Jump to content

Boys: They Need Fathers, Not Medication, Not Gender Neutrality, Not Feminism


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

For your consideration:

In the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, people have been endlessly pointing the finger of blame and trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all solution that will prevent such a massacre from ever happening again.

The blame has settled squarely on the issue of gun control since, of course, it’s so much easier to blame an inanimate object than it is to handle the complex logic of an insane mind. Gun control also conveniently advances the progressive agenda to dismantle the Second Amendment, one of the dearest desires of the left.

But one issue seems to have escaped the mainstream consciousness so far: whether boys, in and of themselves, are evil. After all, boys (young men, actually) are the ones who promulgate the vast majority of violence in our society. What’s wrong with them? Are they evil?

This point is addressed by Michael Kimmel, professor of sociology at SUNY Stony Brook in a Dec. 19, 2012, CNN piece entitled “Masculinity, Mental Illness and Guns: A Lethal Equation.” In it, he writes: “Why are angry young men setting out to kill entire crowds of strangers? … Motivations are hard to pin down, but gender is the single most obvious and intractable variable when it comes to violence in America. Men and boys are responsible for 95 percent of all violent crimes in this country. … How does masculinity figure into this? From an early age, boys learn that violence is not only an acceptable form of conflict resolution, but one that is admired. However, the belief that violence is an inherently male characteristic is a fallacy. … Boys learn [violence]. … They learn it from their fathers. … They learn that if they are crossed, they have the manly obligation to fight back. They learn that they are entitled to feel like a real man, and that they have the right to annihilate anyone who challenges that sense of entitlement.”

Supposedly, Dr. Kimmel interviewed more than 400 young men to reach these conclusions. Since I have not read his book, I don’t know if he examines one critical factor: namely whether or not these young men have an active father in their lives.

Because Dr. Kimmel is wrong when he says boys learn violence from their fathers. The vast majority of boys don’t learn it from their fathers, because most violent boys don’t have fathers.

Our culture pretends that if it represses boys’ violent tendencies, violence will decrease. Society does this by trying to emasculate boys into girls. It encourages boys to play with gender-neutral toys, drugs boys into submission at school and otherwise suppresses their instinctive rough-and-tumble, smash-and-bang physical nature.

But none of these feminist-approved techniques erase the influence of genetics and testosterone. That persistent biochemical is something every boy must learn to handle. Testosterone gives boys less impulse control, more muscle strength and, yes, more violent tendencies. Unchecked, testosterone can cause boys to explode when they hit adolescence … unless they’re trained otherwise.

It takes a man – not a woman – to teach boys how to handle themselves. Without a male mentor, boys often give in to their animal nature and become violent.

“In 2011,” noted Dr. Kimmel, “more than 80 percent of all homicides among boys aged 15 to 19 were firearm related.” But how many of those firearm-related homicides were performed by fatherless boys?

“We need a conversation about gun control laws,” counsels Dr. Kimmel, “and far more sweeping – and necessary – is a national meditation on how our ideals of manhood became so entangled with violence.”

I have seldom seen an opinion piece that so blatantly disregards the obvious. We most certainly don’t need a “national meditation” on how our “ideals of manhood” became entangled with violence. We need men to be dads to the sons they create. That’s the “national meditation” we desperately need. Because nothing – nothing! – will change among America’s young men until they have fathers (or father-figures) to show them the proper way to behave. When young men perpetrate violence on society, it’s almost always because they are nothing more than boys in men’s bodies – a scary combination.

I don’t live in an area where it’s trendy to force boys to act like girls. I live in a rural area where boys hunt, fish, shoot, chop wood, plow fields and otherwise learn to shoulder the heavy burdens men have shouldered for millennia. Most rural boys grow up under the tutelage of their fathers, learning what is and isn’t appropriate.

In Real America, boys are not admired for their ability to act like girls. They are admired for their ability to channel their testosterone into acceptable areas, whether it’s rough-and-tumble games, hunting, sports, paintball wars, dirt bikes, or other manly expressions. Boys shouldn’t have to apologize for being boys. But men who do not shoulder the responsibility to lead, teach and train their sons should apologize for not “manning up” and being fathers to the boys they help create.

Let’s put it this way. Should every absent father in this nation suddenly recall his duty and begin the gratifying experience of actually parenting his own children, then a huge percentage of America’s problems would quickly disappear.

And if every woman learned to value marriage and stop ejecting men from the lives of their children, then we’d have far, far fewer “violent” boys who never learn how to become the men they were supposed to be.

Did you know that in the U.K., “a dad” was the tenth most popular Christmas list request for children? We have removed men as the spiritual and physical heads of households; then we mask their sons’ pain from that loss with psychotropic poisons. And we wonder why boys are violent?

The answer to our violent culture isn’t to curtail the Second Amendment. If you believe that, you’re not facing reality; you’re just pushing a nanny-state agenda. The answer to our violent culture is for men to father their sons and daughters and teach them that their worth comes from self-control, not the lack of it.

Boys aren’t evil. They’re just boys. But men are evil when they refuse to father their children. Women are evil when they deny their children a dad. Society is evil when it denigrates the importance of men. And the government is evil when it rewards men for abandoning their children and women for producing out-of-wedlock kids.

Don’t medicate our boys. Father them.

Why boys are 'evil'

I agree wholeheartedly with the article and it well illustrates why the Church (and the Lord) does what it does (priesthood, scouts etc.) and why it's opposed to what it's opposed to (feminism, homosexuality, divorce, etc.). I also think it illustrates in part why women don't have (and will never have; yes I've been to the temple recently) the priesthood conferred upon them. It was made for boys.

ETA:

"I blame my father, ‘cuz he left me. My real father was a Black Panther. But when I was growing up, I never knew who my real father was, for sure. My stepfather was a gangster, a straight-up street hustler. My mom got a kid, but he didn’t even care: ‘Oh that’s my son.’ He took care of me, gave me money. But he was a criminal too—out there doing his own thing. And he came and brought me money and left. I know for a fact if I had a father, I’d have some discipline. I’d have more confidence. Your mother can’t calm you down the way a man can. Your mother can’t reassure you the way a man can. Your mother can’t show you where your manhood was. You need a man to teach you how to be a man."

-Tupac Shakur

Link to comment

I like the article. Some parts are a little ridiculous (real men hunt and fish, etc. Real men also paint and sew if that's what they like to do, and some real women hunt and fish and that's o.k. too!) but i think the over all message is good.

I don't see anything in the article that supports the idea that the priesthood was made for men though (what does that even mean?) and i don't see why that issue needs to even be added into the topic.

Link to comment

For your consideration:

I agree wholeheartedly with the article and it well illustrates why the Church (and the Lord) does what it does (priesthood, scouts etc.) and why it's opposed to what it's opposed to (feminism, homosexuality, divorce, etc.). I also think it illustrates in part why women don't have (and will never have; yes I've been to the temple recently) the priesthood conferred upon them. It was made for boys.

Amen and Amen!! (The quote couched within the post.)

I wish you could like a post 50 times!

Link to comment
I like the article. Some parts are a little ridiculous (real men hunt and fish, etc. Real men also paint and sew if that's what they like to do, and some real women hunt and fish and that's o.k. too!) but i think the over all message is good.

Sure, I came from an era where men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. I think the over simplicity was just to make sure people understood that this stuff is apple pie. I can respect a man who enjoys sewing or shooting for that matter.

Amen and Amen!! (The quote couched within the post.)

It was tremendous truth wasn't it?

Link to comment

So a boy being a boy should not apologize when being a boy damages property or harms a person?

Alas, an example of how to stretch logic so far out of context with the sole objective of taking from the nether regions in the hope of saying something isn't so. How did you get to this point from anything that was previously said? Why should anyone not be held accountable to their actions or why should anyone not be taught to apologize and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Link to comment

Alas, an example of how to stretch logic so far out of context with the sole objective of taking from the nether regions in the hope of saying something isn't so. How did you get to this point from anything that was previously said? Why should anyone not be held accountable to their actions or why should anyone not be taught to apologize and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

No more astretch than the emotionalism that is the article. And the author did say "Boys shouldn't have to apologize for being boys".

If what the author promotes is 100% true (and not clearly an emotional rant against nonconservatism), then surely there are studies she could have cited. I am sure, like the Apocryphal writings there is some tidbits of truth. One must question the reliability and agenda of this author who admits to not reading what she claims is wrong.

Link to comment

No more astretch than the emotionalism that is the article. And the author did say "Boys shouldn't have to apologize for being boys".

If what the author promotes is 100% true (and not clearly an emotional rant against nonconservatism), then surely there are studies she could have cited. I am sure, like the Apocryphal writings there is some tidbits of truth. One must question the reliability and agenda of this author who admits to not reading what she claims is wrong.

As one who grew up with an absentee father, I can testify of the devastating effects of not having a stable father figure in your life. Having a man there to teach you how to be a man is vital. After struggling and nearly destroying my life, I have had to teach myself what being a man is, which it is not found repressing your masculinity and instincts- but embracing it and using it to care and provide for your family and those around you.

It is OK to roughhouse, like dirt, and play "Cowboys & Indians".

Skinny jeans, teased hair. and painted nails are for girls.

Quit trying to make our future men into girls.

Link to comment

Yes. However he was absent for long stretches because of military TDY duties.

I'm willing to bet neither one of us is a mass murderer because of it.

While I do not discount a personal experience.

I do not believe that a personal experience is the rule. Many peoples dads were "absent"; whether military, divorce, work, yet in terms of mass murderers the numbers are few compared to the population with an "absent" biological male figure.

Something the author could have included was the a "whos who" of mass murderers who did not have a biological father in the home.

Link to comment

Yes. However he was absent for long stretches because of military TDY duties.

I'm willing to bet neither one of us is a mass murderer because of it.

Sure, I am not a mass murderer- but I have done things I believe I could have avoided doing had I had a father there to teach me the rules of being a man.

Only one who has had no father, or a very disfunctional father can truly comprehend what effects that has on a child.

Link to comment

When I was an 11-year old scout leader, I took the group fishing. It was one boy's first time ever. He was from a single parent home. He caught a nice fish using my equipment. I let him take it home to show his mom (I prefer to have them thrown back if not going to be eaten or mounted but understood the importance of this case; have taken a camera ever since). Is 18 years old now. Can't stop talking about it even now though he's been fishing since with others.

There is another boy in my ward now. Single parent home. Couldn't let go of the missionaries when he was 9 (they were there to get him baptized); always begged them not to leave according to his home teacher. Boyfriends come and go in her mom's life. No idea who the dad is. She does it to pay the bills. It's obvious she's on drugs much of the time so she's not going to be in any type of permanent relationship. Has refused the Church's addiction help though she asks for money from time to time. Bishop rightly has refused to help in this way any more until she decides to accept more real and permanent help. This boy is mature well before his time and knows exactly what's going on when his mom has "visitors". Sometimes these boyfriends are violent with him. He's an unwelcome presence in their pursuit of selfish gratification. He's 12 now, still comes to Church (mom actually drops him off), but has a hard time making friends. Stays away from groups and sits apart. Is always depressed. I think I'll offer the Deacon's quorum advisor help to take the group fishing......

I see this type of situation all the time. It weighs heavily on my mind. I know living the principles of the Gospel almost always ameliorates and prevents this kind of situation.

Link to comment

Yes, it would help if all the dads would assimilate a boy who doesn't have one (or doesn't get alone with the one he has) (even if it meant not having time to read or post here). And it would help if moms would accept this inclusion wholeheartedly.

Link to comment

Sure, I came from an era where men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. I think the over simplicity was just to make sure people understood that this stuff is apple pie. I can respect a man who enjoys sewing or shooting for that matter.

It was tremendous truth wasn't it?

I can't speak for the Centaurians, but but here in Montana, we still have some real men, women, pandimensional mice, mad dogs and Irishmen, wookies, dwarves, and one real Gallifreyan.
Link to comment

I can't speak for the Centaurians, but but here in Montana, we still have some real men, women, pandimensional mice, mad dogs and Irishmen, wookies, dwarves, and one real Gallifreyan.

" Mamas,don't let your babies grow up to be Cowboys " Don't let em play gitars and drive them 'ol trucks " etc.

Link to comment

So a boy being a boy should not apologize when being a boy damages property or harms a person?

The original statement was that "a boy should not apologize for being a boy". This is a figure of speech, not a literal statement. If I were to say I had butterflies in my stomach, would you have imagined to yourself that I had ingested some flying insects?

We are men of action; straw men do not become us.

Link to comment

It is a stretch to jump from absentee fathers to mass murderers.

Surely it would be a stretch to jump that far. But the theory that there is a causative effect related to the absence of an appropriate father figure in a boy's life, in that a larger number of such boys grow up to become violent criminals is not disproven by the fact that not all do so.

I have heard it said that a large majority of men in prison for violent crimes did not have a father in the home. If this is supported by statistical fact, are you willing to affirm that it is still a stretch? This is the idea behind the OP, that there is a tendency towards greater violent acting out in young men who do not have a paternal guiding hand.

Link to comment

The article is ridiculously emotive, with little substantive evidence beyond their own opinions, feelings and gut reaction. She admits she hasn't even read the research that she's critiquing. I don't agree with the article wholeheartedly, as you say ....far from it.

Not to say that I don't think fathers are important. The family structure with the best outcomes are still families with 2 married biological parents in the household. I'm saying the conclusions she makes are unfounded. What more likely true is that families with unstable households have poorer outcomes/risks to violent activity. Cuz that is really the underlying factor behind problems in single-parent households. Not so much that there's only one parent, but that the structure of the family is likely to have more instability problem that may or may not be directly linked to household issues. Like your story about the boy with his mother. his problems aren't simply because she's single, it's that she's providing an unstable environment that warrants abuse. That's by far the bigger problem.

The school shootings do not correlate with whether or not the father was present. Just for curiosity I googled two famous cases of school shootings: Columbine and virginia tech. Not only were there parents in tact but their families could easily be described as traditional in basic structure.

That said, violence is linked to culture. The idea that fathers teach their sons this is not exactly far-fetched. Dad there isn't a magic bullet. Dad there and teaching correct principles and being an active parent is far more indicative. And even if he is an active, good parent, if he's one who is permissive or condones violence, it will still lead to a cultural acceptance of violent acts.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment

Sure, I am not a mass murderer- but I have done things I believe I could have avoided doing had I had a father there to teach me the rules of being a man.

Only one who has had no father, or a very disfunctional father can truly comprehend what effects that has on a child.

We've all done things that upon further reflection we shouldn't have done, and I'm not trying to diminish the vital role fathers have in children's lives.

Not true. Many have fathers whom have either died or because of prior commitments(like military service) can not always physically be there. However their children go on to lead happy successful lives. Dysfunctional is another matter, and as a Social Worker I'm acutely aware of the social implications of truly dysfunctional men and their families. However, ultimately we're all responsible for our own actions.

Link to comment

You are obvioulsy failing to see my point or the point of the article. No one is saying every boy without a father, for whatever reason- that they all will turn out badly and in a life of crime.

What is being said is that the way society has attempted to deal with the issue is faulty.

But by all means keep condemning the male instincts in boys, feminize them, and fill the full of zombie drugs. Keep telling them that being male is bad and something to be repressed.

But don't curse the consequences of those actions.

(My last post in this topic)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By Moroni Spagnola
      Can you be a socialist and priest at the same time? I was a socialist priest and got sealed in the Temple with my family. My stake president says it's okay. 
       
      Why do members keep sharing talks from fifty years ago to persuade me into their Utah Culture? I love the Book of Mormon and it does not support unregulated capitalism. If anything my sacred scriptures support socialism. I will use the Book of Mormon as my evidence. If you leave a comment, I will not reply to general conference consider cultural doctrine. Use the Book of Mormon to defend your stance of why I can't be a priest in the church.
      I love the Book of Mormon because one theme in it is obvious: At their most righteous, the Nephites  were benevolent socialists; at their most depraved, they were greedy free-market capitalists.
      In the zenith of Nephite culture, "the Lord called his people Zion because they were of one heart and one mind and they did have all things in common — and there were no poor among them." Having "all things in common" suggests a society invested in public infrastructure and welfare for the whole.
      Redistribution is not an anomaly in Mormon scriptures. Joseph Smith declared that "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20).
      For any conservative this is surely commie talk! Yet Smith persisted, "If you are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things" (D&C 78:5-6).
      Early Mormon leaders advocated a United Order to redistribute wealth for the benefit of all Saints.
      Though redistribution is the highest economic order in Mormon scripture, LDS Priest vehemently denounce "democratic socialism." I guess some Latterday Saints seem to believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a de facto 14th Article of Faith: We believe in the unquestioned virtue of unregulated capitalism.
      But Mormon scripture makes such a belief indefensible. The notorious villains of Nephite civilization were the Gadianton Robbers, who perpetuated policies that exacerbated class inequality. They eventually "did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God" (Helaman 6:39).
      Many politically powerful Latter-day Saints have also turned their back on the poor and working class in this country. They are determined to eliminate the very social programs that have traditionally protected vulnerable populations. Conversely, they are equally invested in protecting the wealthy.
      They demand fiscal austerity but are unwilling to fairly tax the super rich. They demand the poor make sacrifices, but are unwilling to end corporate welfare and tax loopholes that keep big business from sharing the burden. They want to cut public funding for education, arts and health care but remain unwilling to defund our military occupations abroad.
      They denounce socialism but have no problem when the redistribution of public wealth goes upward into private hands. Gadianton himself would feel right at home amidst Utah's GOP.
      My reading of the Book of Mormon is not idiosyncratic. I saw in my sacred texts a spiritual rationale to support my own socialist programs, including a National Health Care System, that Bernie Sanders will give to the people. 
      I actually believe the admonition of Jesus, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.
      Fair-minded Latter-day Saints must reclaim their sacred texts from free-market fundamentalists. Don't be taken in by the right-wing performance art of a hysterical conservative that puts his politics above his religion. Americans can support both a robust market economy and sustainable safety nets for the meek and humble. But it will require that corporations and affluent citizens invest deeply in public infrastructure.
      The Book of Mormon narrative, regardless of its historicity, admonishes contemporary Latter-day Saints to reject riches and to care for the poor and needy. Democratic socialism is the very essence of Mormon theology and scripture. It is our common quest for Zion.
      Now it's your turn. Use the book of Mormon to defend unregulated capitalism. 
    • By Maestrophil
      I am posting this here because this involves a non active member as well as myself and my wife, and I would appreciate all insights. 
      This litterally just happened and I am kind of sick about the current position I am in and what to do. 
      So, I drove my 14 yr old daughter to YW for a hike. My daughter, who has been very vocal about not liking YW or hikes, was not murmuring this time. On the way she says “oh, I guess my mom (my ex) is joining us.  I thought it was odd but wasn’t too bothered. 
      When i got home just now and told my wife, she got really angry and demanded I call the ex right away and tell her to go home.  My wife is fearful that the ex, who is vocally anti organized church, will pull my daughter away from socializing with the other girls, and will disparage us and the church. 
      When i refused to do that and told her I thought it would do more harm than good on many levels to tell my ex wife she was not welcome to attend our ward YW, she became furious with me and I not speaking.  She wants me to “do something about it “
      My questions for you are - what do I do?  Is it our place as members to deny anyone who is not a danger to attend a ward activity?  How can I even explain this to my ex wife in a way she would understand - and ask her to notify us if she wants to attend a ward function?  Is that my place?  And I also don’t want to do anything harmful to my daughter.  Yet, I want to honor and please my faithful wife.  
      All ideas are welcome - Sooner than later!!! 😩
       
      Thanks!
       
      MP
       
       
    • By blueglass
      Black, White, & Mormon II Conference Panel 2: Getting Past the Racial Past.  
      Nancy Tessman Auditorium, Salt Lake Public Library, June 30, 2018.
      Dr. Paul Reeve UofU, primary writer of the Race and Priesthood essay.  Book:  Religion of a Different Color Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness.    https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Mormon-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/0199754071
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPWb5xj9jO8&feature=youtu.be&t=23m2s
      New justifications for the previous priesthood and temple bans
      We should just move forward? 
      "Obiously you are talking to an historian and an historian will never believe that we should just move forward without actually understanding our racial past." 
      "The LDS church disavowed in 2013 the theories advanced in the past from the 19th century about the curse of cain, fencesitters, less valiant in the war in the heaven, however, what does this mean since 1978? 
      What I have seen is a variety of new justifications for the previous priesthood and temple restrictions crop up to replace those that had been disavowed and its like playing whack a mole at the carnival!"
      If we don't understand our racial history we will continue to try these kinds of justifications. That's why the history matters.  Let me give you some examples:
      New false justifications:
      1.  Spread the gospel in stages first jews then gentiles as parallel to first the gospel got go go to the white people and then to black people.  Refutation:  The first documented black person joined the church in 1830 the founding year of the faith.  There was no parallel to jews first then gentile as it was always taken to black people and black people were ordained in the early days of the church.  
      2.  God has always discriminated in distributing priesthood power to the tribe of Levi as parallel.  The tribe of levi analogy is a false parallel because none of the other tribes were prevented from partaking of the ordinances necessary for their salvation like temple and priesthood restrictions prevented black people of African descent from doing.  The levites were in essence the old testament equivalent of modern day temple workers, not the equivalent of modern day priesthood holders.  
      3.  Giving black people access to temple and priesthood would have brought down the church.  This idea suggests that conforming to American racial norms and prejudices was necessary for the church to survive.  However, the same year 1852 that Brigham Young openly announced the racial priesthood ban the church openly acknowledged that its members believed in and practiced polygamy.  Polygamy brought considerable scorn from the nation and did not end until the federal gov nearly ground the lds church into dust, and yet lds leaders willfully stood against the curse of derision for what they believed was a divine principle.  Why would conforming to racial prejudices be necessary?   standard of truth from wentworth letter:  "the standard of truth has been erected . . so no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing . . . . "  and yet treating black people equally would have? "  
      4.  Revelation removed the restriction therefore a revelation must have started it.  This idea suggests that the ending of the restriction explains the beginnings.  I do not have to first tell my children to touch a hot stove before I tell them don't touch that it's hot!"  If there was a revelation to begin the restriction - can we read it?  Will someone show it to us?    can anyone point to it?  Where is it? There is a total of 1 revelation on race and the priesthood in the canon and it came in june 1978 and returned mormonism to its racially universal roots. 
      5.  God will not allow the prophet to let the prophet lead the church astray.  Taken within in its proper context this comes out of wilford woodruff in 1890 who was defending the manifesto ending polygamy as a revelation in the face of accusations from fellow mormons that he was a fallen prophet and had merely bowed to political pressure.   Assuming that a prophet is infallible is a violation of the central tenet of agency.  If a prophet has agency a prophet can make mistakes. 
      6.  mormon leaders were trapped by historical circumstances - everyone was racist back then.  this idea is based on the premise that we should not judge historical figures by the standards of today, but by the standards of their day.  Presentism as historians define it is superimposing present day values and understandings on the past.  It is not an act of presentism to hold those leaders accountable for their choices because people in the past argued against slavery and for racial equality including eventually joseph smith.  Also joseph smith sanctioned the  ordination of black men to the priesthood, he was not trapped by historical circumstances.  brigham young said, in 1847, we don't care about the color.  therefore when he started to care about color he was not trapped by the views of the time because he had already expressed an open view.  brigham young said we have one of the best elders - an african (Walker Lewis) 
      7.  We don't know why. 
      brigham young said he knew why.  5 feb 1852.  If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before i tell you this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of cain.  I know that they are.  I know they cannot bear rule in the priesthood in the first sense of the word."  April 2006. Gordon b Hinckley "how can any man [Brigham Young, Joseph F Smith] arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? "  
      In my personal life since I was born just barely after 1978, I have heard all of these at one time or another.  Many in just the last few months.  Question is what can we do to abandon these justifications for the ban proposed >1978?  Who are the primary proponents of these justifications?  Can we identify the sources and push back against further proliferation?  
       
    • By cinepro
      First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.
      Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:
      I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"
      The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?
      My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:
      "Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."
      Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I know this has been discussed previously (but couldn't find the thread). I recently came to the realization that every 4th Sunday for 6 months will be based on 1 topic. The first 6 months of 2018 happens to have the topic of Sabbath worship- keeping the Sabbath day holy. Regardless of what one thinks about that particular topic, is it reasonable to expect 6 lessons on consecutive months on the same topic to be stimulating to the membership? I struggle to see how even the most dedicated member could be excited about hearing the same topic (presumably with a different spin) for 6 straight months.
      Has anyone been involved in the pilot programs for this approach (which also used Sabbath Observance as the topic- so you get another 6 months...yay!!)? How did it work? Were eyes more glazed over than usual on the 5th and 6th month? Seriously, is anyone looking forward to this? I will be thrilled if someone can show me that I have misunderstood this teaching approach and it won't really be 6 months of the same topic.
       

×
×
  • Create New...