Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maidservant

Mama Dragons: The Fierce Network of (Mormon) Moms Protecting LGBTQ Youth

Recommended Posts

I'm conflicted about the mama dragons.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Accepting another as a sinner - regardless of the sin - is a fundamental part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This film confuses me because I don't know what it is asking me to do as a member of the Church. If it is asking me to support sin, then it is a nonstarter. However, if it is asking me to do a better job of loving my brothers and sisters regardless of their sins, then I get it.

Recognizing that we are sinners - regardless of the sin - is also a fundamental part of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Attempting to say that sin does not exist is not acceptable. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Maidservant said:

 

Sadly as a parent of a Gay Child, who is now in her 30's, nothing as Parents, nothing as a Church, is ever enough. It is not a Mormon issue that sees Homosexuality as a sin, it is a Scriptural matter. Our Church has done more, gone farther, reached out more than most mainstream Christian denominations, especially in what is termed as the "Bible Belt". Homosexuality, and the classifying such relationships as sinful, is not, "Mormon Doctrine", it is Scriptural. As all Scriptural based Christian Faiths view it the same way, or worse than our Church. There are of course some Faith's who have decided to abandon any mention of such teachings, and any scripture that refers to these things as sinful. In fact many who in doing so, have chosen to ignore many other things as sinful, such as premarital relationships to name just one. 

My daughter who works as Aids Atlanta, still has issues with families who visit. She is welcome at out home, and invited to every single Sunday Dinner, which is every Sunday. We refer to her wife as our daughter-in-law. We sometimes have the missionaries at Sunday dinner, and when they come we, we freely introduce her wife as our daughter-in-law. But, as all our children come to Sunday dinner, they have all our grandchildren with then, and that happy image angers her, an image she often disrupts by trying to sow discord. It might be a source of anger at a Church that is pro-family, and teachings of, and encouraging children and an eternal posterity, or maybe the ability to pro-create in most cases. But many resent a world where heterosexuality is the norm, but what is to be done? It is also normal for any parent, to want or wish their children, no matter the sin or transgression to be excused, or exempted as sinful, just as I do. As a parent, or as all parents, we wish to shield our children from any harm, precieved, or real, and we would all be willing to suffer wounds, instead of those we love without condition. I am sure that many who live in the bubble where the Church is the norm, think that it is just Mormons (sorry, Latter-day Saints) are the ones who are the problem, but in the world, we are not even a blip on the screen, when it comes to "World Religions"  The reality is, no matter how liberal, or how much we reach out, 99.9999999% of of everyone who is Gay sees, sees the difference, and so many are harmed by the difference. So fo those who cannot cope, often turn to suicide, it is tragic, but our Church is not responsible. My own child, has never been nothing but, well received, everytime something brings her to Church, long with her wife; always well received! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Accepting another as a sinner - regardless of the sin - is a fundamental part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This film confuses me because I don't know what it is asking me to do as a member of the Church. If it is asking me to support sin, then it is a nonstarter. However, if it is asking me to do a better job of loving my brothers and sisters regardless of their sins, then I get it.

Recognizing that we are sinners - regardless of the sin - is also a fundamental part of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Attempting to say that sin does not exist is not acceptable. 

That assumes volition in same sex attraction (SSA) or transgender conditions.  Since the evidence is very strong that SSA and transgender condition are inborn traits, that would make it impossible to declare that a sin.  Not only are the victims of both traits too young to sin, but they are not even choosing their condition.  In fact, Jesus made it very clear that mistakes (congenital defects) at birth are not a result of sin (John 9:1-12):  Not of the parents, nor of the child.  Indeed, the LDS faith does not blame anyone for SSA or transgender condition, but only sees actual homosexual activity as "sin."

8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I understand this feeling. It would help me have more confidence in their message if it stated facts honestly. Trying to tie all suicides to the LGBTQ issue is not honest. I really resist that type of propaganda. If you try to manipulate my emotions I will shut down and walk away from you. It gives me a negative perception of those that attempt to do so. 

Yes, playing fast and loose with statistics is all too common on this issue.  Sounds like a blame game.  Too much blame in a situation which demands compassion.  The Mama Dragons seem like a nice support group.  LDS Church officials should probably work with them to the extent possible.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That assumes volition in same sex attraction (SSA) or transgender conditions.  Since the evidence is very strong that SSA and transgender condition are inborn traits, that would make it impossible to declare that a sin.  Not only are the victims of both traits too young to sin, but they are not even choosing their condition.  In fact, Jesus made it very clear that mistakes (congenital defects) at birth are not a result of sin (John 9:1-12):  Not of the parents, nor of the child.  Indeed, the LDS faith does not blame anyone for SSA or transgender condition, but only sees actual homosexual activity as "sin."

Yes, playing fast and loose with statistics is all too common on this issue.  Sounds like a blame game.  Too much blame in a situation which demands compassion.  The Mama Dragons seem like a nice support group.  LDS Church officials should probably work with them to the extent possible.

I don't confuse being gay or having SSA with having sinned. Having passions is not the sin, but succumbing to the passions is where sin is found. Our physical body has a purpose, but it certainly not to direct the spirit. It is just the opposite, we must overcome our passions by submitting to the Spirit. 

Sin remains sin regardless of how strong the passion. We are to overcome our passions; to exert control over them rather than the other way around.  

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't confuse being gay or having SSA with having sinned. Having passions is not the sin, but succumbing to the passions is where sin is found. Our physical body has a purpose, but it certainly not to direct the spirit. It is just the opposite, we must overcome our passions by submitting to the Spirit. 

Sin remains sin regardless of how strong the passion. We are to overcome our passions; to exert control over them rather than the other way around.  

It's all well and good to urge people to overcome their negative passions  However, those under the pressure of  an "irresistible impulse" to commit certain crimes can find their degree of responsibility reduced in accordance with the degree of provocation.  Same applies to punishment for unplanned crimes (lack of intent, lack of mens rea).  That we allow mitigating factors to be brought up in criminal court cases should remind us that we may want to closely examine our assumptions about why and how people come by their SSA or transgender conditions.  Are those special circumstances demanding our Christian compassion, or should we render the harshest possible judgment upon the hapless victims of SSA and transgender conditions?  Dare we sentence all such victims to a lifetime of celibacy?  We don't expect the same from heterosexuals, since they can at least become married.  Is it fair to demand so much more from homosexuals and transgender people?  Haven't many of us just assumed that such things were a matter of choice, and rendered our judgments accordingly?  Now that the evidence is otherwise, could we at least look into the possibility of being less judgmental and more understanding?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It's all well and good to urge people to overcome their negative passions  However, those under the pressure of  an "irresistible impulse" to commit certain crimes can find their degree of responsibility reduced in accordance with the degree of provocation.  Same applies to punishment for unplanned crimes (lack of intent, lack of mens rea).  That we allow mitigating factors to be brought up in criminal court cases should remind us that we may want to closely examine our assumptions about why and how people come by their SSA or transgender conditions.  Are those special circumstances demanding our Christian compassion, or should we render the harshest possible judgment upon the hapless victims of SSA and transgender conditions?  Dare we sentence all such victims to a lifetime of celibacy?  We don't expect the same from heterosexuals, since they can at least become married.  Is it fair to demand so much more from homosexuals and transgender people?  Haven't many of us just assumed that such things were a matter of choice, and rendered our judgments accordingly?  Now that the evidence is otherwise, could we at least look into the possibility of being less judgmental and more understanding?

But I like being judgmental........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It's all well and good to urge people to overcome their negative passions  However, those under the pressure of  an "irresistible impulse" to commit certain crimes can find their degree of responsibility reduced in accordance with the degree of provocation.  Same applies to punishment for unplanned crimes (lack of intent, lack of mens rea).  That we allow mitigating factors to be brought up in criminal court cases should remind us that we may want to closely examine our assumptions about why and how people come by their SSA or transgender conditions.  Are those special circumstances demanding our Christian compassion, or should we render the harshest possible judgment upon the hapless victims of SSA and transgender conditions?  Dare we sentence all such victims to a lifetime of celibacy?  We don't expect the same from heterosexuals, since they can at least become married.  Is it fair to demand so much more from homosexuals and transgender people?  Haven't many of us just assumed that such things were a matter of choice, and rendered our judgments accordingly?  Now that the evidence is otherwise, could we at least look into the possibility of being less judgmental and more understanding?

4

We are not doing anything to sentence individuals to anything, but it appears that God demands certain standards of his disciples. Personally, I don't think there is a human alive that knows or understands how or why a gay person is gay or a transgender person has the urge to be other than what they are. What I do know is that to allow our sex drive to have a complete and free reign of our actions is anathema to God. You seem to be conflating two issues - the demands of discipleship and judging others. I thought that I had already clearly delineated these two things. Every disciple of Christ learns how to direct their sexual drives in accordance with God's will; none is free to do as they feel like. All are sinners and judgment should be beyond us - in fact, God will judge us with the same standard of judgment we judge others. 

Edited by Storm Rider

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

But I like being judgmental........

So do I, but I'm trying to repent.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We are doing anything to sentence individuals to anything, but it appears that God demands certain standards of his disciples. Personally, I don't think there is a human alive that knows or understands how or why a gay person is gay or a transgender person has the urge to be other than what they are. What I do know is that to allow our sex drive to have a complete and free reign of our actions is anathema to God. You seem to be conflating two issues - the demands of discipleship and judging others.

The hard scientific evidence seems to  be otherwise.  Jesus rejected the blame game in the case of the blind man, and we ought to take a lesson from that.  All of us are so flawed on this road to perfection.  Ought to give us more pause, just as Peter had to be called upon by Paul to stop making assumptions about what God really wants.

12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I thought that I had already clearly delineated these two things. Every disciple of Christ learns how to direct their sexual drives in accordance with God's will; none is free to do as they feel like. All are sinners and judgment should be beyond us - in fact, God will judge us with the same standard of judgment we judge others. 

Good points.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The hard scientific evidence seems to  be otherwise.  Jesus rejected the blame game in the case of the blind man, and we ought to take a lesson from that.  All of us are so flawed on this road to perfection.  Ought to give us more pause, just as Peter had to be called upon by Paul to stop making assumptions about what God really wants.

Good points.

I must be missing how Jesus' interaction with the blind man since birth relates to being gay, transgender, etc. Jesus recognized that a man he passed was blind since birth. The apostles asked him who sinned, the man himself or his parents that he was born blind? He responded neither had sinned and stated that he is blind that the works of God would be made manifest in him. After stating that he must do the works of him who sent him, he healed the man so that he could see (after he washed in the pool of Siloam). The chapter continues with a discussion with the Pharisees, the once blind man and his parents, and then with Jesus. (I am not going to hit return because almost everytime I do it now this site deletes what I write)  Nothing I have said relates to assessing blame for a way of being - blind or otherwise. However, what I have been saying is that we are commanded to act is specific ways IF we are to follow the Savior. It seems we are talking past one another because I don't understand how your statements relate to what I have stated. You seem to be attempting to correct or abbreviate what I have stated, but with comments that don't seem to apply. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I must be missing how Jesus' interaction with the blind man since birth relates to being gay, transgender, etc. Jesus recognized that a man he passed was blind since birth. The apostles asked him who sinned, the man himself or his parents that he was born blind? He responded neither had sinned and stated that he is blind that the works of God would be made manifest in him. After stating that he must do the works of him who sent him, he healed the man so that he could see (after he washed in the pool of Siloam). The chapter continues with a discussion with the Pharisees, the once blind man and his parents, and then with Jesus. (I am not going to hit return because almost everytime I do it now this site deletes what I write)  Nothing I have said relates to assessing blame for a way of being - blind or otherwise. However, what I have been saying is that we are commanded to act is specific ways IF we are to follow the Savior. It seems we are talking past one another because I don't understand how your statements relate to what I have stated. You seem to be attempting to correct or abbreviate what I have stated, but with comments that don't seem to apply. 

Maybe so.  However, it is also possible that you never got the message on congenital defects (genetic defects), such as being born blind or having some other inborn disability.  You seem to want to ignore scientific evidence that homosexuality and transgender conditions are inborn, not a matter of choice. Jesus rejected that blame game, and we need to as well.

As you know, most people born with genetic defects have to live with them as best they can.  Some can have surgical intervention.  News media only transmit to us the more spectacular cases.  The Savior demands compassion of us first and foremost.  We live in a flawed, very human world, and most of those with genetic defects (such as the blind man in the Gospel) are not going to be suddenly cured.  The cure is not the lesson Jesus wanted us to take away from that event.  Rather it is the lack of a sinful state and blame.  Once we establish that, we can begin to discuss what it means to have SSA, and the consequences of homosexual activity.  Should we be more concerned with compassion or with blame?  Perhaps you consider that an illegitimate issue, or perhaps you disagree with me on the relative importance of the distinctions I am making here.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe so.  However, it is also possible that you never got the message on congenital defects (genetic defects), such as being born blind or having some other inborn disability.  You seem to want to ignore scientific evidence that homosexuality and transgender conditions are inborn, not a matter of choice. Jesus rejected that blame game, and we need to as well.

As you know, most people born with genetic defects have to live with them as best they can.  Some can have surgical intervention.  News media only transmit to us the more spectacular cases.  The Savior demands compassion of us first and foremost.  We live in a flawed, very human world, and most of those with genetic defects (such as the blind man in the Gospel) are not going to be suddenly cured.  The cure is not the lesson Jesus wanted us to take away from that event.  Rather it is the lack of a sinful state and blame.  Once we establish that, we can begin to discuss what it means to have SSA, and the consequences of homosexual activity.  Should we be more concerned with compassion or with blame?  Perhaps you consider that an illegitimate issue, or perhaps you disagree with me on the relative importance of the distinctions I am making here.

You highlighted a statement and then wrote the above. I stated, "we are commanded to act is specific ways IF we are to follow the Savior." Could you explain how a person with genetic defects is prevented, not by any choice of their own, from following God's commandments. Specifically, how does this apply to gay individuals?  At no time have I ever insinuated that a gay person should or needs to be "cured". Further, I have never said anything to indicate that a gay person is in any more of a sinful state than any other human. You seem to keep going to places in your comments that don't apply to what I have stated in any of my comments.  

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You highlighted a statement and then wrote the above. I stated, "we are commanded to act is specific ways IF we are to follow the Savior." Could you explain how a person with genetic defects is prevented, not by any choice of their own, from following God's commandments. Specifically, how does this apply to gay individuals?  At no time have I ever insinuated that a gay person should or needs to be "cured". Further, I have never said anything to indicate that a gay person is in any more of a sinful state than any other human. You seem to keep going to places in your comments that don't apply to what I have stated in any of my comments.  

I did not suggest that a cure for homosexuality was the issue, as you seem to think.  Jesus was less interested in a cure for genetic defects than he was to make it clear that the blame game was morally wrong.  He was also less interested in commandments than in compassion.  The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were very upset with him for that very reason.

You have repeatedly stated "we are commanded to act is specific ways IF we are to follow the Savior."  As though the Savior never said anything else. I brought other considerations into the conversation.  You appear to believe that those other considerations are irrelevant, which is certainly your prerogative.  I consider them central.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not suggest that a cure for homosexuality was the issue, as you seem to think.  Jesus was less interested in a cure for genetic defects than he was to make it clear that the blame game was morally wrong.  He was also less interested in commandments than in compassion.  The scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were very upset with him for that very reason.

You have repeatedly stated "we are commanded to act is specific ways IF we are to follow the Savior."  As though the Savior never said anything else. I brought other considerations into the conversation.  You appear to believe that those other considerations are irrelevant, which is certainly your prerogative.  I consider them central.

So, based upon what you have been saying you were not disagreeing with anything I was saying, but your objective was to emphasize additional areas. I don't disagree with these areas of concern. However, I do disagree with you that Jesus was less interested in the commandments. The woman caught in adultery was dealt with compassion and still reminded to go and sin no more. That remains my position on this topic. It is one of the problems I have with M. Dragons - they have the compassion down, but have completely excluded the sin part. In doing so, their approach is confusing and incomplete. 

Share this post


Link to post

I think its wonderful. I know the pain of having a child be ostracized and/or judged by their peers at church for being different. Having a supportive group of moms to organize activities so these kids can feel like they belong somewhere as well as supporting the families is a win-win. I don't see how anyone would object to this.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

......................... one of the problems I have with M. Dragons - they have the compassion down, but have completely excluded the sin part. In doing so, their approach is confusing and incomplete. 

Compassion is often confusing and incomplete to hard-edged men, but is within the natural power of women to feature love, understanding, and the heart.  Katherine the Great gets it, while many others do not.  Why is there this tension between the yin and yang?  And is it of universal importance?  Why is it that one may not be a god without combining both?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Compassion is often confusing and incomplete to hard-edged men, but is within the natural power of women to feature love, understanding, and the heart.  Katherine the Great gets it, while many others do not.  Why is there this tension between the yin and yang?  And is it of universal importance?  Why is it that one may not be a god without combining both?

1

Because the Yin cannot stand alone; the feminine, the dark part of the symbol, enshrouds and obscures. The Yang gives light and makes that which is obscure to be revealed. Love does not abandon the commandments; true love leads us back to obedience to God's command. Mixing metaphors,  I have always thought of it as the banks to a river. As long as the banks are there, then the water will run clean and pure. The moment the banks are taken away, then the water has little onward progress and just spreads out making a stagnant swamp. Returning to the first metaphor, there is a reason why the Yin and Yang are together; when separated we are something infinitely less than what we are. Yin and Yang must both be present. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×