Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I didn't say that every statement in the Bible relating to homosexuality is about prostitution. But, as scholarship goes, this is quite dated. That doesn't mean it's wrong (and I haven't read it), but the date inspires a raised eyebrow.

While the debate has continued I'm not sure it's significantly progressed. I believe John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality is the strongest apologetic and exegetical text in recent years. But it didn't change many minds. For example JSTOR has one response on his exegesis of Romans 1 criticizing him extensively.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40015030

From a more philosophical/theological perspective Romans is the key text since some would say that people are dead to law in Christ and that love rules. (You hear this in LDS circles too) The only problem is what love tells one to do and it's clear Paul doesn't agree with those who think it entails accepting homosexuality. If we simply say whatever my judgment about love is all that matters and push the "dead to the law" too much we end up with some of the gnosticism Paul condemned. Now since I'm a fallibilist I don't take Paul as the last word on the subject but certainly there's a huge burden of proof to overcome. Thus the exegetical arguments on the places where Paul condemns practices such as in Rom 1:26-7; 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.  

With regards to the exegesis the question is how much hinges upon Paul condemning Greek practices in general versus those tied to temple practice especially ritual prostitutes. Then there's the question of how lust plays into this and whether lust does the work some suggest. (Since those of the "love conquers all" position would say heterosexual lust is also bad, so lust leading to homosexuality says nothing about love leading to homosexuality) I think it's hard to say Paul's fine with homosexuality given his elevation of Adam and Eve as a type in say 1 Cor 11. Although then many look at Paul's views on women and note we don't follow those. (Understandably, even accounting for culture, 1 Cor 11 is problematic to many) However in general Paul's merely reflecting standard Jewish anti-Hellenistic polemics and views of women.

My own position is most people read these passages based upon their already established views. If you think homosexual practice is fine, then you'll read them in such a way as to avoid changing your position. Likewise if you think homosexual acts are a sin, you'll read them that way. In theory that's why we need modern prophets except many aren't exactly listening to them either.

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

While the debate has continued I'm not sure it's significantly progressed. I believe John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality is the strongest apologetic and exegetical text in recent years. But it didn't change many minds. For example JSTOR has one response on his exegesis of Romans 1 criticizing him extensively.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40015030

From a more philosophical/theological perspective Romans is the key text since some would say that people are dead to law in Christ and that love rules. (You hear this in LDS circles too) The only problem is what love tells one to do and it's clear Paul doesn't agree with those who think it entails accepting homosexuality. If we simply say whatever my judgment about love is all that matters and push the "dead to the law" too much we end up with some of the gnosticism Paul condemned. Now since I'm a fallibilist I don't take Paul as the last word on the subject but certainly there's a huge burden of proof to overcome. Thus the exegetical arguments on the places where Paul condemns practices such as in Rom 1:26-7; 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.  

With regards to the exegesis the question is how much hinges upon Paul condemning Greek practices in general versus those tied to temple practice especially ritual prostitutes. Then there's the question of how lust plays into this and whether lust does the work some suggest. (Since those of the "love conquers all" position would say heterosexual lust is also bad, so lust leading to homosexuality says nothing about love leading to homosexuality)

My own position is most people read these passages based upon their already established views. If you think homosexual practice is fine, then you'll read them in such a way as to avoid changing your position. Likewise if you think homosexual acts are a sin, you'll read them that way. In theory that's why we need modern prophets except many aren't exactly listening to them either.

I'm fine with all that. But I think these two things are clear:

• The homosexuality that Paul and other Biblical writers would have encountered doesn't resemble modern gay marriage, and in some cases may refer to cultic practices or prostitution
• Biblical peoples did not understand homosexuality, nor should we expect them to. They were people of their times, complete with the superstitions and prejudices of their day

My exegesis therefore is this: their views of homosexuality, in historical context, really have nothing at all to do with modern gay marriage. The larger principles found in the Bible can very easily be interpreted as affirming the sacredness of both gay and straight marriage.

If one affirms that LDS scripture was directly inspired by God for our day, the total silence of the BOM, D&C and POGP on the matter could also be interpreted as having special significance for Latter-day Saints.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

What makes you think they understood it when we're only just starting to understand it now? Let's not fall into the trap of presentism. Paul believed that homosexuality was a curse from God, after all - a punishment for holding incorrect beliefs.

I didn't say that every statement in the Bible relating to homosexuality is about prostitution. But, as scholarship goes, this is quite dated. That doesn't mean it's wrong (and I haven't read it), but the date inspires a raised eyebrow.

Rabbi Jacob Milgrom was the recognized expert on the matter, and no one else has arisen with his dispassionate scholarly authority.  The article is a classic.  Of course, if you want more detail, consult his magnum opus, his three-volume commentary-translation of Leviticus for Anchor Bible (Yale Univ Press, 1998-2001).  Thus, presentism is not the issue, although we live in an era in which tolerance for diversity is dominant.  That doesn't change the nature of Judaism, in which Paul was a rabbi -- and Paul had to come to the realization that his persecution of those apostate "Christian Jews" was not the will of the Lord, a realization which took place on Damascus Road.

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm fine with all that. But I think these two things are clear:

• The homosexuality that Paul and other Biblical writers would have encountered doesn't resemble modern gay marriage, and in some cases may refer to cultic practices or prostitution
• Biblical peoples did not understand homosexuality, nor should we expect them to. They were people of their times, complete with the superstitions and prejudices of their day

My exegesis therefore is this: their views of homosexuality, in historical context, really have nothing at all to do with modern gay marriage. The larger principles found in the Bible can very easily be interpreted as affirming the sacredness of both gay and straight marriage.

If one affirms that LDS scripture was directly inspired by God for our day, the total silence of the BOM, D&C and POGP on the matter could also be interpreted as having special significance for Latter-day Saints.

I think a few others asked what you mean by "not understand homosexuality." I ask, because it's not clear we understand homosexuality today nor is it necessarily clear that the ancients understood it less than we do. Certainly one might criticize Paul as adopting the cultural homophobic views against a far more open and gay-friendly environment of Rome and Greece relative to such matters. Now it's true that neither Rome nor Greece had gay marriage nor did they view marriage in quite the way we do today. Although arguably that's as true of heterosexual marriage as it is gay marriage. After all it wasn't uncommon in Rome for men to be in committed homosexual relationships yet be married where marriage was for the purpose of children. Something even contemporary gay-marriage advocates aren't apt to support. At least not many.

The point though is that regardless of how homosexuality was viewed, the key issue for Paul appears to be Adam and Eve as a type for human emulation. I don't think the lack of gay marriage really applies to that as a strong critique. Now one could always just say Paul was wrong, but it's interesting to me how few want to do that. Thus the tendency to focus on cultic practice rather than dealing with Paul's view of Adam and Eve. There are of course ways to even argue that away as we see. Such as by appealing to 1 Cor 7 where many see Paul advocating celibacy. But of course that still doesn't work for the gay marriage issue since Paul is emphatic that men should have a wife and women a husband. The counter argument is that lust argument. That is marriage is only important to avoid lust, and that gay marriage works for that the same way Paul treats marriage. 

While that reading of 1 Cor 7 might work in a more Protestant setting, I'm not sure it does for Mormons since Mormons don't see marriage as simply a way of limiting lust. That is they see marriage as eternal and not merely tied to immorality of sex. (And of course most Mormons reject Paul's singleness noting that he explicitly says it's not a revelation)

Edited June 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[california boy]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

 

My own position is most people read these passages based upon their already established views. If you think homosexual practice is fine, then you'll read them in such a way as to avoid changing your position. Likewise if you think homosexual acts are a sin, you'll read them that way. In theory that's why we need modern prophets except many aren't exactly listening to them either.

 

That is the way every single verse in the Bible is.  Or all scripture for that matter.

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think a few others asked what you mean by "not understand homosexuality." I ask, because it's not clear we understand homosexuality today nor is it necessarily clear that the ancients understood it less than we do. Certainly one might criticize Paul as adopting the cultural homophobic views against a far more open and gay-friendly environment of Rome and Greece relative to such matters. Now it's true that neither Rome nor Greece had gay marriage nor did they view marriage in quite the way we do today. Although arguably that's as true of heterosexual marriage as it is gay marriage. After all it wasn't uncommon in Rome for men to be in committed homosexual relationships yet be married where marriage was for the purpose of children. Something even contemporary gay-marriage advocates aren't apt to support. At least not many.

The point though is that regardless of how homosexuality was viewed, the key issue for Paul appears to be Adam and Eve as a type for human emulation. I don't think the lack of gay marriage really applies to that as a strong critique. Now one could always just say Paul was wrong, but it's interesting to me how few want to do that. Thus the tendency to focus on cultic practice rather than dealing with Paul's view of Adam and Eve. There are of course ways to even argue that away as we see. Such as by appealing to 1 Cor 7 where many see Paul advocating celibacy. But of course that still doesn't work for the gay marriage issue since Paul is emphatic that men should have a wife and women a husband. The counter argument is that lust argument. That is marriage is only important to avoid lust, and that gay marriage works for that the same way Paul treats marriage. 

While that reading of 1 Cor 7 might work in a more Protestant setting, I'm not sure it does for Mormons since Mormons don't see marriage as simply a way of limiting lust. That is they see marriage as eternal and not merely tied to immorality of sex. (And of course most Mormons reject Paul's singleness notining that he explicitly says it's not a revelation)

Church leaders think Paul was wrong about a lot of things.  They pick and choose from Paul's writings what they consider doctrine and what they consider Paul's personal beliefs.  Just like they do with multiple other biblical teachings.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

The statement "There are no homosexual members of the Church" is totally at odds with "Mormon and gay". Otherwise the website would be "Mormon and That's It."

The website does not contradict Elder Bednar's message and meaning, which is that we are individual agents to act and not be acted upon, and therefore we need not be driven by labels such as "homosexual."

 

[MormonVideoGame]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Please explain why a trained historian would be incapable of researching and comprehending effectively the development of politics out of religion as well as the current relationship between religion and politics, but a trained anthropologist would be.

He was talking about origins, history begins around 4,000 BC  

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's why we have the Bill of Rights as part of the U.S. Constitution.

The sort of thing you imagine above would be prohibited by the same First Amendment that forbids you to prevent people of faith from participating in the political system if they are guided by their religious principles.

The Bill of Rights protects blood transfusion? prevents cows in the streets? guarantees that roe vs wade is not overturned? 

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, people shouldn't be guided by their religious convictions in how they vote

People have the right to vote for any reason. However, if we had a conservative Muslim majority in our country you wouldn't be a fan of religion in politics. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

The Bill of Rights protects blood transfusion? prevents cows in the streets? guarantees that roe vs wade is not overturned?

The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion. Hence, your hand-wringing about religion violating your rights as a citizen amounts to paranoia on your part.

Quote

People have the right to vote for any reason. However, if we had a conservative Muslim majority in our country you wouldn't be a fan of religion in politics. 

If we had a Muslim majority, I would still count on the Bill of Rights to protect me as a citizen. That is part of the genius of our Constitution.

But I wouldn't be worried in any event, because I am not an Islamophobe.

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[MormonVideoGame]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws respecting an establishment of religion. Hence, your hand-wringing about religion violating your rights as a citizen amounts to paranoia on your part.

The First Admendment doesn't protect blood transfusion if lawmakers claim it is dangerous. It's called a hidden agenda, happens all the time.

By the way, "Supreme Court Rules Religious School Can Use Taxpayer Funds For Playground "  Yes in the property of the church. 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534084013/supreme-court-rules-religious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-for-playground

Where is the First admendment?  

Edited June 29, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

The First Admendment doesn't protect blood transfusion if lawmakers claim it is dangerous. It's called a hidden agenda, happens all the time.

If someone wants/needs a blood transfusion, no church can stop it.
 

Quote

 

By the way, "Supreme Court Rules Religious School Can Use Taxpayer Funds For Playground "  Yes in the property of the church. 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534084013/supreme-court-rules-religious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-for-playground

Where is the First admendment?  

 

The Supreme Court heard the case and made a ruling -- precisely as they are empaneled to do.

What's your problem with it? It doesn't violate your rights although I can see that it might offend your anti-religion animus.

 

[MormonVideoGame]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If someone wants/needs a blood transfusion, no church can stop it.

because most American Christians don't have a problem with blood transfusion. So does the Bill of Rights protect blood transfusion? In theory Christian law-makers can label it as dangerous.  You disagree? 

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Supreme Court heard the case and made a ruling -- precisely as they are empaneled to do.

What's your problem with it? It doesn't violate your rights although I can see that it might offend your anti-religion animus.

I have no problem with it, it is simply one example of how our Supreme Court failed to use the 1st amendment. 

So you wouldn't have a problem if tax-payer money is used to fund projects of the Dawkins foundation?

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can see that it might offend your anti-religion animus.

I am not anti-religious, I am simply pro-freedom.

Elder Holland labeled porn as a "public health crisis", days later Utah House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring pornography a public health crisis. Please explain to me how that is not favoring religion? 

There is no evidence that porn harms  relationships according to recent study and PhD psychologists and neuroscientists, but that didn't stop House of Representatives. It is just a hidden religious agenda. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201705/is-porn-use-really-harmful-relationships

Our church does influence Utah's legislation. 

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

1

Out of curiosity do you disagree with the new study and PhD psychologists and neuroscientists? So labeling porn as a "health crisis" is simply a religious agenda? 

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

... By the way, "Supreme Court Rules Religious School Can Use Taxpayer Funds For Playground "  Yes in the property of the church. 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/26/534084013/supreme-court-rules-religious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-for-playground

Where is the First admendment?  [sic]

That headline takes a shortcut through the facts.  The Missouri Department of Natural Resources administers a program to convert used tires into rubber playground surfaces, which are, of course, safer than concrete, asphalt, or gravel.  Trinity Lutheran Preschool, which does not discriminate against youngsters or their families even if they do not happen to be Lutheran (and even if they do not happen to be religious), applied to have its playground resurfaced.  

Appealing to the Establishment Clause of the Missouri Constitution, the Department denied the Preschool's application for funds on the grounds that granting the application would constitute an impermissible establishment of religion. While I agree both with the Department and with the minority of the United States Supreme Court that the Establishment Clause forbids favoring religion qua religion and forbids favoring religion over non-religion, what the majority decided is that if the state offers funds for the purely secular purpose of better ensuring children's safety on school playgrounds, it must ensure a level playing field between state-run schools and faith-run schools when considering both types of schools for receipt of such funds, and it cannot discriminate against the latter solely because they are faith-based.  A decision to the contrary would mean that the state may decide that students at faith-based schools are less deserving of safety protections than are students at their secular counterparts.

It should also be noted that this wasn't a razor-thin, 5-4 decision.  It wasn't even a 6-3 decision.  Rather, it was only a 7-2 decision, with only two of the more liberal members of the Court's liberal wing deciding in favor of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

But thanks fer playin'!  

[Kenngo1969]

20 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

... Elder Holland labeled porn as a "public health crisis", days later Utah House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring pornography a public health crisis. Please explain to me how that is not favoring religion? 

There is no evidence that porn harms  relationships according to recent study and PhD psychologists and neuroscientists, but that didn't stop House of Representatives. It is just a hidden religious agenda. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201705/is-porn-use-really-harmful-relationships

 

One need not be religious to conclude, in good conscience and in good faith, that pornography harms people.  And even if one is persuaded by the argument that the "end-user" of porn is not harmed by it (or that the end-user's partner and other relationships are not harmed by it), that does not mean that no negative externalities result from its production.  A persuasive case can be made that pornography exploits the actors who participate in its production.  A very high percentage of actresses involved in pornography production also engage in illegal drug use, and its production strongly correlates with other vices such as prostitution.

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

what the majority decided is that if the state offers funds for the purely secular purpose of better ensuring children's safety on school playgrounds, it must ensure a level playing field between state-run schools and faith-run schools when considering both types of schools for receipt of such funds, and it cannot discriminate against the latter solely because they are faith-based.

1) "purely secular purpose" can include restrooms, basketball courts, parking lots, water fountains, kitchens, even camping. 

2) Private religious schools don't need playgrounds, the government doesn't require them. 

3) State-run schools are not private schools

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

t students at faith-based schools are less deserving of safety protections than are students at their secular counterparts.

Ever heard of safety regulations? We all (individuals and private businesses) need to follow them when creating a house, office, or building. 

54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One need not be religious to conclude, in good conscience and in good faith, that pornography harms people.  

But there is no evidence that it hurts couples according to neuroscientists and PhD psychologists. Perhaps ancient scripture studies does harm couples, we don't know. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201705/is-porn-use-really-harmful-relationships

So why did Utah's House of Representatives declared it a health crisis days after Elder Holland called it a health crisis? What other states are doing that same thing? 

54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 A very high percentage of actresses involved in pornography production also engage in illegal drug use, and its production strongly correlates with other vices such as prostitution.

CFR from a reliable source that it happens more than everywhere else in legal p0rn film studios. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[sunstoned]

On 6/27/2017 at 0:01 PM, hope_for_things said:

1. I think people are getting more acclimated to these ideas and finding that the slippery slope arguments are not coming true as the doomsayers predicted they would.  Life goes on, and the LGBT are not ruining society.  

2. I've heard some discussions at church about people being willing to attend the marriage of a family member or friend for a same sex wedding where in the past they wouldn't have.  The language to justify this is that they feel personally called to love and they leave the judgments up to God.  For me, this is a good baby step in the right direction.  

3. Not sure I understand this question, but I'll try.  I think the church only fears openly acknowledging that culture influences doctrine.  The mythos taught in church is that all doctrines are eternal and unchanging and directly from God.  But the reality is that doctrines change and will continue to change, because people are the administrators of the doctrine, not deity, and people will continue to interpret the divine will incorrectly and then later find reasons to reinterpret things.  To me this is the principle of modern revelation, but for some reason the church culture afraid of embracing one of its core tenants.  Its a paradox.  

^this^

[sunstoned]

On 6/27/2017 at 0:28 PM, USU78 said:

A tribute to the power of propaganda.

Perhaps a tribute to non-correlated thinking.  

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

There is no evidence that porn harms  relationships according to recent study and PhD psychologists and neuroscientists, but that didn't stop House of Representatives. It is just a hidden religious agenda. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201705/is-porn-use-really-harmful-relationships

Out of curiosity do you disagree with the new study and PhD psychologists and neuroscientists? So labeling porn as a "health crisis" is simply a religious agenda? 

First, what in the world does this even remotely have to do with the thread at hand??? Talk about off topic. 

And you've really asked me on a bad night. Since it was the start of a clean up that was based on someone's escalating porn behaviors that ended in something that's definitely going to harm their relationship and a long amount of very positive progress for the other partner probably going down the tubes...at least for a little while. And another porn case earlier with someone struggling with their sense of self, sexuality, and likely feeding chronic depression. And another just like that earlier that's marriage is rupturing from it. And another who culminated in sexual harm and whose use ate out their relationship till it died. Again and again, spouses feeling compared and distant from their partner, porn as emotional crutches and easy fixes that also leave them distant and crippled, emotional baggage never checked and impulse control reduced and emotional regulation shot. Impatience, entitlement, objectification, need-based v love-based sex, chronic immaturity, little forethought of consequence, and so many other stupid stupid things scattered with some God-awful horrible things at times.  Believe it or not, before my job, I wasn't that biased against porn. I believed its effects were overblown.  In some ways I still think it is and I think there's ways and cases to mitigate it. But this week is not one of them. And tonight especially, I have to say I disagree. My heart aches with how much I disagree. And I don't want to talk about it.  I do agree it's complicated. And that there's spouses who can use some form of porn healthily. Usually it's more like "porn" as in visual images they took of themselves. A couple that it's fairly neutral. There's just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many ways that it can be harmful. And some where it can be really really bad. 

 

I won't be responding after this. I'd rather do yoga and read my scriptures. 

 

With luv,

BD

[MormonVideoGame]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

First, what in the world does this even remotely have to do with the thread at hand??? Talk about off topic. 

Me and Scott are having a conversation about religion and politics. I am arguing that religion does influence law-makers. Elder Holland quickly influenced Utah's legislation. 

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

  Believe it or not, before my job, I wasn't that biased against porn.

I believe you. Many Evolution skeptics used to believe in Evolution. It happens. 

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And you've really asked me on a bad night. Since it was the start of a clean up that was based on someone's escalating porn behaviors that ended in something that's definitely going to harm their relationship and a long amount of very positive progress for the other partner probably going down the tubes...at least for a little while.

Did you read the article? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201705/is-porn-use-really-harmful-relationships

You can say the same thing about scripture study and apologetics. I know someone that was doing a lot of apologetics (wasted a lot of time doing Book of Mormon research) before getting a divorce. I know a Bishop that got a divorce.  So yes porn can be harmful in the sense that everything can be harmful, including church. It is the individual. 

Let me just say correlation is not causation and with your patients you are dealing with selection bias. 

Poster removed

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The website does not contradict Elder Bednar's message and meaning, which is that we are individual agents to act and not be acted upon, and therefore we need not be driven by labels such as "homosexual."

 

It doesn't contradict Elder Bedner, except where he said that there are no homosexual members of the church - a statement that goes against one of the central messages of the church's website on the topic.

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

It doesn't contradict Elder Bedner, except where he said that there are no homosexual members of the church - a statement that goes against one of the central messages of the church's website on the topic.

You like the notion of hyphenated Saints.

[mnn727]

On 6/27/2017 at 1:43 PM, JLHPROF said:

I completely disagree with this.

That's certainly your right, but if you want discussion a "why" would have been nice.

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Me and Scott are having a conversation about religion and politics. I am arguing that religion does influence law-makers. Elder Holland quickly influenced Utah's legislation. 

So why'd you bring me into this then? My comments had nothing to do with you and Scott's religion and politics conversation....because I wasn't talking about religion's influence on law-makers. And I was definitely not talking about porn. Again.

Quote

I believe you. Many Evolution skeptics used to believe in Evolution. It happens. 

Oh, the evolution parallel. Again. How many times do I have to say that this isn't a good comparison? I'm not questioning an asserted all-but-fact issue in therapy. And besides I'm not a skeptic. I don't sit there and hail down hell-fire every time someone says "porn" in my office. I wait for their narrative to be told to me and often I sit and REDUCE their concerns about their porn use. I'm still actually fairly middle road between the two camps that this article vaguely illustrates.

Quote

 

Did you read the article? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/talking-apes/201705/is-porn-use-really-harmful-relationships

 

No. I scanned some of it, but it was triggering and I needed to work out some of my anger. As I made it pretty clear, you caught me on a bad night to start harping about how "porn is harmful" is a myth. Because the myths kept walking in my office lately.   

I've now read the article. There are points I agree with and there are points I disagree with. I think I pointed out one of my points of agreement already (it's more complicated....100% agree). I disagree with him harping on correlational data. What he ignores is that most psychological research is correlational. Minus feasibly qualitative data and some other limited areas of research that are also small in scale. Most studies work to mitigate the "third variable" by controlling for obvious confounding factors. But there's no sure way to lodge all bets. I also think that doing so too much can be reductionistic and have the problem where the whole does not equal the sum of its parts. He also ignores just how hard it is to do research on sexual issues, particularly in large scales. I would love to see a number of his suggestions for further research met. And the article is not saying what you're using it for. It's largely talking about what is needed to cover more research in this area that's still relatively unknown. But also, again, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with porn. So I'm not going to talk about this article here beyond saying I agree and disagree depending. 

Quote

You can say the same thing about scripture study and apologetics. I know someone that was doing a lot of apologetics (wasted a lot of time doing Book of Mormon research) before getting a divorce. I know a Bishop that got a divorce.  So yes porn can be harmful in the sense that everything can be harmful, including church. It is the individual. 

Oh, why stop there? You can say water is harmful and puppies and yoga mats and my bed. Actually my bed may be harmful, it could use a new mattress. This is an argument to the absurd. 

Quote

Let me just say correlation is not causation and with your patients you are dealing with selection bias. 

Of course I do. I didn't say I don't. Though it's not in the way that you're giving and my selection bias also has some strengths to it. For example, most therapists do not go into as much detail about their clients sexual lives as I do. Thus they don't get as much access to their sexual dynamics and history. It's also not as bad as places that specialize in porn or sex addiction. I don't specifically cater to said clientele, rather having a larger umbrella of all sexual concerns and dysfunctions that aren't criminal. Also I don't call my clients patients. I've never liked that word. I work WITH people I don't work ON people. 

 

So please, let it go man. Talk to Lloyd about religion and politic since that's actually a direct tangent to the thread. Don't make an unrelated thread about one of your favorite pet topics. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 29, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Gray]

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think a few others asked what you mean by "not understand homosexuality." I ask, because it's not clear we understand homosexuality today nor is it necessarily clear that the ancients understood it less than we do.

I think our understanding of homosexuality is on a continium edging toward greater understanding as time moves forward.

Paul's worldview on sexuality is entirely alien to us. He's coming from a culture where anything that the was unique to the gentiles concerning sex was considered "porneia" - often translated as fornication. But that includes strong sexual desire, or allowing the woman to be on top (hopefully that's not too explicit). I believe (but don't remember the details) that Paul's views on hair length were also tied to superstitions about sexual potency.

I think it's very clear we understand sexuality better today, just as we understand germ theory and physics.

 

Quote

 

Certainly one might criticize Paul as adopting the cultural homophobic views against a far more open and gay-friendly environment of Rome and Greece relative to such matters. Now it's true that neither Rome nor Greece had gay marriage nor did they view marriage in quite the way we do today. Although arguably that's as true of heterosexual marriage as it is gay marriage. After all it wasn't uncommon in Rome for men to be in committed homosexual relationships yet be married where marriage was for the purpose of children. Something even contemporary gay-marriage advocates aren't apt to support. At least not many.

The point though is that regardless of how homosexuality was viewed, the key issue for Paul appears to be Adam and Eve as a type for human emulation. I don't think the lack of gay marriage really applies to that as a strong critique. Now one could always just say Paul was wrong, but it's interesting to me how few want to do that. Thus the tendency to focus on cultic practice rather than dealing with Paul's view of Adam and Eve. There are of course ways to even argue that away as we see. Such as by appealing to 1 Cor 7 where many see Paul advocating celibacy. But of course that still doesn't work for the gay marriage issue since Paul is emphatic that men should have a wife and women a husband. The counter argument is that lust argument. That is marriage is only important to avoid lust, and that gay marriage works for that the same way Paul treats marriage. 

While that reading of 1 Cor 7 might work in a more Protestant setting, I'm not sure it does for Mormons since Mormons don't see marriage as simply a way of limiting lust. That is they see marriage as eternal and not merely tied to immorality of sex. (And of course most Mormons reject Paul's singleness noting that he explicitly says it's not a revelation)

But that punctuates the problem for Mormons who try to use Paul as a basis for their views on homosexuality. Paul's views on sexuality are utterly alien to Mormon doctrine, too.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You like the notion of hyphenated Saints.

It's no different from the distinction of "brother" vs "sister"