BYU mascot Cosmo comes out as gay.

[Finrock]

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.

Please, nobody is persecuting you. I was using rhetoric and language to prove my point.

You quoting that scripture is further evidence that what I said to you is true because even though I didn't really mean it, you are feeling persecuted and offended because I called you a pervert. Too ironic!

OK, so, why don't we tell each other what sin we haven't overcome and then we'll identify each other as that sin?

Another thing I was just sitting here thinking about. I can't think of an instance where God tells someone that they are an abomination or that they ARE a pervert. The only examples that I could think of were phrases like, "They have perverted the ways of the Lord" or "Their acts are an abomination". God seems to always be describing their actions and their sins as perverted or abominations, but, God doesn't go around calling His children perverts and abominations. I can't think of an example (and I admit that I could be wrong here), can you?

-Finrock

[PressingForward]

If one chooses to label themselves, then why not use the label they have given themselves? If the adulterer always say “I’m an adulterer, God made me this way”, or the drunk is always saying “I’m a drunk, God made me this way” why not use their own label.
I refuse to accept the homosexual agenda! If you’re not gay, don’t say you are! If you are then change is needed in your life, just as if you were a drunk or an adulterer.
It is Satans lie that you are born gay! It is Satans lie that you are born a drunk! Or a thief! Or a whoremonger!
All are CHOICES you choose to make, don’t ever blame God for your sin.

[Finrock]

"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.

We can only assume, right? And, even if she isn't being "repentant", are you saying you're better than her?

In any case, there are many people on this earth who don't know who they are and they mistakenly identify themselves as something that they really aren't. But, we know better, don't we?

-Finrock

[Finrock]

If one chooses to label themselves, then why not use the label they have given themselves?

Because we are to reflect the "Sun of righteousness" in our countenance, not perpetuate false notions and ideas. We know better. Compassion and love tells me that I can't go along with their false notion of themselves. Jesus doesn't want to destroy me because I'm a sinner, He wants to heal me. Because I know Jesus and His love and I am His disciple, I want to emulate my Savior and my Friend. That is how I feel about it.

-Finrock

[shadow]

It is Satans lie that you are born gay! It is Satans lie that you are born a drunk!

I'm not settled on this. I don't believe people were gay in the premortal world but I'm not sure that things can't get screwed up in the process of our physical development. People can be born with all sorts of issues, physical and mental. You wouldn't tell a kid with spina bifida that he wasn't born that way. You wouldn't tell a kid with down syndrome that he wasn't born that way. Maybe things got twisted in the development of a baby where he might have same sex attraction. That's no excuse to act upon those feelings as clearly it's a sin (natural man is an enemy to God), but I'm of the mindset that gay's possibly have just developed that way.

And yes, babies can be born drunk. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is real. Babies are also born with drug addictions.

[Michelle]

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.

Please, nobody is persecuting you. I was using rhetoric and language to prove my point.

You quoting that scripture is further evidence that what I said to you is true because even though I didn't really mean it, you are feeling persecuted and offended because I called you a pervert. Too ironic!

OK, so, why don't we tell each other what sin we haven't overcome and then we'll identify each other as that sin?

Another thing I was just sitting here thinking about. I can't think of an instance where God tells someone that they are an abomination or that they ARE a pervert. The only examples that I could think of were phrases like, "They have perverted the ways of the Lord" or "Their acts are an abomination". God seems to always be describing their actions and their sins as perverted or abominations, but, God doesn't go around calling His children perverts and abominations. I can't think of an example (and I admit that I could be wrong here), can you?

-Finrock

LOL. No worries Finrock.

Not really offended, just making a point.

. . .

Ok. I am a Glutton.
I eat things I shouldn't and I eat things I should in larger amounts than I should.
But, I recognize this as keeping me from receiving the full blessings Heavenly Father has for me and I set rules and boundaries for myself and pray for help from Heavenly Father to overcome. I often remind myself of the passage from the Book of Enoch where Enoch says he no longer craves his favorite foods because he has been to heaven and his joy is full.

. . .

Here are some examples from Matthew 16 of the Lord naming people by their actions:

Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.

3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

6 ¶ Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.

8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

Matthew 16:21 ¶ From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Here is a stinging rebuke from Matthew 12.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Christ's own words:

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

[Chip]

I've wondered if some pharma tech has been used against everyone to trigger some kind of biological reversals. I see so many butch lesbians these days. It's hard to believe this is just some natural development.

[Michelle]

"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.

We can only assume, right? And, even if she isn't being "repentant", are you saying you're better than her?

In any case, there are many people on this earth who don't know who they are and they mistakenly identify themselves as something that they really aren't. But, we know better, don't we?

-Finrock

It isn't an assumption when it is her own words. She was given the whole hour to "preach her truth." This wasn't just some comment she made in class, the teacher brought her and told us that she, the teacher, would not be teaching us, but her queer friend. Her words, not mine. And she did, for the whole 50 minutes of Relief Society. In case you think I'm exaggerating she was invited at the last minute, left work to attend and came in her short-short and tank top.

The class members were very respectful and the bishop was summoned but stayed quite in the doorway listening.

The next week we had a special message from bishop, including and apology and a special lesson on the family.

You are right, she is a daughter of God. That doesn't change, whether she acknowledges it or not. But she is engaging in perversion and she labeled herself as "queer." She made it clear that she both acted on her chosen identity and encouraged us to give up our ways and join her in supporting homosexuality and homosexuals.

*As a note, the teacher introduced her by saying they were former mission companions for the Church and then her friend discovered that she was queer after she came home. She wasn't just some friend off the street.

[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.........

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

A man who has figuratively lost his testicles allows himself to be walked all over and dictated to. He conforms himself to traditionally female roles in life, while his wife or significant other goes about performing mostly male roles (historically). So an example of this is the feminist wife who works and makes a lot of money and is married to a beta male who performs unskilled labor or stays at home, does domestic chores, puts in the majority of the work on child care, and in spare time pursues childish things like video games or social media. The figuratively sac-less male has little confidence, views himself inferior to women, has a history of being unsuccessful in wooing women, and is content to let his spouse or significant other make most or all of the major life decisions that affect the family. In short, the male who figuratively has lost his testicles has no confidence, is indecisive, goes with the flow as decided by others, and displays no alpha traits whatsoever.

The male with figurative testicles need not necessarily be a macho jerk. Rather, he is confident, a leader, willing to work hard to meet his goals and support his family, assists his wife in her roles such as cleaning, cooking, and child-rearing but these things are not his primary role; he instills confidence in his wife and never allows her to lose her attraction to him. He cares for his appearance, he nurtures relationships inside and out of his home. The male who has not lost his testicles fulfills his destiny as the Captain of the ship......his wife being the first mate....consulted in every decision and offering insights and perspectives that assist the Captain in the voyage....but ultimately, there is no doubt who the Captain is. The male who has figuratively lost his testicles is neither the Captain nor the first mate, because his wife does not respect him in either role....rather he is a swashbuckling deck hand that performs tasks at the threatening commands of his wife, the Captain.

[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

A man who has figuratively lost his testicles allows himself to be walked all over and dictated to. He conforms himself to traditionally female roles in life, while his wife or significant other goes about performing mostly male roles (historically). So an example of this is the feminist wife who works and makes a lot of money and is married to a beta male who performs unskilled labor or stays at home, does domestic chores, puts in the majority of the work on child care, and in spare time pursues childish things like video games or social media. The figuratively sac-less male has little confidence, views himself inferior to women, has a history of being unsuccessful in wooing women, and is content to let his spouse or significant other make most or all of the major life decisions that affect the family. In short, the male who figuratively has lost his testicles has no confidence, is indecisive, goes with the flow as decided by others, and displays no alpha traits whatsoever.

The male with figurative testicles need not necessarily be a macho jerk. Rather, he is confident, a leader, willing to work hard to meet his goals and support his family, assists his wife in her roles such as cleaning, cooking, and child-rearing but these things are not his primary role; he instills confidence in his wife and never allows her to lose her attraction to him. He cares for his appearance, he nurtures relationships inside and out of his home. The male who has not lost his testicles fulfills his destiny as the Captain of the ship......his wife being the first mate....consulted in every decision and offering insights and perspectives that assist the Captain in the voyage....but ultimately, there is no doubt who the Captain is. The male who has figuratively lost his testicles is neither the Captain nor the first mate, because his wife does not respect him in either role....rather he is a swashbuckling deck hand that performs tasks at the threatening commands of his wife, the Captain.

I haven't thoroughly read what you wrote, yet (I will), but I do appreciate you taking the time to answer my sincere questions. At this point I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, etc.

-Finrock

[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.........

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

A man who has figuratively lost his testicles allows himself to be walked all over and dictated to. He conforms himself to traditionally female roles in life, while his wife or significant other goes about performing mostly male roles (historically). So an example of this is the feminist wife who works and makes a lot of money and is married to a beta male who performs unskilled labor or stays at home, does domestic chores, puts in the majority of the work on child care, and in spare time pursues childish things like video games or social media. The figuratively sac-less male has little confidence, views himself inferior to women, has a history of being unsuccessful in wooing women, and is content to let his spouse or significant other make most or all of the major life decisions that affect the family. In short, the male who figuratively has lost his testicles has no confidence, is indecisive, goes with the flow as decided by others, and displays no alpha traits whatsoever.

The male with figurative testicles need not necessarily be a macho jerk. Rather, he is confident, a leader, willing to work hard to meet his goals and support his family, assists his wife in her roles such as cleaning, cooking, and child-rearing but these things are not his primary role; he instills confidence in his wife and never allows her to lose her attraction to him. He cares for his appearance, he nurtures relationships inside and out of his home. The male who has not lost his testicles fulfills his destiny as the Captain of the ship......his wife being the first mate....consulted in every decision and offering insights and perspectives that assist the Captain in the voyage....but ultimately, there is no doubt who the Captain is. The male who has figuratively lost his testicles is neither the Captain nor the first mate, because his wife does not respect him in either role....rather he is a swashbuckling deck hand that performs tasks at the threatening commands of his wife, the Captain.

I haven't thoroughly read what you wrote, yet (I will), but I do appreciate you taking the time to answer my sincere questions. At this point I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from, etc.

-Finrock

The short version is that in my observation....men have become weak both in society and in our church. I think much of this is systematic. Its sad. Men today are under attack....and it bothers me when I see them roll over and allow themselves to be castrated (figuratively....though the effect is much the same I guess).

[skylight]

CARNALLY MINDED

2 Nephi 9:39
Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal.

NATURAL MAN

Mosiah 3:19
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord

FALSE SPIRITS AMONG US

“Recent occurrences that have transpired amongst us render it an imperative duty devolving upon me to say something in relation to the spirits by which men are actuated. It is evident from the apostles’ writings that many false spirits existed in their day, and had “gone forth into the world,” and that it needed intelligence which God alone could impart to detect false spirits, and to prove what spirits were of God. The world in general have been grossly ignorant in regard to this one thing, and why should they be otherwise — for “the things of God knows no man, but the Spirit of God.”

One great evil is that men are ignorant of the nature of spirits: their power, laws, government, intelligence, etc.

There always did, in every age, seem to be a lack of intelligence pertaining to this subject. Spirits of all kinds have been manifested in every age and almost among all people.

A man must have the discerning of spirits before he can drag into daylight this hellish influence and unfold it unto the world in all its soul-destroying, diabolical, and horrid colors; for nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God. Thousands have felt the influence of its terrible power and baneful effects.

As we have noticed before, the great difficulty lies in the ignorance of the nature of spirits, of the laws by which they are governed, and the signs by which they may be known. If it requires the Spirit of God to know the things of God, and the spirit of the Devil can only be unmasked through that medium, then it follows as a natural consequence that unless some person or persons have a communication, or revelation from God, unfolding to them the operation of the spirit, they must eternally remain ignorant of these principles;

Without attempting to describe this mysterious connection and the laws that govern the body and the spirit of man — their relationship to each other, and the design of God in relation to the human body and spirit — I would just remark that the spirits of men are eternal, that they are governed by the same Priesthood that Abraham, Melchizedek, and the apostles were, that they are organized according to that Priesthood which is everlasting, “without beginning of days or end of years,” that they all move in their respective spheres and are governed by the law of God that when they appear upon the earth they are in a probationary state, and are preparing, if righteous, for a future and greater glory that the spirits of good men cannot interfere with the wicked beyond their prescribed bounds, for Michael, the Archangel, dared not bring a railing accusation against the Devil, but said, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan.”

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also had its false spirits; and as it is made up of all those different sects professing every variety of opinion, and having been under the influence of so many kinds of spirits, it is not to be wondered at if there should be found among us false spirits.

-Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons 1 April, 1842

[creator]

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

This type of behavior towards other forum members is not appropriate.