pogi

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

(Poor Putin only got 88% of the vote)

The other 12% will be dead soon from "natural causes" after a short imprisonment...so they don't count. 

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Crying repentance and warning people is telling people to change and all believers have been called to do that.

We are told " Cry repentance unto this generation.",

not

"Cry do your own thing, because we are evaluating perennial doctrines in light of post-modern thinking and we could be wrong, unto this generation."

Since people are out and about crying repentance to others...

Perhaps repentance (the change of heart and mind) is in part speaking to those who cling to old stagnant, status quo, traditional, tired and false/harmful narratives/histories that do harm and hinderance to the progressive nature of revelation and the restored gospel. 

"I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions." — Joseph Smith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 52

Quote

There will always be those loyal to Joseph and the fullness of the Restored Gospel... I'm not worried.

Given the known fallibility of man, leaders and the temporal/fallible institution of the church, I sometimes wonder if our loyalties are misplaced. 

The "fullness" of the Restored Gospel is yet to come, it is progressive...   Don't be so sure and hardened and quick to dig your feet in just yet.  The Lord requires a malleable heart and mind.  

 

 

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is not a great argument when there could have been multiple reasons Joseph used plural marriage to manipulate people.  If a tool works well for one situation, why not try it for a similar one?

That, and he might have had a lust for woman of different ages.  He wouldn't be the first.  

The vast majority were teens and 20's, but we can't rule out lust just because a couple were older. 

This is more directed @ZealouslyStriving than you. 

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

She must have somehow since she stayed married to him and continued to believe that he was a prophet.

I don't think she ever did find a way to justify it as she denied that Joseph every taught or practiced polygamy after his death and blamed it all on Brigham Young.   She always hated plural marriage and made sure that her children - the future presidents of their church - didn't teach or practice it.    I think she relied on a heavy dose of either denial or accepting that even prophets can make grave mistakes to make things work.  

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wrong.

The scriptures state it is evil when practiced out of order and to satisfy personal lust.

Since you are not the arbiter of scriptural interpretation, my interpretation is just as valid as yours.  I am glad you have found some way to make it work for you, but I don't read it that way.  

To me, it says clearly that monogamy is the order:

Quote

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any ^aman among you have save it be ^bone ^cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

Polygamy is the exceptions (only acceptable for one purpose):

Quote

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up ^aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

You note the same exception listed in the D&C:

Quote

for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment

It then lists some obscure promise but then shows the purpose of the promise is this:

Quote

that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

 Your scripture doesn't contradict what I said.  It confirms it. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe it was used to raise up a generation of leaders for the future of the Church, not just seed in general. Who more equipped to lead the Church than the children of those willing to keep ALL the principles taught?

Except, the scriptures state that polygamy is evil and not a principle of the Gospel.  How do you explain the canonical doctrine in the Book of Mormon which states that polygamy is evil, with the singular exception where God may command it to raise seed?  Otherwise, it is a BIG no, no.  

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The caveat, unless needing to raise up seed.

Hmmm, 40 polygamous wives and no additional seed from anyone but Emma to show for it. 

This raising seed argument is a common one used by many of the very people who also try to argue that Joseph never consummated any of his other marriages, thus defeating the original argument. 

So, which is it?

 

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Excuse my ignorance, but will a blind blood test return a gender marker?

If it does, I personally believe that is the appropriate gender.

They are casually called gender blood tests, but they are actually genetic tests which can help ID genetic sex.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/blood-test-for-gender#:~:text=You can't take one,screening tools first and foremost.

There is nothing remotely graphic or violent in those photos.  One of them was just a stained glass window of geometric shapes.   
We can jump on the persecution bandwagon, or we can give the benefit of the doubt after reviewing the photos and conclude that there is some innocent mistake going on here.  It is clear they are not censoring all pictures of temples, and the ones they are seem completely random.

A quick jont to their Facebook page shows many uncensored photos of temples.  What is your source?

https://m.facebook.com/LatterDaySaintsStandingUnited

 

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Or they could be getting reports from church critics that the photos are violent or graphic, so Facebook responds by censoring them.

I don’t know anything about Latter-day Saints Stands United.  Are they a violent group or do they post graphic pictures?  If not, why would Facebook delete them after a review of complaints?

That’s interesting.  I wonder if it is an algorithm thing over-correcting after potential complaints of people posting unfriendly and unauthorized pictures of inside the temple that they have taken down.  That’s just a total guess but I could see how something like that might happen.

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What defines/is an example of the Church being unfriendly or treating them poorly that can be improved by the Church?

 

Stop telling them “we just need to find you a good girl” as a solution to their problems for starters.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you can show me the word that "Romans, Greeks, etc." had to describe the "sexual identities" we now call gay, lesbian, etc., please do so.

I don't think you will be able to do that. 

That was kind of my point. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have said nothing about conversion therapy, nor have I endorsed it, nor do I now endorse it.

You have actually said and quoted a lot about it.  

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Ok, then provide me some evidence other than anecdotes (especially where other anecdotes easily contradict your observations) and wishful thinking.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Unfortunately, discussions about homosexuality often end up defaulting to rote accusations of bigotry. 

It is just hard when other sexual sin isn't confronted with the same shaming recommendations of "setting aside" their identities.   Instead, they are told to look to God and be submissive/subordinate to Him.   It seems you have a biased place for gay people (I am not ashamed to say it) in your heart in how your view and treat their identities that is not the same for heterosexuals.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Tends to stymie it."

I am speaking from anecdotal observation and experience, and I am not speaking in absolutes.

I think publicly making such recommendations and singling out and demeaning ("set aside" or "subordinate") other people's identities instead of recognizing that these identities are not sinful or immoral and can co-exist in oneness and are all part of being a child of God is harmful behavior.  Especially when you just base it on "anecdotes" only.  It is shaming of how people personally identify as a child of God. All of these identities are part of being a child of God.  The paradoxical identities of both saint and sinner (as one example of how all identities are just parts of the whole) are part of my holistic identity as a child of God   Jesus said that he came for the "sinners" (Matt 5:31-32) and that the whole need no physician.  All of these identities are part of and make up my identity as a child of God. 

All of our identities should be subordinate/submissive to God - not to his children - aka "child of God".  Having other identities as subordinate to the identity of child of God doesn't even make sense to me, it is all part of the same identity.  I think it is healthier to view identity in a more holistic oneness.   That holistic identity as a child of God is ever changing in many different ways.  I don't think it is helpful to view the identity of "child of God" in some static, righteous, unwavering way.  It just doesn't seem to present itself in that way - ever - unless you are Jesus. 

As a child of God, for example, my identities of both saint and sinner coexist.  In fact, being honest and identifying myself as a sinner is critical to repentance and improving my behavior.  My identity as a sinner is not subordinate to being a child of God, it is what it means for me personally to be a child of God.  Being male is equally part of my identity as a child of God.  Being heterosexaul is also part of my identity and experience as a child of God.   So here is the problem I see with you demeaning the identity of homosexual children of God - there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual (even the church acknowledges this).  No, that identity should not be "set aside" or "subordinate" to any other identity, rather all identities should be subordinate and submissive to God.       

I can't imagine a bishop or anyone else counseling a heterosexual who has a sexual problem to "set aside" his identity as a heterosexual or be "subordinate" to anything but God.  The biased approach in singling and demeaning the identity of homosexuals in this way is not ok and is harmful. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

But there sure seem to be a lot of narratives about a Latter-day Saint (often former or lapsed) prioritizing participation in same-sex behavior over keeping the Law of Chastity. 

There seem to be a lot of narratives about Latter-day Saints (even active ones) prioritizing participation in immoral sex behavior over keeping the Law of Chastity.  That seems to be common among men...and women; gay and straight.  This proves nothing. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Embracing the "identity" sure seems to be a commonly integral element of that narrative progression.

There are more reasons than sex that people leave.   That is usually the last thing on the list of reasons.  Marriage and romantic relationship (not sex) and their place in the plan of salvation/after-life seem to be more important considerations.  Being married to a woman (at least one) in the afterlife doesn't feel right to them.  It is often more about following their conscience than anything.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  To wit: David Archuleta.  He has abandoned one identity (an active and faithful Latter-day Saint) to pursue another "sexual" one.

As you have noted (your friend) who has chosen to stay is a counter anecdote.   Have you talked to David about why he left?  Do you know all the reasons?  Has he stated anywhere that sex is the primary reason for leaving?  He mentioned that he spoke with an apostle before leaving who's advice was "we just need to find you a nice girl", that is when he realized the church has no solution or place for gay people.  Usually, gay people feel like there is no place for them in a family centric church where we are taught that is the primary purpose for mortality - to have a family to learn to become like God - and that is why many gay (and single) people really struggle in the church.  Some choose to stay, and many leave.   Singles probably find it easier to stay because they can at least see where they belong in the afterlife and there is still theoretical potential in this life for a relationship. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I think the identity is often about identifying and acting on the attraction.  

Not in the case of your "friend".  Not in the case of single and unmarried faithful Latter-day Saints who predominantly follow cultural and societal norms of adopting a sexual identity.  

You're comments and anecdotes aren't helpful at making any point. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is regularly raked across the coals for differentiating between the "attraction" and acting on it.

???  What does this have to do with sexual identities?  The church seems to have no problem with people identifying as gay.  No, this seems to be a special mission for you. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sexual attraction was never something I viewed as what I was, but rather what I felt and experienced.

The concept of "sexual identity" is a very new thing.

Not new enough to explain your outlier experience. 

Good for you, though.  So what? 

"Are you gay or straight smac97?" 

"Neither.  But I am attracted to women...".  

Strange looks ensue. 

It sounds strange because it is.  It is not the way our culture and society speaks or thinks, even in the church, for a very long time (time is relative, remember and this culture/language long outdate you).  You are an outlier that belongs in ancient times apparently. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

When a Latter-day Saint who is sexually attracted to his own sex is grappling with what to do with those proclivities, it is not uncommon to, at some point, embrace the "sexual identity," announce and proclaim it, seek validation and endorsement from others for it, begin to act in ways congruent with it, and either gradually or abruptly set aside or subordinate the conflicting identity (that of being a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint).  David Archuleta is a recent example of this progression.

There is no confliction between the identities of being gay and a child of God.  It is not an either or.   Again, the reason so many leave and celebrate their identity is because they felt it was stifled and their identity shamed (you are proving a good example) in the church and that there was no place for them.  They often feel unacceptable as they are in the church and the plan of salvation.  The only solution is "healing" or "changing" in the afterlife into something they have no desire to be.  That hurts.  It doesn't feel right in their conscience.  So quit making about sex.  It isn't about that for most that I have heard from. 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Alternatively, a Latter-day Saint can choose to not embrace the sexual identity, or else choose to subordinate it, and to continue to keep the Law of Chastity to the best of his ability, and to otherwise continue in discipleship, keeping covenants, and so on.

That is a false dichotomy.  

 

Nevermind

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

However, if sexual attraction is viewed as a "predisposition towards certain behaviors" (rather than as an "identity"), then the individual ends up with desires and appetites which he can choose to control and keep within the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  Still difficult, to be sure, but I think more tractable.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if a person adopts a homosexual identity, then they will "end up with desires and appetites which he can can't choose to control and keep within the parameters of the Law of Chastity."  

If this is not true for those who identify as heterosexual, why would it be true for homosexuals or others? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The "label" or "identity" seems to be a very recent innovation (coined in the latter half of the 19th century, and gaining sociocultural, legal and political ascendancy in the latter half of the 20th century). 

On the other hand, the "attractions" have existed for time out of mind.

Right, so do you have evidence that the recent "label" or "identity" has made those behaviors more prevalent or uncontrollable?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, setting aside the label/identity, or subordinating it, allows the individual to keep the Law of Chastity in its place as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

My neighbor identifies as gay and is a temple recommend holder.  Are you honestly suggesting that identifying as gay dis-"allows the individual" from keeping the Law of Chastity?  If a heterosexual person can control themselves despite their sexual identity, again, why not a gay person? 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Viewing sexual attraction as something one experiences is, I think, both intellectually and spiritually distinguishable from viewing it as something one is.  The former facilitates volition, whereas the latter tends to stymie it.

The way someone chooses to identify doesn't stymie volition.  You have no evidence for this.  CFR if you do.   The identity doesn't require one to be sexually active or to violate the law of chastity in anyway.  It is more about identifying their attraction rather than anything else.  For example, I identified as a heterosexual long before I was ever sexually active.  Celibate people general usually identify as homosexual or heterosexual, it says nothing of their ability to obey the law of chastity.  

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Intellectually, academically, sure.

And the label can be fully rejected by an individual.

otoh….

Can the predispositions towards certain behaviours that the person has grouped under the label be deconstructed or removed?

Are the attractions there because of the label in your view or the label is chosen because of the attractions?  If the latter, what effect on those preexisting attractions would deconstructing the construct have?

Your last question is a good one.  We can look to history for answers.  I pointed out previously that in societies where the social construct of sexual identity didn't exist (Romans, Greeks, etc.), the predisposition towards those behaviors being discussed still existed.  In fact, it probably flourished more than it does now.    So, I don't think Smac has much to stand on.  The meta analysis I linked to previously shows that there is no evidence that shows sexual identity (vs sexual attraction) conversion really works to change behavior.   Smac doesn't have anything to stand on here other than wishful thinking.  Unfortunately, such bias against gay identities causes more shame and harm than good.  I wish he would just stop. 

I found your choice of quotes interesting given what you have said:

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

"{T}he adoption of a sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction—homosexual, heterosexual, or something else—is well within the range of development for most people."

Adoption of sexual identity unconstrained by internal attraction?  

Wait, what?  Are you now going above and beyond just setting aside social constructs of sexual identy and are proposing that people with same sex attraction "adopt" a heterosexual identity - which is itself a social construct?

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

"'{I}t is, of course, possible,' they write, 'to change one’s public sexual-orientation identity, and one can certainly make choices about whether one will or will not engage in same-sex or opposite-sex sexual behavior or become celibate.'"

Again, this is something other than what you were proposing about setting aside social constructs of sexual identity, and instead seems to be advocating for adopting social constructs of sexual identity that may go extremely contrary to one's sexual attraction.    It is just placing one sexual identity above the other as inherently better.  That is just wrong and shaming.  There is nothing inherently wrong with either identity as a way to express one's dominant attraction (which as you say may be as fluid as identity - so what?). 

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

"{D}ozens of accounts of persons who have transitioned away from homosexual identity and behavior."

Why are you highlighting this comment?  Are you promoting transitioning as a viable solution?  Haven't we learned our lessons about that yet through years of BYU experiments and trials? 

For some, fluidity seems realistic, for others there seems to be an overwhelming dominant attraction that changes little if any.  There almost just as many accounts of people claiming they were "healed" from being gay through conversion therapy, and later suggest it was all just BS.  For those who have claimed to be "healed", let's see how many can truly endure time.   Listen to the once major leaders of the ex-gay community whom you once would have probably heralded as heroes of your theory (I highly recommend watching the whole documentary) :

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

"{T}he impulse to constrain or coerce such persons’ choices about same-sex identity and behavior."

Ya, it would be terribly shaming to coerce someone's choices about sexual identity through social pressure/guilt/shame, wouldn't it?  Remember when you said this:

Quote

It is, for me, sad and unfortunate that David has chosen the "sexual identity" paradigm in ways that, for him, require the exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel.  I think this is dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary.  Hamba is quite right: "The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those {} who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

Not only is the bolded portion false in that social constructs of sexual identity don't "require" the "exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel", but it is also incredibly shaming and socially coercive of sexual identity choices.   Seems terribly ironic, doesn't it, given the quote you are highlighting? 

I will also note that before "modern" social constructs of sexual identity existed, the behavior didn't magically go away.  If anything, it was more tolerated because there wasn't a word to shame, demean and other people with. 

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

This makes no sense at all if sexual orientation is a fixed and immutable and innate and intrinsic aspect of each individual.  However, it makes all sorts of sense if "sexual identity" is acknowledged for what it is: a social construct that "can shift over time."

You are conflating "sexual orientation" in your first paragraph with "sexual identity" in the second.   I agree that both are fluid, but I couldn't imagine just flipping my sexual orientation and identity because science says it can be fluid.  I think most are like me where there is a dominant tendency throughout their lives.  Some people may more readily be able to change or choose their orientation and identity than others, but others have been traumatized and have chosen to end their lives because they didn't see how they could change, even though they really wanted to. 

Here is some evidence on the success of sexual orientation AND sexual identity conversion therapy in the UK (2021):

Quote

 

This assessment looked at the nature, quality and quantity of evidence on conversion therapy to change sexual orientation and gender identity exclusively. It found that the evidence base for conversion therapy for sexual orientation is long-established, extending over 20 years, while for gender identity the evidence base is newer. Despite being fewer in number, studies looking at conversion therapy for gender identity were assessed as being stronger in design than those for sexual orientation. This is largely due to their larger sample sizes which can help to reduce sampling limitations.

This assessment also found that research on conversion therapy is affected by methodological challenges. This limits the ability to say definitively what the impact of conversion therapy is. However, this report notes that the quality of evidence identified in this assessment is the highest that is achievable. While the evidence is predominantly based on self-reporting, consistent patterns were found which enable indicative conclusions to be found. These are that there is no robust evidence that conversion therapy can change sexual orientation or gender identity, and that conversion therapy is frequently associated with harm.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-assessment-of-the-evidence-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/an-assessment-of-the-evidence-on-conversion-therapy-for-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity#conclusion

 

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

"{O}penness to experience was associated with increased odds of changing from a heterosexual to a plurisexual identity."

"{S}exual identity can be fluid into adulthood."

These findings sure seem to merit some discussion.

Sure, lets discuss it.  How would removing modern constructs of sexual identity remove "openness to experiences"?  It seems that people were probably more "open to experiences" before modern constructs of social identity so there doesn't seem to be any cause or even correlation here. 

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

I am in favor of letting people choose, including whether or not the entirely set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else be "fluid" in it (including, notably, "toward and away from LGB+ identities").

Yep, this whole time you crap on the idea of sexual identity, but now you make it clear you are ok with it, as long as it is not gay.   Push em back in the closet where they belong! 

"Sexual identity is ok for me.  It is also ok for immoral heterosexual promiscuous and scandalous deviants to have a sexual identity, but it's not ok for you, because that's gross and might lead to immoral [forgetting about how immoral heterosexuals can be]."

How realistic do you think it is to "set aside the notion of sexual identity" in a society that has embraced that social construct?   That is like trying to get rid of pronouns (a social construct) all together, apart from the society around us that uses them.  That is a joke! 

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

Okay.  Sexual attraction is something that one experiences, but I think it is not, or need not be, construed to be what one is.

Unless they identify as heterosexual, then you are ok with that.  You made that very clear above.  

On 3/31/2024 at 12:14 AM, smac97 said:

But not as an "identity."  That's the innovation under discussion.

No it is not, you only have a problem with the innovation of gay sexual identity not the innovation of sexual identity in general.  You have made that very clear above. 

 

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If he uses similar language and arguments why should I fail to point it out?

What it means to be a Saint?

Questions to ask.

 

I haven’t watched it yet, but here is the Mormon stories episode with David’s mom.  Might add some context to the song.

 

53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Start at 2:46

“I have my agency I can do what I want” - “No you can’t! You don’t understand agency…” “The hymn is called choose the right not choose what you want.”

I bet this is what he was referencing in his lyrics when he said, "said...we can't choose".