Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

800 Excellent

About flameburns623

  • Rank
    Former LDS considering return
  • Birthday 02/03/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern Illinois--near St. Louis

Recent Profile Visitors

2,596 profile views
  1. Thanks for answering, CB. If it is of any interest to you, the radio show which played the clip was called "Issues, Etcetera", a Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod broadcast (the LC/MS is headquartered here in Saint Louis and has--or had--a radio station here). The program was once a very popular broadcast, and might still be although I think the Mission Synod sold their radio station. I haven't listened to the station since 2007 or so, so the broadcast I heard is many years ago. (Just checked: Issues ETC has a website with extensive archives. But the older shows are not dated and would take me forever to sift through. Meanwhile this is off topic and would need it's own thread). Thanks again for responding.
  2. @california boy: Bill asked an interesting question which might have been glossed over, (and which might derail this thread if dwelt upon too long). He suggested based upon anecdotal stories that gay culture is such that even now that same-sex marriage is a viable secular option, gay people would not normally wait, chastely, for marriage before engaging in sexual behavior. Years ago, a Christian talk show played an extended clip of a Christian gay spokesperson talking about how homosexual males tend to favor committed relationships with flexible or permeable borders. He explicitly said that as homosexual Christians are accepted in the churches, they will have to help Christianity redifine "fidelity in marriage" to be accepting of committed-but-open marriages. Again, some half-remembered Christian gay-marriage advocate from circa 2005/6 doesn't get to speak for all gays, everywhere. But: IS this relaxed attitude towards chastity, fidelity, etcetera a common aspect of gay culture, in your opinion? Would acceptance of persons in same-sex marriages mean Christians would be receiving into fellowship significant numbers of people who would not respect traditional boundaries of moral behavior, who might seek to redefine it? Sorry to put you on the spot but: your thoughts? It's one of the peripheral issues which I have heard Evangelical Christians raise in objecting to accepting couples in same-sex marriage.
  3. To the extent we actually know anything about the inner workings of the foremost General Authorities. Are you privy to a judicial decree that formally declared Thomas S. Monson to be entirely non compis mentis, for example? Mostly these things are surmisals based on hearsay. IIRC, President Monson was still showing up for General Conference and even speaking in 2015. He wasn't playing rugby or designing interstellar cruise rockets, but he had some level of functionality. And while we hear that certain GA's were shut out of the November 2015 Policy, I don't know if we have it on record directly from THEM. (I stand ready to be corrected). The critics are approximately as fallible as the General Authorities, in my view. Best to maintain some sense of reserve.
  4. If "God revealed both policies" to Church leadership, (I personally think California Boy is apt in drawing parallels to the decision to produce New Coke), it is conceivable that God had specific purposes to accomplish. The 2015 decision put the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the camp of those who will resist any attempt to redefine marriage, perhaps in view of the perception that the Church might soften its values on homosexuality. The policy essentially began a winnowing process, encouraging those who might be less valient in the principles of the Gospel. It could have been intended to help the Church establish a line of demarcation from those faith groups which are makung adjustments and accommodations to contemporary culture. The 2019 reversion of policy could serve the Divine purpose of minimizing temporal hurt and confusion which might prove an obstacle. After all, homosexuality remains a serious transgression in the LDS Church. It is still subject to disciplinary action. God could conceivably have intended to say, "Okay: now that a point has been made, let's not overdo things in another direction". I underscore that my personal opinion about this matter, (as with the current policy of suppressing use of the appellation "Mormon" to describe members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), is that both are purely human, administrative, and strategic calculations. The 2015 policy was in my judgement an outright error, reversed in 2019. The jury is out IMHO regarding the use of the nickname "Mormon.
  5. Somehow, this has felt appropriate twice today: by Yehuda Amichai From the place where we are right Flowers will never grow In the spring. The place where we are right Is hard and trampled Like a yard. But doubts and loves Dig up the world Like a mole, a plow. And a whisper will be heard in the place Where the ruined House once stood.
  6. by Yehuda Amichai From the place where we are right Flowers will never grow In the spring. The place where we are right Is hard and trampled Like a yard. But doubts and loves Dig up the world Like a mole, a plow. And a whisper will be heard in the place Where the ruined House once stood.
  7. And if you believe you have covenanted with nothing? Or if you feel you are entering into higher or truer covenants?
  8. See "symbolic interactionism", a sociological paradigm.
  9. Conceivably, there may have been "dozens" of Stake Presidents, actively looking the other way while known LGBT members, perhaps many or most inactive or less-active, were in varying sorts of proscribed relationships. Those Stake Presidents perhaps were being relatively outspoken (within what they hoped were discreet venues) that they intended to pursue "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policies with respect to such members. At least so long as such members were not being called to significant ward or stake callings, were usually on the margins of ward life, etcetera. This still might have been a concern to General Authorities, as it implied a quiescent attitude toward LGBTQIA issues which would make it difficult to continue to sound forth a clear message about living the Law of Chastity. I am speculating here. But understand this: much of the corporate world now insists that managers be LGBTQIA-friendly, that they permit LGBT employees to be "out-and-open" in the workplace. Stake Presidents, it is my impression, tend to be drawn from the same demographic of people who are also going to hold responsible positions in corporate management. Whatever the private religious feelings of a Latter-Day Saint in a management position in many-perhaps most-corporate enterprises today, they must work with LGBTQIA persons, cheerfully and productively. I suspect this shapes how they would want to interact with known LGBT persons who, for whatever reasons, retain some semblance of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So, while admitting that I am only speculating: it would not surprise me that a significant number of Stake Presidents might have felt that in the contemporary climate of 2015, ignoring the relationship status of LGBTQIA would be a good idea. While the General Authorities, who tend to be a generation or two removed from the current workforce culture, might still see it a greater priority to continue to enforce a more rigid moral code.
  10. In the RCC, any baptised person can perform baptism. Rites for the dead are reserved to the Catholic priesthood.
  11. Graeco-Roman culture, Japanese culture, Hindu and Chinese culture, various native cultures, could and did make provisions for homosexuality which were excluded as a possibility within cultures shaped by Abrahamic monotheism. Abrahamism is particularly obsessive about regulating sexuality and limiting it. Because of Abrahamism as it has normally been articulated in the United States and Europe, monogamy probably "feels instinctual" to you. Yet your forebears in the aboriginal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were engaged in an endeavor to normalize polygyny, (an experiment which continues in some fundamentalist Mormon splinters). Much of what you are deeming "instinctual" is not the universal experience of the human race vis'a'vis human sexuality. But: same-sex relationships in many places involved indignities and exploitation What has emerged largely in my lifetime, is something very unique: the idea that people same-sex attractions can live together in an extended, hopefully lifelong, committed relationship, akin to the established heterosexual relationships which you assume are "natural". Believing Abrahamists are having a tough time adapting to this. Wider secular culture is a bit more accommodating, though most secular moderns are only one or two generations removed from devout Abrahamic faiths and therefore have some biases and concomitant squeamishness. But your sense that antipathy to homosexuality is natural or that same-sex marriage violates "natural law" is a value assumption.
  12. I am increasingly of a mind that "it" doesn't. "Truths" exist. Lower-case "truths", infinitely malleable "truths". I am ever more agnostic about "Truth".
  13. Find attached Part One of the John Dehlin interview with numerous people about the reversal of the November 2015 policy. The conversation about how the Church exploits various aspects of prophetic narrative to profess "victory" no matter what happens is relatively early in the show. If you want to watch the entire podcast, better brew up a pot of Mormon coffee and settle down in a comfy place. This is a long one.
  14. I'm suggesting something very unflattering about your credulity.
  15. Dr. Bokovoy might disagree with you. David's statement this morning;
  • Create New...