Miracle Of Forgiveness

[Sevenbak]

What rhetoric and tone? My defining various types of gay people? I have made no harsh comments against them, but stated that there are varying degrees. If that's an offensive tone to some, then I guess I'm guilty. I love my nephew as much as anyone. Again, if I'm offending with my terminology, perhaps it's time for me to bow out. There were very few here defending Pres. Kimball and his book, so I've said my peace. It looks like I'm in the minority here, so I guess I'm out.

If it helps for me to include the church's position about loving those who choose a different lifestyle, I will do it. It's how I feel as well.

"Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”³

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

[Bikeemikey]

What rhetoric and tone? My defining various types of gay people? I have made no harsh comments against them, but stated that there are varying degrees. If that's an offensive tone to some, then I guess I'm guilty. I love my nephew as much as anyone. Again, if I'm offending with my terminology, perhaps it's time for me to bow out. There were very few here defending Pres. Kimball and his book, so I've said my peace. It looks like I'm in the minority here, so I guess I'm out.

If it helps for me to include the church's position about loving those who choose a different lifestyle, I will do it. It's how I feel as well.

"Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”³

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

If you are not able to see how your tone would be offensive to the homosexual community or how your tone is not representative of the tone of the church then I fully endorse conclusion that you should consider bowing out of discussions on the topic.

If you had lead with the churches position (the quote you have is excellent example of that position) you would probably have found that the way you parsed out differing levels of homosexual lascivious activity is immediately counter to the sentiments you started with in the aforementioned quote.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Sevenbak]

I am not a big fan of political correctness, but for those with any long term dealings with the gay community, believe me, my tone was very mild, even according to their own terminology. When I say "very gay", is that seriously an insult? What if I had used the term flamer, or screamer? Isn't that much worse? Of course it is. Even that is offensive to me. Had I used the same phraseology that my gay friend used in describing himself, I would certainly be lambasted here, but no, I will not repeat what he said. The fact is, there are people who are easy to tell what their lifestyle choices are.

Nephi and Isaiah described it in other terms in 2 Nephi 13:9, that could be construed much worse than anything I haver been perceived to have said.

Seriously, where's the beef? Not strictly gay, very gay... is that such an offense on my part that we are we to walk on eggshells on every topic where we might offend. I know many in the gay community don't see this as sin, but that is not the Church's position, no matter how much better they couch their language. It is still a lifestyle choice, and still described as lascivious behavior, along with a whole variety of other moral sins in the straight community.

I think we have to be careful as to what we define as hate speech in today's political climate. I will quote one last thing before I depart this thread, this one from Elder Ballard. He says it better than I. (apparently that's an easy thing to do)

"But one thing is certain: the commandments have not changed. Let there be no mistake about that. Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong, no matter how cleverly cloaked in respectability or political correctness."

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/like-a-flame-unquenchable?lang=eng

OK, I'm done. You can all pile on as you see fit.

[TAO]

Bikemikey and Canard, to be quite honest, I think what Svenback has said is fine. Sexuality (like pretty much everything) is very much tied into social construction, and as of such, there will be different degrees of viewpoints on the subject, not just two or three. So I'd say using the words 'very gay' (that is, very strongly acting upon the inclination), 'somewhat gay' (acting on the inclination sometimes), and 'rarely gay' (acting rarely) should be okay. If anything, it'll help describe what you are talking about better, as it is more descriptive than simply 'gay' or 'straight' or 'bisexual'.

In any case, if you don't like what Sven says, please try and address it, rather than say 'it's obvious'. Generally, things aren't quite as obvious as one might expect them to be; when I was growing up, socializing and 'common sense' were not obvious to me. So take the time to explain, it'll help you talk with people, even if you don't reach an agreement.

Best of Wishes,

No Offenses Intended,

-TAO

[Scott Lloyd]

What rhetoric and tone? My defining various types of gay people? I have made no harsh comments against them, but stated that there are varying degrees. If that's an offensive tone to some, then I guess I'm guilty. I love my nephew as much as anyone. Again, if I'm offending with my terminology, perhaps it's time for me to bow out. There were very few here defending Pres. Kimball and his book, so I've said my peace. It looks like I'm in the minority here, so I guess I'm out.

If it helps for me to include the church's position about loving those who choose a different lifestyle, I will do it. It's how I feel as well.

"Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”³

http://www.lds.org/t...action?lang=eng

Let me counter Bikeemikey's pressure on you to depart the discussion. I wish you would stay. You are providing some much needed perspective and balance on a thread that was indeed deteriorating into unseemly disparagement of President Kimball and his words.

As for degrees of "gayness," I would say that the existence of professed bi-sexuality argues for that concept. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems to me that, theoretically, a person of bi-sexual tendencies can as easily focus his feelings on heterosexuality and suppress the other as a heterosexual male can focus his sexual feelings on his wife and curb the tendency to have labidinous attraction and thoughts toward other women.

[Calm]

I am wondering if canard and bikemikey are supposing that sevenbak is referring solely to outward appearance and agreeing with the often presented caricature of gays who are more open in their lifestyle and did so to mock it. If so, I didn't get that impression, merely that he was pointing to a continuum of feelings and behaviour that exists among gays as it does among straights from those who make no public display of their orientation to those who make it the centrepiece of their personal appearance and behaviour...which may or may not correlate with the strength of their attraction.

If one assumes "gay" is being used not as a pejorative, but simply as an identifier (which is how i interpreted it being used here) I am uncertain as to why the phrase "very gay" becomes a pejorative anymore than saying someone was "very straight"...or perhaps I am not understanding the objections to his post and it is something else that is seen as inappropriate.

[Scott Lloyd]

Let me counter Bikeemikey's pressure on you to depart the discussion. I wish you would stay. You are providing some much needed perspective and balance on a thread that was indeed deteriorating into unseemly disparagement of President Kimball and his words.

As for degrees of "gayness," I would say that the existence of professed bi-sexuality argues for that concept. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems to me that, theoretically, a person of bi-sexual tendencies can as easily focus his feelings on heterosexuality and suppress the other as a heterosexual male can focus his sexual feelings on his wife and curb the tendency to have labidinous attraction and thoughts toward other women.

I just found this on Wikipedia regarding "degrees of gayness" (yes, that was the search term I used).

There is something called the Kinsey Scale, or the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale. It purports to describe a person's sexual orientation along a continuum and assigns a value of 0 (meaning "exclusively heterosexual") to 6 (meaning "exclusively homosexual").

Here is a pertinent quotation from Kinsey:

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

While emphasizing the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history [...] An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life. [...] A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.

Learning about the Kinsey Scale just now has affirmed my intuitive impression: that Sevenbak wasn't making this stuff up.

And like calmoriah, I am puzzled by the contempt shown by canard and bikeemikey toward Sevenbak's "rhetoric and tone."

What's the problem? That he wasn't being politically correct enough? Well, like Sevenbak, I detest political correctness, especially when it is used as a mask for accurate communication.

Edited to add:

Is this what we are to expect from now on? That we cannot discuss these issues clinically and candidly without incurring public wrath or having our character called into question?

I'm afraid Justice Scalia's minority opinion identifies an ominous attitude that portends the future.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[thatjimguy]

This thread is on the idea about the book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" and about secondary doctrine, and how much the church backs it up. The stuff you guys are talking about is not on point. Take it outside and start a new thread. Don't clog up this discussion and confuse the subject. We have had some good info come by here. I do not wish it diluted.

Here is my next question on the subject...

If "The Miracle of Forgiveness" is not doctrinal, does the church provide direct information that is not vague as to what is not considered correct?

[thesometimesaint]

This thread is on the idea about the book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" and about secondary doctrine, and how much the church backs it up. The stuff you guys are talking about is not on point. Take it outside and start a new thread. Don't clog up this discussion and confuse the subject. We have had some good info come by here. I do not wish it diluted.

Here is my next question on the subject...

If "The Miracle of Forgiveness" is not doctrinal, does the church provide direct information that is not vague as to what is not considered correct?

The book is not doctrine, but there many doctrinal ideas in it.

[Calm]

If "The Miracle of Forgiveness" is not doctrinal, does the church provide direct information that is not vague as to what is not considered correct?

Are you asking if they provide such information elsewhere while not referring to the book, but being specific in their examples and explanation about the concepts or are you asking if they provide more or less an errata sheet or something along those lines?

If the first, then my belief is that they do; if the second, not that I am aware of.

Edited July 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[thatjimguy]

I do mean direct, much like an errata sheet. Nothing allowed to be vague. Something that clearly states "This is not doctrinal, and here are the reasons why."

[Scott Lloyd]

I do mean direct, much like an errata sheet. Nothing allowed to be vague. Something that clearly states "This is not doctrinal, and here are the reasons why."

The question presupposes that if the Church is not willing to give a full-scale endorsement to a work, that it is obligated in effect to disavow or discredit some portion of it.

I think that's an unreasonable expectation. The Church leaders may not wish to do either, and they could have reasonable grounds for such forebearance.

[Robert F. Smith]

Quote

"[Masturbation] too often leads to a grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation - practiced with another person of the same sex - and thence into total homosexuality."

While not doctrine related. This is one of my all-time favorite slippery slope arguments. I didn't just come across this in Miracle of Forgiveness, I got taught this sequences of events multiple times by my Young Men's advisors. The jumps in this slippery slope are amazing.

Masturbation --> Mutual Masturbation w/same sex --> Total homosexuality.

All of us young men would laugh at this, knowing that we were all doing #1, and there wasn't a chance in outer darkness any of us had interest in #2, much less #3.

If that chain of events was accurate, our species would have ceased existing due to lack of procreation billions of years ago.

Sorry I'm late getting into this, Brian,

But I think that someone ought to point out that Spencer Kimball came from another generation and he may have been familiar (as a bishop and stake pres) with the fact that mutual masturbation was once quite common (in the military for example). While it is true that most young men and women have no intention of becoming involved with such activity, and even recoil at the mere thought of it, there are circumstances in which such activity becomes almost "normal," and an entire culture can become desensitized to the societal implications of that and related loss of inhibitions. As famed lesbian activist Tammy Bruce has frankly stated:

A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true. We need to be willing to address that.

And as Orson Scott Card has observed of the LDS homosexual dilemma, “for most of them their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex,” i.e., the gay community. You may scoff at the "slippery slope," but vast changes have already taken place in our society which have given porn & sex near divine status, wreaking havoc in otherwise stable families.

Indeed, in ancient Classical Greece pederasty became completely "normal," something unheard of in the earlier Heroic Hellenistic age. St Paul had to confront the problem head on for the Christians in Corinth. We need not even go into what is "normal" in prisons.

[Scott Lloyd]

This thread is on the idea about the book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" and about secondary doctrine, and how much the church backs it up. The stuff you guys are talking about is not on point. Take it outside and start a new thread. Don't clog up this discussion and confuse the subject. We have had some good info come by here. I do not wish it diluted.

Here is my next question on the subject...

If "The Miracle of Forgiveness" is not doctrinal, does the church provide direct information that is not vague as to what is not considered correct?

I find this idea of a Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale intriguing as it pertains to the Church's teaching about the sinful nature of homosexual behavior.

If a heterosexual person can be expected to supress unrighteous urges relating to heterosexuality, it seems to me that, depending upon where one finds himself/herself on the continuum, a person could reasonably be expected to suppress unrightous urges relating to homosexuality and to pursue a rewarding heterosexual relationship within the lawful (according to God's laws, not mortal man's) confines of a marriage.

I won't bring this up again on this thread, but I may choose to open another thread for discussion of it.

If I don't get around to it within the next day or so, someone else may feel free to do it.

[Robert F. Smith]

Out of curiosity, I stopped in to the Deseret Book store in Draper, near where I live. On the shelf was Miracle of Forgiveness in hard cover and paperback, with the attractive new cover Sevenbak mentioned. I looked further and found the multi-disc, unabridged CD set.

I went to the location in Sandy, my hometown, of Seagull Book. which was acquired by Deseret Book as a subsidiary a few years ago. I noted that Seagull has greatly reduced its book inventory and has devoted most of its floor space to clothing and gift items. Nevertheless, I had no trouble finding Miracle of Forgiveness in hardback, paperback and CD.

I checked the Deseret Book app on my iPod touch and found that right now I can get a digital download of Miracle of Forgiveness for $9.99, marked down from $24.95.

I've been off work for the holiday weekend, or I would have checked the flagship Deseret Book store, the one in downtown SLC that Cinepro visited. But when I go back to work on Monday, I will go there. I might have to ask a store clerk, but I expect to find Miracle of Forgiveness in stock there as well.

To adapt Cinepro's words, this should tell us all we need to know about the availability and in-print status of Miracle of Forgiveness.

Or to adapt the words of Mark Twain, reports of the demise of Miracle of Forgiveness are greatly exaggerated.

Hey, what I want to know, Lloyd, is whether The Miracle of Forgetness (1997) is in stock at Deseret?

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey, what I want to know, Lloyd, is whether The Miracle of Forgetness (1997) is in stock at Deseret?

I had to check Amazon to learn that The Miracle of Forgetness is by a distinguished author named Robert F. Smith.

But I won't clutter thatjimguy's thread further by discussion of it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I had to check Amazon to learn that The Miracle of Forgetness is by a distinguished author named Robert F. Smith.

But I won't clutter thatjimguy's thread further by discussion of it.

Just as clarification, if not clutter, that distinguished author is a young upstart unrelated to me.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just as clarification, if not clutter, that distinguished author is a young upstart unrelated to me.

If the book appeared in 1997, I wonder how young he could yet be.

[Calm]

If the book appeared in 1997, I wonder how young he could yet be.

43ish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Farrell_Smith

Edited July 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I'll hold my hands up and admit to what appears to be a partial misreading of sevenbak. If the question is about sliding scales of exclusive to non-exclusive same sex attraction (from homo to bi to hetero) then I would agree that there is of course one.

Having said that, my gut reaction was partly over what felt like condescending commentary on degrees of homosexuality being driven by desire to get 'easier gratification.' Even in acknowledging he only based his opinion on one anecdotal experience he still drew a generalised conclusion from it.

Given 'thatjimguy' has asked us to move off the topic this will be my last comment on the tangent. If you want to open a new thread on 'degrees of same-sex attraction' I'll try to pop in.

[Bikeemikey]

Let me counter Bikeemikey's pressure on you to depart the discussion. I wish you would stay. You are providing some much needed perspective and balance on a thread that was indeed deteriorating into unseemly disparagement of President Kimball and his words.

As for degrees of "gayness," I would say that the existence of professed bi-sexuality argues for that concept. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems to me that, theoretically, a person of bi-sexual tendencies can as easily focus his feelings on heterosexuality and suppress the other as a heterosexual male can focus his sexual feelings on his wife and curb the tendency to have labidinous attraction and thoughts toward other women.

I have no interest in people departing the discussion, nor have I ever expressed concern with the views sevenbak has expressed. I have expressed concern in the way such views were argued to be the "church view on things". I have also suggested that if someone isn't representing the churches position they should stop trying to.

There is a large difference.

The church believes homosexual activity to be sinful. However, the church has has a dramatic shift in public discourse on the issue to focus on love kindness and respect for those who chose to engage in such activities.

As for degrees of gayness. Of course there are degrees of gayness. It is also true that there is commentary that is far more acceptable when coming from with in a community than coming from outside a community. Just with Mormons, there are conversations and observations that happen between Mormons that are considered as non-hostile even when the same topic would be considered confrontational or hostile if initiated by a non-mormon.

This is not about political correctness. It is about ensuring that when saying we represent the churches position that we are representing a position of love and kindness.

When the church starts asserting on the mormonandgays.org website the same tone and topics introduces by sevenbak then and only then is sevenbak entitled to claim the positions expressed as inline with church teachings.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

When the church starts asserting on the mormonandgays.org website the same tone and topics introduces by sevenbak then and only then is sevenbak entitled to claim the positions expressed as inline with church teachings.

If sevenbak has asserted his position is identical to the church's teachings, I missed it. Wouldn't be surprised as today I have not been the sharpest tack in the box, let alone the board (I asked where my daughter was yesterday when she was standing directly in front of me, I had focused on the colour of her shirt and not her face and had assumed it was another woman's who was there....and that woman's shirt wasn't even that colour...strange what the brain can do while storing sensory input). If he has done so, I am too lazy (translate spaced) tonight to go back and check and see if I agree with him or not. My memory says he was speaking of things that were outside typical church discussion, so might be considered irrelevant according to church thought. I do believe people should be extra careful claiming their position is the church's position even if they are sure of it, too many have been sure and thus folklore has been born that the church has tried to get rid of for over a hundred years and not been able to do so.

And I do agree that outsiders of any group should try to be conscious of how they speak of the insiders, even if using the same labels as the insiders...but that is different than reporting what an insider might have said and my memory says sevenbak did the second, not the first.

But it is not about being politically correct to be careful and kind in how one says things. Being politically correct allows you to say horrible things about the latest political target, after all. Being respectful to others is about treating all by the same careful standards and that may appear to some as being politically correct if they are not aware that one is just as respectful to others as to the latest political favourites. I think it is also respectful to present someone as they really are...to the best of our ability which may not be very good depending on how well we have interacted with them and received feedback from them, even when such may not look that great to other people. I have been accused of being politically correct several times when such things don't really enter my mind, it is just the habit of my normal way of looking at people. Buttons have to be vigorously and most likely intentionally pushed to derail me from that rut in my behaviour.

Hopefully that is clear, I keep telling myself I am going to get off in five minutes and then it is an hour later and I say 'just five more' again....and I already found out I left out a few essential sentences in the above that make it somewhat confusing without them.

Do you think one should even edit one's remarks when reporting an insider's comment about him/herself or her/his group? Isn't that usurping a person's right to act how he chooses, to assume a certain identity? Shouldn't we respect her choices to be that type of person even if we disagree with it rather than trying to paint a different, more acceptable picture?

Edited July 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no interest in people departing the discussion, nor have I ever expressed concern with the views sevenbak has expressed. I have expressed concern in the way such views were argued to be the "church view on things". I have also suggested that if someone isn't representing the churches position they should stop trying to.

There is a large difference.

The church believes homosexual activity to be sinful. However, the church has has a dramatic shift in public discourse on the issue to focus on love kindness and respect for those who chose to engage in such activities.

As for degrees of gayness. Of course there are degrees of gayness. It is also true that there is commentary that is far more acceptable when coming from with in a community than coming from outside a community. Just with Mormons, there are conversations and observations that happen between Mormons that are considered as non-hostile even when the same topic would be considered confrontational or hostile if initiated by a non-mormon.

This is not about political correctness. It is about ensuring that when saying we represent the churches position that we are representing a position of love and kindness.

When the church starts asserting on the mormonandgays.org website the same tone and topics introduces by sevenbak then and only then is sevenbak entitled to claim the positions expressed as inline with church teachings.

I don't see anything in the posting of Sevenbak that is factually incorrect about how the Church regards homosexual behavior. The objection seems to revolve around what has been described in this discussion as "rhetoric and tone." Regarding that, I don't see anything particularly harsh or unkind about what Sevenbak has written. If he was candid, well, he was responding to a direct criticism of the writing of a former Church apostle who ultimately became Church president.

I guess we'll just have to chalk this up to a difference in sensitivities.

Anyway, as the OP has expressed heartburn over his thread being derailed, I'm exiting the discussion on the matter of Sevenbak's rhetoric and tone.

[thatjimguy]

The question presupposes that if the Church is not willing to give a full-scale endorsement to a work, that it is obligated in effect to disavow or discredit some portion of it.

I think that's an unreasonable expectation. The Church leaders may not wish to do either, and they could have reasonable grounds for such forebearance.

What could those grounds be? I think it would be irresponsible not to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

Out of curiosity, I stopped in to the Deseret Book store in Draper, near where I live. On the shelf was Miracle of Forgiveness in hard cover and paperback, with the attractive new cover Sevenbak mentioned. I looked further and found the multi-disc, unabridged CD set.

I went to the location in Sandy, my hometown, of Seagull Book. which was acquired by Deseret Book as a subsidiary a few years ago. I noted that Seagull has greatly reduced its book inventory and has devoted most of its floor space to clothing and gift items. Nevertheless, I had no trouble finding Miracle of Forgiveness in hardback, paperback and CD.

I checked the Deseret Book app on my iPod touch and found that right now I can get a digital download of Miracle of Forgiveness for $9.99, marked down from $24.95.

I've been off work for the holiday weekend, or I would have checked the flagship Deseret Book store, the one in downtown SLC that Cinepro visited. But when I go back to work on Monday, I will go there. I might have to ask a store clerk, but I expect to find Miracle of Forgiveness in stock there as well.

To adapt Cinepro's words, this should tell us all we need to know about the availability and in-print status of Miracle of Forgiveness.

Or to adapt the words of Mark Twain, reports of the demise of Miracle of Forgiveness are greatly exaggerated.

Just reporting back here as promised.

I went to the Deseret Book flagship store in downtown Salt Lake. There I readily found copies of Miracle of Forgiveness on the shelf in the "Gospel Teachings" section, placed alphabetically by author's name next to President Kimball's companion classic, Faith Precedes the Miracle. I then went to the "Audio Books and Talks" section and found the unabridged CD set of Miracle of Forgiveness next to an audio book of Faith Precedes the Miracle.

As I mentioned before, this was not unexpected.

I can only conclude that Cinepro visited the store on an unusual day or that he should have looked harder and perhaps asked a store clerk for assistance.

There is a third, less-likely, possibility: that after all these years, Miracle of Forgiveness is so popular that Deseret Book can scarcely keep it in stock.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd