The War in Heaven

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, brotherofJared said:

But there is nothing wrong with the person who is deaf. There is a difference between stating a fact: that person is deaf and a false observation: there is something wrong with that person.

These words are so nebulous "something wrong".  I'm Filipino.  English is only my 3rd language.  When I hear somebody say "something is wrong" that tells me something out of the norm.  It doesn't always connotate sinfulness.  For example - being deaf.  When I see a person not acknowledging somebody else calling to him, I would make the observation that something is wrong with that person.  Then I find out he's deaf so I say, ah.  That's why.  Somebody with gender dysphoria - yes, there's something wrong with him... gender dysphoria.  He'll have a much bigger challenge than I would in the formation of eternal families.

There's nothing in the above paragraph that judges the person's spiritual worth.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

Who is to say how things should work? You? me?

God.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I'm just saddened by the idea that there is something wrong with them when I know there is something wrong with me. I just want people to recognize these people as normal people and stop saying there's something wrong with them.

All normal people have something wrong with them. If they didn't have anything wrong with them they wouldn't be normal.

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I'm just saddened by the idea that there is something wrong with them when I know there is something wrong with me. I just want people to recognize these people as normal people and stop saying there's something wrong with them.

 

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

All normal people have something wrong with them. If they didn't have anything wrong with them they wouldn't be normal.

 

Homosexuality is not normal.  Normal, by definition, is "usual, typical, or expected".  Basically - the vast majority.  Homosexuality is an aberrant condition comprising less than 10% of human society.  The problem with saying this is normal is it makes people who do not have this aberrant condition think they have it because, gasp, they like pink instead of blue because after all, being gay is just as normal as being not (which is a falsehood).

Edited June 8, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

My issue with only with the individual and what that individual IS, not what he does. 

No individual IS one thing. Individuals are many things. And we are, certainly, partially what we do, what we think, what we say, etc... I am a musician because I do music. I am a computer programmer because I do computer programming. I am a sinner because I sin. I am a saint because I do my best to repent and follow Christ. I am a nice guy because I go out of my way to do nice things. I am a jerk because I say callous truths on internet forums. I am a Mormon because I did the things that make me so. 

And may I add....obviously!

22 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

There is danger in stating that there is something wrong with the person who has a weakness. We just can't take that position, because there is something wrong with all of us. We are sinners in a war against our own family who are also sinners.

Your logic is faulty. There being something wrong with me is irrelevant to whether other's have something wrong or not. By your logic we can never call anyone to repentance because we're sinners. So why are we commanded to call others to repentance then?

 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Homosexuality is not normal.  Normal, by definition, is "usual, typical, or expected". 

It is in the broader idea of sin being normal (Or...temptation).

Edited June 8, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

27 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

But there is nothing wrong with the person who is deaf. 

This is a factual falsehood. Period.

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, zil said:

You realize you just created a catch-22, or contradiction?

a) Premise: There is nothing wrong with the person themselves (only their actions), so we cannot say there's something wrong with a person.

b) Claim: There is something wrong with the person who says there's something wrong with another person.

You are calling someone wrong after stating you can't say it's the person who's wrong.  It's a terminal loop.

Perhaps you mean to say: "It is wrong for person A to say that there is something wrong with person B."  That would be logically consistent with your premise - calling the behavior wrong rather than the person.

Correct.

[Guest]

WRONG:

1. Not in accordance with what is morally right or good: Gay is not in accordance with morally right or good.
2. Deviating from truth or fact; erroneous:Gay deviates from eternal truths
3. Not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; inerror: Gay is not a correct orientation.
4. Not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: Gay is not the recommended practice by the Lord Himself.
5. Out of order; awry; amiss: Gay is certainly not the correct order of things.  It is certainly awry or amiss.
6. Not suitable or appropriate: Gay is absolutely not appropriate.

You can split hairs with "SSA" language instead of "Gay".  And you'll only be partially right. Only a small percentage of people in public discourse even care about such distinction.  I'm all for separating the sin from the sinner.  I'm ok saying that those who have a tendency are not in fact sinning.  And that would be true.  But the reality for most does not include that.

The vast majority of people who condemn gays are condemning the acts of gays, especially in public (politics, entertainment, publicity, etc.)

The vast majority of people defending gays are defending the acts of gays (i.e. sodomy).  And if you're saying there's nothing wrong with that, you'll have a tough time selling that one here.  And far too many gays invariably say when they come out of the closet "I have to be true to who I am" just as they decide to enter into homosexual relations.  So, is the relationship part of the "who I am"?  If so, then they're not talking about the tendency.  They're talking about the act.

Given that, who is on the "right" side?

Edited June 8, 2017 by Guest

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

These words are so nebulous "something wrong".  I'm Filipino.  English is only my 3rd language.  When I hear somebody say "something is wrong" that tells me something out of the norm. 

 

Something is out of the norm. But this is something that we have found an acceptable means to overcome where the person can function in society without much issue. It does not make the person any less of a person because of it.

Quote

It doesn't always connotate sinfulness. 

 

And neither does having same-sex attraction.

Quote

For example - being deaf.  When I see a person not acknowledging somebody else calling to him, I would make the observation that something is wrong with that person. 

 

I disagree. We don't assume that there is something wrong with the person because we accept and understand this. What we usually come to conclusion of is, this person can't hear, is deaf. We don't assume that this person is trying to push his agenda on us.

Quote

Then I find out he's deaf so I say, ah.  That's why. 

 

Indeed. this is what happens when we know how to function in the same society with them.

Quote

Somebody with gender dysphoria - yes, there's something wrong with him... gender dysphoria.  He'll have a much bigger challenge than I would in the formation of eternal families.

 

That is because we don't know how to function in the same society with them.

Quote

There's nothing in the above paragraph that judges the person's spiritual worth.

I think you are talking about my paragraph, but I'm not sure. We aren't talking about spiritual worth, we are talking about Satan's ongoing war. One side says, there is something wrong with them. They need to be fixed (Ouch. No pun intended). I'm saying there is nothing wrong with them. We need to be fixed (again, no pun intended).

I have no problem defending what defines a family, that is of great spiritual worth. I think, however; that we must find a way to function better in society as this is not going to go away. It never has and never will. We do great spiritual harm by defining it as being something that is wrong.

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

WRONG:

1. Not in accordance with what is morally right or good: Gay is not in accordance with morally right or good.
2. Deviating from truth or fact; erroneous:Gay deviates from eternal truths
3. Not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; inerror: Gay is not a correct orientation.
4. Not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: Gay is not the recommended practice by the Lord Himself.
5. Out of order; awry; amiss: Gay is certainly not the correct order of things.  It is certainly awry or amiss.
6. Not suitable or appropriate: Gay is absolutely not appropriate.

You can split hairs with "SSA" language instead of "Gay".  And you'll only be partially right. Only a small percentage of people in public discourse even care about such distinction.  I'm all for separating the sin from the sinner.  I'm ok saying that those who have a tendency are not in fact sinning.  And that would be true.  But the reality for most does not include that.

The vast majority of people who condemn gays are condemning the acts of gays, especially in public (politics, entertainment, publicity, etc.)

The vast majority of people defending gays are defending the acts of gays (i.e. sodomy).  And if you're saying there's nothing wrong with that, you'll have a tough time selling that one here.  And far too many gays invariably say when they come out of the closet "I have to be true to who I am" just as they decide to enter into homosexual relations.  So, is the relationship part of the "who I am"?  If so, then they're not talking about the tendency.  They're talking about the act.

Given that, who is on the "right" side?

Oh please. Let's just stick with loving the sinner and not the sin and we'll be okay. There is nothing wrong with the person who has to deal with these attractions.

[brotherofJared]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Wait, which early church are we talking about?  The early Christian Church after the death of the last apostle?  I'm confused because that's not the reason the early church went into apostasy.  The early Church went into Apostasy due to philosophies of men superseding the gospel of Christ.

If you're talking about the early LDS Church... well, obviously, that church didn't go to its demise...

Well. I think you answered your own question. "philosophies of men" is a pretty broad blanket and could cover everything from Greek mythology to paganism (oops, same thing). The church was corrupted from within not from outside influences... at least, not directly.

[brotherofJared]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Lucifer, lusting after Father's honor, insisted that he he himself be the chosen Redeemer, and claimed that the redemption he wrought would be superior to that proposed by the Father, in that he (Lucifer) would redeem all mankind, not just some.

Not sure where you got Lucifer's lust. Lucifer's motives were spelled out. He thought he had a better plan. It seems only right that if it was better, that he should get the honor. Satan's plan didn't have a redeemer because it didn't need one. No one would sin or be able to sin, so why have a redeemer? I'm pretty sure, Lucifer had no intention of dying for anyone.

[brotherofJared]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

This is an argument about wording.

• Is there anything "wrong with" people who are sexually attracted to children?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who are sexually attracted to horses?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who have the desire to rape their neighbor?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who want to beat up the irritating guy on the bus?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who want to bite off all their fingers?
• Is there anything "wrong with" people who want to have all power over others?

These are the common lusts of the flesh. If you want to say that there is nothing "wrong with" people who suffer from these lusts, I can accept your wording. But then, you have to use the same terminology with all of the lusts of the flesh, not just with homosexual perversions. On the other hand, if you believe that some or all of the bullet points do indeed represent something "wrong with" people, then you cannot reasonably deny applying the same terminology to those who struggle with homosexual desires.

No to all of the above. You don't get to pick and choose your weaknesses and neither do others. They didn't pick them. Desire or attraction is a weakness which we all have to deal with. When we act on attractions that would result in sin, then and only then does an attraction become a problem.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

You don't get to pick and choose your weaknesses and neither do others. They didn't pick them.

In many cases, this is untrue. I do not have a problem with pornography, not because I haven't had temptation, but because I have rejected the temptation. Those who do not reject the temptation often find themselves mired in their weakness. And yes, they did pick that.

[brotherofJared]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I understand what you're saying here.  But that's not the issue of genderism.  The issue of genderism is not that there are people whose sexuality does not fall in the middle of normal male or female indicators (either physical and/or psychological).  The issue of genderism is that movement that has took hold in western society to eradicate the societal differences between the 2 sexes - Male and Female.  This has gotten so bad that Male and Female is now being promoted as exchangeable.  There is no more Female Role or Male Role.  Which means - there is no more Fatherhood or Motherhood, or even Priesthood.  These division of labor between the Male and Female in God's house of order is, therefore, under attack.

I know it's not the issue of genderism. Genderism, as I stated before is pigeonholing groups of people. It is a pseudo-science with a design effort to reduce the stress in society that is created by people who think there is something wrong with the effeminate male or the masculine female. I restate my case. There is nothing wrong with them, physical or psychological (except as created by those who think there is something wrong with them).

I started down this wrong when I read the statement "those poor hermaphrodites". For me, this alluded to those poor gays and those poor lesbians and those poor transgender people. There is nothing poor about them. Yes. The actions of those who press genderism on us may be causing problems. We should direct our attention to their actions, not at the people they pretend to be helping.

[brotherofJared]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The Weapons of War in God's arsenal.

1.) Atonement of Jesus Christ

2.) Comfort and Guidance of the Holy Ghost

3.) Scriptures

4.) Prophets Seers and Revelators

Great weapons, I'm sure. Sounds like a righteous arsenal (yes, I'm being sarcastic). I see you gave plenty of explanation on how the weapons of Lucifer are used. How about a little explanation on how these defenses are used. Exactly what do they combat? How does the Atonement combat genderism?

See, I have a problem when the righteous rise up with their Bible in hand to put down the wicked when they give no thought to themselves. 

Here is a weapon I think works very effectively: Keeping the Sabbath day Holy (actually, just going to church and partaking fo the sacrament). It doesn't really do much about society and their assault on the family, but it sure does a lot about me and how I deal with my own family. I don't understand what we think we're going to do to stop the onslaught. Prop 8 passed and then got shut down in the courts. The few overcame the many. It didn't matter what society wanted or was willing to accept as the norm.

In the early days of the LDS church, racism was rampant. It was rampant throughout the United States. It was a lucrative business. People made money dealing in slaves and making money off of the sweat of other men's brows. Did we do anything about it then? No. It was not something men could fix. It wasn't something the church could fix. God had to fix it. Is genderism something man can fix? No. Sure, we do what we can, but it isn't in laying the blame on the person who has that weakness. It's not their fault. We resist where we can, but; try not to make victims of the weak or the afflicted. Don't pigeonhole a person who has same-gender attraction issues with those who push genderism.

[brotherofJared]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

weigh 'wrong' against principle.

Principle also requires judgment. The only time when right and wrong is cut and dried is when there isn't a principle involved. Even, "thou shalt not kill" requires judgement. The only commandment that was cut and dried, off the top of my head, is "Of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat." Then in a clarifying statement, "remember, I forbid it." In addition, there were other statements that indicated that they could eat it, but if they did, they would die. Principle takes a lot of explaining and wisdom.

[brotherofJared]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

God.

Right. And God made those poor people work that way. Now, is that creation good? Should we try to change it? Fix it? or should we try to get along with it just like we do with people who can't hear or see?

[brotherofJared]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

All normal people have something wrong with them. If they didn't have anything wrong with them they wouldn't be normal.

That's my point. those with same-gender attraction are normal. There is nothing wrong with them.

[The Folk Prophet]

52 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

That's my point. those with same-gender attraction are normal. There is nothing wrong with them.

That makes no sense. Having something wrong with a person is normal -- so being normal proves that there's nothing wrong?

Look, you can buy into what I consider the lies of homosexuality if you want and therefore you're going to consider it both normal and "nothing wrong". I don't buy into the lies and so I'm not going to agree with either the fact that there is nothing wrong, nor with the fact that it's the best course to buy into the lie that there's nothing wrong.

I don't expect you to agree.

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Bigots simply pass judgment on other people from a personal perspective. The church is full of them. It's almost impossible to escape. Both are motivated by personal gain, whether it be money or character assassination in order to make oneself rise above others, from their perspective, it makes no difference. 

When I made that statement, I was thinking of the demise of the early church, which I believe was brought about by bigots and hypocrites and for personal gain.

Oh brother . . .here we go again with the claims that everyone is a "gasp" bigot and being a gasp "bigot" is one of the worst sins ever!!!!!

Dictionary time:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; 

Oh my goodness look at how "evil" someone is who is a bigot.  They are intolerant of others beliefs or opinions!!!

Except no one defines what intolerance means and in today's parlance intolerant simply means you disagree with, do not accept and will counter the other person's beliefs.  Please point me to where Christ said we needed to be tolerant of others beliefs, creeds, or opinions.  We should be kind, we should give aid like the good Samaritan, etc. but tolerant??  I don't think so.

The evil ideology in today's worldview is that if you do not tolerate my views on homosexuality, my views on gender, my views on xyz, why then you are a bigot (said in the most nasty way ever).  Being a Muslim is incorrect, fine if you want to believe that way, but it is wrong. Just like homosexuality, transgender, etc. is wrong. No I'm not tolerant of muslim beliefs, I don't want it taught to my children, in schools they attend, etc.

No, I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, homosexual acts are evil acts, transgenderism is an evil ideology, homosexual marriage is evil and not of God.  If that makes me a bigot, so be it-I care not for what label the world puts on me.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't about "just loving people for who they are" it is about becoming someone different, becoming like God and in the process of becoming like God there isn't any room for belief that sin or incorrect ideology is okay. 

Edited June 9, 2017 by yjacket

[brotherofJared]

28 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Oh brother . . .here we go again with the claims that everyone is a "gasp" bigot and being a gasp "bigot" is one of the worst sins ever!!!!!

Dictionary time:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; 

Oh my goodness look at how "evil" someone is who is a bigot.  They are intolerant of others beliefs or opinions!!!

Except no one defines what intolerance means and in today's parlance intolerant simply means you disagree with, do not accept and will counter the other person's beliefs.  Please point me to where Christ said we needed to be tolerant of others beliefs, creeds, or opinions.  We should be kind, we should give aid like the good Samaritan, etc. but tolerant??  I don't think so.

The evil ideology in today's worldview is that if you do not tolerate my views on homosexuality, my views on gender, my views on xyz, why then you are a bigot (said in the most nasty way ever).  Being a Muslim is incorrect, fine if you want to believe that way, but it is wrong. Just like homosexuality, transgender, etc. is wrong. No I'm not tolerant of muslim beliefs, I don't want it taught to my children, in schools they attend, etc.

No, I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, homosexual acts are evil acts, transgenderism is an evil ideology, homosexual marriage is evil and not of God.  If that makes me a bigot, so be it-I care not for what label the world puts on me.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't about "just loving people for who they are" it is about becoming someone different, becoming like God and in the process of becoming like God there isn't any room for belief that sin or incorrect ideology is okay. 

Thanks for proving my point. Are there emojis on this site?

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

That's my point. those with same-gender attraction are normal. There is nothing wrong with them.

 

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That makes no sense. Having something wrong with a person is normal -- so being normal proves that there's nothing wrong?

Look, you can buy into what I consider the lies of homosexuality if you want and therefore you're going to consider it both normal and "nothing wrong". I don't buy into the lies and so I'm not going to agree with either the fact that there is nothing wrong, nor with the fact that it's the best course to buy into the lie that there's nothing wrong.

I don't expect you to agree.

Along the lines of this conversation - being homosexual used to be considered a mental illness. But now with all of the PC policing going in it is far too unfavourable to go calling these people ill. I find this interesting because the "condition" didn't change, but the "diagnosis" did. Now imagine if a serious condition like heart disease simply stopped being diagnosed, not because it ceased to exist but that by virtue of it killing 50% of the population it was deemed "normal" and not really a diseased state.Would the heart disease be any less lethal if undiagnosed?

Now sure it could be argued that these people with the underlying condition that would be considered heart disease don't really notice any symptoms of high cholesterol or high blood pressure until BAM - a heart attack or stroke occur, or they start to suffer with chest pain. Is same sex attraction normal? Clearly not, by virtue of it involving only a small minority. Is the underlying condition just hunky dory as long as there is no *BAM* -it just happened and I acted on my desires? Well that part is for God to judge. This all gets to be a tricky web of semantics as one gets deeper into it. What is attraction? Is it sinful to be attracted? It depends on how one defines attraction. For instance, as a heterosexual male, if I notice that another man has a nice physique and think to myself, "wow, he takes care of himself and has a great body to show for it" does this constitute attraction or mere admiration? Now when I notice the same thing in a woman does it constitute attraction or admiration? Is there a difference? Does it only cross over to attraction if I decide I want to be physically involved with them, or  is it at that point lustful, which the Saviour states is essentially the same as adultery? My point? Yes, struggles are normal, but that doesn't make them any less struggles. Yes sin is "normal"in our carnal state but it doesn't become less sinful. Further, regardless of sexual orientation, one needs to guard thoughts closely to not cross the line into sinful lust. For now let's throw the term "normal" out because it's completely relative, normal in the Celestial Kingdom will be righteous desires and actions, so I would prefer to keep the discussion to righteous versus unrighteous - but as just stated that opens a can of worms with semantics. 

Food for thought.

[brotherofJared]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

In many cases, this is untrue. I do not have a problem with pornography, not because I haven't had temptation, but because I have rejected the temptation. Those who do not reject the temptation often find themselves mired in their weakness. And yes, they did pick that.

Addiction is not the same as weakness. Weaknesses are given to us, additictions we go out of our way to acquire. Often times we stumble into our weaknesses entirely by accident.