Changing The Mormon Conversation On Homosexuality

[selek1]

After him there could be no one else.

All these new Sherlocks are distant relatives who are fun to watch on their own account though (maybe Mycroft got married and had some kids and these are his great grandchildren).

I doubt he could have mustered the energy, what with a limited circuit back and forth between the Ministry and the Diogenes Club.

I did recently stumble on a sort of "expanded universe" of Holmesian tie-in's crediting Mycroft with starting MI-5, and some tie-ins to the Prisoner, the Avengers (Mrs. Peel and the gang), the Prisoner, and even Bond.

Allegedly, Mycroft was the original "M".

Brett notwithstanding, I did prefer the original of his two Watsons (the fellow's name escapes me).

IMDB'd it: David Burke.

Edited June 26, 2012 by selek1

[The Nehor]

I for one support changing the conversation. I suggest we focus the discussion more on being lumberjacks and that being okay.

[Calm]

I doubt he could have mustered the energy, what with a limited circuit back and forth between the Ministry and the Diogenes Club.

I did recently stumble on a sort of "expanded universe" of Holmesian tie-in's crediting Mycroft with starting MI-5, and some tie-ins to the Prisoner, the Avengers (Mrs. Peel and the gang), the Prisoner, and even Bond.

Allegedly, Mycroft was the original "M".

Brett notwithstanding, I did prefer the original of his two Watsons (the fellow's name escapes me).

IMDB'd it: David Burke.

Totally, Burke got the humour down without being patronizing perfectly. Much better balanced.

Sounds vaguely familiar. Let me know where to find it if you have a link.

I've got a book that proves Holmes was related to pretty much everyone of note so it doesn't surprise me about Mycroft: http://www.amazon.com/Tarzan-Alive-Philip-Jose-Farmer/dp/087216876X

Edited June 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[John Ping Pong]

In my opinion (heresy, perhaps) Brett was the quintessential ACD Holmes, the rest- mere pretenders.

Then perhaps our solid agreement on this one fact outweighs our differences.

The game's afoot!

[selek1]

Totally, Burke got the humour down without being patronizing perfectly. Much better balanced.

Agreed- he also came across as more of an equal to Holmes, less of a "yes-man".

Both Watson actors were given the same type of lines, but Burke seemed to convey more of a "Watson-as-his-own-man" persona- still in awe of Holmes' gifts, but confident in who and what he was nonetheless.

The other fella just seemed much mousier, more timid.

An interesting example of what the actor brings to the role.

[John Ping Pong]

If the New Testament were the only place Christ spoke, you might have a point.

But now that I've got our sordid business of agreeing on something over with, perhaps you could point me to some place where Jesus actually does condemn homosexuality?

[selek1]

The game's afoot!

A phrase I've only recently come to fully understand.

I'd always understood it to mean something along the lines of "The game has begun."

Literally, however, it means the quarry is walking/running on foot (rather than horseback or carriage).

[Tacenda]

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

I see Bishop Fletcher's article as in keeping with the church's increased emphasis "to show sensitivity in this area so people don't feel rejected, especially by their families." The Deseret News editorial decrying harassment of LGBT youth is another example of this sensitivity, as is the Church's inviting representatives of the LGBT community as special guests to the Tabernacle Choir's Christmas program. As is the Church official endorsement of legislation prohibiting discrimination in housing or employment based on sexual orientation (whether or not celibate).

As members, we need more outreach and sensitivity and less judgment. We should be glad when our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, celibate or not, decide to attend church and as members we should fully welcome them and not judge. Judgment is in the hands of the common judges in Israel, not us members at large. If certain membership rights need to be restricted, that is up to the presiding priesthood leaders. Not to us. And it is not our job as members to tell them that they are sinning; our job is to love. Further, I believe we should not speak of or consider the LGBT community as the enemy. Our LGBT brothers and sisters are not our enemy, they are our brothers and sisters.

http://www.byuicomm....der-attraction/

I think we would have more gay/lesbian active members if they didn't have an *asterik near their name if they've come out openly. I heard that this is done, after listening to the Mormonstories podcast with Benji Schwimmer. I guess this alerts any bishop that they are not to get certain callings, possibly the ones that deal with children. This is quite upsetting for the our LGBT members. Who would want that by your name, almost like the scarlet letter. Especially if you hadn't done anything to warrant it? As if these people are all child molesters. So sad, so darn sad.

[selek1]

I think we would have more gay/lesbian active members if they didn't have an *asterik near their name if they've come out openly. I heard that this is done, after listening to the Mormonstories podcast with Benji Schwimmer. I guess this alerts any bishop that they are not to get certain callings, possibly the ones that deal with children. This is quite upsetting for the our LGBT members. Who would want that by your name, almost like the scarlet letter. Especially if you hadn't done anything to warrant it? As if these people are all child molesters. So sad, so darn sad.

Tacenda,

It might help matters if you did not repeat urban legends as truth.

This matter was discussed at some length on these boards. You can find that conversation here.

The allegation was made in a notorious anti-Mormon program and has never been substantiated.

Your characterization above is not accurate- and adds to the wall of suspicion and misinformation that stands between faitfhul LDS and our brethren and sisters.

[selek1]

I think we would have more gay/lesbian active members if they didn't have an *asterik near their name if they've come out openly.

As stated above, this bothers me on two levels.

First- even according to the podcast- it isn't those "who've come out" who get the asterisk on their record, but those who've committed serious transgressions.

Second, I'm not sure we want or need more "gay/lesbian active members". What we need are more "active members".

There is a tendency in this conversation to define those who have same-sex affinities solely by those affinities- as though their sexual predilections were the defining moment of their being.

I, for one, believe that trying to pigeon-hole someone that way is hurtful and dismissive.

If I were to do it, I'd be accused of prejudice, gay-bashing, and stereotyping.

So why is it okay if someone else does it?

There is a certain word used to describe blacks. If I use it, I am villified. When a black man uses it to describe another black man, it's considered a token of affection.

The double standard is staggering and self-defeating. Rather than bridging the gap, the conduct emphasizes it.

In my opinion, referring to people primarily (and occasionally, solely) by their sexual affinity is likewise hypocritical and self-defeating.

[ERayR]

I think we would have more gay/lesbian active members if they didn't have an *asterik near their name if they've come out openly. I heard that this is done, after listening to the Mormonstories podcast with Benji Schwimmer. I guess this alerts any bishop that they are not to get certain callings, possibly the ones that deal with children. This is quite upsetting for the our LGBT members. Who would want that by your name, almost like the scarlet letter. Especially if you hadn't done anything to warrant it? As if these people are all child molesters. So sad, so darn sad.

Malicious rumor.

[Pahoran]

A phrase I've only recently come to fully understand.

I'd always understood it to mean something along the lines of "The game has begun."

Literally, however, it means the quarry is walking/running on foot (rather than horseback or carriage).

And while most people associate it with Sherlock Holmes, it's actually from Shakespeare; Henry V, I think.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And while most people associate it with Sherlock Holmes, it's actually from Shakespeare; Henry V, I think.

And now I've found it:

Henry V, Act 3, Scene 1: Before Harfleur.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

Or close the wall up with our English dead.

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility:

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger;

Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,

Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;

Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

Let pry through the portage of the head

Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it

As fearfully as doth a galled rock

O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,

Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,

Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit

To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.

Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!

Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,

Have in these parts from morn till even fought

And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:

Dishonour not your mothers; now attest

That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.

Be copy now to men of grosser blood,

And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,

Whose limbs were made in England, show us here

The mettle of your pasture; let us swear

That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;

For there is none of you so mean and base,

That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.

I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit, and upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Regards,

Pahoran

[SamIam]

I for one support changing the conversation. I suggest we focus the discussion more on being lumberjacks and that being okay.

Can't even talk about Lumberjacks....

[Lightbearer]

Well if you believe that Jesus is Jehovah and that He revealed the Law of Moses here is a condemnation of Homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God." (Old Testament | Leviticus 18:22-30)

I am not sure if that is what you had in mind by "changing the Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality"? But that is the only thing we can say, it is an abomination. It is not a third gender, it is a perversion. Now so-called "Same Sex Attraction" is not the same thing as celebrating the gay lifestyle and trying to make it "normal" because it is not. If people are "born this way" then it is the same as being born into a sinful world and sin concieves in their hearts. The difference between heterosexual attraction and homosexual attraction is that one is God-given and the other is probably a result of the fall of Adam. It is a corruption of the normal God-given natural attraction, and was not the intent of God, it is an abomination concieved of Lucifer and used in his war against morality and family and eteral marriage. It probably is the most repugnant sin that was ever devised and I believe the most soul destroying. I mourn for those poor souls who are aflicted with this temptation, but I also believe that God is faithful and this scripture is true:

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." (New Testament | 1 Corinthians 10:13)

From this I get that there is no such thing as a sin which cannot be overcome, no temptation so great that one cannot control themselves with God's help. That is probably why I am so offended by the "gay fauning" or normalization of this "alternative lifestyle" so that we are required to accept this weakness as something to be proud of or be marginalized as intolerant or judgmental. The following is appropriate:

(Alexander Pope’s classic, An Essay on Man:)

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

May God forbid that his happens to our generation.

[CASteinman]

I think most of my fellow LDS members need open minds when it comes to the reasons why people are gay. Allow evidence and study to affect the opinions they hold on the subject. Made a big difference to me when I allowed new information to influence my previously dogmatic, blind beliefs.

I don't see why there is any need for an open mind on the reasons.

I know people who have various conditions, physical and/or mental and/or emotional that create conflicts for them with members or doctrines of the Gospel and the Church (and perhaps vice versa).

Members of the Church do not really need to have an open mind on the reasons for these problems. They only need to follow the council and admonition of the Savior and the Prophet and Apostles to "Love one another".

That does not imply acceptance of one another's soul wracking weaknesses, but it definitely indicates an attitude toward individuals and at least a desire to help shoulder the burdens. Burdens, by the way, that we all share -- weakness of our condition in mortality. It is in the Community of Believers that we should feel sustained as we seek to press on in obtaining the Spirit and toward Perfection and Glory.

[CASteinman]

There has never been a need to change the "Mormon Conversation on Homosexuality" All the correct doctrine has been in place. It can handle whether or not homosexuality is discovered to be inborn. It hasn't changed. It is true that some members have had to get on board, but this includes many homosexuals and advocates for their lifestyle besides the few "bullies" if they ever existed.

I agree 100%. In 35 years I have never seen anyone in the Church bully anyone else for their "sexual orientation" as it is called.

Nor do I, when reading the words of prophets in the past (whose words might be taken as harsh) disagree with their position. I am thinking specifically of Spencer W. Kimball who said in his interesting talk "The Lord Expects His Saints to Follow the Commandments" (http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/the-lord-expects-his-saints-to-follow-the-commandments):

Is this a time to repent of our sins, our immoralities, our doctrines of devils?

Is this a time for all of us to make holy our marriages, live in joy and happiness, rear our families in righteousness?

Certainly many of us know better than we do. Is this a time to terminate adultery and homosexual and lesbian activities, and return to faith and worthiness? Is this a time to end our heedless pornographies?

Is this the time to set our face firmly against unholy and profane things, and whoredoms, irregularities, and related matters?

Is the time to enter new life? As the clear-thinking apostle Paul said:

“Mortify therefore your members … fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

“For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” (Col. 3:5–6.)

Would this be a good time to eliminate “the works of the flesh … ; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like,” remembering that “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”?

(I practically have this talk memorized!)

[CASteinman]

And it is not our job as members to tell them that they are sinning; our job is to love.

We have both jobs. They go together -- like Faith and Works.

[CASteinman]

But now that I've got our sordid business of agreeing on something over with, perhaps you could point me to some place where Jesus actually does condemn homosexuality?

I don't think He spoke ill of 'homosexuality' or 'homosexuals' (not merely because the words had not been invented yet) but, according to official Church Doctrine, He did command against men laying with men as with women.

[CASteinman]

Well if you believe that Jesus is Jehovah and that He revealed the Law of Moses here is a condemnation of Homosexuality:

Only if you consider homosexuality to be behavior and nothing more.

I make a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior.

[CASteinman]

I think we would have more gay/lesbian active members if they didn't have an *asterik near their name if they've come out openly. I heard that this is done, after listening to the Mormonstories podcast with Benji Schwimmer. I guess this alerts any bishop that they are not to get certain callings, possibly the ones that deal with children. This is quite upsetting for the our LGBT members. Who would want that by your name, almost like the scarlet letter. Especially if you hadn't done anything to warrant it? As if these people are all child molesters. So sad, so darn sad.

This is totally bogus. There is no such system in place.

[Tacenda]

This is totally bogus. There is no such system in place.

Good to know. I guess that's how rumors start, but maybe it happened to a few?

[CASteinman]

Good to know. I guess that's how rumors start, but maybe it happened to a few?

Records have been marked (and I think still are) when members are under disciplinary action.

You don't get disciplined for "coming out". You may well get disciplined for sex with other guys.

[daz2]

Tacenda, the current handbook states that the church automatically places an annotation on membership records if a disciplinary council reports discipline for a member for incest, sexual offense against or servious physical abuse of child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), predatory conduct, or embezzlement of church funds or property. An annotation is also placed if a stake president or bishop notifies the church that a member has been criminally convicted of such offense. Or the stake president and bishop jointly notify the church that the person committed such offense before or after excommunication or resignation.

The annotation policy is found in the chapter on church discipline. It is not a new policy.

In a different chapter on church policies, a statement is included that members with annotations showing child abuse--physical or sexual--may not serve in any calling where they would work with youth or children. By its terms, that policy only applies to child abuse notations.

I can sent you excerpts of the pages privately if you so desire.

[Libs]

I was trying to verify this "asterisk" issue, in the thread I started, and the handbook that was quoted didn't mention "repeated homosexual activities" that I recall. Can you give the reference, please? Here on the board?

Edited June 27, 2012 by Libs