![]() |
Quote:
For example, my hair length right now hasn't stopped me from recently renewing my temple recommend, but I'd be kicked out of the testing center at BYU for it and have to explain myself to those in the HC office why my hair is the same length as the Savior's in all the paintings I've ever seen of him, including, I'm assuming, paintings of him in buildings on the BYU campus. |
Quote:
Of course we know how it goes. It gets read by a secretary and gets sent to the stake president. I like my stake president. He's the one that gave the seminal "big tent" impromptu speech in my ward. He also sent out on email explaining that the federal amendment from the FP was not a request to vote for it. |
Quote:
Maybe in the hereafter, Heinlein's Stranger is more representative of how relations will be and our current cultural expectation for relations will be changed or done away with. The real reason is for control and money. Perhaps societies merely created the artifice of marriage to control the delivery of offspring and its retention. |
Quote:
Period. Because love is a gift from God. And the love of a man towards a man is evil. It's really simple. And it explains how the church cannot budge an inch in recognizing any truth in the love of a man for a man. Will specific examples convince you? I doubt it. So I won't go to the trouble of acquiring them. |
This is an excerpt from BYU's honor code:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am confused (really, and more so than usually). Are you spekaing euphemistically about the love of a man for a woman? Or do you mean that the church literally will discipline a man for being emoitonally attached to another man regardless of any physical consumamtion of the attachemnt? I am not aware that this is true; do you believe it to be true? |
Quote:
The existence of a phenomenon not theologically explainable, especially one as significant as homosexuality, suggests that the entire scheme is man created, not inspired and we're all just base animals. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Base animal = natural man. |
Quote:
God would not create something that serves no purpose, but as science proves the probability of a combination of mostly genetic, with in utero factors, determining sexuality, then the existence of something which serves no evolutionary purpose proves the non-existence of God. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.