Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Town Hall on LDS Church Policy Change

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that. I was just explaining why I felt you failed at making the point you were trying to make. :pardon:

But it doesn't really matter.  Neither of us are arguing matters of great significance to anyone else. 

Oh... based on the responses to that comment it seems that I did make the point I was trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are a variety of ways a message can be made public.  Do you see it as possible that some of those ways may be bad while others may be good.

I am not saying that there are not traditionalists that label your nuanced view as apostate, but most at least appear to grant you the ability to hold a nuanced position and to present it relatively accurately even if they vehemently disagree with it.  OTOH, it seems to me that often nontraditionalists reduce the traditionalists' views to be much less nuanced than it is.  Your implication that if something is a message any way it is made public should be acceptable to Deborah is an example. I believe I have given several other examples as well where nuances are removed from views and only the extremes are presented as if those are the only choices of opinion a traditionlist could hold.

It makes it very difficult to have a conversation.  And I think Deborah appears to feel the same.  It may not be intentional, but it appears to me you have misrepresented hers and others' viewpoints by going to extreme positions in this discussion.

I am not saying that there aren't plenty of traditionalists labeling nontraditionalists' views as "apostate" but that has nothing to do with rejecting the possibility of a view to be nuanced.  Being able to discuss what a view consists of is an essential part of creating a discourse, an effective discussion on whether views are appropriate or not can't actually occur until views are accurately portrayed.

Good point and I will try harder.  My response to Deborah was not intended to take the nuance out of her position.  I was honestly trying to understand.  But I get what you are saying now.

I agree with you that acknowledging that nuance (for all sides of a discussion) is important for productive dialogue.  It's a common frustration I have here that my points get reduced to something that isn't really representative of what I believe.  So where I am guilty of doing that to others, I'll work on correcting myself.  Feel free to call me out on it... I respect your approach here and value your input.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh... based on the responses to that comment it seems that I did make the point I was trying to make.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  

I think we've each said all we can. Probably time to move on. :)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  

I think we've each said all we can. Probably time to move on. :)

Not so fast...

In all honesty, why would someone take offense when none was intended? I have struggled on this board to find words that accurately delineate between those who have same sex attraction and those who are sexually active with those of the same sex. I have tried to be sensitive, but it is very clumsy to say something like "practicing homosexuals", "sexually active homosexuals", etc. None of them fit. I don't see why the term "gay lifestyle" would be offensive as it sums up the point nicely. It's not like it is meant to mean that they are out there having lots of partners and spreading disease. The only way I could see this being offensive is if someone was looking to be offended...

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Not so fast...

In all honesty, why would someone take offense when none was intended? I have struggled on this board to find words that accurately delineate between those who have same sex attraction and those who are sexually active with those of the same sex. I have tried to be sensitive, but it is very clumsy to say something like "practicing homosexuals", "sexually active homosexuals", etc. None of them fit. I don't see why the term "gay lifestyle" would be offensive as it sums up the point nicely. It's not like it is meant to mean that they are out there having lots of partners and spreading disease. The only way I could see this being offensive is if someone was looking to be offended...

For me, it creates an environment of "us vs them" when we use terminology like that; as if the lifestyle of our LGBT brothers and sisters is significantly different from ours.

If you want to delineate between those who are LGBT and those who are sexually active or breaking the law of chastity, is it a problem to just state that?

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For me, it creates an environment of "us vs them" when we use terminology like that; as if the lifestyle of our LGBT brothers and sisters is significantly different from ours.

If you want to delineate between those who are LGBT and those who are sexually active or breaking the law of chastity, is it a problem to just state that?

It is significantly different:

they are having sex with members of the same sex. That is pretty significant.

I can and I have, but it is very clumsy. Using gay lifestyle would save a lot of time and be much more simple.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

It is significantly different:

they are having sex with members of the same sex. That is pretty significant.

I can and I have, but it is very clumsy. Using gay lifestyle would save a lot of time and be much more simple.

Okay... well, just consider that the extra time it might take you to accurately describe the behavior you are referring to could pay off in making people feel like they are individuals rather than just a homogenous group.

Share this post


Link to post

Good grief. People talk about the single lifestyle, the lifestyles of the rich and famous, the college lifestyle. Most people know what is meant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎09‎/‎2015 at 1:26 PM, Deborah said:

...now but it has made clear the church's policies and many of the gays I've seen on FB are finally realizing they aren't going to find their lifestyle acceptable.

I and many of my friends believe that the effects of this policy will do within the church what the church's actions in Prop 8 did without the church... hasten the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

It feels to me as if the more entrenched the leadership of the church becomes on this issue, the more attention it brings to same-sex families.  Given many Latter-day Saint families have gay and lesbian family members, and given society's acceptance of the potential goodness of same-sex families, the discomfort with policies which feel increasingly anti-gay will become more and more of a wedge issue which ultimately will result in the new revelation.

As the saying goes, it is always darkest before the dawn. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/9/2015 at 10:50 AM, rockpond said:

Your answer is right there in your statement.  It's already been in effect so the creation of a special policy to single out gay couples is somewhat stunning to people.

I think it is singling out the children that is really stunning.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks to all of you who posted info on this meeting.  I'm still digesting it, but appreciate the info.

I'm still trying to figure out what they said in the meeting. The audio was so bad I couldn't listen for very long. 

I think I will wait for a transcript if there ever is one.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2015 at 7:13 PM, Storm Rider said:

I suppose that this bit of fantasy makes good propaganda, but it just does not make sense.  The child does not exist and never will exist.  Yet, the Brethren made allowance that if this rare situation should actually arise there is recourse to approach the First Presidency with the story of this unique child.  Everything else is just silly hand-wringing over nothing.  It isn't even good drama.  

So the Brethren wrote a policy about a child that will never exist?

But if the child should ever exist, you think they expect the leader to go against what's in the handbook and appeal to the FP?

I find that to be an odd position to stake out.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I and many of my friends believe that the effects of this policy will do within the church what the church's actions in Prop 8 did without the church... hasten the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

It feels to me as if the more entrenched the leadership of the church becomes on this issue, the more attention it brings to same-sex families.  Given many Latter-day Saint families have gay and lesbian family members, and given society's acceptance of the potential goodness of same-sex families, the discomfort with policies which feel increasingly anti-gay will become more and more of a wedge issue which ultimately will result in the new revelation.

As the saying goes, it is always darkest before the dawn. ;)

True.  But I still expect it LGBTC+ally relations with the church to become even more strained before things get better.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2015 at 5:26 PM, rockpond said:

Regarding nuance, you've been around to know quite well that my nuanced view is considered apostate by quite a few "traditionalists" here.
 

Unfortunately Rockpond, you don't give us much to work with.

Perhaps that's intentional.

If you have a "nuanced view," I seem to have missed where you spelled it out. You seem to think the Lord wants the Church to not only accept homosexual relationships of every kind, but actually to institute some kind of "same sex temple marriage." You also seem to think that the brethren haven't yet gotten the memo, but you insist that you fully sustain them. That doesn't sound like "nuance" as much as contradiction. Would you care to explain how that works, so that we poor slobs, lacking the subtlety of your sophisticated mind, can have a stab at understanding it?

Again, you insist that the original intent of the recent policy change was not what the brethren assert that it was. They are speaking from a position of absolute insider knowledge; they were not merely "flies on the wall" in those deliberations, they were the ones doing the deliberating. Yet when I point out that you are effectively accusing them of dishonesty when you assert that the original intent must have been other than what they say it was, (and said so from the very first comment on the subject) you go on the attack, accusing me of "spinning" and "misrepresenting" you. But you do not condescend to explain to me, in my benighted state, how it is that you can see them as being anything but dishonest. Is it your position that they can somehow be honestly mistaken about their direct personal knowledge of the process? If so, how? Or are you perhaps suggesting that they are in some sense "right," even while their assertions are, according to you, not true?

Please include me in your wonderful world of nuance, Rockpond. So far, you've shunned me therefrom. I feel unloved and underappreciated. Doubtless my feeble intellect is simply incapable of grasping the nuances of your position, but at least if you explain it to me, I won't have any more excuses.

So how about it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I and many of my friends believe that the effects of this policy will do within the church what the church's actions in Prop 8 did without the church... hasten the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

It feels to me as if the more entrenched the leadership of the church becomes on this issue, the more attention it brings to same-sex families.  Given many Latter-day Saint families have gay and lesbian family members, and given society's acceptance of the potential goodness of same-sex families, the discomfort with policies which feel increasingly anti-gay will become more and more of a wedge issue which ultimately will result in the new revelation.

As the saying goes, it is always darkest before the dawn. ;)

Wishful thinking dies hard.

But wasn't it you who was whining that the recent policy change proved that everything the Church had done around supporting gay rights in other areas (such as housing and employment) was just "empty words?" Meaning that you failed to grasp that the actions in question are actually fully compatible with each other, once we take into account the possibility that the Church is taking a "Benedict option?" Do you even know what that is?

Do you imagine that Church members are ignorant of the not merely "potential" but actual goodness of non-LDS families? Well, we're not; nonetheless, we still won't baptise the minor children of such families without parental consent and some degree of active family support. Did you not know that?

Or do you not feel you need to bother being informed about that, since it has nothing to do with gays? Is your world completely gay-centric?

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I and many of my friends believe that the effects of this policy will do within the church what the church's actions in Prop 8 did without the church... hasten the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

It feels to me as if the more entrenched the leadership of the church becomes on this issue, the more attention it brings to same-sex families.  Given many Latter-day Saint families have gay and lesbian family members, and given society's acceptance of the potential goodness of same-sex families, the discomfort with policies which feel increasingly anti-gay will become more and more of a wedge issue which ultimately will result in the new revelation.

As the saying goes, it is always darkest before the dawn. ;)

Your coffee is getting cold.... but dream on :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Unfortunately Rockpond, you don't give us much to work with.

Perhaps that's intentional.

If you have a "nuanced view," I seem to have missed where you spelled it out. You seem to think the Lord wants the Church to not only accept homosexual relationships of every kind, but actually to institute some kind of "same sex temple marriage." You also seem to think that the brethren haven't yet gotten the memo, but you insist that you fully sustain them. That doesn't sound like "nuance" as much as contradiction. Would you care to explain how that works, so that we poor slobs, lacking the subtlety of your sophisticated mind, can have a stab at understanding it?

Again, you insist that the original intent of the recent policy change was not what the brethren assert that it was. They are speaking from a position of absolute insider knowledge; they were not merely "flies on the wall" in those deliberations, they were the ones doing the deliberating. Yet when I point out that you are effectively accusing them of dishonesty when you assert that the original intent must have been other than what they say it was, (and said so from the very first comment on the subject) you go on the attack, accusing me of "spinning" and "misrepresenting" you. But you do not condescend to explain to me, in my benighted state, how it is that you can see them as being anything but dishonest. Is it your position that they can somehow be honestly mistaken about their direct personal knowledge of the process? If so, how? Or are you perhaps suggesting that they are in some sense "right," even while their assertions are, according to you, not true?

Please include me in your wonderful world of nuance, Rockpond. So far, you've shunned me therefrom. I feel unloved and underappreciated. Doubtless my feeble intellect is simply incapable of grasping the nuances of your position, but at least if you explain it to me, I won't have any more excuses.

So how about it?

 

I don't believe you to be capable of understanding nuance when it comes to this matter.  I've tried to help you but can't seem make any progress.

And the way you treat me on this board hasn't inspired me to give you much of my valuable time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I and many of my friends believe that the effects of this policy will do within the church what the church's actions in Prop 8 did without the church... hasten the acceptance of same-sex relationships.

It feels to me as if the more entrenched the leadership of the church becomes on this issue, the more attention it brings to same-sex families.  Given many Latter-day Saint families have gay and lesbian family members, and given society's acceptance of the potential goodness of same-sex families, the discomfort with policies which feel increasingly anti-gay will become more and more of a wedge issue which ultimately will result in the new revelation.

As the saying goes, it is always darkest before the dawn. ;)

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2015 at 8:03 PM, rockpond said:

I'm comfortable with nuance.  It's the only way I'm able to remain an active part of the church.  But I'm not being given much room to have a nuanced view of this policy. 

Has it occurred to you that you don't need a nuanced view of the policy? Just accept that it was given for the reasons given and go talk to the Lord about it. Why do you need to look for every excuse to murmur and complain about something the Church does?

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2015 at 4:58 AM, Russell C McGregor said:

But that's not what people are supposed to be baptised for, and I'm sorry to say that someone neglected to teach you properly. Baptism is not just an everyone-else-is-doing-it social occasion; it is about the covenant, whatever your eight-year-old self thought.

 

Exactly! So why wouldn't we want to stop anyone who wasn't serious about making covenants from being baptized?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Has it occurred to you that you don't need a nuanced view of the policy? Just accept that it was given for the reasons given and go talk to the Lord about it. Why do you need to look for every excuse to murmur and complain about something the Church does?

You seem to have taken that out of context.  We were discussing someone else having such a view. 

I don't, actually, need a nuanced view of the policy.  It seems very clear to me and I do accept the reasons given.  

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't believe you to be capable of understanding nuance when it comes to this matter.  I've tried to help you but can't seem make any progress.

And the way you treat me on this board hasn't inspired me to give you much of my valuable time.

 

You're probably right that I couldn't understand it. My intellectual inferiority is both complete and crippling.

But who knows what might happen if you were to make an effort to explain it to me? Even if I, with my subnormal brain, couldn't grasp it, I'm sure that others could.

So even if I'm completely unworthy of your oh so valuable time, I'm sure it might benefit others.

Not only that, but if I were to suspect that you're refusing to explain the nuance because it's actually just a fig-leaf to cover the disconnect between the positions you argue and the claims you make about yourself, you could demonstrate to all the world just how wrong I am.

So, how about it?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

You seem to have taken that out of context.  We were discussing someone else having such a view. 

I don't, actually, need a nuanced view of the policy.  It seems very clear to me and I do accept the reasons given.  

That's refreshing to hear.

It's also a little jarring, considering some of the other things you've posted about it.

How do you account for that, given that his isn't an instance of that "nuance" you don't want to condescend to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You're probably right that I couldn't understand it. My intellectual inferiority is both complete and crippling.

But who knows what might happen if you were to make an effort to explain it to me? Even if I, with my subnormal brain, couldn't grasp it, I'm sure that others could.

So even if I'm completely unworthy of your oh so valuable time, I'm sure it might benefit others.

Not only that, but if I were to suspect that you're refusing to explain the nuance because it's actually just a fig-leaf to cover the disconnect between the positions you argue and the claims you make about yourself, you could demonstrate to all the world just how wrong I am.

So, how about it?

It's not that you are unworthy or lack the intellect.  I presume from your writing that you are a rather intelligent guy.  It's that you don't seem to want to hear it or accept it.  You seem far too apt to make other conclusions about me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...