BYU mascot Cosmo comes out as gay.

[tdj]

Finrock, I agree with you that there is no place for any member of the church to call people perverts, abominations, etc. However, when you say that we can still oppose the sin, if you are referring to homosexuality, this is no longer tolerated by Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, and all the other LDS pro-LGBTQ groups. They now preach and teach that homosexual acts are every bit as desirable and God-sanctioned in legal marriages as heterosexual activity. They are saying that they fully expect homosexuals to continue to be homosexual in the Celestial Kingdom. They say the sin is the bigotry, the heartlessness, the total misunderstanding of the members of the Church who refuse to see them the way God sees them, as perfectly made. They claim the LDS LGBT are the noble ones sent here at this time to change the homophobia of the LDS church into total acceptance of everything LGBTQ. They do not tolerate any language that implies they are "struggling" or that this trial will be removed from them after the resurrection. They even go so far as to say that we are never to say that -- because it causes hopelessness and suicide. There's more, but you get the idea.

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

[tdj]

Finrock, I agree with you that there is no place for any member of the church to call people perverts, abominations, etc. However, when you say that we can still oppose the sin, if you are referring to homosexuality, this is no longer tolerated by Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, and all the other LDS pro-LGBTQ groups. They now preach and teach that homosexual acts are every bit as desirable and God-sanctioned in legal marriages as heterosexual activity. They are saying that they fully expect homosexuals to continue to be homosexual in the Celestial Kingdom. They say the sin is the bigotry, the heartlessness, the total misunderstanding of the members of the Church who refuse to see them the way God sees them, as perfectly made. They claim the LDS LGBT are the noble ones sent here at this time to change the homophobia of the LDS church into total acceptance of everything LGBTQ. They do not tolerate any language that implies they are "struggling" or that this trial will be removed from them after the resurrection. They even go so far as to say that we are never to say that -- because it causes hopelessness and suicide. There's more, but you get the idea.

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

[Finrock]

Finrock, I agree with you that there is no place for any member of the church to call people perverts, abominations, etc. However, when you say that we can still oppose the sin, if you are referring to homosexuality, this is no longer tolerated by Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, and all the other LDS pro-LGBTQ groups. They now preach and teach that homosexual acts are every bit as desirable and God-sanctioned in legal marriages as heterosexual activity. They are saying that they fully expect homosexuals to continue to be homosexual in the Celestial Kingdom. They say the sin is the bigotry, the heartlessness, the total misunderstanding of the members of the Church who refuse to see them the way God sees them, as perfectly made. They claim the LDS LGBT are the noble ones sent here at this time to change the homophobia of the LDS church into total acceptance of everything LGBTQ. They do not tolerate any language that implies they are "struggling" or that this trial will be removed from them after the resurrection. They even go so far as to say that we are never to say that -- because it causes hopelessness and suicide. There's more, but you get the idea.

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

[markharr]

I don’t know anything about your “experiences in the mid 90’s”, but science does not agree.

Well you got us there. "Science" is never wrong and has not been politicized to push agendas.

[tdj]

Finrock, I agree with you that there is no place for any member of the church to call people perverts, abominations, etc. However, when you say that we can still oppose the sin, if you are referring to homosexuality, this is no longer tolerated by Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, and all the other LDS pro-LGBTQ groups. They now preach and teach that homosexual acts are every bit as desirable and God-sanctioned in legal marriages as heterosexual activity. They are saying that they fully expect homosexuals to continue to be homosexual in the Celestial Kingdom. They say the sin is the bigotry, the heartlessness, the total misunderstanding of the members of the Church who refuse to see them the way God sees them, as perfectly made. They claim the LDS LGBT are the noble ones sent here at this time to change the homophobia of the LDS church into total acceptance of everything LGBTQ. They do not tolerate any language that implies they are "struggling" or that this trial will be removed from them after the resurrection. They even go so far as to say that we are never to say that -- because it causes hopelessness and suicide. There's more, but you get the idea.

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

You are what you do. It's that simple. And when I refer to the "men" these days in the church no longer having a "pair", it's not in reference to actual biological genitalia. What I'm saying is if people have same sex attractions, then the LEAST they can do is the decent thing and keep it to their own perverted selves. I don't think that's asking too much. Your statement about how it takes courage to be gentle and kind, blah, blah blah, is simply a brainwashing tactic that's been used successfully for some decades now in order to take manhood out of men. REAL men, like Joseph Smith and those of his day, would NOT under ANY circumstances get all lovey dovey, kind and gentle with perverts who had no qualms at all about "coming out". They would be instead met with a swift kick up the rear, and THAT'S only if the prophet Joseph Smith decided to be gentle about it. I won't even go into detail about what Porter Rockwell, or Brigham Young would have done.

I've said it before, and I say it now: The men in church nowadays are a bunch of limp wristed, cowardly curds.

[tdj]

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

Finrock

What are you talking about? That's all guys ARE these days is vulnerable and "compassionate". They've turned into women.

[Finrock]

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

You are what you do. It's that simple. And when I refer to the "men" these days in the church no longer having a "pair", it's not in reference to actual biological genitalia. What I'm saying is if people have same sex attractions, then the LEAST they can do is the decent thing and keep it to their own perverted selves. I don't think that's asking too much. Your statement about how it takes courage to be gentle and kind, blah, blah blah, is simply a brainwashing tactic that's been used successfully for some decades now in order to take manhood out of men. REAL men, like Joseph Smith and those of his day, would NOT under ANY circumstances get all lovey dovey, kind and gentle with perverts who had no qualms at all about "coming out". They would be instead met with a swift kick up the rear, and THAT'S only if the prophet Joseph Smith decided to be gentle about it. I won't even go into detail about what Porter Rockwell, or Brigham Young would have done.

I've said it before, and I say it now: The men in church nowadays are a bunch of limp wristed, cowardly curds.

Are you in the Church?

-Finrock

[Finrock]

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

Finrock

What are you talking about? That's all guys ARE these days is vulnerable and "compassionate". They've turned into women.

The tough guy routine is so 70's and 80's man, get with the program. We already discovered that all the tough guys are just covering up their own insecurities and compensating because of fear and loss of control in their life.

Real men aren't afraid to get in touch with their feelings, to be empathetic, to be kind, gentle, loving. Its really easy to be a "tough" guy and a bully. Any brute can do that.

Test it out. Be introspective and test and see. I don't know what your modus operandi is, but if it is anything like how you are presenting yourself on this anonymous internet forum, then I imagine you struggle to be vulnerable. If that is the case, give it a shot. It's not easy at all. You're putting yourself out there and that's risky.

In any case, when I see the whole "tough guy, you need to grow a pair" routine, I'm sorry, and I mean no offense, but all I see is a vulnerable person who is insecure and I feel compassion for them.

Well, here are some truths we can't avoid or do anything about. 1. We receive grace for grace. 2. The standard and the bar that we use to judge others, will be the standard and the bar by which we will be judge.

Peace,
-Finrock

[RocknRoll]

What I'm saying is if people have same sex attractions, then the LEAST they can do is the decent thing and keep it to their own perverted selves.

What I’m saying is if a person has hateful, bigoted and un-Christlike attitudes towards other sons and daughters of God, then the LEAST they can do is keep it to their pretend, macho selves.

Oh wait…that’s not how free speech works.

REAL men, like Joseph Smith and those of his day, would NOT under ANY circumstances get all lovey dovey, kind and gentle with perverts who had no qualms at all about "coming out". They would be instead met with a swift kick up the rear, and THAT'S only if the prophet Joseph Smith decided to be gentle about it. I won't even go into detail about what Porter Rockwell, or Brigham Young would have done.

Well, it’s kind of cute how you think you know what Joseph, Brigham and Porter would have done, but the reality is you have no idea what anyone, dead more than century before you were born, would have done in a given situation.

[thestock]

For what its worth I am in the camp that A) gays should be treated with compassion even if you disagree with their choices and B) there are many, MANY men in the church today that lack testicles....and no I am not a macho dude trying to overcompensate....I am just telling it like it is. The church, and society in general, is now full of males that have literally or figuratively lost their testicles along the way.........

[[email protected]]

When has the church leadership tolerated wickedness?

That's not me talking in the quotes above. I was quoting others. As for your question though, it all depends on your definition of "wickedness", doesn't it.

Sorry about that. Sometimes it’s hard to tell whose quotes are who’s when they’re piled on top of each other.

It does depend on your definition of wickedness. There are two families in my previous ward that would define drinking Mountain Dew and watching football on Sunday as wickedness.

So I guess my question is to Layer8. When has the church leadership tolerated wickedness? (considering HIS definition of wickedness, of course).

Well they let Harry Reid continue to be a member. But seriously, Church leadership definitely lacks the resolve to combat social progressivism which is sin by any other definition period and that includes homosexuality, feminism, secular humanism.

[Finrock]

For what its worth I am in the camp that A) gays should be treated with compassion even if you disagree with their choices and B) there are many, MANY men in the church today that lack testicles....and no I am not a macho dude trying to overcompensate....I am just telling it like it is. The church, and society in general, is now full of males that have literally or figuratively lost their testicles along the way.........

What does it mean to you to figuratively lose one's testicles? Or, what leads you to believe this is true?

On the flip side, what does it mean to you that a man, figuratively, has his testicles? In your view, what would that look like? I know this is getting a bit strange talking about testicles, but, if I were try to identify a man who figuratively has his testicles, to you what should I expect to see?

Please and thank you!

-Finrock

[Finrock]

When has the church leadership tolerated wickedness?

That's not me talking in the quotes above. I was quoting others. As for your question though, it all depends on your definition of "wickedness", doesn't it.

Sorry about that. Sometimes it’s hard to tell whose quotes are who’s when they’re piled on top of each other.

It does depend on your definition of wickedness. There are two families in my previous ward that would define drinking Mountain Dew and watching football on Sunday as wickedness.

So I guess my question is to Layer8. When has the church leadership tolerated wickedness? (considering HIS definition of wickedness, of course).

Well they let Harry Reid continue to be a member. But seriously, Church leadership definitely lacks the resolve to combat social progressivism which is sin by any other definition period and that includes homosexuality, feminism, secular humanism.

OK, I think I'm starting to get a sense as to what the concerns are.

The softening stance on homosexuality is seen by many as a weakness. They perceive the Church caving in to evil. I see it as righting a wrong, as repentance.

I used to be unbending and uncompromising. This was because I had this very high expectation of myself. I then projected this expectation on to others. However, eventually I came to a point in my life where it was undeniable to me that I wasn't as tough and as awesome as I had supposed. I had to beg for mercy and grace. I realized that if I were to be judged based on the standard and the bar that I had placed on myself and others, I would be damned to hell, forever. If Jesus Christ was as unbending and as uncompromising towards me as I was towards myself and others, I deserved death and hell. But, I didn't want death and hell. I wanted mercy and grace. I begged for mercy and grace. Lo and behold, Jesus extended me mercy and grace, to my surprise, He did. This experience changed me. I wanted to and I continue to want to, emulate the mercy, grace, kindness, goodness, love, compassion, empathy that Jesus Christ showed and applied to me. I literally feel like I am a hypocrite if I try to act and/or behave differently. I feel that I lose the Spirit if I try to return back to my old disposition, my old nature. In fact, I do lose the Spirit when I return back to my old dispositions.

-Finrock

[Michelle]

Finrock, I agree with you that there is no place for any member of the church to call people perverts, abominations, etc. However, when you say that we can still oppose the sin, if you are referring to homosexuality, this is no longer tolerated by Mormons Building Bridges, Mama Dragons, and all the other LDS pro-LGBTQ groups. They now preach and teach that homosexual acts are every bit as desirable and God-sanctioned in legal marriages as heterosexual activity. They are saying that they fully expect homosexuals to continue to be homosexual in the Celestial Kingdom. They say the sin is the bigotry, the heartlessness, the total misunderstanding of the members of the Church who refuse to see them the way God sees them, as perfectly made. They claim the LDS LGBT are the noble ones sent here at this time to change the homophobia of the LDS church into total acceptance of everything LGBTQ. They do not tolerate any language that implies they are "struggling" or that this trial will be removed from them after the resurrection. They even go so far as to say that we are never to say that -- because it causes hopelessness and suicide. There's more, but you get the idea.

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

[RocknRoll]

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

So, should we define or label the smoker/drinker that hasn’t decided to try and give up his vices quite yet, but likes to come to Sacrament Meeting, as “The Smoker” or “The Drunk”? Should we label the divorced man who cheated on his wife, but hasn’t completely repented yet, but likes the comradery of the Elders Quorum, as “The Adulterer” “The Sinner”, “an abomination” or “The Pervert”? If not, then why would we apply those labels to those with a different sexual orientation?

[Finrock]

They ARE perverts, and abominations.

That's exactly why the church is in the very precarious and teetering position it's in now because of compromise and men that have become weenies, and not willing to grow a pair and take care of business when they see it. Nothing but a bunch of dang weenies.

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

I don't believe our sins define us. They can't. Before anything else, I AM a spirit of God. We are spirits of God, that is our true identity. When we sin we are acting contrary to our true identity because of delusion, of confusion, of misunderstanding, of abuse, of trauma, etc.

Satan is darkness. He was a liar from the beginning. He acted good at one point, but, that didn't change who he was.

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

His works identify Him, but, they don't define Him. Jesus IS God.

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

You're switching gears here. Attributes are not the same as sin or action.

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

We are sons and daughters of God. We are gods, with a veil of forgetfulness. Being in this state of stupor, of drunkenness, masks our true identity, but, we are who we are.

It's like trying to say that if I choose to act like a dog, I am a dog. No, I'm just acting like a dog, but I'm still human and will forever be a human, no matter how like a dog I act.

-Finrock

[Michelle]

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

So, should we define or label the smoker/drinker that hasn’t decided to try and give up his vices quite yet, but likes to come to Sacrament Meeting, as “The Smoker” or “The Drunk”? Should we label the divorced man who cheated on his wife, but hasn’t completely repented yet, but likes the comradery of the Elders Quorum, as “The Adulterer” “The Sinner”, “an abomination” or “The Pervert”? If not, then why would we apply those labels to those with a different sexual orientation?

Sure, if you like.

We all have both good and bad attributes, sins and righteous acts. When a man is in the act of sin, he is defined by his sin. If a drunk man is causing trouble in the park, would you hesitate to point him out to a cop as "the drunk guy?" I doubt the adulterer is acting on his sin in the pews at church, but you know, could be. And then we might rightly point him out as "the adulterer" to one who has authority to take action.

[Michelle]

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

I don't believe our sins define us. They can't. Before anything else, I AM a spirit of God. We are spirits of God, that is our true identity. When we sin we are acting contrary to our true identity because of delusion, of confusion, of misunderstanding, of abuse, of trauma, etc.

Satan is darkness. He was a liar from the beginning. He acted good at one point, but, that didn't change who he was.

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

His works identify Him, but, they don't define Him. Jesus IS God.

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

You're switching gears here. Attributes are not the same as sin or action.

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

We are sons and daughters of God. We are gods, with a veil of forgetfulness. Being in this state of stupor, of drunkenness, masks our true identity, but, we are who we are.

It's like trying to say that if I choose to act like a dog, I am a dog. No, I'm just acting like a dog, but I'm still human and will forever be a human, no matter how like a dog I act.

-Finrock

We are going to have to disagree here. I don't claim that an attribute/action negates another attribute or action. One can be a son of God and a pervert. There are plenty running around the planet.

One cannot be a son of God and a dog. Mutually exclusive kingdoms.

[Finrock]

They are sons and daughters of God. We are not our sins. You are a son of God. Your sins don't define you.

In my life I've committed different abominable acts, yet, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an abomination. At one point in my life I felt worthless and without any value. It wouldn't have taken much to convince me I AM an abomination. How horrible for someone to feel that way about themselves and how horrible it would be for me to foster and encourage those feelings in another, especially when I know better and I know who my brothers and sisters are, gods in embryo.

Having large testicals doesn't make one a man or tough. Its been shown that usually those "men" who act the toughest, are the most insecure and are compensating.

It takes guts and strength to be gentle and kind. It takes tremendous courage to be vulnerable and empathetic. Why do you think we see so little of men being vulnerable and compassionate in modern society? I think it's because it's hard to do.

-Finrock

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

So, should we define or label the smoker/drinker that hasn’t decided to try and give up his vices quite yet, but likes to come to Sacrament Meeting, as “The Smoker” or “The Drunk”? Should we label the divorced man who cheated on his wife, but hasn’t completely repented yet, but likes the comradery of the Elders Quorum, as “The Adulterer” “The Sinner”, “an abomination” or “The Pervert”? If not, then why would we apply those labels to those with a different sexual orientation?

Sure, if you like.

I don't believe you because I don't think you're thinking this through completely. I believe that if every time you came to Church everyone said to you, for example, "Hey "Porn User", what's up?" you would feel hurt, disappointed, and upset. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but if that is how you were being identified by everyone, as a matter of regular course, you would not like it. Even if you did on a regular basis view porn.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

One cannot be a son of God and a dog. Mutually exclusive kingdoms.

Exactly. And a son of God acting like a dog doesn't make a son of God a dog. They can act like a dog for their whole life and they will still be a son of God. Our sins do not define who we are, just in what state of belief we are in.

-Finrock

[Michelle]

Ours sins/actions can absolutely define us, if we don't repent or change them.

Satan, Lucifer, the Adversary, etc. His sins define him do they not?

Christ, Savior, Redeemer, etc. His righteous works define Him, do they not?

Holy Spirit, Comforter, etc. Defined by his attributes?

God, Heavenly Father, Creator, etc. Defined by his Holy Attributes?

It is true that mortality provides us a unique opportunity to choose our actions and therefore what attributes will define us in the eternities. But make no mistake, we are choosing now and will not be given a second go around to choose again.

So, should we define or label the smoker/drinker that hasn’t decided to try and give up his vices quite yet, but likes to come to Sacrament Meeting, as “The Smoker” or “The Drunk”? Should we label the divorced man who cheated on his wife, but hasn’t completely repented yet, but likes the comradery of the Elders Quorum, as “The Adulterer” “The Sinner”, “an abomination” or “The Pervert”? If not, then why would we apply those labels to those with a different sexual orientation?

Sure, if you like.

I don't believe you because I don't think you're thinking this through completely. I believe that if every time you came to Church everyone said to you, for example, "Hey "Porn User", what's up?" you would feel hurt, disappointed, and upset. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but if that is how you were being identified by everyone, as a matter of regular course, you would not like it. Even if you did on a regular basis view porn.

-Finrock

You are still missing the point.

When one is in the act of sin, their sin does define them.

When one is repentant and changing: that defines them.

A member with homosexual tendencies who does not act on them and is seeking to overcome their sin is very different then one who is proud (and loud) about their sin and seeks to convert others to their sinful ways.

I haven't yet seen anyone actually smoking in church, but again, if they were, that would be an easy way to identify them, especially if you didn't know their name. I haven't seen anybody overtly looking at porn at church, but lets do a quick thought experiment:

Let's say a youth teacher was caught showing porn to the kids. Do you think no one would discuss them as the "porn teacher" when discussing the incident? Especially with someone who might not know their name?

I was once in a class at church where the teacher chose to have her lesbian friend "teach" us a lesson. I don't know her friends name, so when I talk about that experience I do refer to her as "the lesbian." I have no way of knowing if she is still practicing that perversion, but regardless, that is what I think of her as. It is the only definition/name I have for her that both conveys the truth of the situation and the information I have about her.

We must not be afraid to speak the truth. We must not be so afraid of offending others that we refuse to speak the truth. I can be respectful to be sure, but would someone who is a practicing homosexual really be offended by being defined as "homosexual?" Probably not. Now they may be offended by my using the word "pervert." But that is not theirs to decide. I am speaking the truth as defined by God. The One who has authority to designate an act as a perversion.

[Finrock]

So, should we define or label the smoker/drinker that hasn’t decided to try and give up his vices quite yet, but likes to come to Sacrament Meeting, as “The Smoker” or “The Drunk”? Should we label the divorced man who cheated on his wife, but hasn’t completely repented yet, but likes the comradery of the Elders Quorum, as “The Adulterer” “The Sinner”, “an abomination” or “The Pervert”? If not, then why would we apply those labels to those with a different sexual orientation?

Sure, if you like.

I don't believe you because I don't think you're thinking this through completely. I believe that if every time you came to Church everyone said to you, for example, "Hey "Porn User", what's up?" you would feel hurt, disappointed, and upset. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but if that is how you were being identified by everyone, as a matter of regular course, you would not like it. Even if you did on a regular basis view porn.

-Finrock

You are still missing the point.

When one is in the act of sin, their sin does define them.

When one is repentant and changing: that defines them.

A member with homosexual tendencies who does not act on them and is seeking to overcome their sin is very different then one who is proud (and loud) about their sin and seeks to convert others to their sinful ways.

I haven't yet seen anyone actually smoking in church, but again, if they were, that would be an easy way to identify them, especially if you didn't know their name. I haven't seen anybody overtly looking at porn at church, but lets do a quick thought experiment:

Let's say a youth teacher was caught showing porn to the kids. Do you think no one would discuss them as the "porn teacher" when discussing the incident? Especially with someone who might not know their name?

I was once in a class at church where the teacher chose to have her lesbian friend "teach" us a lesson. I don't know her friends name, so when I talk about that experience I do refer to her as "the lesbian." I have no way of knowing if she is still practicing that perversion, but regardless, that is what I think of her as. It is the only definition/name I have for her that both conveys the truth of the situation and the information I have about her.

We must not be afraid to speak the truth. We must not be so afraid of offending others that we refuse to speak the truth. I can be respectful to be sure, but would someone who is a practicing homosexual really be offended by being defined as "homosexual?" Probably not. Now they may be offended by my using the word "pervert." But that is not theirs to decide. I am speaking the truth as defined by God. The One who has authority to designate an act as a perversion.

No, I got your point.

The lesbian person, is a daughter of God. That is the label you ought to put on her. You are a sinner too, Michelle. There is no doubt about it, and, I would never identify you as what ever your current active sin is. You are in the same boat as the lesbian, just a different sin.

Our identity doesn't flip-flop based on our actions. I am a son of God who doesn't always act in accordance to my true identity.

I'm not a afraid to speak the truth. Very well, from here on out, I will identify you as a pervert, because I know you have perverted the ways of the Lord. You may not be having homosexual sex, but, I do know that you have acted and continue to act on a daily basis in a way that perverts the truth, therefore, you are a pervert.

Thanks for the discussion, Pervert, I appreciate it.

-Finrock

[Chip]

...
What are you talking about? That's all guys ARE these days is vulnerable and "compassionate". They've turned into women.

They understand that is expected of them, and so they play along, but I think it's somewhat of a superficial acquiescense to political correctness, unmanly as they are.

I've seen interviews where an ostensibly manly host interviews a flaming homosexual and acts like everything's cool. What a farce.

What if someday the gays demanded that we not only call them by special names and pronouns, but employed a special accent when using those words, having us sound like flamers, ourselves? How many would muster the proper affectation to do the requisite heartfelt job they'd require? Probably a lot.

[Michelle]

Sure, if you like.

I don't believe you because I don't think you're thinking this through completely. I believe that if every time you came to Church everyone said to you, for example, "Hey "Porn User", what's up?" you would feel hurt, disappointed, and upset. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but if that is how you were being identified by everyone, as a matter of regular course, you would not like it. Even if you did on a regular basis view porn.

-Finrock

You are still missing the point.

When one is in the act of sin, their sin does define them.

When one is repentant and changing: that defines them.

A member with homosexual tendencies who does not act on them and is seeking to overcome their sin is very different then one who is proud (and loud) about their sin and seeks to convert others to their sinful ways.

I haven't yet seen anyone actually smoking in church, but again, if they were, that would be an easy way to identify them, especially if you didn't know their name. I haven't seen anybody overtly looking at porn at church, but lets do a quick thought experiment:

Let's say a youth teacher was caught showing porn to the kids. Do you think no one would discuss them as the "porn teacher" when discussing the incident? Especially with someone who might not know their name?

I was once in a class at church where the teacher chose to have her lesbian friend "teach" us a lesson. I don't know her friends name, so when I talk about that experience I do refer to her as "the lesbian." I have no way of knowing if she is still practicing that perversion, but regardless, that is what I think of her as. It is the only definition/name I have for her that both conveys the truth of the situation and the information I have about her.

We must not be afraid to speak the truth. We must not be so afraid of offending others that we refuse to speak the truth. I can be respectful to be sure, but would someone who is a practicing homosexual really be offended by being defined as "homosexual?" Probably not. Now they may be offended by my using the word "pervert." But that is not theirs to decide. I am speaking the truth as defined by God. The One who has authority to designate an act as a perversion.

No, I got your point.

The lesbian person, is a daughter of God. That is the label you ought to put on her. You are a sinner too, Michelle. There is no doubt about it, and, I would never identify you as what ever your current active sin is. You are in the same boat as the lesbian, just a different sin.

Our identity doesn't flip-flop based on our actions. I am a son of God who doesn't always act in accordance to my true identity.

I'm not a afraid to speak the truth. Very well, from here on out, I will identify you as a pervert, because I know you have perverted the ways of the Lord. You may not be having homosexual sex, but, I do know that you have acted and continue to act on a daily basis in a way that has perverts the truth, therefore, you are a pervert.

Thanks for the discussion, Pervert, I appreciate it.

-Finrock

I do not deny being a sinner, in a constant state of needing and seeking repentance.

"The lesbian" didn't feel that way. Her lesson was on how homosexuals had won since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage and offered her support and advice on how to go forward in this brave new world.

[Michelle]

Sure, if you like.

I don't believe you because I don't think you're thinking this through completely. I believe that if every time you came to Church everyone said to you, for example, "Hey "Porn User", what's up?" you would feel hurt, disappointed, and upset. Maybe not the first time, or the second time, but if that is how you were being identified by everyone, as a matter of regular course, you would not like it. Even if you did on a regular basis view porn.

-Finrock

You are still missing the point.

When one is in the act of sin, their sin does define them.

When one is repentant and changing: that defines them.

A member with homosexual tendencies who does not act on them and is seeking to overcome their sin is very different then one who is proud (and loud) about their sin and seeks to convert others to their sinful ways.

I haven't yet seen anyone actually smoking in church, but again, if they were, that would be an easy way to identify them, especially if you didn't know their name. I haven't seen anybody overtly looking at porn at church, but lets do a quick thought experiment:

Let's say a youth teacher was caught showing porn to the kids. Do you think no one would discuss them as the "porn teacher" when discussing the incident? Especially with someone who might not know their name?

I was once in a class at church where the teacher chose to have her lesbian friend "teach" us a lesson. I don't know her friends name, so when I talk about that experience I do refer to her as "the lesbian." I have no way of knowing if she is still practicing that perversion, but regardless, that is what I think of her as. It is the only definition/name I have for her that both conveys the truth of the situation and the information I have about her.

We must not be afraid to speak the truth. We must not be so afraid of offending others that we refuse to speak the truth. I can be respectful to be sure, but would someone who is a practicing homosexual really be offended by being defined as "homosexual?" Probably not. Now they may be offended by my using the word "pervert." But that is not theirs to decide. I am speaking the truth as defined by God. The One who has authority to designate an act as a perversion.

No, I got your point.

The lesbian person, is a daughter of God. That is the label you ought to put on her. You are a sinner too, Michelle. There is no doubt about it, and, I would never identify you as what ever your current active sin is. You are in the same boat as the lesbian, just a different sin.

Our identity doesn't flip-flop based on our actions. I am a son of God who doesn't always act in accordance to my true identity.

I'm not a afraid to speak the truth. Very well, from here on out, I will identify you as a pervert, because I know you have perverted the ways of the Lord. You may not be having homosexual sex, but, I do know that you have acted and continue to act on a daily basis in a way that perverts the truth, therefore, you are a pervert.

Thanks for the discussion, Pervert, I appreciate it.

-Finrock

3 Nephi 12:10 And blessed are all they who are persecuted for my name’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 And blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake;

12 For ye shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.