No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[LDSToronto]

So, you concede that "expert" isn't a particularly useful descriptive . . . and that relying on alleged "experts" to draft tendentious lesson plans for distracted teachers is not a particularly good idea?

No, I think Jaybear makes a very astute observation: no matter who creates the curriculum, whether it is burka-wearing Berkeley grad students (your words) or the most learned in the field, you would find the curriculum unacceptable because it is contrary to your own set of moral proclivities.

I've seen this over and over - if so-called 'expert' rationalizes the moral leanings of the LDS church, members laud and never cease in quoting and referring to this so-called 'expert'. If, however, a so-called 'expert' presents findings that are contrary to the moral leanings of the LDS church, then the credentials, experience, research, and character of the so-called 'expert' are thrown out the window.

H.

[USU78]

If, however, a so-called 'expert' presents findings that are contrary to the moral leanings of the LDS church, then the credentials, experience, research, and character of the so-called 'expert' are thrown out the window.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[bluebell]

No, I think Jaybear makes a very astute observation: no matter who creates the curriculum, whether it is burka-wearing Berkeley grad students (your words) or the most learned in the field, you would find the curriculum unacceptable because it is contrary to your own set of moral proclivities.

I've seen this over and over - if so-called 'expert' rationalizes the moral leanings of the LDS church, members laud and never cease in quoting and referring to this so-called 'expert'. If, however, a so-called 'expert' presents findings that are contrary to the moral leanings of the LDS church, then the credentials, experience, research, and character of the so-called 'expert' are thrown out the window.

H.

To be fair though, everyone does that.

It doesn't matter what the topic is or who the people are-whether it's about global warming, low carb vs. high fat dieting, parenting, homosexuality, or whatever....

In a world where there are almost always experts disagreeing with and contradicting each other, it is reasonable that people will laud one and ignore the other.

[Jason]

Wow. It's quite a leap to go from accepting a lifestyle as legitimate to actually living it yourself.

It's quite a leap to go from viewing pornography to visiting prostitutes or even becoming a serial killer, yet some people do make that leap.

Although it's not an unexpected viewpoint for someone who believes sexual orientation is a choice, that there was a point in your life where a positive spin might have made you desire dudes instead of girls. I don't see it myself. There never was a chance that I could have made my heart beat faster when looking at Jimmy in his swimsuit, instead of Sharon in hers, even if I were taught it was acceptable (or even urged to do so).

I think you have an exaggerated estimate of your own uncorruptibility then. No doubt you believe you would be immune to pornography addiction, cigarettes, alcohol, hard drugs, etc.

[LDSToronto]

To be fair though, everyone does that.

That is true, bluebell. Perhaps I have this unrealistic notion that LDS are supposed to be different from everyone else...

H.

[blueadept]

That is true, bluebell. Perhaps I have this unrealistic notion that LDS are supposed to be different from everyone else...

H.

Doesn't most faiths do that?

I'm always amused when this subject comes up after all the RCIA candidates go through the sacraments of initiation at Easter and asked if the feel different and you add the testimonies of the faithful that's there. I've seen this as well in the LDS faith.

IMO, "...are supposed to be different from everyone else..." is a common phenomenon in the conversion process.

My 2 cents

[bluebell]

That is true, bluebell. Perhaps I have this unrealistic notion that LDS are supposed to be different from everyone else...

H.

This is just a self-righteous way to say that some members aren't being Christ-like because they aren't behaving in a way that you agree with.

This is a very human response to being disagreed with and i guess proves your point that LDS do have many weaknesses to work on.

[LDSToronto]

This is just a self-righteous way to say that some members aren't being Christ-like because they aren't behaving in a way that you agree with.

This is a very human response to being disagreed with and i guess proves your point that LDS do have many weaknesses to work on.

I make no attempt to obscure my weaknesses, and I'm pretty open about my disenchantment with the LDS church. However, you are reading me wrong in this case - I wasn't thinking about Christ-like behaviour. Rather, I was commenting on the incongruity of any Latter-day Saint using the excuse that "everyone does that" to justify a behaviour, especially when LDS use idiomatic language to indicate a separation from the commonly held dictums of society. Phrases such as, "in the world but not of it", "a peculiar people", and "remain unblemished by the world" all fly in the face of "everyone does that".

It would be disingenuous to say that I am confused by this irony; but to discuss my true feelings on the matter would take us well away from the scope of this thread.

H.

[bluebell]

I make no attempt to obscure my weaknesses, and I'm pretty open about my disenchantment with the LDS church. However, you are reading me wrong in this case - I wasn't thinking about Christ-like behaviour. Rather, I was commenting on the incongruity of any Latter-day Saint using the excuse that "everyone does that" to justify a behaviour, especially when LDS use idiomatic language to indicate a separation from the commonly held dictums of society. Phrases such as, "in the world but not of it", "a peculiar people", and "remain unblemished by the world" all fly in the face of "everyone does that".

It would be disingenuous to say that I am confused by this irony; but to discuss my true feelings on the matter would take us well away from the scope of this thread.

H.

You misread me as well.

My first statement to you was meant to show that the behavior did not need to be justified because it was not unreasonable or condemnable (if that's a word).

"Everybody's doing it" wasn't an excuse, it was evidence to show that it's logical behavior which does not need to be defended.

[Jeff K.]

That is true, bluebell. Perhaps I have this unrealistic notion that LDS are supposed to be different from everyone else...

H.

You want them to accept the gay lifestyle as normal? Like everyone else? God's people aren't supposed to be like everyone else. But you want them to be everyone else.

You have already accepted the doctrine of the state, your state. You call those who speak of free speech to differ as cowards.

Sometimes people have to stand up and say no, I do not want it taught that the gay lifestyle is a normal choice, the multiple lovers in single settings is acceptable, that giant white parties are acceptable orgies, and that children should embrace such groups as reflecting their own proclivity and morality. A child should have a right to say the gay lifestyle is wrong without being socially butchered by experts who carry an agenda.

As a teacher I see it done all the time.

You may embrace it, but I do not. It isn't the act of a righteous man to embrace unrighteousness.

[Jeff K.]

People who are "disenchanted" with the church always try to drag it down.

[Jason]

My first statement to you was meant to show that the behavior did not need to be justified because it was not unreasonable or condemnable (if that's a word).

"Everybody's doing it" wasn't an excuse, it was evidence to show that it's logical behavior which does not need to be defended.

That's how I read it too.

[LDSToronto]

You want them to accept the gay lifestyle as normal? Like everyone else? God's people aren't supposed to be like everyone else. But you want them to be everyone else.

Yes, I do. Keep in mind, I'm not what you'd call a TBM.

You have already accepted the doctrine of the state, your state. You call those who speak of free speech to differ as cowards.

Sometimes people have to stand up and say no, I do not want it taught that the gay lifestyle is a normal choice, the multiple lovers in single settings is acceptable, that giant white parties are acceptable orgies, and that children should embrace such groups as reflecting their own proclivity and morality. A child should have a right to say the gay lifestyle is wrong without being socially butchered by experts who carry an agenda.

You should take a stand. I've never been against taking a stand. However, I feel that most LDS, from my interactions in real life and on this and other internet venues, don't take their one *defensible* stand, and that is this:

"According to a living prophet, God has told us that homosexual behaviour is wrong."

That is all you have to say! But, rather than standing in that unequivocal position, most Mormons hightail it to the safe, socially acceptable armaments of free speech, or the alarmist positions of disease and disorder in society, or the 'safety in numbers' stance of "lot's of others agree with us". It has been rare that I have seen someone truly take the position of faith.

Which is unfortunate, because that is the only position that any Mormon has a chance of defending.

H.

[blueadept]

It has been rare that I have seen someone truly take the position of faith.

Which is unfortunate, because that is the only position that any Mormon has a chance of defending.

H.

As Christians, we really aren't suppose to pass judgement upon anyone. That's up to a higher authority.

I see nothing wrong in trying to find Christ in everyone even though one may disagree upon their lifestyle.

MT 7:1-2

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

[frankenstein]

"everyone's doing it" is an excuse, and "everyone's doing it" does not make something logical or even rational. "everyone is doing it" could be used by the student to make other students attending the video.

---------

LDStoronto, while in the end the strongest statement that a religious will be able to make is "God said so" the religionist and other opposed to gay lifestyle must come up with something "defensible" that does not involve God, because in most if not all Western Countries, what "God says" can not and must not be a deciding factor for the law.

--------

as for homosexuals being normal. Guess its a matter of definition, and what words mean is something that is played very fast and loose; whether its the definition of Christian, marriage, homosexual v. same sex attraction.

normal is just a relativistic term for the speaker.

So LDS should accept gay people and treat them just as the LDS person would be treated, that is what Christ taught and it is position of the LDS Church.

[LDSToronto]

LDStoronto, while in the end the strongest statement that a religious will be able to make is "God said so" the religionist and other opposed to gay lifestyle must come up with something "defensible" that does not involve God, because in most if not all Western Countries, what "God says" can not and must not be a deciding factor for the law.

Exactly. LDS ought to oppose homosexuality *because* God is against homosexuality, and state that very reason, regardless of what society wants.

H

[LDSToronto]

As Christians, we really aren't suppose to pass judgement upon anyone. That's up to a higher authority.

I see nothing wrong in trying to find Christ in everyone even though one may disagree upon their lifestyle.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, this is not the position of the LDS church.

H.

[blueadept]

Absolutely. Unfortunately, this is not the position of the LDS church.

H.

I guess I disagree and it may be the reason why you haven't found LDS board members to simply state that....

[LDSToronto]

I guess I disagree and it may be the reason why you haven't found LDS board members to simply state that....

Well, let me be clear - I agree with what you said, the LDS church also feels the same way you do, and in addition, the LDS church judges homosexual behaviour, and anything related to it, to be wrong.

H.

[blueadept]

Well, let me be clear - I agree with what you said, the LDS church also feels the same way you do, and in addition, the LDS church judges homosexual behaviour, and anything related to it, to be wrong.

H.

Sounds like "hate the sin not the sinner" thing. A common Christian thought IMO.

[Daniel2]

You want them to accept the gay lifestyle as normal? Like everyone else? God's people aren't supposed to be like everyone else. But you want them to be everyone else.

Though I think the world would be a better place if the LDS community and the LGBT community arrived at a place of shared mutual respect for one another's agency to live their lives as each sees fit, I personally don't feel that Latter-day Saints (or anyone) should feel the need to alter their religious beliefs about homosexuality, merely because someone else thinks it's morally acceptable.

Sometimes people have to stand up and say no,

You're welcome to say, pursue, and promote whatever moral leanings you wish about same-sex relationships.

I do not want it taught that the gay lifestyle is a normal choice,

Hey, we agree on something! I don't know many who would preach that "the gay lifestyle is a normal choice"--I don't believe I know many LGBT-supportive people who believe that "choice" is much of a factor, with regards to sexual orientation.

And in my experience, most of us who are "pro-gay" (at least, those that I know and interact with) don't feel that there is a specific or identifiable "gay lifestyle" that could/should be universally promoted. Similarly, there isn't really such a thing as "the straight lifestyle" that could/should be universally promoted, either.

the multiple lovers in single settings is acceptable, that giant white parties are acceptable orgies,

The hyperbole here seems to be layed on pretty thick. Who's advocating that any of these things should be taught...?

and that children should embrace such groups as reflecting their own proclivity and morality.

It's not clear what you're trying to say, in this sentance. Are you saying that a child shouldn't embrace groups that reflect the child's own proclivity and morality...?

A child should have a right to say the gay lifestyle is wrong without being socially butchered by experts who carry an agenda.

Can you point to any examples where anyone is advocating that Americans (including children) shouldn't have a right to say the gay lifestyle is wrong? Then, can you point to any examples of anyone advocating that people should be "socially butchered by experts who carry an agenda"?

I would agree with you: a child should have the right to express his or her views on "the gay lifestyle" (or the Mormon lifestyle, or the Catholic lifestyle, or any other lifestyle... whether he or she feels it is wrong or right) without being socially butchered by experts who carry an agenda.

As a teacher I see it done all the time.

Any kind of "social butchering" among kids is certainly a huge concern, especially in light of the growing exposure over the last year aimed at eliminating bullying in schools. Can you share some examples of "children who say that the gay lifestyle is wrong" that are being "social butchering by experts who carry an agenda"?

Darin

[Jason]

Exactly. LDS ought to oppose homosexuality *because* God is against homosexuality, and state that very reason, regardless of what society wants.

But God has a reason for being against homosexual behavior. We don't oppose homosexual behavior just because God does, but also for the same reasons (or at least as many of them as we can discover) that God opposes it in the first place.

[LDSToronto]

But God has a reason for being against homosexual behavior. We don't oppose homosexual behavior just because God does, but also for the same reasons (or at least as many of them as we can discover) that God opposes it in the first place.

Then tell me those reason and how you know that god endorses those reasons.

H.

[bluebell]

"everyone's doing it" is an excuse, and "everyone's doing it" does not make something logical or even rational. "everyone is doing it" could be used by the student to make other students attending the video.

If there's possibly a way to make a post say something it was never meant to, you always seem to find it. It's like your superhero talent or something.

OF COURSE, if you try to apply my statement about a very specific thing, to every occassion, it is not going to hold up. It was never meant to be used to paint with such broad brushstrokes.

[Daniel2]

Then tell me those reason and how you know that god endorses those reasons.

H.

I'm really, really curious as to what Jason's answer will be (I was going to ask him the same question), given that I'm unaware of any authoritative source from the LDS church that specifies "the reason" why the LDS God is "against homosexual behavior."

From what I read (which was considerable) during my 32 years of membership in the LDS Faith, I'd say that LDS scripture has very, very little to say about homosexual behaviors, let alone some sort of reasons as Jason is suggesting. And yes, I'm even including the wording found in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" (even though the church itself has specifically corrected it's identification as "scripture" by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve to merely "a guide"), as the Proclamation doesn't, in fact, actually address same-sex relationships or behavior.

Darin