Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Inspiring Video of LGBTQ Latter-day Saints


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

But then that makes me wonder, do we have a responsibility to temper our words when speaking in public since those words may hurt others even if they fit perfectly within our personal belief system?

What about when the belief itself hurts others? Do we have a responsibility to not express those beliefs?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which family structures do you believe are not "well-intended"?  

Individuals who have unprotected sex with no intention of being responsible parents, for one. 

Even Daniel's comment acknowledges that some structures are a result of a variety of sins. Is that offensive?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Individuals who have unprotected sex with no intention of being responsible parents, for one. 

I'd call that irresponsible or making foolish decisions (many who are young do this....or even older couples).  But that does not mean that they entered their marriages without good intentions and hope and love, IMO.  Who hasn't made a foolish decision in their life?  I wouldn't condemn their family unit because of that.

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Even Daniel's comment acknowledges that some structures are a result of a variety of sins. Is that offensive?

I'd need to know what he was referring to when he stated: "”Since the fall of Adam and Eve into the worlds' current telestial state, the family has taken diverse forms throughout history and in various places throughout the world, sometimes by necessity due to loss, death, or other means... sometimes by misguided but well-intended cultural or civic designs... sometimes because of a variety of sins...

I don't want to speak for him, but I immediately thought of those who have sexual relations before marriage that result in pregnancy and then make the decision to marry because of that.  (And the majority of those marriages involve those with good intentions or are "well-intended", IMO).

So no, I don't find that offensive to acknowledge.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But that does not mean that they entered their marriages without good intentions and hope and love, IMO.  Who hasn't made a foolish decision in their life?

Interesting that you seem focused on marriage. Wasn't one of the specific issues Elder Perry identified as a problem the idea that marriage is unnecessary or only about the adults? 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Interesting that you seem focused on marriage. Wasn't one of the specific issues Elder Perry identified as a problem the idea that marriage is unnecessary or only about the adults? 

My question was specifically regarding the "family structure" as I was asking the person who posted and I used their own words (asking them to clarify their meaning).  (ie. Which "family structures" do they consider were not entered into (or formed) with well or good intentions?)

Here was their statement:

Quote

"We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles substitute and alternative family structures, some well-intended and some not, that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established."

If you want to open it up to a broader discussion, I'm fine with that too.  I think there are all kinds of examples we can give regarding different decisions people make that affect their families and marriages (like the one you already posted).  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is a perfect example of communication meant to silence and marginalize any belief that you disagree with.  

@rockpond, this is exactly what I think @Anonymous Mormon was referring to. 

Yes, I feel like this thread is quickly descending into what I described previously - the SSA (Same-Six Attackers) are going to all pile on with negative comments about the church and its leaders (such as Elder Perry who was a kind-hearted, loving Apostle) because it maintains the Christian values as taught in the Bible - that a Man and Woman is what God wants for a marriage.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, rockpond said:

I also found Elder Perry's use of "counterfeit", to presumably refer to same gender marriage (but possibly not, it's unclear), to also be offensive.  It does create unnecessary division and pain, it also diminishes many loving, committed relationships regardless of one's religious beliefs about marriage.

I've read and re-read President Oaks' words from the 4-April-2019 press release many times as I take great comfort in this being a guiding principle for all of us, myself included, as we move forward:

"We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it."

I too am glad to see that the church is working to try to reduce hate and contention. I think this is a good goal for all of us as individuals and institutions.

That said, I am not nearly as offended by the use of the word "counterfeit" as everyone else seems to be and don't think it's worth this much effort in a discussion. First, it said counterfeit lifestyles, not marriages were an attack on the traditional family - I can think of lots of lifestyles outside of LGBT that would fit this description. Second, even if he was referring to marriage the legal definition of SSM at that time in the majority of the US states SSM was technically counterfeit (definition: An illegal imitation), just like if California had released a new dollar bill that was deemed counterfeit by the majority of the states. I think that taken in a legal context, it would have to be considered less offensive than if someone used the term now.

But, in an effort to reduce hate and contention, I think it's good to try to use less divisive and offensive language. So I think it's a good word to stop using in this context

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Interesting that you seem focused on marriage. Wasn't one of the specific issues Elder Perry identified as a problem the idea that marriage is unnecessary or only about the adults? 

(Sorry to quote this again....but I've been thinking more about it :) )

As I think about different family structures (and your question about focusing on marriage), I do acknowledge there are some who just choose to live together (and not marry) and then have children..... and still forming a family structure.  

I still believe most of those have good intentions, though.  I think that's the part I was asking about because I honestly do not believe we should judge and say that a certain type of family structure is formed without good (or well) intentions (if that was the meaning and I'll let CV75 speak for themselves regarding that).  

The only ones I feel to be the most leaning towards this would be those marriages entered into as a way to gain citizenship....I would classify those as "fake" marriages (for the most part, if they had no intention of ever staying together, etc.).  But I guess even those may be entered into with "good" intentions???   (But not for forming a family structure.)

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Which family structures do you believe are not "well-intended"?  

I have to believe that nearly everyone who enters into a marriage with the person they love is "well-intended", but I'd like to hear what you mean by stating what you did.   Thanks....just curious....

I think the way Daniel worded his statement is the best I've seen....did you read it?   If so, what are your thoughts regarding it?  Here it is again:

This is respectful to all involved (and to our current teachings), IMO.

I think it best to tie everything back to the Proclamation, which most talks like this seem to do. In that way, we are invited to strive for the ideal and not get caught up in special cases. I think people can identify the substitutes and alternatives that crop up in their own societies, generally from non-/anti-religious/sectarian sources, as they apply the talk to their circumstances.

I did read it and haven't a comment on it. Hence I did not reply to that post. My version is simple wordsmithing in the attempt to efficiently preserve as much of the original text as possible while removing the offending word and clarifying that not all error is enacted in bad faith.

I take the exercise to focus on avoiding provocative speech, not on doctrine or specific deviations from orthopraxy.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it best to tie everything back to the Proclamation, which most talks like this seem to do. In that way, we are invited to strive for the ideal and not get caught up in special cases. I think people can identify the substitutes and alternatives that crop up in their own societies, generally from non-/anti-religious/sectarian sources, as they apply the talk to their circumstances.

Thanks for explaining more regarding your meaning 👍

I still do not care for the words "substitutes" or "alternatives" as I believe very few (if any) family structures or marriages are not the real deal (involving people who love each other enough to form a family).  Any legal marriage is a genuine marriage, IMO (maybe with the one exception I mentioned above regarding trying to get citizenship) and there are a vast variety of family structures....all just as much a "family" as the next one, IMO.

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I did read it and haven't a comment on it. Hence I did not reply to that post. My version is simple wordsmithing in the attempt to efficiently preserve as much of the original text as possible while removing the offending word and clarifying that not all error is enacted in bad faith

Ok.   Yes, you removed the offending word, but then added others that were almost as offensive. ;)

I think Daniel's is the best that I have personally read and is the least offensive or divisive and the most respectful to all.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

This is a perfect example of communication meant to silence and marginalize any belief that you disagree with.  

@rockpond, this is exactly what I think @Anonymous Mormon was referring to. 

 

Because THIS is what CV75 was saying.  Does he have a right to say it and even to believe it? Sure.  Should everyone that disagrees with his belief be shut up?  I guess so.  But then what is the purpose of a discussion group?  And obviously since you commented on what I said it didn't silence or marginalize your beliefs.

Klindley, you don't get to control everyone that disagrees with you.  It seems like a pretty arrogance stance to take.  If you want an echo chamber, then maybe the board should require a temple recommend in order to participate.  One of the main reasons I do participate is to provide a different point of view.  And if my viewpoint is not welcomed here, then I am happy to not participate.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

(Sorry to quote this again....but I've been thinking more about it :) )

As I think about different family structures (and your question about focusing on marriage), I do acknowledge there are some who just choose to live together (and not marry) and then have children..... and still forming a family structure.  

I still believe most of those have good intentions, though.  I think that's the part I was asking about because I honestly do not believe we should judge and say that a certain type of family structure is formed without good (or well) intentions (if that was the meaning and I'll let CV75 speak for themselves regarding that).  

The only ones I feel to be the most leaning towards this would be those marriages entered into as a way to gain citizenship....I would classify those as "fake" marriages (for the most part, if they had no intention of ever staying together, etc.).  But I guess even those may be entered into with "good" intentions???   (But not for forming a family structure.)

There are also those who don't chose to have a companion, but create families simply by having children they then raise at times carelessly...many ending up in foster care or being actually raised by relatives.  There are many families formed without marriage or even intent to form a family. (Not equating single parents with lack of good intentions...careless---in the sense of lacking actual caring---singles who become parents without considering the consequences for their children or who do not change their behaviour when a child becomes involved....those are the ones I am talking about, not  singles who have made mistakes and then chose to be responsible or those who chose to be responsible parents of those in need).

Nor does love automatically shift the picture to good intentions imo.  For example, someone may love another but have such a strong selfcenterness that love is left by the wayside when decisions are made (a pregnant drug addict that refuses to stop using for an extreme example, or someone that has kids more as an accessory and leaves them to nannies to be brought up or even on their own as much as possible).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are also those who don't chose to have a companion, but create families simply by having children they then raise at times carelessly...many ending up in foster care or being actually raised by relatives.

I agree.

I guess that's why I believe it's not good to just paint with a broad brush any specific type of marriage or family structure (that was the point I was trying to emphasize).  Some like you brought up above (who have or who adopt children without a companion) can still have good intentions, be a good parent and are very much a family, IMO.  I personally believe that two parents are the best scenario for raising children (for a number of reasons), but I know many wonderful single parents who have raised exceptional children too. 

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

I guess that's why I believe it's not good to just paint with a broad brush any specific type of marriage or family structure (that was the point I was trying to emphasize).  Some like you brought up above (who have or who adopt children without a companion) can still have good intentions, be a good parent and are very much a family, IMO.  I personally believe that two parents are the best scenario for raising children (for a number of reasons), but I know many wonderful single parents who have raised exceptional children too. 

So in this respect you sustain Elder Perry's message. He was specific only about the ideal, which we all can have faith in and hope for.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So in this respect you sustain Elder Perry's message. He was specific only about the ideal, which we all can have faith in and hope for.

If you believe he was speaking of some heterosexual marriages, some single parent homes and some SSM....all inclusive...and so on....then I can see your point (if that was what you intended with your statement).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nor does love automatically shift the picture to good intentions imo.  For example, someone may love another but have such a strong selfcenterness that love is left by the wayside when decisions are made (a pregnant drug addict that refuses to stop using for an extreme example, or someone that has kids more as an accessory and leaves them to nannies to be brought up or even on their own as much as possible).

(Sorry....just saw you added this.)

I agree with the examples you're giving.  And I think it just strengthens my point that we should not use a broad brush to paint any type of family structure as being not well-intentioned or counterfeit or a substitute.  Examples can be given pro and con for all types of marriages and families, IMO.  (That's why I asked CV75 to be more specific or to clarify what they meant.)

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are also those who don't chose to have a companion, but create families simply by having children they then raise at times carelessly...many ending up in foster care or being actually raised by relatives.  There are many families formed without marriage or even intent to form a family. (Not equating single parents with lack of good intentions...careless---in the sense of lacking actual caring---singles who become parents without considering the consequences for their children or who do not change their behaviour when a child becomes involved....those are the ones I am talking about, not  singles who have made mistakes and then chose to be responsible or those who chose to be responsible parents of those in need).

Nor does love automatically shift the picture to good intentions imo.  For example, someone may love another but have such a strong selfcenterness that love is left by the wayside when decisions are made (a pregnant drug addict that refuses to stop using for an extreme example, or someone that has kids more as an accessory and leaves them to nannies to be brought up or even on their own as much as possible).

In addition to good and evil intent, some substitutes and alternatives for the divine family organization (Elder Perry does not use the term "structure") are simply out of ignorance, compulsion and perhaps tradition. Some examples are gangs, communes, government-enforced fertility rates, and even (in my opinion) child marriages, arranged or otherwise.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you believe he was speaking of some heterosexual marriages, some single parent homes and some SSM....all inclusive...and so on....then I can see your point (if that was what you intended with your statement).

As I keep saying (and I will stop), I can see from his remarks that Elder Perry was using the descriptions in the Proclamation as the model for the divine family organization.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Because THIS is what CV75 was saying.  Does he have a right to say it and even to believe it? Sure.  Should everyone that disagrees with his belief be shut up?  I guess so.  But then what is the purpose of a discussion group?  And obviously since you commented on what I said it didn't silence or marginalize your beliefs.

No. No one suggested that disagreement should be shut up. I commented on the approach. If you don't think that sort of comment worked to marginalize his belief by making it sound more judgemental and extreme, what was the point?

 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Klindley, you don't get to control everyone that disagrees with you.  It seems like a pretty arrogance stance to take.  If you want an echo chamber, then maybe the board should require a temple recommend in order to participate.  One of the main reasons I do participate is to provide a different point of view.  And if my viewpoint is not welcomed here, then I am happy to not participate. 

You are free to react to things I did not say however you see best. There was no attempt to control anyone who doesn't agree with me, nor did I in any way suggest that your viewpoint was not welcome. Calling out rudeness and polarizing comments is not the same as wanting you to shut up. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In addition to good and evil intent, some substitutes and alternatives for the divine family organization (Elder Perry does not use the term "structure") are simply out of ignorance, compulsion and perhaps tradition. Some examples are gangs, communes, government-enforced fertility rates, and even (in my opinion) child marriages, arranged or otherwise.

I can agree with you listing those.  So, do you believe those are who Elder  L.Tom Perry was speaking about?  Those were the subjects/topic that he wanted to address when speaking to the members in GC?  Gangs, communes or child marriages?

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. No one suggested that disagreement should be shut up. I commented on the approach. If you don't think that sort of comment worked to marginalize his belief by making it sound more judgemental and extreme, what was the point?

 

You are free to react to things I did not say however you see best. There was no attempt to control anyone who doesn't agree with me, nor did I in any way suggest that your viewpoint was not welcome. Calling out rudeness and polarizing comments is not the same as wanting you to shut up. 

I think you always approach this with understanding and respect (from what I’ve seen).  And I know it’s an emotional topic for you (as it is for california boy too).  

Disagreement on here is normal in discussions.  You do show us how not to get too personal or into name calling and I appreciate that.   We all can get wound up or heated though at times!

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I can agree with you listing those.  So, do you believe those are who Elder  L.Tom Perry was speaking about?  Those were the subjects/topic that he wanted to address when speaking to the members in GC?  Gangs, communes or child marriages?

I think it best to tie everything back to the Proclamation, which most talks like this seem to do, an which I think Elder Perry was doing (as he did in a similar talk back in 2004, where he only used the term "alternative"). I think people can identify the substitutes and alternatives that crop up in their own societies, generally from non-/anti-religious/sectarian sources, as they apply the talk to their circumstances. I think his message was intended for people across world, just as the Proclamation's.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I can agree with you listing those.  So, do you believe those are who Elder  L.Tom Perry was speaking about?  Those were the subjects/topic that he wanted to address when speaking to the members in GC?  Gangs, communes or child marriages?

I think it best to tie everything back to the Proclamation, which most talks like this seem to do, an which I think Elder Perry was doing (as he did in a similar talk back in 2004, where he only used the term "alternative"). I think people can identify the substitutes and alternatives that crop up in their own societies, generally from non-/anti-religious/sectarian sources, as they apply the talk to their circumstances. I think his message was intended for people across world, just as the Proclamation's.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I can agree with you listing those.  So, do you believe those are who Elder  L.Tom Perry was speaking about?  Those were the subjects/topic that he wanted to address when speaking to the members in GC?  Gangs, communes or child marriages?

He was actually very clear what he was talking about. He was talking about a culture that devalues marriage and commitment and loyalty and family.  He never once referred to same-sex relationships.  Which makes me amazed that so many people continue to assume that must have been what he really meant.  

Link to comment
Just now, CV75 said:

I think it best to tie everything back to the Proclamation, which most talks like this seem to do, an which I think Elder Perry was doing (as he did in a similar talk back in 2004, where he only used the term "alternative"). I think people can identify the substitutes and alternatives that crop up in their own societies, generally from non-/anti-religious/sectarian sources, as they apply the talk to their circumstances. I think his message was intended for people across world, just as the Proclamation's.

I get that.  Of course there’s nothing in the proclamation about gangs (or child marriages or SSM).  

I know most who heard him felt he was speaking of SSM.  But maybe he included those you list?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...