Jump to content

Meadowchik

Contributor
  • Posts

    5,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meadowchik

  1. I said the church has been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation as being real. I've watched it unfold in real time, and--as one who has argued opposition and later support--I've participated in thousands of discussions about same sex marriage, a significant portion of them with members of the church. It's always been a bit more difficult linguistically to speak about the topic in an LDS context because the LDS vocabulary has been slower to use the current vocabulary of the time. For example, using same-sex-attracted individual instead of homosexual.
  2. My point is that the academics you mentioned might not oppose SSM. What you said about them does not mean they necessarily oppose it. I was speaking of tendency of the pool of people who oppose SSM; a relatively small cohort of scholars are not representative of it.
  3. No. Hypothetically, though, wouldn't there be bigamous polygamy and lawful polygamy, were polygamy legal? I'm just drawing a distinction between being married to one person as their only spouse and being married to one person as one of their spouses.
  4. Of course it doesn't, it is each wife sharing the husband, each not being his one wife as he is her one husband.
  5. The academic consensus about what marriage has been is one thing, what potential is approved or supported is another position entirely.
  6. There are differences between bigamy and polygamy. Aside from legality, there's the consent of all parties, and all spouses of a polygamous marriage are participating in a polygamous marriage, which involves each wife understanding that she is not the single wife and the husband having more than one wife.
  7. In this context it can simply mean between man and woman. It's easier and clearer than than writing differently sexed. And fwiw, people who tend to oppose SSM also have been slower to acknowledge sexual orientation in the first place as being real, the LDS Church, for example.
  8. Eternal gender doesn't interfere with same-sex relationships, which by the way are also components of families. "Convenient or prominent", aside from being a straw man justification, fall incredibly short of what a relationship can be, including same-sex relationships. They are far more than convenient and prominent. Breaking down to essentials, a couple of any orientation can show love including Christlike love, can be completely united, supportive, sustaining, edifying. Love can be a beautiful spiritual experience, and same-sex love is no exception to that. And that's the core of it: it can be every bit as good as heterosexual relationships. Good fruit. And good despite inconvenience or convenience, and good fruit regardless of popularity. The good fruit is a reality.
  9. Perhaps let those concerned explain themselves. The fact is that with every generation of faithful families in the church, are born new people who are LGBTQ. That's the issue. They are part of the church and the teachings against them are harmful.
  10. In addition to my initial reply: Calling the other posters point a trope like that really is dismissive. Imagine that the same things that affirm to you that truth is truth, good is good, and God is God also tells you God wouldn't do a thing. This wouldn't be shallow, rather it's at the very heart of spirituality, at the core of personal conscience and personal integrity. It's not to be waved away.
  11. You don't speak for the church and every active latter-day saints who understands the gospel. But I do sort of agree that marginalizing same-sex relationships should be too low to require debate. Unfortunately some are still holding fast to it though.
  12. Not unlike those who claim the prophets don't get things wrong, ie "My God wouldn't allow that."
  13. There's nothing less-than in same-sex relationships, but framing them as such by allocating them to lesser kingdoms is categorizing them as less-than.
  14. Bottom line is that in this regard, he is deeply mistaken. This is an example of the hazard of claiming spokesmanship for God. Personally, I regret the time and resources I spent holding this position up as truth, because I believed these men spoke for God. And I know that right now there are parents, other family and friends being torn in different directions, not just because of who they love, but because they know that love is good but also have believed the church was right. Pain will inevitably follow.
  15. You're welcome. It might be important to understand that there are downsides for some, and also for some the beliefs called "the Gospel of Jesus Christ" are no longer accessible, for reasons of conscience and conviction. That said, there can still be tremendous common ground even in these cases.
  16. I don't think religion exists without politics in its essence. Religion is a collective exercise of belief, a social creature which is inherently political. You can't take the man-made out of religion. Man is the filter through which it comes.
  17. My son is also autistic, but he's very aware of sources of the information. I was also keenly aware of the distinction between sources and authorities, per doctrine. And I definitely weighted information against the informer's knowledge and/or authority over sharing info to others
  18. I think the concept of eternity impacted me negatively in multiple ways. It persuaded me to delay happy experiences now in favour of doing the church-prescribed path to happiness, which can be quite miserable sometimes. To be fair, it's not a bad thing to delay gratification for a worthy return later. But the danger of eternal reward is that it is easy to calculate in favour of any amount of restricted happiness or lifetime suffering against its infinite return. I think this can lead to lots of self-induced suffering when one believes it's part of the plan toward eternal reward. So that's two ways so far: restricting happiness, unnecessary suffering. The next way is that relying on eternal reward can create a sense of detachment between ourselves and the present moment. And this can wreak personal havoc as well as in our relationships. I've noticed that my relationships with LDS believers improve as they focus more on the moment. It reminds me of Christ's teachings about the kingdom of heaven that is in the here and now. Of course the kingdom of God would also be a future hope. This is a case of proper balance, in my opinion. Of recognising the hazards of eternity beliefs and arriving at the conviction that we are not expected to wager endless lifetime suffering against the eternal reward--it's okay to say no to suffering when possible--it's okay to seek happiness, and when done in a principled way we might be preparing ourselves to live better in the eternal now than those who rely on it as a delayed promise.
  19. I agree it can be comforting, surely. Yet there is another way to see the result of it. I personally think that assuredness of eternity that I held (until recently) impeded me from experiencing joy and progression. Perhaps there'd be a healthy balance in considering it as a double edged sword, and being aware of the hazards of relying on an eternity belief.
  20. And that applies to misbelievers, too. What is true is still true even if were not to align with LDS doctrine, correct? To be clear, I'm not arguing that LDS should denounce their faith, but just for a bit more spiritual humility about LDS convictions. (Of course that goes for all beliefs.) Those who exercise that have a more profound impact in loving relationships, in my experience.
  21. Well this is part of the problem with accomodating others into the fold. Perhaps you would call your certainty humility before God, but is it really? Is it humility to set upon one way and call it right above all others? I think that spiritual humility requires more than that. It requires the ability to recognize that one takes the risk of denying one truth when one holds to a belief. With that humility, respect for others grows, because it becomes clear that we're in similar boats when it comes to knowing. Indeed, spiritual humility results in the insight that others may know their beliefs are truth just as sincerely and clearly as I know mine are truth.
  22. The belief in eternity is not something that I have so I don't have that comfort, and yet my parents' love still comforts me in the face of--what seems to me--a brief and passing existence.
  23. You're welcome 😀 I'd also add some more recent ways individual members have made me feel a whole participant among them: My parents. Recently I have undergone very painful experiences that one might consider stereotypical of apostates. But never in this time did my believing LDS parents hint to my leaving as a cause of the pain. They listened and supported me and have given me strength to endure and even thrive. Also, my mother was diagnosed with terminal illness last year. She passed away several months later. During her illness, I visited them and felt completely enveloped in their love, edified both by their love for each other and for me. I asked my mother if, when the time came, I could help prepare her body for burial and she agreed. She and dad planned her funeral in advanced and the program exclusively featured us, their children, no one else as speakers. It's an experience I'll always cherish, being cherished and mutually so among my siblings, no difference being made toward the member children and ex-member children. My parents gave me a gift I'll keep with me the rest of my life and by virtue of that gift I have a respect for their beliefs that couldn't have been built better by any other means.
  24. I talk about that here and an example of a church experience that edified me after I left:
×
×
  • Create New...