Emily

I'm not sure many of his regular followers would have the kind of personality that enjoys spewing vitriol about other religions. You would only follow his channel regularly if you enjoyed hearing about other faiths. He's gathered a pretty large following of LDS (that interest in hearing a little about other faiths coming into play) and had a ready-made group of people to welcome him into the fold. Maybe that put off potential murmuring.

In all fairness, if the only time you were exposed to members was through a visit to the Wasatch Front, you might buy into the blonde stereotype. The Northern European ethnicity streak is pretty prevalent in the Salt Lake Valley. When I first moved to Utah, I had a terrible time learning names because so many people in my new ward looked so much like each other. 😐 It is kind of amusing though...those "strict marriage laws" (I didn't read the article, but I imagine there is a twisted narration of the insistence that we marry in the faith) have led to a great many interracial marriages in the Salt Lake Valley in the latest generation. Faithful members moving into the area aren't all Northern Europeans these days. The "blonde" stereotype probably won't survive the genetic melting pot. I suspect the reputation for beauty won't go away though.

I pretty much never have the occasion to use any of the terms "in the wild" so it's not a big concern. But if it did come up, I would use the term the general community seems to be comfortable with. And I believe I compared the shift of the word "gay" to "Mormon" myself, so I'm not entirely sure why you are acting like I don't understand how that works. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that I'm telling people not to use gay. All I ever said was don't assume it's universally accepted and don't act like someone is homophobic if they dislike the word. Sentiments like telling someone they can't even use the word gay or questioning why they are using quotes (particularly when the context of the post clearly explained why I am hesitant to use the label without making sure it's acceptable) are critical reactions where no criticism was called for.

I'm starting to think that you don't know how to agree to disagree, because you just keep saying you disagree as if that is making a point. So you disagree. I'll continue to believe you are wrong. That's how it works. 😀

I can see that happening. Honestly, a person's sexual orientation rarely comes up in most of my conversations, why would it? But when it does, the person in question tends to say up front what label he/she prefers. "My partner and I are gay." If it's expressed, "I like men." or "I like women", I tend to assume they don't appreciate labels at all. I will acknowledge that I've only heard SSA being used by members who experience attraction to their own sex. It's a term that makes sense to me so I prefer using it as the generic term because my brain has not transitioned away from the negative connotations of gay and homosexual and my nearest and dearest, who are the only SSA examples I have to work with, don't like the other labels. However, if someone wants to be called gay, queer, homosexual or maybe just by their first name with no label, that's the best term.

Southwest 60s and 70s. And it was specifically applied to homosexuals who lived a hedonistic lifestyle of prowling through bars and resorts looking for temporary sexual partners. I mean seriously, it was derived from the original meaning of the word "Gay" as being free, easy, showy, light hearted, etc.. and was originally applied to male prostitutes. The meaning has obviously shifted, but that doesn't mean everyone's perception followed the shift.

No, that does not seem hateful to me. I would simply assume you are continuing the metaphor to express your perception of the importance of non-eternal marriage vs eternal marriage. Your perception is the reverse of mine. That doesn't make it hateful, it makes it different. I choose to believe that the Abrahamic birthright is extremely important, much more important than any purely mortal relationship, no matter how close, warm or intimate it might be. My scale doesn't match your scale. We agree to disagree. We don't have to throw around words like "hateful."

I've heard this as well, but only through social media. There's currently some pretty hard pushback (news articles) against transexual women who were born male calling themselves "lesbian" in the LGBTQ+ community, so terms are more nuanced than anyone outside the community can probably understand. I've only got a glimmer from friends, coworkers, a few relatives (one child recently announced that she is a trans woman, so I've only had about 8 months to try to gain some understanding of the trans movement). At any rate, you are correct. I use quotes to indicate that a word isn't necessarily one that I would use... But it's a term or label that is commonly used and understood by other people. I also use quotes when I'm actually quoting, of course. I have no idea what a "scare" quote is. What does that refer to?

I would call any person who uses a label that is offensive to another person "cheeky" so that comment was intended for "people in general" as well. My post was actually a general response to a couple of people in this discussion who were calling out other posters for avoiding the term "gay". It was not meant to be addressed to you in particular. It wasn't even addressed to the people specifically involved in quibbling over the avoidance of the term. It was addressed to anyone who questions a person's decision to avoid the use of the label of "gay." It is a triggering term for some people. I realize that is changing, but slinging the label around without being sensitive to the perspective of the person it's being applied to is wrong. If that's gatekeeping in your eyes, that's fine. I don't mind gatekeeping a label I know is actively hurtful to several people I'm close to, marginally acceptable to two and only fully embraced by one. I acknowledge that my wording made it sound like I was referring specifically to you and I apologized for that error. You can accept that (and in this case, I do mean just you) or not, as you wish. I'm aware of my intentions and don't really want to waste time explaining them further.

Yes. If you accept the scriptures and certain ordinances of the church as valid authorities on the subject, then marriage is essential to becoming a god. Why it's necessary, and what form marriage will take in the eternities are not clear. But it's beyond equivocation that marriage is essential and only between individuals of opposite genders, at least so far as counting toward a state of full exaltation is concerned. Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4 Doctrine & Covenants 132:14-17 Doctrine & Covenants 132:19-21 There does seem to be a possibility that some celestialized individuals will choose not to marry... "they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants...For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." Angels apparently have the ability to participate in creation under the direction of an individual who has full creative powers, as Christ and Adam participated in creation under the direction of Heavenly Father. But they can't create by their will alone. Whether or not Christ was fully a god before his birth is a subject beyond the scope of the current topic and there are differing opinions on the subject. But I would argue that He was not. He needed a body before he could obtain a fully exalted state of being. And a wife. Certain extent writings, traditions and logic support the idea that He was married and likely also had children. But canonized scripture on the subject doesn't bring up the topic, so any discussion has to remain speculative.

My apologies, I was using "you" to mean "people in general", not "you" specifically. It was a poor writing choice and created unintended confusion. I tend to post sporadically and may not get back to respond to a discussion if I get too busy to log back in, so I also apologize for the delay in responding. I used quotes because I'm not going to assume that everyone who is sexually attracted to the same gender wants to be called "gay." I know from personal associations that it is not a universally accepted term, so people in general should not assume they should be using it. Quotes, for me, indicate that I'm aware that the term shouldn't be applied universally. It's much like the term "Mormon" which I would also put into quotes if I were to use it to apply to members of my church. Being called a "Mormon" doesn't particularly bother me since I was raised in the generation of Mormonads, but it raises the hackles of members of the church of the previous generation, who had to put up with being confused with members of fundamentalist Mormon groups and will probably annoy members of the younger generation now that we are actively encouraged to stop using it. It's also an inaccurate term, as we are not disciples of Mormon, but of Christ. "Gay" is a similarly ambiguous term. Rightly or wrongly, the word was a slur to older generations, a political movement or participant in hedonistic culture in my generation, and also a word with it's own functional meaning of "lighthearted and carefree". For me, "Same sex attraction" is more precise terminology, since it describes a person's sexual inclination without implying anything about what they do with that attraction. Homosexual would also be more accurate, but I'm aware that it's not the preferred term in every social circle. I should probably just stick with, "attracted to the same sex" in any situation where I don't know the particular preference of the person/people I'm talking to -- but it's kind of like using the entire name of the church in a conversation. The official name gets to be a mouthful so I end up using "LDS" or "the church" or some other shorter nomenclature that isn't quite as accurate or accepted and yes, in certain circumstances when using those terms, I would use quotes.

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise, are kind of beside the point. "Marriage" in eternity is between a man and woman. We know this much. We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage. We don't know anything beyond that. Is sexual "compatibility" necessary? I don't know. You would get blinks of incomprehension if you brought that up in many cultures today, much less a couple of hundred years ago. Is romantic love necessary? Again, a pretty modern concept. As is sexual "orientation" and gender fluidity. Other ages had their own list of things they considered important about sex, hence phallic symbols and goddess statues that lacked any distinct feature beyond a pregnant belly. I recently read an article that presented pretty good evidence that a millimeter or so difference in spacing between the clitoris and vagina determines whether or not a woman is capable of "simultaneous orgasm" with ANY partner. A few more findings of that nature and maybe the whole myth of "sexual compatibility" being something you can achieve by switching partners will finally be given the burial it deserves. The same may be true of other concepts about sex and intimacy that are popularly accepted today. In short, I think giving too much headspace for "what will sex be like in eternity?" is probably a waste of time. We've got too many cultural preconceptions and expectations to even begin to see anything through that glass, even "darkly."

As I mentioned, this is a matter of belief and opinion. You don't think it's worth it. I do. We can agree to disagree.

Well to begin with, "gay" started as a derogatory term and back when I was growing up, using the term, even to refer to an individual with homosexual preferences, was pretty rude. If someone chooses to call themselves that, I'm happy to comply in any situation when sexual preferences are an important component of the conversation. (Quite frankly, it doesn't come up much.) I had a work colleague who liked the term and made it part of his email address. Another colleague, who happened to be older and in a committed homosexual relationship, found it really offensive. He also didn't like "laddie, nancy boy, fag" and other terms that have been applied to homosexuals on occasion. I know this because he suggested the colleague use one of those terms (and a few others even ruder) instead... In a pretty nasty tone of voice. Many individuals who are attracted to the same sex don't like being called "gay." It's a little cheeky for you to insist that everyone likes it. They don't. It's more acceptable now, particularly with younger people. But it's still considered derogatory by others.

It's not hateful, it's a metaphor. Any time you decide to give up something highly desirable that you have been promised in the future for something you feel an immediate need for right now, you've chosen the pottage. This doesn't mean the "pottage" isn't desirable and isn't important, just that it's not as important as a birthright. Everyone wants companionship, love and intimacy. But some of us believe there are things that are even more important, like eternal joy and exaltation. Esau decided his birthright wouldn't be important to him if he died of starvation. The context of several people's posts use the same logic: What use is is eternity if my life here and now is one of loneliness and sexual frustration? I can't say that I disagree with their logic. If the birthright is not as important to them as companionship, love and intimacy, then it makes sense to give up the birthright. It also makes sense for people who value the birthright to think it's a foolish choice. They would rather starve, perhaps even to death, then give it up. You can get mad when they point that out. Or you can be secure in your choice and move on. It's generally better for your own mental health to move on. It's tough to convince someone who is willing to starve to death to reach a particular goal that eating would be a lot more pleasant.