Conference Priesthood session — gone?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by EvanLM »

unfortunately, unrepentant apostasy and unrepentant immorality receive the same punishment

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by EvanLM »

define it

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

EvanLM wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:17 pm unfortunately, unrepentant apostasy and unrepentant immorality receive the same punishment
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.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

EvanLM wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:18 pmdefine it
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.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by cyclOps »

spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:03 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 2:52 pm

We won’t agree. Time will tell.
So what is your response for openly homosexual missionaries?
Define openly homosexual.
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:03 pm
So what is your response for openly homosexual missionaries?
Define openly homosexual.
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
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.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:03 pm
So what is your response for openly homosexual missionaries?
Define openly homosexual.
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
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?

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?

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:03 pm
So what is your response for openly homosexual missionaries?
Define openly homosexual.
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
Seriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:

"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!

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by cyclOps »

spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm

Define openly homosexual.
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
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.
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.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by cyclOps »

spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:16 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:04 pm

Define openly homosexual.
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
Seriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:

"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!
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.

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.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:45 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:16 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
Seriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:

"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!
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.

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.
"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?

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:27 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:12 pm
Someone who proclaims to the world that they are homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc.
Someone who is closed, might tell a trusted leader, parent, or a trusted friend in confidence.

Don't tell me you are going down the road of "what the meaning of is is"....
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.
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.
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.
Wait, what?

So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by Serragon »

spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:48 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:45 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:16 pm
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.
Seriously. I really, really want to know how in the world you can square this statement above. With:

"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!
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.

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.
"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?
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.
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.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by cyclOps »

spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 3:56 pm
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.
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.
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.
Wait, what?

So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
Are you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:06 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:38 pm
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.
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.
Wait, what?

So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
Are you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?
No. 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!

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5868
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by TheDuke »

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!

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2829

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by FrankOne »

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?
keep up with the times!

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.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10354
Contact:

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by marc »

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.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

TheDuke 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!
TheDuke. Please listen to this podcast. Please, please, please

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.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by cyclOps »

spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:06 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pm
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.
Wait, what?

So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
Are you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?
No. 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!
To me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.

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.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 10:38 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:06 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pm
Wait, what?

So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
Are you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?
No. 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!
To me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.

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.
I do not identify myself as heterosexual.

What about that do you not understand.

I am commanded to only be sexually attracted to my wife.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by spiritMan »

cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 10:38 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:16 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 5:06 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:49 pm
Wait, what?

So it's totally cool to tell everyone and anyone openly my deepest sexual desires and that's totally cool?
Are you going to tell me you’re attracted to the opposite sex?
No. 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!
To me there is a distinction between your basic sexual attraction and then lusting after someone.

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.
Someone who ids as homosexual is telling you the wish to have sex with the same sex.

User avatar
J2
captain of 100
Posts: 293

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by J2 »

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.

User avatar
Valheim
captain of 50
Posts: 50
Location: Sweden

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by Valheim »

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.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: Conference Priesthood session — gone?

Post by LDS Watchman »

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.
Homosexual acts are sinful. Being tempted to commit homosexual acts, but resisting this temptation, is not sinful.

Furthermore, being attracted to someone doesn't mean that you fantasize about having sex with them or lust after them.
Serragon wrote: October 2nd, 2022, 4:53 pm 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.
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. :)

Post Reply