General Conference April 2022 - Rumors / and live thread

[spiritMan]

So it would be appropriate in your mind for someone to openly proclaim they have a "temptation" as you call it for little children.

You think someone openly proclaiming they are a "minor-attracted person" is completely fine?

Not alright, but not a sin. Sin is a very specific thing. It's not just things we don't like.

So tell me exactly what a sin is then?

You realize that sin literally means "missing the mark".

I don't know where you learned etymology, but I believe sin comes from sons, meaning guilt.

I always like James's definition. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

[spiritMan]

You already doubled-down once on saying it's not a big deal for young women to be companions with young men on missions.

So you might as well double-down again by saying that there is no problem with individuals who have sexual/romantic temptations to little children to openly proclaim they are "minor attracted persons".

That is not what I said.

You are saying that it's totally fine for young men who openly self-identify as same-sex attracted to serve missions and be attached at the hip 24-7 with another male.

So you are obviously on board with minor attracted persons being around children 24-7.

I think that adults are different than children. I'm not sure why these things are hard to understand.

So a minor attracted person shouldn't be around children because they can't say no
But a same-sex attracted person can be around another missionary 24-7 because the opposing party can say no?

That's your rationale? Nothing about helping individuals to not be in bad circumstances?

[The Red Pill]

Scriptural reality on sexual THOUGHTS...

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

[Artaxerxes]

Not alright, but not a sin. Sin is a very specific thing. It's not just things we don't like.

So tell me exactly what a sin is then?

You realize that sin literally means "missing the mark".

I don't know where you learned etymology, but I believe sin comes from sons, meaning guilt.

I always like James's definition. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

Nope.

[Ebenezer]

Did any speaker proclaim the divinity of the Book of Mormon?

[Robin Hood]

No. It's recognizing what is sin and what isn't. Actions and desires are what matters, not temptations.

So there is not sin in having and openly proclaiming feelings and thoughts which if enacted in the world would be condemned?

Let's see you weasel out of this one.

So according to you, having sexual/romantic desires towards the same-sex is no sin.

Is having sexual/romantic desires towards little children no sin too?

Of course it's not a sin! If someone admits to being tempted to steal, or commit adultery, or literally any sin, but not doing it, that is not a sin. It's incredibly simple. If Satan tempts you to murder someone, does that make you a murderer? We all know it would be wrong to murder. Does the fact that Satan tempted you make you bad?

I do not self-identify with my temptations. That is the big difference.

Excellent response.

[Artaxerxes]

That is not what I said.

You are saying that it's totally fine for young men who openly self-identify as same-sex attracted to serve missions and be attached at the hip 24-7 with another male.

So you are obviously on board with minor attracted persons being around children 24-7.

I think that adults are different than children. I'm not sure why these things are hard to understand.

So a minor attracted person shouldn't be around children because they can't say no
But a same-sex attracted person can be around another missionary 24-7 because the opposing party can say no?

That's your rationale? Nothing about helping individuals to not be in bad circumstances?

No, because children are children and need our protection because they're children and they can't protect themselves. Because they're children.

I don't go out of my way to preemptively protect other adults. Because they're adults.

[Artaxerxes]

Scriptural reality on sexual THOUGHTS...

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Yes. Does every straight man lust after every woman he sees, thereby commiting sins all day?

[Lizzy60]

Did any speaker proclaim the divinity of the Book of Mormon?

I didn’t hear it mentioned.

[spiritMan]

You are saying that it's totally fine for young men who openly self-identify as same-sex attracted to serve missions and be attached at the hip 24-7 with another male.

So you are obviously on board with minor attracted persons being around children 24-7.

I think that adults are different than children. I'm not sure why these things are hard to understand.

So a minor attracted person shouldn't be around children because they can't say no
But a same-sex attracted person can be around another missionary 24-7 because the opposing party can say no?

That's your rationale? Nothing about helping individuals to not be in bad circumstances?

No, because children are children and need our protection because they're children and they can't protect themselves. Because they're children.

I don't go out of my way to preemptively protect other adults. Because they're adults.

So you don't care about the 18 year old kid who gets stuck with an openly homosexual man. You don't care that the open homosexual will discuss the hot dudes he likes, you don't care that it's entirely possible that the openly homosexual man will think his companion is hot, you don't care that you are putting the open homosexual in a bad situation where he might sin?

You seem to think it's appropriate to take the person who tells you he is an alcoholic and put him into a bar!

That's what you are advocating.

[spiritMan]

Scriptural reality on sexual THOUGHTS...

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Yes. Does every straight man lust after every woman he sees, thereby commiting sins all day?

But it's appropriate for the homosexual to openly tell everyone that he lusts after other men?

[Artaxerxes]

Scriptural reality on sexual THOUGHTS...

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Yes. Does every straight man lust after every woman he sees, thereby commiting sins all day?

But it's appropriate for the homosexual to openly tell everyone that he lusts after other men?

That is not what they are saying.

[Robin Hood]

So tell me exactly what a sin is then?

You realize that sin literally means "missing the mark".

I don't know where you learned etymology, but I believe sin comes from sons, meaning guilt.

I always like James's definition. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

Nope.

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

[Artaxerxes]

I think that adults are different than children. I'm not sure why these things are hard to understand.

So a minor attracted person shouldn't be around children because they can't say no
But a same-sex attracted person can be around another missionary 24-7 because the opposing party can say no?

That's your rationale? Nothing about helping individuals to not be in bad circumstances?

No, because children are children and need our protection because they're children and they can't protect themselves. Because they're children.

I don't go out of my way to preemptively protect other adults. Because they're adults.

So you don't care about the 18 year old kid who gets stuck with an openly homosexual man. You don't care that the open homosexual will discuss the hot dudes he likes, you don't care that it's entirely possible that the openly homosexual man will think his companion is hot, you don't care that you are putting the open homosexual in a bad situation where he might sin?

You seem to think it's appropriate to take the person who tells you he is an alcoholic and put him into a bar!

That's what you are advocating.

That is not what I said.

[Artaxerxes]

I don't know where you learned etymology, but I believe sin comes from sons, meaning guilt.

I always like James's definition. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

Nope.

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

[Robin Hood]

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

Nope.

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

Ok.

[spiritMan]

So someone can be extremely filthy in their mind and as long as they don't physically act it out in the world it is not sin?

Nope.

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

If all it is is a temptation then why make a big deal about openly proclaiming it to the world?

I have plenty of temptations, so does everyone else yet the LGBTQ+ are the only ones who openly proclaim their sexual temptations to the world and it's totally cool.

You do not believe someone should self-identify as MAP, but they can self-identify as homosexual and it's not big deal.

So which is it? Either self-identification is appropriate and therefore MAPs as long as they don't "act on it" are "worthy in every way" or it is not appropriate and should not be condoned.

[sandman45]

Scriptural reality on sexual THOUGHTS...

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Yes. Does every straight man lust after every woman he sees, thereby commiting sins all day?

of course not…. Just the hot ones

[Subcomandante]

No. It's recognizing what is sin and what isn't. Actions and desires are what matters, not temptations.

So there is not sin in having and openly proclaiming feelings and thoughts which if enacted in the world would be condemned?

Let's see you weasel out of this one.

So according to you, having sexual/romantic desires towards the same-sex is no sin.

Is having sexual/romantic desires towards little children no sin too?

Of course it's not a sin! If someone admits to being tempted to steal, or commit adultery, or literally any sin, but not doing it, that is not a sin. It's incredibly simple. If Satan tempts you to murder someone, does that make you a murderer? We all know it would be wrong to murder. Does the fact that Satan tempted you make you bad?

I do not self-identify with my temptations. That is the big difference.

+1

[Artaxerxes]

Nope.

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

[spiritMan]

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

So a young man can use the term "I've come out, I'm openly homosexual" and you will send him on a mission because you think he is only "tempted" by it.

Do you believe that individuals who "come out" believe that their homosexuals desires are "temptations", things to be resisted, things which should not be dealt upon?

[spiritMan]

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

[Artaxerxes]

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

So a young man can use the term "I've come out, I'm openly homosexual" and you will send him on a mission because you think he is only "tempted" by it.

Do you believe that individuals who "come out" believe that their homosexuals desires are "temptations", things to be resisted, things which should not be dealt upon?

I suppose you don't have to ask them. Some do and some don't.

[Artaxerxes]

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

What do I care about what words mean? It's only the mechanism by which people can communicate with each other. I only care about what "sin" is-which given that I don't care about what words mean, I only care about what I define as "sin".

I mean to say, I don't care how people define themselves or things that for the purposes of church membership. I do care about sin.

[spiritMan]

You are incorrect.
There is such a thing as thought sin.

I agree that merely being tempted is not sinful in and of itself. We know Christ was sinless and yet he was tempted. The difference is that he immediately rejected the temptation in such a way that the devil desisted with the temptation. The reason the devil didn't follow up was because the rejection of the temptation was so emphatic.

But we can be tempted to think things and by doing so, dwell on them. At that point it passes from being a mere temptation to being an indulgence in sin, even if it's just in the mind. For this reason the man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart - and as King David records "as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he".

It is better for everyone if the man tempted to engage sexually with children doesn't actually do it, but he is not sinless if he rehearses the sordid filth in his mind. And if you think he commits no sin you don't understand the scriptures or God's judgment of the heart of man.

Sorry, my post was unclear. I was saying I did not agree with what he was saying.

So someone who is saying they are "tempted" just self-identifies as LGBTQ+.
And someone who is saying they go beyond "tempted" self-identify as . . . what?

What do I care what terms people use? I only care about what is sin and what isn't. Temptation isn't.

If I have a "temptation" (as you call it) to sexually desire trees. Why would I need to "come out", why would I need to tell the entire world. WORLD, I AM SEXUALLY TEMPTED BY TREES!!!!!!

What purpose would that serve, except to get people acclimated to my ungodly sexual temptations? If I talk about it enough, make it seem like "no big deal" enough that when I actually do it it's not a big deal anymore.