Jump to content

Anonymous Mormon

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About Anonymous Mormon

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I too am glad to see that the church is working to try to reduce hate and contention. I think this is a good goal for all of us as individuals and institutions. That said, I am not nearly as offended by the use of the word "counterfeit" as everyone else seems to be and don't think it's worth this much effort in a discussion. First, it said counterfeit lifestyles, not marriages were an attack on the traditional family - I can think of lots of lifestyles outside of LGBT that would fit this description. Second, even if he was referring to marriage the legal definition of SSM at that time in the majority of the US states SSM was technically counterfeit (definition: An illegal imitation), just like if California had released a new dollar bill that was deemed counterfeit by the majority of the states. I think that taken in a legal context, it would have to be considered less offensive than if someone used the term now. But, in an effort to reduce hate and contention, I think it's good to try to use less divisive and offensive language. So I think it's a good word to stop using in this context
  2. Yes, I feel like this thread is quickly descending into what I described previously - the SSA (Same-Six Attackers) are going to all pile on with negative comments about the church and its leaders (such as Elder Perry who was a kind-hearted, loving Apostle) because it maintains the Christian values as taught in the Bible - that a Man and Woman is what God wants for a marriage.
  3. Your thoughts and suggestion were noted and appreciated.
  4. Maybe the term 'lots' is too broad. I honestly feel like it's only ~6 people in any given thread who are always attacking and negative about everything the church does. Their primary repeating theme is that 1) the church is hypocrites (receive tithing but not help the poor, do not show enough love to those who sin, etc) and 2) the church leaders are not receiving guidance from God / the prophet is not the Lord's mouthpiece. I usually think of them as The SSA (the same-six attackers)
  5. I am happy to reconsider what I wrote above. However, I think what I said is pretty accurate and that it's a fair assessment of what goes on with this message board: I honestly think that this is what happens on this board. Let's take the "Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage" thread. This thread has a good question about marriage/divorce and lots of people chime in with great responses. However a small minority of posters ignore, twist, and muddle the responses, then turn the thread into a discussion on same-sex marriage, and then make statements about the church and its members such as: "hypocrisy in being compassionate," and "I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has." I honestly feel that this happens on too many threads. I don't think my statement in my previous post is incorrect or wrong. Sadly I choose to limit my time on this board because I find it brings the spirit of contention to my thinking, which is too bad because I really just want to have some good discussions about Church theology and culture. I think I am now derailing this nice thread on the video, so I am happy to move on with my complaints elsewhere.
  6. Daniel - Thank you for responding to the actual question to re-write this statement in a way that doesn't negate the teachings of the church on family. There are so many people up-in-arms against the church's teaching that Marriage is between a man and woman and any time any one mentions that this is the doctrine and they don't believe it will change they are barraged with criticism. I typically assume that the offensive part to everyone in that camp is the 'marriage is between man and woman' and that they just jump on words like 'counterfeit' and 'offensive' as a means to have a chance to call the church or its leaders bigots. The fact that you actually took time to re-write this sentence in a way that maintains current church doctrine helps me see that you are truly bothered and offended by those specific words, as opposed to an entire doctrine. It also helps me to better understand how I might choose my words more carefully so as not to accidentally cause offense. This is much better than just yelling over and over that the church and its members are hypocrites and unloving because of its teachings. When people take that tack (and I feel lots of people on this board do this), then I assume that nothing I can say will ever be non-offensive, so I don't try to change the words that I use.
  7. This entire topic is the epitome of what I find frustrating about this forum. In nearly every topic the same 6 people all post negative, condescending, and rude things about the church. They take the most negative side of the topic and find a way to club the church and its members. They use statements about the church and its members such as: "hypocrisy in being compassionate," and "I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has." (note: I know the OP gave permission to change the topic - it is still annoying and what I dislike about this forum) Every time anyone gives an honest opinion in answer to a question they tear it down. Often when someone quotes a specific modern day prophet or apostle they point out any weakness/mistake of that prophet/apostle to automatically disregard the actual statement at hand. Every time someone answers with a sincere thought-out post it is immediately countered with the same anti-Mormon arguments. Amazingly, about 30% of topics devolve into the same old commentary of 'the Church is bigoted and hypocritical for how it treats Gays/Lesbians.' The rest of of the topics seem to devolve into snits about either a) the church is hypocrites (not enough love, practiced polygamy, accept tithing but neglect the poor, etc.) or b) that current church leaders don't receive revelation and are just making it up. As someone who believes in the church's doctrines and who believes that President Nelson is a prophet who receives revelation from the Lord, the trajectory of comments on this board gets very tiring. It makes me not want to post at all. I some times feel like maybe I should keep posting just so someone rebuts all of the negativity because I know there are those reading who are looking for real answers and its important they see some. I respect those who do keep posting even though they must tire of it. It is tiring that so many topics have to become a discussion on LGBT issues. Can we please start a new sub-forum outside of General and News called LGBT Issues? Then we make a rule that all LGBT topics must be in that forum and we can stop derailing all of the other threads with LGBT debates. Then I can just ignore that forum and enjoy conversations that aren't debates about LGBT. Honestly, the constant and repetitive critical comments from the same 6 people is just tiring and makes me not enjoy this forum. If you don't know/what who I am referring to, then Follow The Likes. If you follow the trail of Likes you will see who/what I am referring to.
  8. In an effort to try to figure out if the larger world saw the term 'same-sex attraction' as offensive I found this intriguing website of LGBTQ terminology: https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/ To be honest, there are so many terms out there and the terms are so fluid, that I am not sure how the church will ever be cool or not offend people. For example, this entry: Homosexual: The clinical term, coined in the field of psychology, for people with a same-sex sexual attraction. The word is often associated with the idea that same-sex attractions are a mental disorder, and is therefore potentially offensive to some people. This entry seems to prefer the term 'same-sex sexual attraction' and 'same-sex attractions' over the term Homosexual, because Homosexual is 'potentially offensive to some people.' Wow, there seem to be a lot of potential landmines and charged words out there for the church and its members to step on!
  9. I think we are both in agreement that two young boys acting in improper sexual behavior does not make the boy Gay. Would it not make the boy qualify though as having SSA? I now understand and appreciate your viewpoint. If I understand it, you feel that the church should only use the term Gay and never SSA, because SSA is offensive. I can respect that. I still struggle to see how the church can talk candidly to those who do not consider themselves Gay, but still have that attraction or has had those experiences. I guess they would just say, you should not act on Gay Attraction or should have Gay experiences. I just worry that would get them in just as much trouble, as when I write it, it seems harsh and awkward
  10. See the post I just posted above. I do believe there are is a larger group of boys who have had sexual interaction with other boys than there are of those who actively identify as Gay or Bisexual. These are boys who would not identify as either of these. How would you suggest the church address this audience (which I believe is sizable)? What terms would you prefer that would both reach these youth and not be offensive to the gay community (ideally you could give a couple of examples as well please)?
  11. The reason I joined this board originally was to give a voice of someone who was addicted to pornography and found relief and repentance in the church's and other 12-step programs. The 12-step program I have attended for the last 6 years is highly rigorous about doing inventories where you recount your full & complete story of pornography/sexual addiction, including the low-lights of how it started and where it ended. In this time I have sat through a lot of inventories from other men. To my surprise, in 20% - 30% of inventories that I have heard, the men have stated that some of their initial sexual experience came about with other boys their age. This was consensual sexual activity that occurred simply because a few young boys (usually 8 - 15 in age) were all sitting around viewing pornography together and decided to act out what they saw in real life. The majority of these men I work with are now in their 30s - 60s and all of them had married women and would not ever consider themselves gay. Most had never told another soul about their experience until the program. When these men grew up, the label Gay was not used regularly (at least I didn't hear it). These boys knew they had done something wrong, but have never been called Gay in their life. Most also grew up in a time where online pornography wasn't existent, abundant, or accessible (in almost all cases, it was magazines or cable that was the instigator). Our world has now changed, which makes me think this issues is only more common. Based upon these experiences, I suspect there is likely 2% - 6% of the 'straight' boys in the church who have had some kind of sexual interaction with other boys. I think the percentage of boys/men who are 'straight' but fooled around with other boys is likely much higher than boys/men who identify as 'gay' in an average Priesthood session. The term Same-Sex Attraction seems like a good way to address the experience of these men who would not identify themselves as Gay. This is why maybe, "the Church needs special language to those with homosexual orientation who don't identify as gay." If there is indeed a higher percentage of men/boys who have had sex with men, but don't consider themselves Gay in an audience, what term would you recommend that a church leader use to address the issue at hand? If these people don't consider themselves Gay, could a leader say, "Do not have Gay activity" or "Don't act on Gay tendencies" and make it is as impactful to this audience? How should the church address this sizable audience of boys with this struggle and need for repentance who do not consider themselves Gay and would not resonate with the term Gay?
  12. Great question! That statement written by the church seems to be well thought out and written. For everyone who is saying the church shouldn't use the term SSA, I want to understand if that statement is offensive because it uses the term same-sex attraction? If so, how would it be better written to not be offensive while still capturing the same essence of thought?
  13. Based upon this thread, I have learned that the 'Gay Community' finds the term Same-Sex Attraction to be negative. I appreciate CaliforniaBoy and others who have pointed this out, as I have learned something new and will avoid using this term for someone who considers themselves actively part of the gay community, as my goal is not to offend them. However, I am still not 100% sold on whether or not General Authorities should avoid this term? As was taught by Dallin H Oaks: "We who are General Authorities and general officers are called to teach His general rules. You and we then lead specific lives and must seek the Lord’s guidance regarding specific circumstances. But there would be mass confusion and loss of gospel promises if no general ideal and no doctrinal standard were established and, in our case today, repeated." So coming back to my list of 8 options for how to phrase a statement that might be given by a General Authority, I was told that the least offensive statement if you were speaking to the Gay Community would be "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin." . But what if you are speaking to members of the church generally in General Conference and not to the Gay Community. What if you were wanting to address that boy or girl that is 12 years old and not sure which gender they are attracted to because there are so many voices out there in the media and they only have more friends of their same gender and they don't have any friends of the opposite gender (this description fit me at the age of 12 - I only had friends who were guys and wasn't yet really attracted to girls). Does a General Authority want to label this young kid as Gay at that point? Maybe that kid will consider themselves bi-sexual some day or maybe it's honestly just an unknown to them because they are still a fairly blank slate because they aren't yet sexually matured. So if a General Authority is teaching, is it less offensives to say statement option a) "Having same-sex attraction is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin" than it is to say my option b) "Being attracted to the same sex is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin"? And if we are completely honest, wouldn't it be fair to say that the statement that was selected as least offensive, which was Option C) "Being gay is not a sin. It is when we act on the inclination or attraction that it becomes a sin,"  would likely still be considered offensive to the Gay Community? I can imagine that many (most?) Gay people will still consider this statement to be offensive and potentially hate speech because this statement negates the true essence and identity of being gay and says that if you act on who you are and who God created you to be, then you are sinner. Most would find that idea to be hate speech and offensive, isn't that right? (for example Buttigieg recently made similar comments) So I guess my question then becomes, if no matter what is said by General Authorities on the topic it's going to offend the Gay Community and could be considered at least offensive and at most Hate Speech, then does it really matter which of these options they choose and shouldn't they choose the one that would resonate the most with the young church members who are trying to figure out their sexual identity in a barrage of messaging from the media?
  14. @kllindley - It sounds like you have a different viewpoint on this topic and are in the audience of those being discussed. Do you care to share more of your background and experience with these terms to help us get a broader perspective?
  15. Sorry, it may not be rocket science, but I am still not at all certain and am learning all kinds of new things here (for example the term breeder - I have never heard that term and am not sure if I'd be offended or not by it. I don't think so and I think I qualify, since I have 5 kids - but maybe if I knew of the baggage associated with the term I'd feel different). But in my example above, it was a talk at general conference not a message to the gay community. If it were a talk at general conference to members of the church who might be gay or have same-sex attraction, does that change the context and which examples I gave would be offensive / not offensive? Which of the statements of the ones I listed would be the most offensive? Are any of them really bad or are they all just kind of annoying?
×
×
  • Create New...