doing it. If they are lying that is on them. This is a delicate situation and must be handled carefully and not because of modern thinking, but because people will always be struggling to overcome something, part of the reason the church exists, He called us all to repentance, all of us sinners. One of us is not a better sinner than someone else and no calling is more important than any other. When all of us are no longer sinners there will likely be no more cause to have a church.
It's a feature not a bug.

Absolutely it is a mistake. Look the Church has openly admitted that it can/does/will make mistakes (see Essays). Why current members are so blind to this I don't know. It's this hypocritical, stick your head in the sand mentality . . .you see the Church can make mistakes in the past, but today, nope, not today-it's impossible for the Church to make a mistake today, why because it's the one true church and if it makes a mistake today then it must not be that??? right?? No, not EVERYTHING the Church does is ordained by God, not everything it does is of God. In fact, I'd say we've become quite corrupted, but just because it is corrupted does not mean it is false or lacks the Authority of God's Church.

You completely deflected and avoided the actual serious topic, instead of addressing the situation and the reality of the situation at hand you make the comment "it is a delicate situation". Totally false, it's NOT a delicate situation-it's only delicate in that modern day members of the Church are absolute cowards in calling it for what it is . . .sin!

This isn't a "few" leaders. Again the Church has declared that proclaiming you are openly homosexual is NOT a sin and an open homosexual can hold ANY calling because they don't "sin". It today's Church you can OPENLY declare you have sexual desires (i.e. you want to have sex with the same sex, get married to the same sex, fantasize about it, etc. and as long as you don't "act on it"-which is left up to whoever, is never defined and is basically left up to the individual themselves . . you don't commit sin. Flat out 100% false. There is no such thing as an open homosexual who doesn't act on it-period.

And heaven-forbid a Bishop actually call out a homosexual b/c in today's society he will be shamed, make out to be a bigot, intolerant, etc. My guess is that for fear of men a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents just let this stuff slide b/c they don't want to get the modern popular opinion hammer being thrown at them and be made the next famous Facebook/Twitter/etc example of a intolerant bigot b/c if their name is thrown around as an intolerable bigot who knows what might actually happen to them in the real world-fired from a job, denied a promotion, e-mail threats, etc.

What you have, I'm sorry to say is cognitive dissonance. I NEVER said to "throw" people out of the Church or "deny" them baptism because they are open homosexuals but don't have sex. The bar for baptism is quite low. If someone is having sex with the same sex absolutely they should be denied entry into the membership of the Church. If someone is looking at homosexual porn or acting out in other ways, they should be disciplined in other ways.

And absolutely if a man is going on "first dates" with other men he should be relieved of ANY and ALL leadership roles . . . just remember being an "open homosexual" is not a sin.

Right . . .and that is how we get this crap into the Church. B/c I guarantee you this "open homosexual" in a Stake Leadership position certainly doesn't tell his SP, hey I went on a date last night-or if he is THAT open about it, probably couches it in the term, I didn't break the Law of Chastity (or at the very least has convinced the SP that!).

First it's "open homosexuals" are not in sin, then it's as long as you don't do anything "sexual" it's not a sin-which means 1st dates, holding hands, etc. is not sin . . .then it advances from there.

The Church is flat-out wrong here-period. Why God is allowing it into His Church? I have no clue, but this much I do now, this current policy is absolutely not of God.

User avatar
Davka
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1274

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Davka »

mgridle1 wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 7:45 am
Craig Johnson wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 12:02 am
mgridle1 wrote: August 21st, 2018, 7:52 pm And the following is a reason why the Church made a big, big mistake by allowing homosexuals into the Church by saying as long as they didn't "act on it", homosexuals weren't in sin.

I can't wait for this evil sickness to get rooted out of the Church.
No, the church did not make a mistake. The way that a few "leaders" at the mission, stake and ward level are using their freedom and positional power to abuse church teachings is the cause. You cannot throw people out of the church or deny them baptism because they say they are struggling with overcoming homosexuality, but are not doing it. If they are lying that is on them. This is a delicate situation and must be handled carefully and not because of modern thinking, but because people will always be struggling to overcome something, part of the reason the church exists, He called us all to repentance, all of us sinners. One of us is not a better sinner than someone else and no calling is more important than any other. When all of us are no longer sinners there will likely be no more cause to have a church.
It's a feature not a bug.

Absolutely it is a mistake. Look the Church has openly admitted that it can/does/will make mistakes (see Essays). Why current members are so blind to this I don't know. It's this hypocritical, stick your head in the sand mentality . . .you see the Church can make mistakes in the past, but today, nope, not today-it's impossible for the Church to make a mistake today, why because it's the one true church and if it makes a mistake today then it must not be that??? right?? No, not EVERYTHING the Church does is ordained by God, not everything it does is of God. In fact, I'd say we've become quite corrupted, but just because it is corrupted does not mean it is false or lacks the Authority of God's Church.

You completely deflected and avoided the actual serious topic, instead of addressing the situation and the reality of the situation at hand you make the comment "it is a delicate situation". Totally false, it's NOT a delicate situation-it's only delicate in that modern day members of the Church are absolute cowards in calling it for what it is . . .sin!

This isn't a "few" leaders. Again the Church has declared that proclaiming you are openly homosexual is NOT a sin and an open homosexual can hold ANY calling because they don't "sin". It today's Church you can OPENLY declare you have sexual desires (i.e. you want to have sex with the same sex, get married to the same sex, fantasize about it, etc. and as long as you don't "act on it"-which is left up to whoever, is never defined and is basically left up to the individual themselves . . you don't commit sin. Flat out 100% false. There is no such thing as an open homosexual who doesn't act on it-period.

And heaven-forbid a Bishop actually call out a homosexual b/c in today's society he will be shamed, make out to be a bigot, intolerant, etc. My guess is that for fear of men a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents just let this stuff slide b/c they don't want to get the modern popular opinion hammer being thrown at them and be made the next famous Facebook/Twitter/etc example of a intolerant bigot b/c if their name is thrown around as an intolerable bigot who knows what might actually happen to them in the real world-fired from a job, denied a promotion, e-mail threats, etc.

What you have, I'm sorry to say is cognitive dissonance. I NEVER said to "throw" people out of the Church or "deny" them baptism because they are open homosexuals but don't have sex. The bar for baptism is quite low. If someone is having sex with the same sex absolutely they should be denied entry into the membership of the Church. If someone is looking at homosexual porn or acting out in other ways, they should be disciplined in other ways.

And absolutely if a man is going on "first dates" with other men he should be relieved of ANY and ALL leadership roles . . . just remember being an "open homosexual" is not a sin.

Right . . .and that is how we get this crap into the Church. B/c I guarantee you this "open homosexual" in a Stake Leadership position certainly doesn't tell his SP, hey I went on a date last night-or if he is THAT open about it, probably couches it in the term, I didn't break the Law of Chastity (or at the very least has convinced the SP that!).

First it's "open homosexuals" are not in sin, then it's as long as you don't do anything "sexual" it's not a sin-which means 1st dates, holding hands, etc. is not sin . . .then it advances from there.

The Church is flat-out wrong here-period. Why God is allowing it into His Church? I have no clue, but this much I do now, this current policy is absolutely not of God.
I take the church's intended policy to be that being "openly homosexual" is admitting to having the temptation to desire prople of the same sex. Not every person has that temptation, which is what differentiates a homosexual from a heterosexual. "Acting" on that temptation would be anything other than shutting the temptation down the moment it creeps into your mind. So when a man thinks to himself "hey, there's an attractive man..." he may not be able to fully control that initial temptation, which is what makes him homosexual -- there are many men out there who would never have that thought even come up. The "acting on it" occurs when every effort is not made to end the temptation in thought, word and deed. Having that temptation and/or being open about having that temptation is not a sin. Just like a person could say "I have had the temptation to look at porn" or "I was tempted to think unchaste thoughts about a woman other than my wife..." Openly admitting those temptations is not sinful, but allowing those thoughts/desires/temptations to continue in thoughts or actions to Amy degree is.

I would agree with you that the stake executive secretary who is going on dates with other men should not be holding the calling he has. Admitting he is tempted to desire other men should not preclude him from that, but obviously he IS allowing that temptation to continue by seeking out/accepting dates with other men, which is where the sin and unworthiness lie. This would mean the mistake lies not with the church, but with the leader who is misinterpreting the church's policy/principle and not implementing it as intended by the brethren.

User avatar
Joel
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7043

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Joel »


gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by gardener4life »

The being an open homosexual to not be a sin, I don't think that necessarily holds true for a lot of reasons.

If you said that to your family privately and only close friends or your bishop then that would be possibly true. You might admit under certain private discussions what you struggle with. But this and telling loudly to the world and getting everyone in on it aren't the same thing.

If the whole world knows, and you are boldly putting it out there and you are telling everyone and proclaiming it loudly then that doesn't hold true that its not a sin anymore, because you are publicly trying to get support for immorality, and get supporters to join up not just with you personally on your own terms with that immorality, but you are now gaining favor with others against God's order and rules system, to try to overcome God's plan of a Father and a Mother instead of 2 fathers or 2 mothers.

Part of Agency is really about picking a side and sticking with it. Good or evil, virtue or vice. Virtue or vice really also tell more about whether we're picking good or not than just saying good or evil. Many people are saying I'm good while picking vice to dominate. This is really strange don't you think? They also are posers, but people don't want to do it partly because of feeling sorry for people we care about and not wanting to wake up to the facts.

So we're here to pick a side all over again, just like the war in heaven. Part of picking a side again is making sure we're fully committed and on the right side; and trying to not try to be on both sides (being on both sides doesn't work, eventually the doors will close and we'll have to be fully in or out on one side or the other.)

People let their agency get tricked away from them by not seeing that this war of agency and picking a side is still going on. We have a tendency to try to want to pick the easy way out instead of wrestle with God in prayer about our problems and how to solve them.

So...we're picking sides all over again.

User avatar
Craig Johnson
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991
Location: Washington State.

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Craig Johnson »

mgridle1 wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 7:45 am
Craig Johnson wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 12:02 am
mgridle1 wrote: August 21st, 2018, 7:52 pm And the following is a reason why the Church made a big, big mistake by allowing homosexuals into the Church by saying as long as they didn't "act on it", homosexuals weren't in sin.

I can't wait for this evil sickness to get rooted out of the Church.
No, the church did not make a mistake. The way that a few "leaders" at the mission, stake and ward level are using their freedom and positional power to abuse church teachings is the cause. You cannot throw people out of the church or deny them baptism because they say they are struggling with overcoming homosexuality, but are not doing it. If they are lying that is on them. This is a delicate situation and must be handled carefully and not because of modern thinking, but because people will always be struggling to overcome something, part of the reason the church exists, He called us all to repentance, all of us sinners. One of us is not a better sinner than someone else and no calling is more important than any other. When all of us are no longer sinners there will likely be no more cause to have a church.
It's a feature not a bug.

Absolutely it is a mistake. Look the Church has openly admitted that it can/does/will make mistakes (see Essays). Why current members are so blind to this I don't know. It's this hypocritical, stick your head in the sand mentality . . .you see the Church can make mistakes in the past, but today, nope, not today-it's impossible for the Church to make a mistake today, why because it's the one true church and if it makes a mistake today then it must not be that??? right?? No, not EVERYTHING the Church does is ordained by God, not everything it does is of God. In fact, I'd say we've become quite corrupted, but just because it is corrupted does not mean it is false or lacks the Authority of God's Church.

You completely deflected and avoided the actual serious topic, instead of addressing the situation and the reality of the situation at hand you make the comment "it is a delicate situation". Totally false, it's NOT a delicate situation-it's only delicate in that modern day members of the Church are absolute cowards in calling it for what it is . . .sin!

This isn't a "few" leaders. Again the Church has declared that proclaiming you are openly homosexual is NOT a sin and an open homosexual can hold ANY calling because they don't "sin". It today's Church you can OPENLY declare you have sexual desires (i.e. you want to have sex with the same sex, get married to the same sex, fantasize about it, etc. and as long as you don't "act on it"-which is left up to whoever, is never defined and is basically left up to the individual themselves . . you don't commit sin. Flat out 100% false. There is no such thing as an open homosexual who doesn't act on it-period.

And heaven-forbid a Bishop actually call out a homosexual b/c in today's society he will be shamed, make out to be a bigot, intolerant, etc. My guess is that for fear of men a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents just let this stuff slide b/c they don't want to get the modern popular opinion hammer being thrown at them and be made the next famous Facebook/Twitter/etc example of a intolerant bigot b/c if their name is thrown around as an intolerable bigot who knows what might actually happen to them in the real world-fired from a job, denied a promotion, e-mail threats, etc.

What you have, I'm sorry to say is cognitive dissonance. I NEVER said to "throw" people out of the Church or "deny" them baptism because they are open homosexuals but don't have sex. The bar for baptism is quite low. If someone is having sex with the same sex absolutely they should be denied entry into the membership of the Church. If someone is looking at homosexual porn or acting out in other ways, they should be disciplined in other ways.

And absolutely if a man is going on "first dates" with other men he should be relieved of ANY and ALL leadership roles . . . just remember being an "open homosexual" is not a sin.

Right . . .and that is how we get this crap into the Church. B/c I guarantee you this "open homosexual" in a Stake Leadership position certainly doesn't tell his SP, hey I went on a date last night-or if he is THAT open about it, probably couches it in the term, I didn't break the Law of Chastity (or at the very least has convinced the SP that!).

First it's "open homosexuals" are not in sin, then it's as long as you don't do anything "sexual" it's not a sin-which means 1st dates, holding hands, etc. is not sin . . .then it advances from there.

The Church is flat-out wrong here-period. Why God is allowing it into His Church? I have no clue, but this much I do now, this current policy is absolutely not of God.
I disagree with you, but I have not the time to waste to detail it for you and I am certain you would continue to argue rather than be enlightened. You said "I'd say we've become quite corrupted...but just because it (the Church) is corrupted does not mean it is false..." I suppose to you that makes sense but with those kind of cogitation processes we can never get past talking past each other. Your argument, to me, has no logic and is that which I expect from persons with very weak or non-testimonies.
You diagnose me as having "cognitive dissonance" which is obviously incorrect. "What you have, I'm sorry to say is cognitive dissonance." Since you obviously wish a diagnosis I would tend to think you have "narcissistic personality disorder" and I assume you are trying to use this website to take advantage of others. I would think that you tend to believe that you do not have a problem.
I do not think discussing much of anything with you will result in any gains for anyone therefore I will stop here.

User avatar
Arandur
captain of 100
Posts: 129

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by Arandur »

gardener4life wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 9:02 pm The being an open homosexual to not be a sin, I don't think that necessarily holds true for a lot of reasons.

If you said that to your family privately and only close friends or your bishop then that would be possibly true. You might admit under certain private discussions what you struggle with. But this and telling loudly to the world and getting everyone in on it aren't the same thing.

If the whole world knows, and you are boldly putting it out there and you are telling everyone and proclaiming it loudly then that doesn't hold true that its not a sin anymore, because you are publicly trying to get support for immorality, and get supporters to join up not just with you personally on your own terms with that immorality, but you are now gaining favor with others against God's order and rules system, to try to overcome God's plan of a Father and a Mother instead of 2 fathers or 2 mothers.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that if someone publicizes their personal temptations just to be seen of men and receive the praise of the world, or to try to legitimize sinful behavior, they have their reward. But I’m hoping to better understand your position and the reasoning behind it. Would you suggest that these same standards apply to recovering addicts to drugs or pornography who are considering being open about their temptations?

If the standards should apply to, say, a person successfully recovering from a drug addiction that began in childhood, then why would you argue that it sinful for them to “boldly put it out there” if it is in an effort to reach out to support others who also struggle, to raise general awareness of how to help loved ones with those struggles, to show the power the atonement has had in their lives, etc.? If anything, I’ve always found it admirable when such people share something so personal. Why should they remain silent, except perhaps with close friends, family, and priesthood leaders?

On the other hand, if these standards don’t apply to the recovering drug addict since childhood, but only to the homosexual, then where exactly is the relevant difference between the types of temptation? That is, what is special about the temptation of homosexuality in particular that requires public silence, on pain of committing sin?

Or, am I just misunderstanding your position?

User avatar
LDS Physician
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1812

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by LDS Physician »

Having same gender attraction isn't a sin. Participating in it is. People in prominent leadership roles are held to a higher standard and the handbook describes their discipline as more rigorous for obvious reasons. The brother in the stake position who is publicly preaching his support of that community as well as openly dating should certainly be removed from his leadership position.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by gardener4life »

Arandur wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 11:40 pm
gardener4life wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 9:02 pm The being an open homosexual to not be a sin, I don't think that necessarily holds true for a lot of reasons.

If you said that to your family privately and only close friends or your bishop then that would be possibly true. You might admit under certain private discussions what you struggle with. But this and telling loudly to the world and getting everyone in on it aren't the same thing.

If the whole world knows, and you are boldly putting it out there and you are telling everyone and proclaiming it loudly then that doesn't hold true that its not a sin anymore, because you are publicly trying to get support for immorality, and get supporters to join up not just with you personally on your own terms with that immorality, but you are now gaining favor with others against God's order and rules system, to try to overcome God's plan of a Father and a Mother instead of 2 fathers or 2 mothers.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that if someone publicizes their personal temptations just to be seen of men and receive the praise of the world, or to try to legitimize sinful behavior, they have their reward. But I’m hoping to better understand your position and the reasoning behind it. Would you suggest that these same standards apply to recovering addicts to drugs or pornography who are considering being open about their temptations?

If the standards should apply to, say, a person successfully recovering from a drug addiction that began in childhood, then why would you argue that it sinful for them to “boldly put it out there” if it is in an effort to reach out to support others who also struggle, to raise general awareness of how to help loved ones with those struggles, to show the power the atonement has had in their lives, etc.? If anything, I’ve always found it admirable when such people share something so personal. Why should they remain silent, except perhaps with close friends, family, and priesthood leaders?

On the other hand, if these standards don’t apply to the recovering drug addict since childhood, but only to the homosexual, then where exactly is the relevant difference between the types of temptation? That is, what is special about the temptation of homosexuality in particular that requires public silence, on pain of committing sin?

Or, am I just misunderstanding your position?
Nice follow up! And yes thanks for wanting clarification.

Well this is the beautiful part; we wrestle with God because the next step is to let the Atonement of Jesus work its way to cover us and cover the parts of us that we think are impossible or that need to be worked out. This part is so beautiful. We can gain some allowances but we need to 'wrestle with God' in prayer over our problems like Israel and Enos did.

So anytime we have trouble with temptations...and we'll all get them in some way...we use the atonement to cover that. It can cover us like a blanket. And it can blanket all kinds of problems. But people sort of get cheated by not trying to wrestle with God in their prayer and trying to get close to him to cover their problems and instead just rationalize it and blow it off. We want to go through this wrestle with God.

Everyone has problems, and something that makes them deficient or in need some way. So we're not trying to get people cut off from God, but we want them to do this process of the wrestle with God. In that process they'll gain the assurance through the spirit that they can be acceptable before God even with big problems, no matter who or what their problems, as long as they are sincere in trying move forward in living the gospel with full intent (full intent doesn't mean we can't stumble, but we just get back up.)

So...to clarify, with any condition we all need Christ, and we're either pleading for God's help like Moses or we act like Pharaoh trying to command gods instead of follow them. We're either asking in gratitude or defying/commanding.

I hope that helps. I think there's ways that people can be either repentant or unrepentant in most every condition that needs the Saviour.



Beautiful Savior

35395, Children’s Songbook, Beautiful Savior, 62
Fair is the sunshine,
Fairer the moonlight
And all the stars in heav’n above;
Jesus shines brighter,
Jesus shines purer
And brings to all the world his love.
Fair are the meadows,
Fairer the woodlands,
Robed in the flowers of blooming spring;
Jesus is fairer,
Jesus is purer.
He makes the sorrowing spirit sing.
Beautiful Savior!

Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Thee will I honor, praise, and give glory,
Give praise and glory evermore!
Evermore!
Words: Anon., 12th century
Music: Silesian folk song, arr. by Darwin Wolford, b. 1936. Arr. © 1989 IRI
Doctrine and Covenants 43:34
Doctrine and Covenants 110:2–4

I AM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2456

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by I AM »

ESL Students Learn New Gender Pronouns | We the Internet TV

mgridle1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1276

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by mgridle1 »

Craig Johnson wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 11:33 pm
mgridle1 wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 7:45 am
Craig Johnson wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 12:02 am
mgridle1 wrote: August 21st, 2018, 7:52 pm And the following is a reason why the Church made a big, big mistake by allowing homosexuals into the Church by saying as long as they didn't "act on it", homosexuals weren't in sin.

I can't wait for this evil sickness to get rooted out of the Church.
No, the church did not make a mistake. The way that a few "leaders" at the mission, stake and ward level are using their freedom and positional power to abuse church teachings is the cause. You cannot throw people out of the church or deny them baptism because they say they are struggling with overcoming homosexuality, but are not doing it. If they are lying that is on them. This is a delicate situation and must be handled carefully and not because of modern thinking, but because people will always be struggling to overcome something, part of the reason the church exists, He called us all to repentance, all of us sinners. One of us is not a better sinner than someone else and no calling is more important than any other. When all of us are no longer sinners there will likely be no more cause to have a church.
It's a feature not a bug.

Absolutely it is a mistake. Look the Church has openly admitted that it can/does/will make mistakes (see Essays). Why current members are so blind to this I don't know. It's this hypocritical, stick your head in the sand mentality . . .you see the Church can make mistakes in the past, but today, nope, not today-it's impossible for the Church to make a mistake today, why because it's the one true church and if it makes a mistake today then it must not be that??? right?? No, not EVERYTHING the Church does is ordained by God, not everything it does is of God. In fact, I'd say we've become quite corrupted, but just because it is corrupted does not mean it is false or lacks the Authority of God's Church.

You completely deflected and avoided the actual serious topic, instead of addressing the situation and the reality of the situation at hand you make the comment "it is a delicate situation". Totally false, it's NOT a delicate situation-it's only delicate in that modern day members of the Church are absolute cowards in calling it for what it is . . .sin!

This isn't a "few" leaders. Again the Church has declared that proclaiming you are openly homosexual is NOT a sin and an open homosexual can hold ANY calling because they don't "sin". It today's Church you can OPENLY declare you have sexual desires (i.e. you want to have sex with the same sex, get married to the same sex, fantasize about it, etc. and as long as you don't "act on it"-which is left up to whoever, is never defined and is basically left up to the individual themselves . . you don't commit sin. Flat out 100% false. There is no such thing as an open homosexual who doesn't act on it-period.

And heaven-forbid a Bishop actually call out a homosexual b/c in today's society he will be shamed, make out to be a bigot, intolerant, etc. My guess is that for fear of men a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents just let this stuff slide b/c they don't want to get the modern popular opinion hammer being thrown at them and be made the next famous Facebook/Twitter/etc example of a intolerant bigot b/c if their name is thrown around as an intolerable bigot who knows what might actually happen to them in the real world-fired from a job, denied a promotion, e-mail threats, etc.

What you have, I'm sorry to say is cognitive dissonance. I NEVER said to "throw" people out of the Church or "deny" them baptism because they are open homosexuals but don't have sex. The bar for baptism is quite low. If someone is having sex with the same sex absolutely they should be denied entry into the membership of the Church. If someone is looking at homosexual porn or acting out in other ways, they should be disciplined in other ways.

And absolutely if a man is going on "first dates" with other men he should be relieved of ANY and ALL leadership roles . . . just remember being an "open homosexual" is not a sin.

Right . . .and that is how we get this crap into the Church. B/c I guarantee you this "open homosexual" in a Stake Leadership position certainly doesn't tell his SP, hey I went on a date last night-or if he is THAT open about it, probably couches it in the term, I didn't break the Law of Chastity (or at the very least has convinced the SP that!).

First it's "open homosexuals" are not in sin, then it's as long as you don't do anything "sexual" it's not a sin-which means 1st dates, holding hands, etc. is not sin . . .then it advances from there.

The Church is flat-out wrong here-period. Why God is allowing it into His Church? I have no clue, but this much I do now, this current policy is absolutely not of God.
I disagree with you, but I have not the time to waste to detail it for you and I am certain you would continue to argue rather than be enlightened. You said "I'd say we've become quite corrupted...but just because it (the Church) is corrupted does not mean it is false..." I suppose to you that makes sense but with those kind of cogitation processes we can never get past talking past each other. Your argument, to me, has no logic and is that which I expect from persons with very weak or non-testimonies.
You diagnose me as having "cognitive dissonance" which is obviously incorrect. "What you have, I'm sorry to say is cognitive dissonance." Since you obviously wish a diagnosis I would tend to think you have "narcissistic personality disorder" and I assume you are trying to use this website to take advantage of others. I would think that you tend to believe that you do not have a problem.
I do not think discussing much of anything with you will result in any gains for anyone therefore I will stop here.
I have put you into a state of cognitive dissonance-that much is clear. Please read:
http://www.cruxcatalyst.com/2012/07/11/ ... l-attacks/
"When people attack the person delivering the message instead of debating the issue raised by their message, they are reacting to someone placing them in a state of cognitive dissonance – or where their view of the world is suddenly interrupted and made uncomfortable by new information or ideas that conflicts with their established understanding and belief system. The reaction is because your message has clashed with an individual or group’s ‘belief grid’, or challenged values they hold dear."

I was clearly referring to the fact that you are in a state of cognitive dissonance. You have twice in this thread not listened to what I have stated and taken what I have stated to the extreme. I initially said the Church stating that one can be openly homosexual and not sin is wrong. I also said that according to the Church's OWN published documents recently, they ADMIT they can be terribly wrong about things and thus why is it that we are so confident they are right about homosexuals. You took that and said what should we do throw them out of the Church. To which I replied no, but clearly they shouldn't be holding positions of leadership or authority, and I said you have cognitive dissonance, to which you replied that I am a narcissistic individual who is trying to take advantage of other people.

All I can say is that when you take the time to really, really study your belief and your belief system you will find that I have elicited a very deep emotional response within you. The reason why is because of two things, you DO absolutely see and recognize that allowing open homosexuals into the Church is not bringing forth good fruit in the sense that you DO see open homosexuals ARE openly discussing, talking, persuading others that not only are homosexual thoughts not sin, but that homosexual behavior is not sin. The 2nd thing is that you have very strict allegiance to the leaders of the Church-this is in many ways good, but also in many ways not so good. You have been brought up and believe with your entire heart that the Prophet will NEVER lead us astray. Therefore those two things are causing massive conflict.

At some point you will need to resolve it within your soul b/c I GUARANTEE you will see more and more and more homosexuality inside the Church. I absolutely wish it weren't the case-but it is and so we need to deal with reality not things as we wish them to be. So you will either need to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is okay or there is corruption and not all is well in Denmark. I honestly do pray that as this goes on that you will be able to maintain your Faith-not in fallible men, but in the One who Saves.

The longer this goes on the more I'm convinced that Christ return not only deals with setting the World straight but also setting His Church straight. Note, I do not say that the authority of the Church will be lost, just that it will need to be set straight by Him. Corruption is just a natural human trait.

We look to the scriptures, after Christ came to the Americas His Church only lasted 300 years roughly, roughly the same after He died in Jerusalem.

mgridle1
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1276

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by mgridle1 »

LDS Physician wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 8:31 am Having same gender attraction isn't a sin. Participating in it is. People in prominent leadership roles are held to a higher standard and the handbook describes their discipline as more rigorous for obvious reasons. The brother in the stake position who is publicly preaching his support of that community as well as openly dating should certainly be removed from his leadership position.
Sometimes I really wish I could have a rapid-fire in-depth conversation with people on this issue. Unfortunately, for about 20 years leadership has been teaching things wrong on SSA-I think it's because they fear men more than they fear God, but I'm not the one who will ultimately call them on the carpet.

I'd really like someone to really delve into and back up with scripture, why homosexual lust is not a sin. Because that is what it really is-it's homosexual lust. I'd also like someone to explain why we ONLY make an exception for evil thoughts and desires for homosexuals.

We certainly don't say the same thing about murderous thoughts or murderous feelings, we don't say the same things about feeling sexual desire for someone who is not our spouse. We talk about homosexual feelings as not a sin.

Okay, let's go with that-homosexual feelings are not a sin. What about murderous feelings? I got mad at my wife and I have an feeling to hurt her, that's not a sin right?

Human beings are composed of thoughts, feelings, and then actions (word or otherwise). SSA is simply homosexual feelings-look at the terminology, I feel attracted to so-and-so. So if that is not a sin, then feeling anger at my spouse is not a sin.

Why do we carve out homosexual feelings as special feelings, why are they so different from all the other range of human feelings that they are put on a special pedestal and said-those feelings-those feelings aren't sin.

It's totally 100% false, it's false doctrine and it will lead to our condemnation. It took me 25+ years to come to this conclusion. I remember, I remember one of the first times the Church came out saying SSA wasn't a sin-I was young, stupid and naive and I thought that doesn't sound right, but okay I guess if the Church says so. Why did I think that? B/c I had been taught from a very early age that a significant portion of life is learning how to control my feelings and now the Church is stating you don't need to worry about controlling these particular types of feelings, that's okay.

And because the Church let this small bit of corruption of the Doctrine of Christ pollute the body of Christ it has grown and will continue to grow.

Another post will illustrate it's a feature not a bug. Allowing "open homosexuals" to be in the Church WILL eventually lead to homosexual acceptance.
---------
"Have you ever thought that the elders of your branch/ward were cute? Because it happens to me a lot lol
— Anonymous

hahaha, I love this question!

I often find myself sitting up front for various stake priesthood meetings because I play the piano, and usually while sitting up there I go pew by pew choosing who I think is the best looking, then I do a tournament in my head where I pit each pew against another, until I’ve narrowed it down to the final 4 top handsomest in attendance.

And I don’t often attend my own elders quorum because they usually ask me to help in Primary, but today I was there for the first time in 2 months and we sat in a big circle, which meant I could check out guys, but I also worried about them looking up and seeing me checking them out (but then again, they probably wouldn’t even realize that’s what I’m doing even though most know I’m gay).

I know I’m lame, none of them are ever gonna date me. But the answer to your question is, YES."
----------------

No one is an open homosexual who doesn't "act on it".

EmmaLee
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10884

Re: a new low for LGBTQIA

Post by EmmaLee »

mgridle1 wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 7:26 pmAnother post will illustrate it's a feature not a bug. Allowing "open homosexuals" to be in the Church WILL eventually lead to homosexual acceptance.
---------
"Have you ever thought that the elders of your branch/ward were cute? Because it happens to me a lot lol
— Anonymous

hahaha, I love this question!

I often find myself sitting up front for various stake priesthood meetings because I play the piano, and usually while sitting up there I go pew by pew choosing who I think is the best looking, then I do a tournament in my head where I pit each pew against another, until I’ve narrowed it down to the final 4 top handsomest in attendance.

And I don’t often attend my own elders quorum because they usually ask me to help in Primary, but today I was there for the first time in 2 months and we sat in a big circle, which meant I could check out guys, but I also worried about them looking up and seeing me checking them out (but then again, they probably wouldn’t even realize that’s what I’m doing even though most know I’m gay).

I know I’m lame, none of them are ever gonna date me. But the answer to your question is, YES."
----------------

No one is an open homosexual who doesn't "act on it".
Is this the guy who is in a stake leadership calling? Regardless, it made me want to be sick. Is this man's name known or does he hide under a pseudonym or anonymous? Because if he's known to the other stake leaders, and they know he is "checking guys out" in Elders Quorum, determining who is the "most handsome", etc., and they're good with that - they are seriously asleep at the wheel.

Post Reply