178 replies to this topic

[Log]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and then couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

Suppose the vid is successful in diverting even one soul into permanently departing the next life - what is its value then?

[smac97]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

I agree. But that's irrelevant to my point. I am addressing how to handle people that are on the ledge. Your "okay" to these statements appears to be disengenuous, because you are quite sure the subtext is really the main text. I disagree.

I am not being disingenuous.  And I am not saying that "the subtext is really the main text," or anything like it.  I am calling it a "subtext" for a reason.

Quote

I see the vid as speaking to LDS gays that are mature in dispare, that are on the ledge. What such people need at that moment in there lives is not the law of the gospel by the mercy of the gospel.

I agree.  

Quote

Get them down of the ledge first, the tool of choice ( which was masterfully wielded in the vid) is the safety of a pair of outstretched arms bathed in unconditional love.

I agree.

Quote

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and then couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

And there is where we disagree.  I think it is entirely possible to do everything you've just described without the subtext.  The subtext introduces problems that may lead young Latter-day Saints back to despair by falsely implying that homosexual conduct can be reconciled with living according to the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97, 25 April 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[Senator]

smac97, on 25 April 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

I am not being disingenuous.  And I am not saying that "the subtext is really the main text," or anything like it.  I am calling it a "subtext" for a reason.

Yet you are more than willing to through the baby out with the bath water.

Quote

And there is where we disagree.  I think it is entirely possible to do everything you've just described without the subtext.  The subtext introduces problems that may lead young Latter-day Saints back to despair by falsely implying that homosexual conduct can be reconciled with living according to the Restored Gospel.

I think the first and foremost desire of the participants on the vid (at least two of whom had suicidal kids) is to see that young Latter-day Saints simply live (meaning, stay alive).

[smac97]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Yet you are more than willing to through the baby out with the bath water.

What do you mean?

Quote

I think the first and foremost desire of the participants on the vid (at least two of whom had suicidal kids) is to see that young Latter-day Saints simply live (meaning, stay alive).

I know.  I have repeatedly said that I admire this aspect of the vid.  But that shouldn't preclude us from discussing the troubling subtext.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

Log, on 25 April 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Suppose the vid is successful in diverting even one soul into permanently departing the next life - what is its value then?

??

That's not enough?

[smac97]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

??

That's not enough?

I too do not understand Log's comment.

[Senator]

smac97, on 25 April 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

What do you mean?

That the subtext is so disturbing, that as the vid now stands you would rather they not have produced it. That the severity of the subtext is enough to eclipse the main text to the point of deeming it worthy of deep sixing.

Quote

I know.  I have repeatedly said that I admire this aspect of the vid.

But seemingly not as much as you disdain the subtext aspect.

Quote

But that shouldn't preclude us from discussing the troubling subtext.

Of course

[smac97]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

That the subtext is so disturbing, that as the vid now stands you would rather they not have produced it.

I said that?  Where?

And why are you making this thread about me?

And will you stop doing that?

Quote

But seemingly not as much as you disdain the subtext aspect.

Kindly shelve the comments about me and get back on topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

smac97, on 25 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

I said that?  Where?

It is a subtext that I perceived.

Quote

And why are you making this thread about me?

And will you stop doing that?


Kindly shelve the comments about me and get back on topic.
  

Ah..

I'll let it rest.

Edited by Senator, 25 April 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Log]

smac97, on 25 April 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I too do not understand Log's comment.

I asked Senator how valuable the video would be if, in consequence of watching it, even one person committed spiritual suicide as a result of the subtext, by disregarding the commandments and ultimately dying in their sins.

Edited by Log, 25 April 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[smac97]

Log, on 25 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

I asked Senator how valuable the video would be if, in consequence of watching it, even one person committed spiritual suicide as a result of the subtext, by disregarding the commandments and ultimately dying in their sins.

I'd rather not go there.  Too much speculation and too much presumption.  Let's get back on topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[epiginosko]

I think I understand where the disagreement really lies about this video...and I don't really think it should be a disagreement at all.

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

1.  There are gay members of the Church.
2.  There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.
3.  None of us wish to see a brother or sister, a son or daughter, commit suicide.

However, this video also seems to present in it's sub-text a political ideology which not all agree upon.  It seems to be underscored with the socially-progressive stance that:

1.  Homosexuality is natural and acceptable.
2.  Homosexuality should be accepted.
3.  Society is changing to gradually accept homosexuality.

What I don't think the video is saying, which seems to be implied to some is:

1.  The Church is gradually accepting homosexuality.
2.  The Church needs to reverse its doctrines to accept homosexuality.

So, as I posed to Smac, how would the members here have worded a similar message?  I would be interested in seeing some specific examples of verbiage, not just conceptually, keeping in mind a similar target audience.

[Senator]

Log, on 25 April 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

I asked Senator how valuable the video would be if, in consequence of watching it, even one person committed spiritual suicide as a result of the subtext, by disregarding the commandments and ultimately dying in their sins.

You did???

I echo Smac's reply to this only to add that I find the implication to your statement/question, simply repulsive, and I won't speak further to it.

Edited by Senator, 25 April 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[smac97]

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

I think I understand where the disagreement really lies about this video...and I don't really think it should be a disagreement at all.

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

1.  There are gay members of the Church.

Yes.

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

2.  There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.

Anecdotally, yes.  But there is substantial disagreement as to the reasons for this.  Some blame the doctrines of the Church and uncharitable church members.  Some blame popular culture for advising young Latter-day Saints to disregard their religious beliefs and to engage in prohibited conduct.

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

3.  None of us wish to see a brother or sister, a son or daughter, commit suicide.

Yes.

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

However, this video also seems to present in it's sub-text a political ideology which not all agree upon.  It seems to be underscored with the socially-progressive stance that:

1.  Homosexuality is natural and acceptable.
2.  Homosexuality should be accepted.
3.  Society is changing to gradually accept homosexuality.

Assuming that your references to "homosexuality" encompass both the latent orientation and sexual behavior arising therefrom, then yes.

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

What I don't think the video is saying, which seems to be implied to some is:

1.  The Church is gradually accepting homosexuality.
2.  The Church needs to reverse its doctrines to accept homosexuality.

I'm not sure that's the implication.  The implication seems to be that young Latter-day Saints with SSA can/should disregard the doctrines and teachings of the Restored Gospel, and that this may become easier to do if and when social pressure (perhaps including pressure from the "allies" Dehlin referenced) coerces the Church to capitulate on its doctrines and allow homosexual behavior within the Church.

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

So, as I posed to Smac, how would the members here have worded a similar message?  I would be interested in seeing some specific examples of verbiage, not just conceptually, keeping in mind a similar target audience.

An interesting question, but not one I'm prepared to address without some due consideration.  And it's also a bit off-topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Log]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

You did???

I echo Smac's reply to this only to add that I find the implication to your statement/question, simply repulsive, and I won't speak further to it.

You are free to find it as offensive as you like.  I simply took your statement and applied it to the next life.  Let us recall what you said.

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and then couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

I suggest your values are a wee bit out of synch.

Edited by Log, 25 April 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[smac97]

Log, on 25 April 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

You are free to find it as offensive as you like.  I simply took your statement and applied it to the next life.  Let us recall what you said.

I suggest your values are a wee bit out of synch.

Please shelve the personal critiques.  Talk about the topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Log]

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

2.  There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.

Where are the studies showing that gays who are members suffer a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide compared to gays who are not members?

I seem to recall that, even in homophiliac countries (Netherlands, New Zealand), gays, per se, suffer a disproportionate amount of mental problems, presumably including depression and suicide, compared to non-gays.

Edited by Log, 25 April 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Pahoran]

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

I think I understand where the disagreement really lies about this video...and I don't really think it should be a disagreement at all.

First, the points that we can mostly agree upon:

1.  There are gay members of the Church.
2.  There is a disproportionate amount of depression and suicide among gay members of the Church.
3.  None of us wish to see a brother or sister, a son or daughter, commit suicide.

I'd be interested to know what you have in  mind with your point 2.  "Disproportionate" in what way?  I think we can all agree that homosexuals experience depression and commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals do.  Alan Turing, for example, experienced depression (which is a medical condition) and committed suicide without any known exposure to the baleful influence of Mormon teachings.

Let me ask you this question: do you believe that, after controlling for regional factors and the "gay" effect, homosexuals in the Church are more likely to commit suicide than homosexuals outside of the Church?

Because, you see, I don't.  I regard that claim as politically-motivated propaganda.

And perhaps that is the most unfortunate "subtext" of this video.

epiginosko, on 25 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

However, this video also seems to present in it's sub-text a political ideology which not all agree upon.  It seems to be underscored with the socially-progressive stance that:

Speaking of propaganda, I find expressions like "socially progressive" to be both value-laden and question-begging.  I don't regard decadence as progress.

Regards,
Pahoran

Edited by Pahoran, 25 April 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[epiginosko]

Pahoran, on 25 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

I'd be interested to know what you have in  mind with your point 2.  "Disproportionate" in what way?  I think we can all agree that homosexuals experience depression and commit suicide at a higher rate than heterosexuals do.

I only have the percentages from BYU at hand which shows that 75% of gay students have contemplated suicide and 25% have attempted it. That seems disproportionate to the straight community.  This is actually a good question.  As I am a Sociology minor, I may have to propose a comparative study on this at Weber State University to see if there is any correlation at a non-LDS run school.

Pahoran, on 25 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Let me ask you this question: do you believe that, after controlling for regional factors and the "gay" effect, homosexuals in the Church are more likely to commit suicide than homosexuals outside of the Church?

My assumption would be that this would be the case in any predominantly social conservative environment where homosexual activity is considered morally wrong.  I doubt it is exclusive to Mormonism.  However, I have no data to back that up.

Pahoran, on 25 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Because, you see, I don't.  I regard that claim as politically-motivated propaganda. And perhaps that is the most unfortunate "subtext" of this video.

Fair enough.  We have two working theories.  Now we need objective data.  

Pahoran, on 25 April 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Speaking of propaganda, I find expressions like "socially progressive" to be both value-laden and question-begging.  I don't regard decadence as progress.

"Socially progressive" is simply used in this context as a label for a particular ideology, not an endorsement of it.  You may feel more inclined to label it as "the liberal agenda," however that is not without its own bias.

I want to make clear here that I am interested in objectivity, not arguing a particular bias.  I understand the church's doctrines and policies well.  I am a faithful, recommend-carrying member.  I have served in a Bishopric.  I understand the laws and commandments that we covenant to keep.  This, to me, is a sociological problem with an "easier said than done" solution.

I know that Smac said that my request for how this group would address the same problem to the same audience was off-topic, but I don't think that it is.  However, being "without form and void," I don't seem to have the ability to start my own topics, otherwise I would propose that and see if a more doctrinally sound message could be created to address this sensitive issue.

[wenglund]

cinepro, on 23 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

What are the accepted and appropriate expressions of homosexual affection for gay LDS?

Christ-like love--i.e. the same kind of affection extended to them by those in the video.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-