Dallin H. Oaks talk

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I am.  I don't see how that changes anything.

Simply that I may have experienced the same as you and yet still, cognitively, have come to a different conclusion. You implied we might see eye-to-eye if I'd had your experiences. I think that's flawed. In fact I know it's flawed based on my experiences. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

See, I can play the experience card too.

Edited October 6, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Simply that I may have experienced the same as you and yet still, cognitively, have come to a different conclusion. You implied we might see eye-to-eye if I'd had your experiences. I think that's flawed. In fact I know it's flawed based on my experiences. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

See, I can play the experience card too.

The difference is clear.

Person A: When I was four years old, I had thus-and-such experience. I remember it quite clearly, and it had aspects such as this and this and this...
Person B: When I was four years old, I also had experiences such as Person A recounts.
Person C: When I was four years old, I had no such experiences. I had different experiences, or none at all. Therefore, I disbelieve Persons A and B.

Person C is not "playing the experience card". He is "playing the non-experience card", which in this case is obviously logically flawed. The fact that Person C did not experience some event or state of mind at four years old does not prove, imply, or even really suggest that four-year-olds don't experience that event or state of mind.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

The difference is clear.

Person A: When I was four years old, I had thus-and-such experience. I remember it quite clearly, and it had aspects such as this and this and this...
Person B: When I was four years old, I also had experiences such as Person A recounts.
Person C: When I was four years old, I had no such experiences. I had different experiences, or none at all. Therefore, I disbelieve Persons A and B.

Person C is not "playing the experience card". He is "playing the non-experience card", which in this case is obviously logically flawed. The fact that Person C did not experience some event or state of mind at four years old does not prove, imply, or even really suggest that four-year-olds don't experience that event or state of mind.

Of course that isn't what has happened.

Persons A and B: When I was four I...etc.

Person C: I do not trust your recollection or interpretations of things from when you were four.

The experience card I am playing is related to things I have experienced that others have too where I came away with a totally different world view from the same experience. For example, it would be like someone claiming that losing a job makes you an emotional trainwreck, which one would know if they'd lost a job, and I, having lost a job, didn't become an emotional trainwreck at all. That "experience" teaches me that the claim "you'd have to have experienced it for us to see eye-to-eye" is nothing but hot air.

As to my sexual development and things I have experienced or not: I do not share them typically. A) They are no one else's business. B) I understand that my perceptions based on youthful experiences are probably based on immaturity, bias, stupidity, ignorance, and all the other weaknesses of youth, and therefore consider the experience card (particularly in early youth) unreliable at best.

Edited October 6, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Sunday21]

I sometimes find that when the church makes a statement that I don’t have the background to understand the significance. Hence this discussion of the proclamation is very useful.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Simply that I may have experienced the same as you and yet still, cognitively, have come to a different conclusion. You implied we might see eye-to-eye if I'd had your experiences. I think that's flawed. In fact I know it's flawed based on my experiences. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

See, I can play the experience card too.

Like I said, I don't see how that changes anything.

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Like I said, I don't see how that changes anything.

Well. Now I know.

[wenglund]

On 10/1/2017 at 10:00 AM, Sunday21 said:

Ok! Thanks everyone! I was wondering if there was some new thing on the horizon that I was not aware of because the law of... (let me get this right) chastity (too many ‘t’s in that word) surely cannot be mentioned more often. I just remember when pornography became something that became a problem. I did not even know that women were likely to be afflicted in this way. 

Shocking stats on women and porn: http://www.covenanteyes.com/2013/08/30/women-addicted-to-porn-stats/

Science is catching up with the prophet:

 

Here is a website containing supporting data: https://yourbrainonporn.com/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ben S.]

On 10/1/2017 at 8:44 AM, zil said:

Given that there are members all over the place who think "it's only a matter of time" before the Church allows same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple, I'd say we very much need it.  If the world is fighting against families, the Church must defend them, and it must start with the membership.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is scary that people think the church will just change its views and stances simply because the world is. The church and its members will likely be the last group standing up for many of the things we still take for granted as "common sense". We must defend the unit of the family, even when it becomes unpopular or even offensive to the world.

This was an absolutely wonderful talk and it was amazing to hear Elder Dallin H. Oaks give share his memories on how the Family, A Proclamation to the World was inspired and written. It truly is an inspired work, and like Elder Oaks said about how obvious the truths that it proclaims were at the time, we have seen and watched as world's view has drifted substantially. 

[zil]

Welcome,  @Ben S. !

[Sunday21]

Hi @Ben S. ! Nice to have you here!

[Rob Osborn]

On 10/6/2017 at 12:57 PM, Vort said:

The difference is clear.

Person A: When I was four years old, I had thus-and-such experience. I remember it quite clearly, and it had aspects such as this and this and this...
Person B: When I was four years old, I also had experiences such as Person A recounts.
Person C: When I was four years old, I had no such experiences. I had different experiences, or none at all. Therefore, I disbelieve Persons A and B.

Person C is not "playing the experience card". He is "playing the non-experience card", which in this case is obviously logically flawed. The fact that Person C did not experience some event or state of mind at four years old does not prove, imply, or even really suggest that four-year-olds don't experience that event or state of mind.

I remember when I was 4 and loved every girl in the neighborhood. I got in trouble once kissing the neighbor girl when I was 4. As I also reflect, I idolized my dad. I saw my dad love my mom, saw them hug and kiss and I thus wanted to do the same. I dont remember having any sexual feelings or those chemical attractions related at that age, I was just acting upon a strong influence in my mind of what I thought I was supposed to become. I am thus of the firm belief that our sexual attractions are based in large part off of very early perceptions of growing up and how those closest too you have a very strong early influence on shaping ones sexual identity.

[LoudLizard]

I have discussed this with friends and we marvel at the timing it was revealed.  As the people of this country were beginning to start pushing for homosexual unions with the equal rights of married folks.

Now we are past the tipping point on this issue.  Majority in USA favoring the world's redefined marriage structure.  

The fact that it came before this blitz attack on marriage tells me it was revelation.

Now my point is that the church released the Living Christ.  What is coming concerning our faith in a real living being that literally died for us all.