Comments on: Interview with Michael Glatze

By: I

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:01:35 +0000

From my own experience, sexuality is so fluid.

Many stupid persons believe that it’s innate and non changeable. A mùinority knows that it’s far away to be innate.

People tend to believe what activists say to them without analysing it.

Many resarches concluded that homosexuality is not innate, and it can be changed. But in vain.

I understand why Galileo was killed whan he said that the earth is turning around. The reason that they dont’ believe him is that they don’t feel that it’s true.

Warren, i agree with you, i readed many topics in your website and they are amazing.

Cordially

By: Aksehl

Aksehl — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:16:20 +0000

In response to those that bring up Roy Masters I wish to attest to the fact that his meditation does seem to work. It’s not an overnight thing although it did make it possible for me to give up gay “hook up” web sites overnight. Before meditating I could not make it through a day without visiting a couple such sites, often spending hours on them. After just a couple times of doing the “be still and know” meditation I was no longer feeling the need to log on to them and I dropped my profiles and haven’t been back in over a year. After a few weeks of meditating I wasn’t able to tolerate the sexual touch of another man, even if I still desired it, which is odd. I’d get into a situation where I’d be alone with a guy I thought I was attracted to but when it got sexual he didn’t look good to me anymore and I couldn’t go through with it. Also,after a couple months of meditating I had a dream about swimming with three naked women and woke up with a strong erection. This actually scared, confused me and I stopped meditating for awhile, then started again, then stopped again. It seems I still look at men with “women’s eyes” as Roy puts it, but the draw is nowhere near as strong as it used to be, unless I resent the attraction or get upset with myself, then it get’s stronger. One has to have a care free attitude as this affliction is fed and grows stronger through resentment. Roy is clearly onto something.

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:06:15 +0000

Yes Russell – just like heterosexuality – and as of yet, there is evidence of a gene or set of genes influencing orientation – though there isn’t definitive proof, the evidence we do have leads in that direction – but like all things, genes are never really the final word.

By: Russell

Russell — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:31:24 +0000

As an orthodox and educated Latter Day Saint myself, I am pretty well-acquainted with the Church literature on the topic. Homosexual orientation–bot in public and “behind the scenes” IS ACKNOWLEDGED as being a possibility. What that orientation means, however, is what is questioned. In a recent interview with Dallin H. Oaks and Lance Wickman on the lds.org website, they offer a qualified comparison of homosexual orientation to a physical limitation, like being confined to a wheelchair or being born without a limb. The BYU honor code (which school I attend) also makes a clear distinction between orientation and behavior, stating that “orientation is not an Honor Code issue.”

One might summarize the Church’s stance as being ambiguous–some things we really don’t know. You may quote past leaders with various opinions, insights, but the bottom line is that we do not know. That, my friends, is the Church’s stance.

Re: biological elements, while there is no gay gene per se (no “inherited” trait–to use genetics terminology), there might be some element of “heritable” traits behind homosexuality. Of course, these traits are subject to numerous other factors–environment, biological/chemical makeup, personal choice.

By: Boo

Boo — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:06:24 +0000

Woo-hoo! Thread derailment!

We do not believe that God asked Christ and Satan to come up with two plans (an outright false idea of LDS doctrine that is explicitly condemned by Church leaders), but rather that God had ONE plan, embodied in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ (who was his Beloved and Chosen from the beginning), and that Satan rebelled against that plan.

From the LDS scripture “Book of Moses”:

“And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan… is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

“But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power… I caused that he should be cast down” (Moses 4:1-3.)

From ldsfamilies.com:

Long before the world was formed, we lived with our Father in Heaven, our Savior, Jesus Christ, and all our other brothers and sisters. A plan was laid forth by our Heavenly Father whereby we might have the opportunity to become like Him. There were two who stepped forth to fulfill the plan. One, Jesus Christ, willing to execute the plan in accordance with our Father, and another, Satan, who wished to force all of the Father’s children to return and in exchange for this, wished for all the glory. The Father chose Jesus Christ, which was ratified by all in attendance, to carry forth the plan, whereby all of His children might be returned to Him. A great war took place, as is outlined in Revelations. Jesus Christ, Michael and their followers won this battle and Satan and the one third of the hosts of heaven were forever cast out of the presence of Heavenly Father.

We believe that Christ is God, not just “a perfect man.”

But not in the same sense as mainstream Christianity, as Jesus being of one substance with The Father, correct?

And that’s not even getting into the whole as we are God once was, as God is we may become thing.

Anyone wanna place bets on how many posts until Warren steps in and returns us to our regularly scheduled argument?