General Conference April 2022 - Rumors / and live thread

[spiritMan]

A side Christianity which only leads to B side.

This is not traditional.

People also complained that Joseph didn't preach traditional Christianity. I care about that criticism as much as he did.

What you advocate for isn't even what Joseph traditionally taught. But nice attempt to deflect!

He taught that temptations are sins? I'd love to see that quote.

He absolutely taught that men are to control their passions that men are to change their hearts through Christ and to not have ungodly desires.

You advocate for men standing at the pulpit telling about every woman who they find sexually attractive!

[Artaxerxes]

People also complained that Joseph didn't preach traditional Christianity. I care about that criticism as much as he did.

What you advocate for isn't even what Joseph traditionally taught. But nice attempt to deflect!

He taught that temptations are sins? I'd love to see that quote.

He absolutely taught that men are to control their passions that men are to change their hearts through Christ and to not have ungodly desires.

You advocate for men standing at the pulpit telling about every woman who they find sexually attractive!

I'd absolutely agree with Joseph and never said anything like what you're claiming.

[spiritMan]

What you advocate for isn't even what Joseph traditionally taught. But nice attempt to deflect!

He taught that temptations are sins? I'd love to see that quote.

He absolutely taught that men are to control their passions that men are to change their hearts through Christ and to not have ungodly desires.

You advocate for men standing at the pulpit telling about every woman who they find sexually attractive!

I'd absolutely agree with Joseph and never said anything like what you're claiming.

I quote "That's not how I would address it, but you can I guess"

So it's totally cool. I would do it and you don't have the guts to tell me that is wrong, inappropriate or wicked; in other words by your silence you give consent to it and because you won't do anything to stop it you advocate for it.

You do not have the wherewithal to say to someone "no, that is wrong"

[Serragon]

yea, he called those temptations . . lust . . .sin to lust after a woman . . do you actually have the same scriptures as I do ? or do you just like to bait? you know what I am about to post so go do some research . . read the scriptures for yourself . . .find out about trends in the world on your own . . you have to contribute here except bait

Lust is a choice. Temptation is not. So you really believe that Satan tempting someone qualifies as a sin? So is Jesus a sinner because Satan tempted him?

Lust is ungodly desire. Lust is desiring that which God tells us not to desire (it is not sexual in nature).

You claim that when someone come out publicly that they are only saying they are tempted. This is not the case.
No one comes out and then says I am tempted by this and I do not want to be tempted by this.

Every single person who comes out publicly proclaims "this is who I am, I am PROUD!!! to be this way".

You are selling me something that doesn't exist. You are selling me the idea that publicly coming out is only about temptation and it's not. You know this is the truth because you would not allow someone who comes out as MAP to be around children. Obviously it's not "just a temptation" when someone "comes out".

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

These men aren't "gay". They have a sexual fetish that they have elevated to an identity, and want to be treated as some special type of human because of it.

This elevation of the fetish to an identity is part of nurturing the sin. Do we now need to come up with a different name for every temptation of the natural man so that people can elevate it to their identity? Clearly, we should confess this weakness to the Lord, but the only benefit to confessing to anyone else is if we want their help in overcoming that temptation.

Be elevating this temptation to an identity, you have normalized the temptation and removed the need to overcome it. You deny the fact that Christ can make this a strength for you and that you can no longer be tempted by it. You essentially are creating a group of people who get to pose as heroes and victims for having to be born a certain with with no ability to act on it by an unjust God.

This means people say things like "that poor gay man" and have sympathy and empathy for his plight where they would never say "that poor womanizer" or "that poor wife beater". The homosexual is now a victim of how God made him instead of a regular human being who has to overcome whatever weakness or vice plagues them. If the homosexual gives in, it is expected and understandable.. maybe even celebrated. Not so with the others.

This also leads people to plead with the Lord to change His stance. Since they are looked at as victims of how God made them, it is unjust for God to require them to remain celibate. It is only God that stands in the way of the happiness of these people. And it is through this belief that eventually the church will have to accept this practice.

So you see that elevating this particular sexual fetish to an identity is sin. It is nurturing the perversion. It is changes it from sinful desire that must be overcome to a condition that must be endured and hopefully legalized.

[spiritMan]

Lust is a choice. Temptation is not. So you really believe that Satan tempting someone qualifies as a sin? So is Jesus a sinner because Satan tempted him?

Lust is ungodly desire. Lust is desiring that which God tells us not to desire (it is not sexual in nature).

You claim that when someone come out publicly that they are only saying they are tempted. This is not the case.
No one comes out and then says I am tempted by this and I do not want to be tempted by this.

Every single person who comes out publicly proclaims "this is who I am, I am PROUD!!! to be this way".

You are selling me something that doesn't exist. You are selling me the idea that publicly coming out is only about temptation and it's not. You know this is the truth because you would not allow someone who comes out as MAP to be around children. Obviously it's not "just a temptation" when someone "comes out".

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

These men aren't "gay". They have a sexual fetish that they have elevated to an identity, and want to be treated as some special type of human because of it.

This elevation of the fetish to an identity is part of nurturing the sin. Do we now need to come up with a different name for every temptation of the natural man so that people can elevate it to their identity? Clearly, we should confess this weakness to the Lord, but the only benefit to confessing to anyone else is if we want their help in overcoming that temptation.

Be elevating this temptation to an identity, you have normalized the temptation and removed the need to overcome it. You deny the fact that Christ can make this a strength for you and that you can no longer be tempted by it. You essentially are creating a group of people who get to pose as heroes and victims for having to be born a certain with with no ability to act on it by an unjust God.

This means people say things like "that poor gay man" and have sympathy and empathy for his plight where they would never say "that poor womanizer" or "that poor wife beater". The homosexual is now a victim of how God made him instead of a regular human being who has to overcome whatever weakness or vice plagues them. If the homosexual gives in, it is expected and understandable.. maybe even celebrated. Not so with the others.

This also leads people to plead with the Lord to change His stance. Since they are looked at as victims of how God made them, it is unjust for God to require them to remain celibate. It is only God that stands in the way of the happiness of these people. And it is through this belief that eventually the church will have to accept this practice.

So you see that elevating this particular sexual fetish to an identity is sin. It is nurturing the perversion. It is changes it from sinful desire that must be overcome to a condition that must be endured and hopefully legalized.

Very wonderfully said.

[farmerchick]

yea, he called those temptations . . lust . . .sin to lust after a woman . . do you actually have the same scriptures as I do ? or do you just like to bait? you know what I am about to post so go do some research . . read the scriptures for yourself . . .find out about trends in the world on your own . . you have to contribute here except bait

Lust is a choice. Temptation is not. So you really believe that Satan tempting someone qualifies as a sin? So is Jesus a sinner because Satan tempted him?

Lust is ungodly desire. Lust is desiring that which God tells us not to desire (it is not sexual in nature).

You claim that when someone come out publicly that they are only saying they are tempted. This is not the case.
No one comes out and then says I am tempted by this and I do not want to be tempted by this.

Every single person who comes out publicly proclaims "this is who I am, I am PROUD!!! to be this way".

You are selling me something that doesn't exist. You are selling me the idea that publicly coming out is only about temptation and it's not. You know this is the truth because you would not allow someone who comes out as MAP to be around children. Obviously it's not "just a temptation" when someone "comes out".

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

If you know something to be wrong...and then publicly Identify with it....are you repentent? Asking for a friend...lol....

[Artaxerxes]

He taught that temptations are sins? I'd love to see that quote.

He absolutely taught that men are to control their passions that men are to change their hearts through Christ and to not have ungodly desires.

You advocate for men standing at the pulpit telling about every woman who they find sexually attractive!

I'd absolutely agree with Joseph and never said anything like what you're claiming.

I quote "That's not how I would address it, but you can I guess"

So it's totally cool. I would do it and you don't have the guts to tell me that is wrong, inappropriate or wicked; in other words by your silence you give consent to it and because you won't do anything to stop it you advocate for it.

You do not have the wherewithal to say to someone "no, that is wrong"

You can do a lot of dumb things that aren't sinful. I wouldn't pepper spray myself, but you can do it if you want to, I guess. I'm not "cool" with people doing it by saying that, just that you have the agency to do stupid stuff.

[Artaxerxes]

Lust is a choice. Temptation is not. So you really believe that Satan tempting someone qualifies as a sin? So is Jesus a sinner because Satan tempted him?

Lust is ungodly desire. Lust is desiring that which God tells us not to desire (it is not sexual in nature).

You claim that when someone come out publicly that they are only saying they are tempted. This is not the case.
No one comes out and then says I am tempted by this and I do not want to be tempted by this.

Every single person who comes out publicly proclaims "this is who I am, I am PROUD!!! to be this way".

You are selling me something that doesn't exist. You are selling me the idea that publicly coming out is only about temptation and it's not. You know this is the truth because you would not allow someone who comes out as MAP to be around children. Obviously it's not "just a temptation" when someone "comes out".

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

If you know something to be wrong...and then publicly Identify with it....are you repentent? Asking for a friend...lol....

Repentant of what? What sin are they committing by being tempted?

[Artaxerxes]

Lust is a choice. Temptation is not. So you really believe that Satan tempting someone qualifies as a sin? So is Jesus a sinner because Satan tempted him?

Lust is ungodly desire. Lust is desiring that which God tells us not to desire (it is not sexual in nature).

You claim that when someone come out publicly that they are only saying they are tempted. This is not the case.
No one comes out and then says I am tempted by this and I do not want to be tempted by this.

Every single person who comes out publicly proclaims "this is who I am, I am PROUD!!! to be this way".

You are selling me something that doesn't exist. You are selling me the idea that publicly coming out is only about temptation and it's not. You know this is the truth because you would not allow someone who comes out as MAP to be around children. Obviously it's not "just a temptation" when someone "comes out".

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

These men aren't "gay". They have a sexual fetish that they have elevated to an identity, and want to be treated as some special type of human because of it.

This elevation of the fetish to an identity is part of nurturing the sin. Do we now need to come up with a different name for every temptation of the natural man so that people can elevate it to their identity? Clearly, we should confess this weakness to the Lord, but the only benefit to confessing to anyone else is if we want their help in overcoming that temptation.

Be elevating this temptation to an identity, you have normalized the temptation and removed the need to overcome it. You deny the fact that Christ can make this a strength for you and that you can no longer be tempted by it. You essentially are creating a group of people who get to pose as heroes and victims for having to be born a certain with with no ability to act on it by an unjust God.

This means people say things like "that poor gay man" and have sympathy and empathy for his plight where they would never say "that poor womanizer" or "that poor wife beater". The homosexual is now a victim of how God made him instead of a regular human being who has to overcome whatever weakness or vice plagues them. If the homosexual gives in, it is expected and understandable.. maybe even celebrated. Not so with the others.

This also leads people to plead with the Lord to change His stance. Since they are looked at as victims of how God made them, it is unjust for God to require them to remain celibate. It is only God that stands in the way of the happiness of these people. And it is through this belief that eventually the church will have to accept this practice.

So you see that elevating this particular sexual fetish to an identity is sin. It is nurturing the perversion. It is changes it from sinful desire that must be overcome to a condition that must be endured and hopefully legalized.

If you're asking "is this a wise way to deal with their temptation," the answer is obviously no. The question presented was whether someone who does is sinful. It isn't. Someone who, even unwisely, identifies their sin does not hope it's legalized. People who consider themselves alcoholics don't do it as a political statement to try to end prohibition. They do it with the idea that they are being honest about their temptations.

[spiritMan]

He absolutely taught that men are to control their passions that men are to change their hearts through Christ and to not have ungodly desires.

You advocate for men standing at the pulpit telling about every woman who they find sexually attractive!

I'd absolutely agree with Joseph and never said anything like what you're claiming.

I quote "That's not how I would address it, but you can I guess"

So it's totally cool. I would do it and you don't have the guts to tell me that is wrong, inappropriate or wicked; in other words by your silence you give consent to it and because you won't do anything to stop it you advocate for it.

You do not have the wherewithal to say to someone "no, that is wrong"

You can do a lot of dumb things that aren't sinful. I wouldn't pepper spray myself, but you can do it if you want to, I guess. I'm not "cool" with people doing it by saying that, just that you have the agency to do stupid stuff.

So I can get up on the pulpit and say "I pray for the day when 2 men can be sealed in the Temple"?

[Artaxerxes]

I'd absolutely agree with Joseph and never said anything like what you're claiming.

I quote "That's not how I would address it, but you can I guess"

So it's totally cool. I would do it and you don't have the guts to tell me that is wrong, inappropriate or wicked; in other words by your silence you give consent to it and because you won't do anything to stop it you advocate for it.

You do not have the wherewithal to say to someone "no, that is wrong"

You can do a lot of dumb things that aren't sinful. I wouldn't pepper spray myself, but you can do it if you want to, I guess. I'm not "cool" with people doing it by saying that, just that you have the agency to do stupid stuff.

So I can get up on the pulpit and say "I pray for the day when 2 men can be sealed in the Temple"?

You "can," sure.

[spiritMan]

Lust is ungodly desire. Lust is desiring that which God tells us not to desire (it is not sexual in nature).

You claim that when someone come out publicly that they are only saying they are tempted. This is not the case.
No one comes out and then says I am tempted by this and I do not want to be tempted by this.

Every single person who comes out publicly proclaims "this is who I am, I am PROUD!!! to be this way".

You are selling me something that doesn't exist. You are selling me the idea that publicly coming out is only about temptation and it's not. You know this is the truth because you would not allow someone who comes out as MAP to be around children. Obviously it's not "just a temptation" when someone "comes out".

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

These men aren't "gay". They have a sexual fetish that they have elevated to an identity, and want to be treated as some special type of human because of it.

This elevation of the fetish to an identity is part of nurturing the sin. Do we now need to come up with a different name for every temptation of the natural man so that people can elevate it to their identity? Clearly, we should confess this weakness to the Lord, but the only benefit to confessing to anyone else is if we want their help in overcoming that temptation.

Be elevating this temptation to an identity, you have normalized the temptation and removed the need to overcome it. You deny the fact that Christ can make this a strength for you and that you can no longer be tempted by it. You essentially are creating a group of people who get to pose as heroes and victims for having to be born a certain with with no ability to act on it by an unjust God.

This means people say things like "that poor gay man" and have sympathy and empathy for his plight where they would never say "that poor womanizer" or "that poor wife beater". The homosexual is now a victim of how God made him instead of a regular human being who has to overcome whatever weakness or vice plagues them. If the homosexual gives in, it is expected and understandable.. maybe even celebrated. Not so with the others.

This also leads people to plead with the Lord to change His stance. Since they are looked at as victims of how God made them, it is unjust for God to require them to remain celibate. It is only God that stands in the way of the happiness of these people. And it is through this belief that eventually the church will have to accept this practice.

So you see that elevating this particular sexual fetish to an identity is sin. It is nurturing the perversion. It is changes it from sinful desire that must be overcome to a condition that must be endured and hopefully legalized.

If you're asking "is this a wise way to deal with their temptation," the answer is obviously no. The question presented was whether someone who does is sinful. It isn't. Someone who, even unwisely, identifies their sin does not hope it's legalized. People who consider themselves alcoholics don't do it as a political statement to try to end prohibition. They do it with the idea that they are being honest about their temptations.

"wise way". Yet you never tell anyone what that "wise way" should be. It's all just a wishy-wash mishmash of "well I wouldn't do that but if you want to it's okay".

Which is nice because then religion just becomes a personal religion. I can smoke a joint, I can tell my neighbor's wife she's hot and I'm tempted by her; I can tell my wife that I'm "tempted" by my neighbor's wife.

And your response is "well I wouldn't do that, but if you want to that's okay".

Your religion is no rules but the personal rules. You advocate for no community, no common bound. It's just a do whatever you want . . .as long as it's not "sin"-which of course you won't define with any specificity, "I wouldn't do it, but if you want to!".

[spiritMan]

I quote "That's not how I would address it, but you can I guess"

So it's totally cool. I would do it and you don't have the guts to tell me that is wrong, inappropriate or wicked; in other words by your silence you give consent to it and because you won't do anything to stop it you advocate for it.

You do not have the wherewithal to say to someone "no, that is wrong"

You can do a lot of dumb things that aren't sinful. I wouldn't pepper spray myself, but you can do it if you want to, I guess. I'm not "cool" with people doing it by saying that, just that you have the agency to do stupid stuff.

So I can get up on the pulpit and say "I pray for the day when 2 men can be sealed in the Temple"?

You "can," sure.

It's your idea of religion grand. Anyone "can" say whatever they want to from the pulpit, they "can" preach whatever they want to but it's only "temptations" as long as they don't actually do anything-regardless of whether they advocate for it, who cares!

[Artaxerxes]

Of course there are openly gay LDS people who know it's wrong. https://www.calledtoshare.com/2021/08/0 ... us-christ/

You need to get out more.

These men aren't "gay". They have a sexual fetish that they have elevated to an identity, and want to be treated as some special type of human because of it.

This elevation of the fetish to an identity is part of nurturing the sin. Do we now need to come up with a different name for every temptation of the natural man so that people can elevate it to their identity? Clearly, we should confess this weakness to the Lord, but the only benefit to confessing to anyone else is if we want their help in overcoming that temptation.

Be elevating this temptation to an identity, you have normalized the temptation and removed the need to overcome it. You deny the fact that Christ can make this a strength for you and that you can no longer be tempted by it. You essentially are creating a group of people who get to pose as heroes and victims for having to be born a certain with with no ability to act on it by an unjust God.

This means people say things like "that poor gay man" and have sympathy and empathy for his plight where they would never say "that poor womanizer" or "that poor wife beater". The homosexual is now a victim of how God made him instead of a regular human being who has to overcome whatever weakness or vice plagues them. If the homosexual gives in, it is expected and understandable.. maybe even celebrated. Not so with the others.

This also leads people to plead with the Lord to change His stance. Since they are looked at as victims of how God made them, it is unjust for God to require them to remain celibate. It is only God that stands in the way of the happiness of these people. And it is through this belief that eventually the church will have to accept this practice.

So you see that elevating this particular sexual fetish to an identity is sin. It is nurturing the perversion. It is changes it from sinful desire that must be overcome to a condition that must be endured and hopefully legalized.

If you're asking "is this a wise way to deal with their temptation," the answer is obviously no. The question presented was whether someone who does is sinful. It isn't. Someone who, even unwisely, identifies their sin does not hope it's legalized. People who consider themselves alcoholics don't do it as a political statement to try to end prohibition. They do it with the idea that they are being honest about their temptations.

"wise way". Yet you never tell anyone what that "wise way" should be. It's all just a wishy-wash mishmash of "well I wouldn't do that but if you want to it's okay".

Which is nice because then religion just becomes a personal religion. I can smoke a joint, I can tell my neighbor's wife she's hot and I'm tempted by her; I can tell my wife that I'm "tempted" by my neighbor's wife.

And your response is "well I wouldn't do that, but if you want to that's okay".

Your religion is no rules but the personal rules. You advocate for no community, no common bound. It's just a do whatever you want . . .as long as it's not "sin"-which of course you won't define with any specificity, "I wouldn't do it, but if you want to!".

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

[Artaxerxes]

You can do a lot of dumb things that aren't sinful. I wouldn't pepper spray myself, but you can do it if you want to, I guess. I'm not "cool" with people doing it by saying that, just that you have the agency to do stupid stuff.

So I can get up on the pulpit and say "I pray for the day when 2 men can be sealed in the Temple"?

You "can," sure.

It's your idea of religion grand. Anyone "can" say whatever they want to from the pulpit, they "can" preach whatever they want to but it's only "temptations" as long as they don't actually do anything-regardless of whether they advocate for it, who cares!

Agency isn't my idea. People can do all kinds of things that are dumb. Things that are dumb aren't always sins.

[spiritMan]

These men aren't "gay". They have a sexual fetish that they have elevated to an identity, and want to be treated as some special type of human because of it.

This elevation of the fetish to an identity is part of nurturing the sin. Do we now need to come up with a different name for every temptation of the natural man so that people can elevate it to their identity? Clearly, we should confess this weakness to the Lord, but the only benefit to confessing to anyone else is if we want their help in overcoming that temptation.

Be elevating this temptation to an identity, you have normalized the temptation and removed the need to overcome it. You deny the fact that Christ can make this a strength for you and that you can no longer be tempted by it. You essentially are creating a group of people who get to pose as heroes and victims for having to be born a certain with with no ability to act on it by an unjust God.

This means people say things like "that poor gay man" and have sympathy and empathy for his plight where they would never say "that poor womanizer" or "that poor wife beater". The homosexual is now a victim of how God made him instead of a regular human being who has to overcome whatever weakness or vice plagues them. If the homosexual gives in, it is expected and understandable.. maybe even celebrated. Not so with the others.

This also leads people to plead with the Lord to change His stance. Since they are looked at as victims of how God made them, it is unjust for God to require them to remain celibate. It is only God that stands in the way of the happiness of these people. And it is through this belief that eventually the church will have to accept this practice.

So you see that elevating this particular sexual fetish to an identity is sin. It is nurturing the perversion. It is changes it from sinful desire that must be overcome to a condition that must be endured and hopefully legalized.

If you're asking "is this a wise way to deal with their temptation," the answer is obviously no. The question presented was whether someone who does is sinful. It isn't. Someone who, even unwisely, identifies their sin does not hope it's legalized. People who consider themselves alcoholics don't do it as a political statement to try to end prohibition. They do it with the idea that they are being honest about their temptations.

"wise way". Yet you never tell anyone what that "wise way" should be. It's all just a wishy-wash mishmash of "well I wouldn't do that but if you want to it's okay".

Which is nice because then religion just becomes a personal religion. I can smoke a joint, I can tell my neighbor's wife she's hot and I'm tempted by her; I can tell my wife that I'm "tempted" by my neighbor's wife.

And your response is "well I wouldn't do that, but if you want to that's okay".

Your religion is no rules but the personal rules. You advocate for no community, no common bound. It's just a do whatever you want . . .as long as it's not "sin"-which of course you won't define with any specificity, "I wouldn't do it, but if you want to!".

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

[spiritMan]

So I can get up on the pulpit and say "I pray for the day when 2 men can be sealed in the Temple"?

You "can," sure.

It's your idea of religion grand. Anyone "can" say whatever they want to from the pulpit, they "can" preach whatever they want to but it's only "temptations" as long as they don't actually do anything-regardless of whether they advocate for it, who cares!

Agency isn't my idea. People can do all kinds of things that are dumb. Things that are dumb aren't always sins.

And yet Christ told people what to do and how to live. Disciples (i.e. followers) of Christ have an obligation to do the same.

You don't follow Christ.

[LDS Watchman]

At the time, Gospel Doctrine was being taught alternative Sunday’s by myself & a man recently moved here from another state. He was very well versed in scripture & doctrine, but could be condescending to those he felt below his personal grasp of the doctrine. I guess there may have been complaints.

I have to wonder if to spare his feelings we were both released. He was called to an administrative position with a high profile. I have not received a calling since, nearly six years.

Any theories on why the other GD teacher was given another calling right away and you have been without one for the past 6 years?

I don’t. Many Ward members have told me - even now - they miss my classes. Members visiting from areas outside the Intermountain LDS corridor also thanked me for teaching meaningful insights into scripture when I was a teacher.

I was always very careful to support principles of the Gospel directly from scripture. Sadly, I’ve come to believe that many members fail to read, study & understand scripture beyond the ‘standard’ interpretations passed along over the years through our rote official curriculum.

My religion classes at BYU were frustrating in how rigidly they held to the their own ‘official curriculum’. Study assignments had more to do with volume & memorization than with enlightenment & inspired personal goal setting. I had to find personal time outside all the other class assignments to study scripture.

So you really have absolutely no idea why you would have been released and never given a calling again, while the brother you believe was the problem was given another important calling right away? Not even a suspicion that maybe you were teaching something that the Bishopric felt was threatening?

I find that hard to believe.

[LDS Watchman]

If you're asking "is this a wise way to deal with their temptation," the answer is obviously no. The question presented was whether someone who does is sinful. It isn't. Someone who, even unwisely, identifies their sin does not hope it's legalized. People who consider themselves alcoholics don't do it as a political statement to try to end prohibition. They do it with the idea that they are being honest about their temptations.

"wise way". Yet you never tell anyone what that "wise way" should be. It's all just a wishy-wash mishmash of "well I wouldn't do that but if you want to it's okay".

Which is nice because then religion just becomes a personal religion. I can smoke a joint, I can tell my neighbor's wife she's hot and I'm tempted by her; I can tell my wife that I'm "tempted" by my neighbor's wife.

And your response is "well I wouldn't do that, but if you want to that's okay".

Your religion is no rules but the personal rules. You advocate for no community, no common bound. It's just a do whatever you want . . .as long as it's not "sin"-which of course you won't define with any specificity, "I wouldn't do it, but if you want to!".

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

[Artaxerxes]

If you're asking "is this a wise way to deal with their temptation," the answer is obviously no. The question presented was whether someone who does is sinful. It isn't. Someone who, even unwisely, identifies their sin does not hope it's legalized. People who consider themselves alcoholics don't do it as a political statement to try to end prohibition. They do it with the idea that they are being honest about their temptations.

"wise way". Yet you never tell anyone what that "wise way" should be. It's all just a wishy-wash mishmash of "well I wouldn't do that but if you want to it's okay".

Which is nice because then religion just becomes a personal religion. I can smoke a joint, I can tell my neighbor's wife she's hot and I'm tempted by her; I can tell my wife that I'm "tempted" by my neighbor's wife.

And your response is "well I wouldn't do that, but if you want to that's okay".

Your religion is no rules but the personal rules. You advocate for no community, no common bound. It's just a do whatever you want . . .as long as it's not "sin"-which of course you won't define with any specificity, "I wouldn't do it, but if you want to!".

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

I see you've moved on from straw men to just making things up. That's always a good sign.

10 years ago, the Handbook talked about discipline for "homosexual relations," not being a homosexual.

Screenshot_20220403-165347_Drive~2.jpg (139.4 KiB) Viewed 373 times

[Artaxerxes]

You "can," sure.

It's your idea of religion grand. Anyone "can" say whatever they want to from the pulpit, they "can" preach whatever they want to but it's only "temptations" as long as they don't actually do anything-regardless of whether they advocate for it, who cares!

Agency isn't my idea. People can do all kinds of things that are dumb. Things that are dumb aren't always sins.

And yet Christ told people what to do and how to live. Disciples (i.e. followers) of Christ have an obligation to do the same.

You don't follow Christ.

You've asked about people doing dumb things, not about sinning. As I said, you're always welcome to ask questions that matter.

[spiritMan]

"wise way". Yet you never tell anyone what that "wise way" should be. It's all just a wishy-wash mishmash of "well I wouldn't do that but if you want to it's okay".

Which is nice because then religion just becomes a personal religion. I can smoke a joint, I can tell my neighbor's wife she's hot and I'm tempted by her; I can tell my wife that I'm "tempted" by my neighbor's wife.

And your response is "well I wouldn't do that, but if you want to that's okay".

Your religion is no rules but the personal rules. You advocate for no community, no common bound. It's just a do whatever you want . . .as long as it's not "sin"-which of course you won't define with any specificity, "I wouldn't do it, but if you want to!".

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

[spiritMan]

It's your idea of religion grand. Anyone "can" say whatever they want to from the pulpit, they "can" preach whatever they want to but it's only "temptations" as long as they don't actually do anything-regardless of whether they advocate for it, who cares!

Agency isn't my idea. People can do all kinds of things that are dumb. Things that are dumb aren't always sins.

And yet Christ told people what to do and how to live. Disciples (i.e. followers) of Christ have an obligation to do the same.

You don't follow Christ.

You've asked about people doing dumb things, not about sinning. As I said, you're always welcome to ask questions that matter.

So preaching and teaching false doctrine isn't a sin, it's just a "dumb thing"?

[Artaxerxes]

Agency isn't my idea. People can do all kinds of things that are dumb. Things that are dumb aren't always sins.

And yet Christ told people what to do and how to live. Disciples (i.e. followers) of Christ have an obligation to do the same.

You don't follow Christ.

You've asked about people doing dumb things, not about sinning. As I said, you're always welcome to ask questions that matter.

So preaching and teaching false doctrine isn't a sin, it's just a "dumb thing"?

Your questions were about people claiming to be squirrels and other silliness.

[Artaxerxes]

I've answered the questions you've asked. If you want a different question answered, you're always welcome to ask a different question.

It isn't a religion of personal rules. It's a religion that allows God to determine what is sin, and not you or me. God says actions and lusting are sins, but being tempted isn't. I don't know how you can struggle so much to understand this distinction.

10 years ago, self-identifying as homosexual got you excommunicated from the Church.
Today it does not.

God sure changes his mind fast on what is sin and what isn't sin.

No, this isn't true.

People could identify as gay or struggling with same-sex attraction ten years ago without getting exed. It was only if people were in a sexual relationship with a member of the same-sex that they got excommunicated.

So in the 1980s one could self-identify as homosexual stand at the pulpit and "come out" and they would be a member in good standing?

If you are going to quibble about whether it was 10 or 20 or even 30 years ago then again 30 years is a real short time frame for God to be changing His mind.

Do you have a copy of the handbook to point to?