Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel2

Variety: LDS Musician Confronts His Church’s LGBT Stance in New Sundance Documentary

Recommended Posts

With regard to the cessation of polygyny, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ceased said practice only after its property was seized and after its members were jailed, persecuted and disenfranchised, so, to anyone hoping that history will repeat itself with respect to the Church's proposed acceptance of gay marriage, all I can say to that is, "Oh.  :huh:  Okay.  :unsure:  Thanks for showing us your true colors. :unknw:"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think we need to ask gays if they feel loved by the LDS Church.

I don't feel loved by the church, I feel attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Because that is certainly not what Jesus was talking about. At all.

He first uttered the New Commandment at the Last Supper. Present were his apostles: commandment-keeping Jewish men, every one of them. Sexual activity simply wasn't in view.

I'm astonished that you just don't get that.

I am an astonishing woman..Kiwi...thank you!:)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

While it is possible you feel that way because the Church is actually attacking gays, it is also possible that is a false interpretation that you have chosen to accept based on your own, possibly wrong assumptions about the ultimate source of Church doctrine.

If the November policy, other policies, and church doctrine regarding sexual behaviour, including homosexual physical behaviour (as opposed to i acted upon thoughts and desires) are actually based on revelation even if imperfectly implemented as all human efforts must be, would you interpret the Church's actions as attacks or could you see them as attempts to fulfill God's instructions?

If one does not believe such things are based on revelation or other forms of divine inspiration, but purely man made based on leadership's own prejudices and unfounded faith beliefs, it is easy for me to see why such statements of belief, requirements for membership, and rejection of same sex marriage/sealing as an equal Sacrament to opposite sex marriage/sealing might be interpreted as aggression.  

I wonder if it is also easy for someone who does not believe the source is divine, but recognizes others do to allow them to see such actions as man's attempt as the tools for some of the expression of God's love and will as well as leaders and others' own love for others of God's family and a desire to do the best by their fellow man by staying true to God's teachings and trying to help others to do the same?

Well first of all, you are right,  I don't believe the church leaders have received any divine direction from God on how to treat gays. To me, church policies directly conflict with the teachings of Christ.  I trust his teachings over church leaders.  And yes I realize that is a personal point of view.  But I am not alone in that viewpoint.

 I can easily put religious beliefs aside.  Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs.  But the church has stepped far beyond just telling its members what to believe and how to treat gays.  They have reached into how the legal system in this country treats gays.  Obviously with Prop 8 but also the church leaders continued support to legalize discrimination in the public sector.    Not feeling the love.  It just seems hypocritical to say we love you but we are going after your civil rights and support legal discrimination against your kind.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Oliblish said:

Here is a quote from Gospel Principles Chapter 41: The Postmortal Spirit World

Does this speak to your question?

 

That's an interesting quote and it sounds logical to believe that a gay person would continue to be gay in the next life.  However, I'm not sure the church is comfortable with this idea, and I haven't heard it expressed that way.  Do you know if this idea of appetites and desires would also apply to sexual orientation in the next life?  

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

HFT, I didn't say that the Church had never changed any doctrines. I agree that continuing revelation does indeed entail changes. I said, and I quote:

"Actually there is only one recorded occasion where the Church has ended a practice, and none where it has changed its doctrines, in response to outside pressure."

Just in case you missed it, here it is again:

"Actually there is only one recorded occasion where the Church has ended a practice, and none where it has changed its doctrines, in response to outside pressure."

Did you see it that time?

No need to get snarky, but thanks for pointing out your emphasis on outside pressures.  My question to you would be, how do you define outside pressures?  Since the church is part of the world and not living in isolation to the rest of the world, how do you determine what outside factors are influencing church leaders to some degree or another.  Even when Brigham and the Utah Mormons were separated geographically they still weren't completely isolated.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2017 at 8:31 AM, smac97 said:

It also rather strains credulity to suggest that not being allowed to attend BYU is equivalent to "religious 'shaming.'"

"Shaming" here seems to strongly imply the publicizing of his misconduct, or formalized/ritualistic shunning.  I strongly suspect none of that happened.  Instead, Bro. Reynolds apparently may have done the right thing in confessing a serious transgression (let's assume that, rather than the alternative-but-also-plausible possibility that his admission was not altogether voluntary).  Sexual transgression is amongst the most serious forms of misconduct for members of the LDS Church.  Bro. Reynolds, having been raised in the Church and served a mission, must know this.  And BYU thereafter allowed him to enroll, which even further undercuts his "religious 'shaming'" accusation.

So perhaps his message is not that the Law of Chastity "no longer pertains," but that it's just not that big a deal.  That's a best-case scenario (although a bleak one).  A worst-case scenario would be not that the Law of Chastity "no longer pertains," but that the Church is affirmatively wrong to teach it and implement it and require members to live according to it.  If so, that would be a very unfortunate position for a Latter-day Saint to take.  And since Bro. Reynolds appears to be publicly calling the Church out for teaching and requiring adherence to the Law of Chastity, this worst-case scenario also appears to be the most likely scenario.

The Law of Chastity is an extremely important doctrine of the Church.  If Bro. Reynolds is really doing what he appears to be doing (publicly criticizing the Church for teaching and implementing it), then Kiwi's description of of ("religious dilletante") would, unfortunately, be apt.  I hope this is not the case.

I have a hard time understanding the motives a person who do not take his faith seriously when he criticize the lives of his fellow adherents because they do take their faith seriously.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD:

Speaking of "religious 'shaming'" (written by a gay man and published in the Washington Post) (emphases added):

Gotta love that.  Mr. Ambrosino, very much to his credit, recognizes that people like the Gaineses are either "shamed" into silence about or coerced ("They also know that if the statement is not 100 percent supportive of same-sex marriage, the network will be pressured to drop them") into supporting same-sex marriage.  

If by "unemployable" he means "anyone who dares either oppose or not actively endorse and embrace same-sex marriage is not entitled to a livelihood," then yes, that is the "suggestion."

I applaud Mr. Ambrosino for his willingness to speak about this.

Wow.  "There are not two sides" on the issue of same-sex marriage.

This is the world in which we now live, folks.  

Who is "shaming" who, really?

Yep.  And with the complicity of a pliant media, that strategy continues to this day.  It happens regularly on this board.

Again, I applaud Mr. Ambrosino here.  I disagree with him at a pretty fundamental level, but at least he is calling for principled and reasoned debate and discussion, rather than the let's-shame-anyone-who-disagrees-with-us-by-labeling-them-bigots-and-homophobes schtick that is much, much more prevalent (and toxic).

Well said.

Mr. Ambrosino is correct.  I think the "terrible job" the LGBT folks have done in persuading people like me is ongoing.  And it will come back to haunt them.  Nobody likes being bullied and coerced.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a solid argument. Thank you for sharing, Smac. I admire your ability to recognize valid reasoning despite having fundamental disagreement. 

When did being socially and theologically conservative become grounds for "shaming" and ostracizing people? Are their opinions, popular or not, not valid as well? The "juggernaut" that Scott has spoken of in the past is alive and well. I'll admit that I abhorred the term, but is that not what it is? It is frustrating.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2017 at 3:38 AM, Bernard Gui said:

 

I hope his message is not that the Law of Chastity no longer pertains, but it sure seems that to be precisely that.

What is the Law of Chastity and has it always been the same in the LDS Church?  

Is the Law of Chastity a man made construct perhaps?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

That's an interesting quote and it sounds logical to believe that a gay person would continue to be gay in the next life.  However, I'm not sure the church is comfortable with this idea, and I haven't heard it expressed that way.  Do you know if this idea of appetites and desires would also apply to sexual orientation in the next life?  

Of course it applies to sexual orientation, but as long as there is a continuum of orientation, it is not necessarily static either. The same with any other mortal passion we might have, and with our mortal physical makeup also, which impacts our psychic makeup (and vice-versa). They work together, and the spirit is yet another component. Whatever influence acted upon us in the mortal probation that we had no choice or control in cultivating will be removed in the spirit world and we will be free to choose. Those that we are responsible for, and which detract from faith, hope and charity, etc. will require our accountable attention in the spirit world, and we have a choice in how much repentance we engage in.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

What is the Law of Chastity and has it always been the same in the LDS Church?  

Is the Law of Chastity a man made construct perhaps

No, it has several iterations as far as the temple law of chastity and has changed over the years.

That doesn't automatically make it a man made construct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it has several iterations as far as the temple law of chastity and has changed over the years.

That doesn't automatically make it a man made construct.

 

Well it seems to me the Law of Chastity has changed for expediency issues...ie, polgymay and polyandry.  ]

It has been a moving target.

And it has seemed to benefit those in power. 

This is why I view it as a man man construct. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Teancum said:

What is the Law of Chastity and has it always been the same in the LDS Church?  

Is the Law of Chastity a man made construct perhaps?  

That's been asked and answered about a dozen times already on this thread. See the Proclamation to the World for the current definition which is the only one that counts for us right now.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That's been asked and answered about a dozen times already on this thread. See the Proclamation to the World for the current definition which is the only one that counts for us right now.

 

Yes it has been asked and answered.  And the answer is that the law of chastity has changed multiple times over the last 150 years.  

Just one example.  Polygamist marriages were not legal marriages.  Now the law of chastity requires a couple to be in a legal marriage.  There are other changes as well.  The definition is always changing and adapting to whatever the current church policy is.  

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I would like to point out that polygamy and other historical marriage practices still involved both sexes.  

Yep.  Further, the Law of Chastity, formulated as prohibiting sexual relations except as between a husband and wife, really does not change in a polygamy context.  In LDS polygamous marriages, each wife was only married to the husband.  Not to each other.  Not to the collectively family.  Just to the husband.  So the formula of Sex = Husband + Wife worked just fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have been denounced on this board by hardcore gay-rights activists for using and endorsing the term same-sex attraction.

I have seen that on occasion.  Controlling the terminology used in this discussion is, I think, an attempt to frame the discussion in certain way.  To proverbially stack the deck.

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have felt and continue to feel that at the heart of this resistance is that the term facilitates a differentiation between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior — that said activists want all such individuals lumped together in the public mind whether or not they actual engage in the behavior. 

Indeed.  There are important purposes in insisting that sexual "orientation" is a form of "being" or "identity," like gender or race or religion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well it seems to me the Law of Chastity has changed for expediency issues...ie, polgymay and polyandry.  ]

No, it hasn't.  Not in any meaningful, substantive sense.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

It has been a moving target.

No, it hasn't.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And it has seemed to benefit those in power. 

This is why I view it as a man man construct. 

So all those biblical references to divine commandments about sexual ethics are . . . "a man ma{de} construct?"

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rivers said:

I would like to point out that polygamy and other historical marriage practices still involved both sexes.  

A lot of sexual practices the church considers to be sinful involve both sexes.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have seen that on occasion.  Controlling the terminology used in this discussion is, I think, an attempt to frame the discussion in certain way.  To proverbially stack the deck.

Indeed.  There are important purposes in insisting that sexual "orientation" is a form of "being" or "identity," like gender or race or religion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

We see this quite often: Control the terminology and you control the dialogue. Another example is “marriage equality” when what is really meant is marriage redefinition. 

Another example, from decades ago, occurred attendant to the excommunication of the so-called “September Six”. They were constantly referred to in the media as “Mormon intellectuals,” as though the Church were the enemy of all intellectuals or vice versa. What they really were is Mormon dissidents or, if one insists, Mormon academic dissidents. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We see this quite often: Control the terminology and you control the dialogue. Another example is “marriage equality” when what is really meant is marriage redefinition. 

Another example, from decades ago, occurred attendant to the excommunication of the so-called “September Six”. They were constantly referred to in the media as “Mormon intellectuals,” as though the Church were the enemy of all intellectuals or vice verse. What they really were is Mormon dissidents or, if one insists, Mormon academic dissidents. 

I think it’s also about controlling the subject. The insistence that the Church focus on a doctrine addressing one aspect of sexuality is about as valid as insisting that she focus on any other particular orientations for any other human feeling, feature or capacity. I mean what about a person’s particular orientation on the spectra for athleticism, artistic expression, learning style, or any other possible interest or personality type?

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With regard to the cessation of polygyny, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ceased said practice only after its property was seized and after its members were jailed, persecuted and disenfranchised, so, to anyone hoping that history will repeat itself with respect to the Church's proposed acceptance of gay marriage, all I can say to that is, "Oh.  :huh:  Okay.  :unsure:  Thanks for showing us your true colors. :unknw:"

An interesting concession, Kenngo. 

Perhaps it's a topic for another thread--but I am curious how you think the Federal Government should have responded to a group of citizens flagrantly breaking the law.  Do you think a blind eye should have been turned?  Do you think there should have been some negotiated compromise?  Do you think the law should have been changed?  Do you believe the United States would be a better country if polygamy was a recognized & acceptable practice (e.g., polygamous wives could have married-filing-jointly tax brackets)?

--Erik

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Of course it applies to sexual orientation, but as long as there is a continuum of orientation, it is not necessarily static either. The same with any other mortal passion we might have, and with our mortal physical makeup also, which impacts our psychic makeup (and vice-versa). They work together, and the spirit is yet another component. Whatever influence acted upon us in the mortal probation that we had no choice or control in cultivating will be removed in the spirit world and we will be free to choose. Those that we are responsible for, and which detract from faith, hope and charity, etc. will require our accountable attention in the spirit world, and we have a choice in how much repentance we engage in.

Your words sound to me like cryptic predudice.  Because there is a spectrum of sexual identity, that doesn’t mean it’s fluid and changing for everyone.  Spectrum vs fluidity are two different concepts.  

Honestly this sounds like the same kind of rational that was once promulgated about different races to explain why those spirits were inferior.  

Let me tell you what I think.  I think there are different people with different sexual orientations and gender orientations and that neither are binary.  I believe for some these orientations may change over time and for others they probably don’t change.  But I think there are a multitude of different experiences on these subjects.  I also think that God loves everyone wherever they are at and since God is the author of all this diversity God is no respecter of persons and everyone is a part of that plan.  No one will be altered in the next life.  The orientations and identities we have will continue.  Heaven, however you conceive of it will include all the diversity of mortality in its glorious beauty.  Those who expect that God will be   a tribal God with small minded exclusionary ideas will be surprised to learn otherwise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...