I Cant Wrap My Head Around Men Becoming Gods

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Such as same-sex marriage, masturbation, and immodesty are fine.  

I think masturbation is over blown as to how sinful it is. I won’t say it’s not a sin but how it has been taught in the past I think was not beneficial to many. 

It is obvious that the tone has softened since the days of president Kimball and Elder Packer. In fact you hardly hear a thing about it. 

However since there is no scripture whatsoever mentioning masturbation, it would be nice to know who president Kimball was referring to when he said that prophets anciently and today condemn it.  

As I said elsewhere, Elder Kim B. Clark said it is something that if continued, over time could lead to things that are sinful. 

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I stated it before.  But I have no problem with someone's position on the flood or the ark.  There is certainly a lot that is unknown.  And it isn't like such knowledge is really all that critical to our salvation.  I haven't had a problem with your overall position.  But sometimes, whether I agree or disagree, I get hung up on some logical inconsistencies.  I may be a bit harsh when pointing them out.  So, I apologize if I did that to you.

Of course.

Absolutely true.

I am one of the first to admit that I have a long way to go on the trait of charity.  But I can at least say that I'm working on it.

Yes, and I have had my mind change on this forum several times.  And I apologized many times when I simply had the wrong data.  Someone shows it to me, I scrutinize it and verify it.  But if it's true, it's true.  What can I say?  I was wrong.

I generally have a pretty thick skin, but if someone challenges my testimony....  I kind of draw the line there.

[BJ64]

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Masturbation and porn go hand in hand and that is probably a fairly large number.

 

Not necessarily. People have been masturbating since long before Playboy and internet porn. 

As far as modesty is concerned, he was referring to me wearing a speedo. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

I think masturbation is over blown as to how sinful it is. I won’t say it’s not a sin but how it has been taught in the past I think was not beneficial to many. 

It is obvious that the tone has softened since the days of president Kimball and Elder Packer. In fact you hardly hear a thing about it. 

However since there is no scripture whatsoever mentioning masturbation, it would be nice to know who president Kimball was referring to when he said that prophets anciently and today condemn it.  

As I said elsewhere, Elder Kim B. Clark said it is something that if continued, over time could lead to things that are sinful. 

I can tell you that official statements have been made for the past 15 years (minimum -- that's as far back as I personally know) that have said as you are saying.  I can't quote it because it is in HB1.  Site policy.

I remember the Church film "Morality for Youth" where Pres Kimball called it a "damnable sin".  I think it was meant to be harsh because of his concern over it.  I don't know how bad he actually considered it.  But who knows?  Maybe he just wanted to tell people to stay away from the edge of the cliff.  Maybe he thought it really was that bad.  I don't know.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I generally have a pretty thick skin, but if someone challenges my testimony....  I kind of draw the line there.

Well, as long as you don't say that the Church ought to change it's position on gay marriage, you should be fine then.

[BJ64]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can tell you that official statements have been made for the past 15 years (minimum -- that's as far back as I personally know) that have said as you are saying.  I can't quote it because it is in HB1.  Site policy.

I remember the Church film "Morality for Youth" where Pres Kimball called it a "damnable sin".  I think it was meant to be harsh because of his concern over it.  I don't know how bad he actually considered it.  But who knows?  Maybe he just wanted to tell people to stay away from the edge of the cliff.  Maybe he thought it really was that bad.  I don't know.

I have access to HB1 but there really isn’t much to quote on this this topic. 

I’ve read that before President Kimball became prophet he was in charge of dealing with homosexuality. He apparently was convinced that masturbation lead to homosexuality. Therefore it was of prime concern to stamp out masturbation.  

While it may be true that 100% of homosexuals masturbated first it is also likely true that 100% of married heterosexual men, outside of the church at least, masturbated before marriage. If masturbation lead to homosexuality then most of the population would be gay. 

I grew up in the seventies so I remember everything statement said on the topic from way back. 

Are you old enough to have been presented with the pamphlet To Young Men Only?

I realize this post is off topic so I will try to drop the issue. 

[Maureen]

55 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

...Immodesty...   I don't know why they ladies like to show off the bod, but most that have bods to show and some that don't like to show more skin than less...  I don't see this going away....

Why do you think modesty is only a female issue? If your church deems it necessary to teach, shouldn't it apply to both men and women?

M.

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Why do you think modesty is only a female issue? If your church deems it necessary to teach, shouldn't it apply to both men and women?

M.

It absolutely applies to men as well.  However, men are much less prone to want to dress skimpily.  I think most ladies are attracted to a well dressed man more than a skimpily dressed man.  Most men tend to like to check out how skimpy a ladies dress is.  Who is more likely to wear something immodest to church?  Is it sexist to point out tendencies of the sexes?

[Lost Boy]

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, as long as you don't say that the Church ought to change it's position on gay marriage, you should be fine then.

Yeah, I don't think I will be saying that.  However, I do believe that there will be significant legal challenges to the church and its position on gay marriage.... much more so than there is now.  I doubt that any of it will stick, but gay advocacy groups will try their best.

[Grunt]

31 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

He apparently was convinced that masturbation lead to homosexuality.

1

Where do you get that?

[BJ64]

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yeah, I don't think I will be saying that.  However, I do believe that there will be significant legal challenges to the church and its position on gay marriage.... much more so than there is now.  I doubt that any of it will stick, but gay advocacy groups will try their best.

I have a cousin who founded a gay support group in Arizona. I have read a lot of his essays on the topic. I have told him that while I don’t think the church will ever change it’s stance on gay marriage, I appreciate the work he has done to promote love and compassion. 

For me the crux of the issue is whether people are born gay or choose to be gay. Only recently has the Church recognized that a person may be born gay and cannot change their orientation. 

If you were not born gay and then chose to become gay then of course it would be sinful behavior. However if a person is gay by no fault of their own then I can understand their desire for love, marriage, companionship and intimacy. I recognize the church does not approve and I recognize it is sinful behavior but I understand their desire just as much as I understand my desire for my wife. 

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Where do you get that?

“... it [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation – practiced with another person of the same sex – and thence into total homosexuality.”

- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 78

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Only recently has the Church recognized that a person may be born gay and cannot change their orientation. 

I accept that some people are born gay and some  people decide to be gay.  But can you show me a quote from the Church saying they "cannot change" their orientation?

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

If you were not born gay and then chose to become gay then of course it would be sinful behavior. However if a person is gay by no fault of their own...

If it is possible to choose to become gay, then why is it out of the question for a gay person to choose to become heterosexual?

[BJ64]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I accept that some people are born gay and some  people decide to be gay.  But can you show me a quote from the Church saying they "cannot change" their orientation?

If it is possible to choose to become gay, then why is it out of the question for a gay person to choose to become heterosexual?

Could you choose to change your sexual orientation? Assuming it was not a sin to do so. 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yeah, I don't think I will be saying that.  However, I do believe that there will be significant legal challenges to the church and its position on gay marriage.... much more so than there is now.  I doubt that any of it will stick, but gay advocacy groups will try their best.

There is one thing to say that legally, the government should stay out of the marriage business.  I agree.  I'm a libertarian.  Why not?  I have no problem with the legal aspects of homosexuality.  There is a different standard for what is "acceptable" from a legal perspective vs. what is acceptable from an ecclesiastical perspective.

It is yet another thing altogether to say that "The Church really SHOULD change their position on gay marriage".  To openly advocate for the Church's acceptance of gay marriages is where I'd raise a red flag.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Could you choose to change your sexual orientation? Assuming it was not a sin to do so. 

Yes.  But you're not answering the question.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

There is one thing to say that legally, the government should stay out of the marriage business.  I agree.  I'm a libertarian.  Why not?  I have no problem with the legal aspects of homosexuality.  There is a different standard for what is "acceptable" from a legal perspective vs. what is acceptable from an ecclesiastical perspective.

It is yet another thing altogether to say that "The Church really SHOULD change their position on gay marriage".  To openly advocate for the Church's acceptance of gay marriages is where I'd raise a red flag.

You've summed up my thoughts on the issue, actually. Churches have no right to tell Mike he can't marry Steve-and Mike and Steve have no right to tell churches they have to preform the ceremony 

[BJ64]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Yes.

So you are saying that you could leave your wife and decide to become gay?

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, BJ64 said:

So you are saying that you could leave your wife and decide to become gay?

To some degree, there are no such things as heterosexuals or homosexuals. There are only homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. That doesn't mean that sexuality isn't biological-I think it is. 

[BJ64]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There is one thing to say that legally, the government should stay out of the marriage business.  I agree.  I'm a libertarian.  Why not?  I have no problem with the legal aspects of homosexuality.  There is a different standard for what is "acceptable" from a legal perspective vs. what is acceptable from an ecclesiastical perspective.

I said basically this same thing in another thread and was told that I should be released from my calling and have my temple recommend revoked for supporting gay marriage.

[BJ64]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

To some degree, there are no such things as heterosexuals or homosexuals. There are only homosexual acts and heterosexual acts. That doesn't mean that sexuality isn't biological-I think it is. 

That’s been the Church view for eons. If you don’t recognize that people can be homosexual then you only have to deal with the behavior. If you recognize that people can be homosexual then you have to deal with not only the behavior but also who someone is in their being. This is a much trickier issue to deal with because in essence telling a homosexual to become heterosexual is the same as telling someone they have to give up who they are as a heterosexual and become homosexual. A homosexual may conform to church norms and marry the opposite sex and have children but if they are homosexual in their heart and being it will not be fulfilling. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

So you are saying that you could leave your wife and decide to become gay?

I've answered your question.  Now it's your turn.  Answer mine, then ask me this question again, then I'll answer it.

You claimed that the Church's official position has changed to accept TWO points.  The first I readily agreed with.  I'm waiting for you to either back up the second (that the Church supports the idea that people cannot change their orientation) or back off and say that the Church has not said that.

[Grunt]

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I said basically this same thing in another thread and was told that I should be released from my calling and have my temple recommend revoked for supporting gay marriage.

What Carb said below.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Grunt

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I said basically this same thing in another thread and was told that I should be released from my calling and have my temple recommend revoked for supporting gay marriage.

Nope you never described any separation of Church and state.  Your actual words described a separation of your opinion from the Church's opinion.  I asked you to clarify your position if I was wrong in that interpretation.  You never did clarify.  That is why I raised the red flag.  You never clarified that it was about legal vs. ecclesiastical.  You said it was about what you would do vs the Church's position.  Again, I asked for your clarification.  And you never offered anything to this effect.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

However since there is no scripture whatsoever mentioning masturbation, . . .

Not entirely.  There’s a reason that they call it “onanism”.  (Although, yes, I realize there’s more to the story.)

Edited May 16, 2018 by Just_A_Guy