Conference Priesthood session — gone?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 4798
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
unfortunately, unrepentant apostasy and unrepentant immorality receive the same punishment
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I'm not following. Is that a big nothing?
As in no consequences for unrepentant apostasy (which in the case would be proclaiming the word of homosexuality) and no consequences for unrepentent immorality?
I'm trying to understand what you are saying and I do not.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I'm still confused.
So someone who is openly homosexual is someone who has committed homosexual acts and has not repented of them?
Or is it someone who openly tells others they are LGBTQ and that is how God made them and there is nothing wrong with it?
I'm confused.
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1354
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Are the following true statements then?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to a child and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to woman who is not their spouse and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to animals and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Okay so you are perfectly fine with having someone who openly proclaims they are sexually attracted to the same sex serving in close quarters with the same sex correct?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
So you are also then perfectly fine with having someone who openly proclaims they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex serving in close quarters with the opposite sex correct?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Seriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
"Quentin L Cook wrote:
In addition to controlling anger and bridling other passions, we need to lead pure moral lives by controlling our thoughts, language and actions."
Honestly, how in heaven's name can you say: yes someone who is proclaiming to the world that they sexually/romantically desire (i.e. thoughts and language) the same-sex is someone who is worthy in every way to proclaim to the world that others should "bridle their passions" and that others should lead "pure moral lives".
How can you possibly say that yes, we should have openly homosexual missionaries who's job it is to teach others to lead pure moral lives by controlling their thoughts, language and actions . . .when they themselves are openly telling everyone they met that they sexually desire the same sex, that that is how God made them and there is nothing wrong with that!
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1354
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Yes those statements are all true, without further context.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pmAre the following true statements then?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to a child and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to woman who is not their spouse and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to animals and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
It may or may not be relevant to know that I investigate and arrest people for child pornography, bestiality, etc. I actively work undercover to catch predators who attempt to exploit and abuse children and minors. The point being, I’m not naive nor ignorant.
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1354
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I prefer that no one be homosexual. But if, going from your definition, they have the attraction and have told others about it, nothing else, then how are they unworthy? If they’re keeping their covenants then they are bridling their passions. You’re adding to your original basis. That’s why I wanted a definition before answering your question.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:16 pmSeriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
"Quentin L Cook wrote:
In addition to controlling anger and bridling other passions, we need to lead pure moral lives by controlling our thoughts, language and actions."
Honestly, how in heaven's name can you say: yes someone who is proclaiming to the world that they sexually/romantically desire (i.e. thoughts and language) the same-sex is someone who is worthy in every way to proclaim to the world that others should "bridle their passions" and that others should lead "pure moral lives".
How can you possibly say that yes, we should have openly homosexual missionaries who's job it is to teach others to lead pure moral lives by controlling their thoughts, language and actions . . .when they themselves are openly telling everyone they met that they sexually desire the same sex, that that is how God made them and there is nothing wrong with that!
If they are not bridling their passions or trying to overcome their weaknesses, then they are not worthy and should not be serving a mission.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
"If they are not bridling their passions or trying to overcome their weaknesses, then they are not worthy and should not be serving a mission.cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:45 pmI prefer that no one be homosexual. But if, going from your definition, they have the attraction and have told others about it, nothing else, then how are they unworthy? If they’re keeping their covenants then they are bridling their passions. You’re adding to your original basis. That’s why I wanted a definition before answering your question.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:16 pmSeriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
"Quentin L Cook wrote:
In addition to controlling anger and bridling other passions, we need to lead pure moral lives by controlling our thoughts, language and actions."
Honestly, how in heaven's name can you say: yes someone who is proclaiming to the world that they sexually/romantically desire (i.e. thoughts and language) the same-sex is someone who is worthy in every way to proclaim to the world that others should "bridle their passions" and that others should lead "pure moral lives".
How can you possibly say that yes, we should have openly homosexual missionaries who's job it is to teach others to lead pure moral lives by controlling their thoughts, language and actions . . .when they themselves are openly telling everyone they met that they sexually desire the same sex, that that is how God made them and there is nothing wrong with that!
If they are not bridling their passions or trying to overcome their weaknesses, then they are not worthy and should not be serving a mission.
So you believe that someone who is openly telling others that their identity IS being queer that that person IS trying to overcome their weaknesses?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Wait, what?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pmYes those statements are all true, without further context.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pmAre the following true statements then?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pmI wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to a child and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to woman who is not their spouse and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to animals and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
It may or may not be relevant to know that I investigate and arrest people for child pornography, bestiality, etc. I actively work undercover to catch predators who attempt to exploit and abuse children and minors. The point being, I’m not naive nor ignorant.
So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3444
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Our church leaders and those who defend this stuff play a shell game. They constantly shift to something you are not addressing to avoid being specific and to appear that nothing has really changed.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:48 pm"If they are not bridling their passions or trying to overcome their weaknesses, then they are not worthy and should not be serving a mission.cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:45 pmI prefer that no one be homosexual. But if, going from your definition, they have the attraction and have told others about it, nothing else, then how are they unworthy? If they’re keeping their covenants then they are bridling their passions. You’re adding to your original basis. That’s why I wanted a definition before answering your question.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:16 pmSeriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
I wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
"Quentin L Cook wrote:
In addition to controlling anger and bridling other passions, we need to lead pure moral lives by controlling our thoughts, language and actions."
Honestly, how in heaven's name can you say: yes someone who is proclaiming to the world that they sexually/romantically desire (i.e. thoughts and language) the same-sex is someone who is worthy in every way to proclaim to the world that others should "bridle their passions" and that others should lead "pure moral lives".
How can you possibly say that yes, we should have openly homosexual missionaries who's job it is to teach others to lead pure moral lives by controlling their thoughts, language and actions . . .when they themselves are openly telling everyone they met that they sexually desire the same sex, that that is how God made them and there is nothing wrong with that!
If they are not bridling their passions or trying to overcome their weaknesses, then they are not worthy and should not be serving a mission.
So you believe that someone who is openly telling others that their identity IS being queer that that person IS trying to overcome their weaknesses?
If you ask if homosexuality is sinful, they will say that same sex attraction has never been a sin. But that wasn't what you were asking.
If you ask if the church's position on homosexuality has changed, they will say that the Church will never recognize same sex sealings. But that wasn't what you were asking.
Etc.
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1354
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Are you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pmWait, what?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pmYes those statements are all true, without further context.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pmAre the following true statements then?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
I wanted to know exactly what you meant so there are no miscommunications between us.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to the same sex and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to a child and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to woman who is not their spouse and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to animals and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
It may or may not be relevant to know that I investigate and arrest people for child pornography, bestiality, etc. I actively work undercover to catch predators who attempt to exploit and abuse children and minors. The point being, I’m not naive nor ignorant.
So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
No. I am married. God tells me what I am to docyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 5:06 pmAre you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pmWait, what?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pmYes those statements are all true, without further context.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pm
Are the following true statements then?
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to a child and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to woman who is not their spouse and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
I don’t believe someone who is attracted to animals and makes that publicly known has sinned in that regard. With no further context, I don’t believe they’re unworthy to serve the Lord. I presume they are committed to keeping their covenants and all of the Lord’s commandments.
It may or may not be relevant to know that I investigate and arrest people for child pornography, bestiality, etc. I actively work undercover to catch predators who attempt to exploit and abuse children and minors. The point being, I’m not naive nor ignorant.
So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
"That whosoever looketh. on a woman to lust after her hath committed. adultery with her already in his heart"
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lust
"Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy"
Sexual desire for any woman not my wife is ungodly.
What about this is so complicated?
Do I need to tell you that every time I pass a candy store, I have a lust to take candy?
No!
- TheDuke
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5863
- Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
It may not be a sin to think and claim SSA but I do not EVER want my child to room with one. PERIOD! It is not the same to have an openly gay companion or roommate as to have one that had sex before mission and didn't repent. Not the same at all. Perhaps the spirit sees no difference but as a dad I do. I would drive to my son's mission and drag him home or make such a huge fit the church would have to deal with me publicly. Sorry, but I see social issues.
I was in the military. I was in Korea long ago and showered with my hundred closest friends in an open tent, crowded, accidental contact, etc... I mean we had 1000 men and a truck of water. The truck's tank was heated and they made an announcement that they were going to turn on the spigot. Water would run through a pipe and down to maybe 40 shower heads for as many minutes or seconds the water lasted. You just ran in, got naked, soaped up and if lucky got out while the water was still warm. I couldn't imagine doing that knowing other men were looking to cop-a-feel on purpose or something. Maybe they were and did, but it wasn't something mentioned or talked about.
Same with people with SSA. I don't want my son near a man like that, especially an open one, or my daughter, not on a mission, not in the dorm at BYU, not at girls camp or whatever boys call it now that it isn't scouts. I feel putting young people in this position, i.e. do it or you're not following leadership. Is just plain wrong!
I was in the military. I was in Korea long ago and showered with my hundred closest friends in an open tent, crowded, accidental contact, etc... I mean we had 1000 men and a truck of water. The truck's tank was heated and they made an announcement that they were going to turn on the spigot. Water would run through a pipe and down to maybe 40 shower heads for as many minutes or seconds the water lasted. You just ran in, got naked, soaped up and if lucky got out while the water was still warm. I couldn't imagine doing that knowing other men were looking to cop-a-feel on purpose or something. Maybe they were and did, but it wasn't something mentioned or talked about.
Same with people with SSA. I don't want my son near a man like that, especially an open one, or my daughter, not on a mission, not in the dorm at BYU, not at girls camp or whatever boys call it now that it isn't scouts. I feel putting young people in this position, i.e. do it or you're not following leadership. Is just plain wrong!
- FrankOne
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2829
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
keep up with the times!Christianlee wrote: ↑October 1st, 2022, 2:07 pm When my boys were growing up I took them to the Priesthood session. We always went out for ice cream and tried to make it special. My own choice to serve a mission came from President Kimball’s stirring call to young men to go during Priesthood session.
In April the Saturday night schedule was just for women. This month it is for both men and women together. Has the LDS Church become a feminized church? Is the Priesthood being made less than special for the young men? What is the agenda? Are they priming for women to be ordained?
this is progress according to Lucifer
Patriarchy is an evil that has finally been eradicated. Celebrate! Dance around a rainbow tree. Be a good husband and kneel before your wife. The traditional family is dead! Follow the Prophet, he knows the way. Society is all the better for it. Just look around and see the close, integrated and praiseworthy families out there today following the leadership of feminism and multi-genderism.
- marc
- Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Posts: 10353
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
From a general conference priesthood session in 1977. Maybe the church would be filled with truly a truly endowed priesthood if the men lived up to it (D&C 84) instead of being what we find today.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
TheDuke. Please listen to this podcast. Please, please, pleaseTheDuke wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 6:46 pm It may not be a sin to think and claim SSA but I do not EVER want my child to room with one. PERIOD! It is not the same to have an openly gay companion or roommate as to have one that had sex before mission and didn't repent. Not the same at all. Perhaps the spirit sees no difference but as a dad I do. I would drive to my son's mission and drag him home or make such a huge fit the church would have to deal with me publicly. Sorry, but I see social issues.
I was in the military. I was in Korea long ago and showered with my hundred closest friends in an open tent, crowded, accidental contact, etc... I mean we had 1000 men and a truck of water. The truck's tank was heated and they made an announcement that they were going to turn on the spigot. Water would run through a pipe and down to maybe 40 shower heads for as many minutes or seconds the water lasted. You just ran in, got naked, soaped up and if lucky got out while the water was still warm. I couldn't imagine doing that knowing other men were looking to cop-a-feel on purpose or something. Maybe they were and did, but it wasn't something mentioned or talked about.
Same with people with SSA. I don't want my son near a man like that, especially an open one, or my daughter, not on a mission, not in the dorm at BYU, not at girls camp or whatever boys call it now that it isn't scouts. I feel putting young people in this position, i.e. do it or you're not following leadership. Is just plain wrong!
https://soundcloud.com/user-818501778/e ... -of-christ
Minute 22 to minute 25.
He directly states that his MP told him directly that if he had ANY negative experience with ANY companion, member, etc. That if ANY comment, negatively was said to him or if ANY one had a problem with serving with him. He was under orders for him to directly call the MP and they would take care of the problem. The MP would ensure that the member, the missionary, etc. who has a problem like you have . . . no, no THEY are the bad one . . .THEY are the one called on the carpet . . .THEY are the one who needs to change, who needs to repent, are unChristian.
This is EXACTLY what I said would happen.
- cyclOps
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1354
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
To me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pmNo. I am married. God tells me what I am to docyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 5:06 pmAre you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pmWait, what?cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pm
Yes those statements are all true, without further context.
It may or may not be relevant to know that I investigate and arrest people for child pornography, bestiality, etc. I actively work undercover to catch predators who attempt to exploit and abuse children and minors. The point being, I’m not naive nor ignorant.
So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
"That whosoever looketh. on a woman to lust after her hath committed. adultery with her already in his heart"
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lust
"Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy"
Sexual desire for any woman not my wife is ungodly.
What about this is so complicated?
Do I need to tell you that every time I pass a candy store, I have a lust to take candy?
No!
Did you stop being heterosexual when you got married? No. Does that mean you lust after other women? No. Therefore I don’t think someone who is homosexual automatically falls into the category of someone who lusts after others.
Last edited by cyclOps on October 2nd, 2022, 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
I do not identify myself as heterosexual.cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 10:38 pmTo me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pmNo. I am married. God tells me what I am to do
"That whosoever looketh. on a woman to lust after her hath committed. adultery with her already in his heart"
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lust
"Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy"
Sexual desire for any woman not my wife is ungodly.
What about this is so complicated?
Do I need to tell you that every time I pass a candy store, I have a lust to take candy?
No!
Did you stop being heterosexual when you got married? No. Does that mean you after other women? No. Therefore I don’t think someone who is homosexual automatically falls into the category of someone who lusts after others.
What about that do you not understand.
I am commanded to only be sexually attracted to my wife.
-
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2277
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Someone who ids as homosexual is telling you the wish to have sex with the same sex.cyclOps wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 10:38 pmTo me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.spiritMan wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pmNo. I am married. God tells me what I am to do
"That whosoever looketh. on a woman to lust after her hath committed. adultery with her already in his heart"
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/lust
"Longing desire; eagerness to possess or enjoy"
Sexual desire for any woman not my wife is ungodly.
What about this is so complicated?
Do I need to tell you that every time I pass a candy store, I have a lust to take candy?
No!
Did you stop being heterosexual when you got married? No. Does that mean you after other women? No. Therefore I don’t think someone who is homosexual automatically falls into the category of someone who lusts after others.
- J2
- captain of 100
- Posts: 293
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Honestly, since the church has publicly stated that, going forward, this session will either be a general session OR a special session focused on special topics, I'd say it's hard to know this early on in this new direction if the church is now just choosing to ignore the Priesthood men in general.
Time will tell. If we see another Priesthood Session sometime next year I'd say the concern may be unwarranted.
Time will tell. If we see another Priesthood Session sometime next year I'd say the concern may be unwarranted.
- Valheim
- captain of 50
- Posts: 50
- Location: Sweden
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
The church has kept all that matters and done away with some pointless stuff. The church is handling the lgbt matters perfectly imo. Oaks and countless others have reaffirmed the eternal nature of things, and the priesthood duty of missionary work, but also acknowledged and worked with some lgbt organizations.
-
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7390
- Contact:
Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?
Homosexual acts are sinful. Being tempted to commit homosexual acts, but resisting this temptation, is not sinful.Serragon wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2022, 4:53 pm
Our church leaders and those who defend this stuff play a shell game. They constantly shift to something you are not addressing to avoid being specific and to appear that nothing has really changed.
If you ask if homosexuality is sinful, they will say that same sex attraction has never been a sin. But that wasn't what you were asking.
Furthermore, being attracted to someone doesn't mean that you fantasize about having sex with them or lust after them.
The church has consistently maintained that homosexaul acts are a sin. This has not changed.
However, the church is trying to be much more inclusive of homosexauls, including those who engage in homosexual acts.
The church no longer teaches that there's anything wrong with same-sex attraction or even identifying as LGBTQ. The church no longer teaches that these desires are unnatural and need to be overcome.
The church has also softened up on its punishment for committing homosexual acts. It no longer automatically requires excommunication and no longer labels those in same-sex relationships as apostates.
Hope this answers your questions.