Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bernard Gui

A Coming Out Party in Provo

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, someone says, "I'm gay," nobody who's a Latter-day Saint clamors for burning him at the stake, and, somehow, that's supposed to portend the eventual acceptance of gay marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  (Should Latter-day Saints, instead, have called for burning him at the stake?)

Sure does man...and members wouldn’t be clamoring for a burning at the stake...they’d be demanding that the gay be shocked away...know your religion guy. 

Edited by member10_1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, hearserve said:

Umm, did you......... never mind.

Dictionary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
bot·tom-up
/ˌbädəmˈəp/
adjective
 
  1. proceeding from the bottom or beginning of a hierarchy or process upward.
    "bottom-up decisions"

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Common consent is not a popular vote.  

 

12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will change to suit your fashion, huh.  I suppose, if and when that does happen, that I'll have a decision to make.

Did you have a decision to make this month when the church reversed itself on their gay policy?  How about in '78 when they ended the racist priesthood restrictions?  These things came about in part by public pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:
Dictionary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
bot·tom-up
/ˌbädəmˈəp/
adjective
 
  1. proceeding from the bottom or beginning of a hierarchy or process upward.
    "bottom-up decisions"

Like I said, never mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Did you read the article I specifically cited that I was responding to? NO. Quit creating the strawman. I did not listen to his speech, not what I was addressing. 

The rest just does not apply. Sorry. 

No, not even buying it. You are desperately reaching. A man stands up and says, "I would like to thank my spouse" - if you don't know him personally, you don't know who his spouse is. For me, if Buttigieg had just stood up and said my spouse has been great, I would not have known his spouse was a man or woman, but that is not what he did. FIrst, he has to tell my his sexual preference, then he has to tell me he is married, then he has to tell me his spouse is a man. Get over it; live your friggin life and get on with it. 

 

Yeah I totally. get your point of view.  It is ok for a straight politician to have his spouse on stage with him.  It is ok for a straight politician to give his wife a kiss on stage.  But if you are gay, be invisible.  In Storm Rider's world, you can't exist.

Perhaps those members of the church that share your point of view is part of the very reason a valedictorian feels compelled to stand up in a church venue and declare boldly that he too is a son of God and deserves to be recognized as he is, not broken, not invisible,.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post

As a proud feminist son of God,  I'm appalled that an attractive young man publicly announced his intentions to discriminate against more than half our society.  Can you imagine the howls from the patriarchy if a woman got up and announced she was starting a business and would only hire other women?

I won't be sending my daughters to a school that tolerates such sexism, male privilege, and blatant discrimination against others who happen to be born with different genitalia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 

Did you have a decision to make this month when the church reversed itself on their gay policy?  How about in '78 when they ended the racist priesthood restrictions?  These things came about in part by public pressure.

While I appreciate the very kind invitation implicit in your question, I've already indicated I'm not going to get drawn into that discussion, and I've already indicated why.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, member10_1 said:

Sure does man...and members wouldn’t be clamoring for a burning at the stake...they’d be demanding that the gay be shocked away...know your religion guy. 

This is nothing more than incendiary rhetoric, and adds nothing to the discussion.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 

Did you have a decision to make this month when the church reversed itself on their gay policy?  How about in '78 when they ended the racist priesthood restrictions?  These things came about in part by public pressure.

The peak of the public pressure regarding the Priesthood ban occurred well before 1978.  If public pressure were a primary reason for lifting the ban, that would have occurred several years before it did.  By 1978, most all who were attempting to exert that kind of pressure had resigned themselves to the fact (in their view) that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was racist, and wasn't going to change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

So honest question, how does everyone reconcile this with the teaching of the Church. I see how excited everyone gets with orientation is mentioned as long as it’s not heterosexual. Just wondering how everyone is doing this. 

It shouldn't need to be said, but God loves all of His children, whatever their station in life, single, married, gay, or straight.  He wants us to love Him back ("If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15)).  While I can understand those who hold a contrary view (especially if they privilege what happens in this life over what happened in the premortal life or what will happen in the postmortal life), whatever particular sacrifices that may entail, He has promised that those who give good measure in this life will receive a return of "good measure pressed down, shaken together, and running over" (Luke 6:38), and that those who forsake the things of this world for those of a better one "shall receive an hundredfold" in return "and shall inherit everlasting life" on top of that (Matthew 19:29).

Why do some of God's children have the challenges they do?  I don't know, nor does any mortal.  But I honor those who are willing to make sacrifices few other mortals can comprehend in order to keep their covenants.  

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/study/manual/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah I totally. get your point of view.  It is ok for a straight politician to have his spouse on stage with him.  It is ok for a straight politician to give his wife a kiss on stage.  But if you are gay, be invisible.  In Storm Rider's world, you can't exist.

Perhaps those members of the church that share your point of view is part of the very reason a valedictorian feels compelled to stand up in a church venue and declare boldly that he too is a son of God and deserves to be recognized as he is, not broken, not invisible,.

You keep creating strawmen and avoid what I am saying. If you want your spouse on stage, put them on the stage. What you don't have to do is tell me your sexual preference or anything thing else that is not my business. Do you see the distinction I am getting at and stop with the knee jerk reactions that have nothing to do with what I say. And enough already with the drama. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, member10_1 said:

Dang, I totally forgot that when I comment on the suffering of one group it elevates their suffering above that of every other group...I’m soooo sorry. What groups do you identify with? I’ll include those groups in a special disclaimer for any post I make about suffering to make sure you don’t feel like someone else is more special than you. 

Gays are not my golden calf of social calamities to wring my hands over. Sorry. 

I have traveled and lived in many countries during my life. You seem to be pretty provincial in your concept of who is downtrodden in the world and who is not. If you feel the need to elevate some group to golden calf status, go for it. But, do not expect me or anyone else to worship at that thing, particularly when you ignore all the other groups that suffer in the world. Just because a group sufferse, does not automatically win brownie points. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  Let's start governing the Church of Jesus Christ by popular vote, then.

Agreed, we should also amend the scriptures so that they agree with the popular view of the times. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This is nothing more than incendiary rhetoric

Is this the highbrow way of telling me my post was the bomb?

Edited by member10_1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The peak of the public pressure regarding the Priesthood ban occurred well before 1978.

That's not true.  This has been discussed here before and I'll post the link for you to read it to avoid there being a derail on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71033-sam-young-is-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209854789

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

How come nobody has addressed the transgeneder issue on this thread? Are they celebrated and accepted at BYU? Would a transgender woman (bio-male) be able to live in the women dorms? 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If you want your spouse on stage, put them on the stage.

We're not there yet, but hopefully that will be acceptable and applauded at BYU in the future just as was done for what this young man stood up and stated.  Many will rejoice for them just as many do for this graduate.  To see them standing up together hand in hand proudly introducing their spouse would be wonderful to see....especially if they were met with cheers and applause.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not true.  This has been discussed here before and I'll post the link for you to read it to avoid there being a derail on this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71033-sam-young-is-excommunicated/?do=findComment&comment=1209854789

 

If you think the actions of a single individual, as opposed to the actions of entire institutions (e.g., schools refusing to play BYU athletic teams and making a point of publicly announcing the reason as the priesthood ban) or significant numbers of players protesting even when their schools did play BYU constitute a peak of public pressure, I suppose we'll have to disagree on what that means, since most events of that sort occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  By 1978, schools simply didn't bother to schedule or to agree to contests against BYU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you think the actions of a single individual, as opposed to the actions of entire institutions (e.g., schools refusing to play BYU athletic teams and making a point of publicly announcing the reason as the priesthood ban) or significant numbers of players protesting even when their schools did play BYU constitute a peak of public pressure, I suppose we'll have to disagree on what that means, since most events of that sort occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  By 1978, schools simply didn't bother to schedule or to agree to contests against BYU.

If you believe there were just public actions of a single individual, you're wrong again.  Maybe you did not read the other posts after the one I linked to?  Try again if you're interested in reading that there were more than just "a single individual" involved.  The different protests and events also made national news.  

I just posted this for you to read and realize your original statement was wrong:

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The peak of the public pressure regarding the Priesthood ban occurred well before 1978.

If anything it was just going to escalate, IMO.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Can't find part 1 or 2, but this part 3 is something I came upon by accident, thought I'd share it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Gays are not my golden calf of social calamities to wring my hands over. Sorry. 

I have traveled and lived in many countries during my life. You seem to be pretty provincial in your concept of who is downtrodden in the world and who is not. If you feel the need to elevate some group to golden calf status, go for it. But, do not expect me or anyone else to worship at that thing, particularly when you ignore all the other groups that suffer in the world. Just because a group sufferse, does not automatically win brownie points. 

Haha...okay.

PS, the cure for that whooshing sound you continue to hear over your head is better reading comprehension. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Calm said:

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

Going forward the Church will have a hard time maintaining this position, I think.  If someone is gay and flirts with another who is gay, is that one sinning?  What if that one is gay and holds hands with another?  Is that sinful?  At what point does attraction turn to behavior?  The point in which one's desire leaks out into his/her actions?  That point at which one smiles in a flirty way at another with whom he/she is attracted to?  Is homosexual behavior two men holding hands or kissing?  Is homosexual behavior two women flirting with each other?  Because each of those constitute behavior.  Most of that just comes out naturally.  Flirting in particular is tough because it often just happens without the flirter realizing he/she is flirting.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Has anyone ever accused you of being a nurturer? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We're not there yet, but hopefully that will be acceptable and applauded at BYU in the future just as was done for what this young man stood up and stated.  Many will rejoice for them just as many do for this graduate.  To see them standing up together hand in hand proudly introducing their spouse would be wonderful to see....especially if they were met with cheers and applause.

 

I don't think BYU is a place that should encourage that - it is a religiously affiliated institution that should uphold their own beliefs and feel good about it. However, in the public square, I see no reason not for individuals who want to be presented or accompanied with their spouse to do so. 

I guess I am looking for just a bit more decorum out of public speakers. I don't want to know your sexual proclivities regardless of what they are. It is a push for common decency in public speaking. It is absolutely not and does not have anything to do with one's sexual preference. 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, member10_1 said:

Haha...okay.

PS, the cure for that whooshing sound you continue to hear over your head is better reading comprehension. 

LOL - that whooshing sound you hear - that is standing on a soapbox while denying it is your soapbox. Call 'em like I seem 'em. 

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...