The Nehor Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Sorry, I don't believe that. Any guy (young or old) that even desires to look at gay porn and then is turned on by gay porn, already has strong gay tendencies. It's not the other way around. A heterosexual is not going to be "turned gay" because he looks at gay porn. I think it depends. One of the things about porn addiction (as opposed to casual use) is that it tends to escalate in intensity and the viewer starts seeking greater and greater weirdness/perversion. To some this involves crossing gender lines and some it is messing with the power dynamics (BDSM and the like) and some it devolves into flat-out sadism. I could see someone predominantly heterosexual with a porn addiction start experimenting with gay porn and later gay sex if they are being driven by the exotic and the new. I know of one actual case of this. Once the porn addiction was broken the desire for other men faded. Admittedly anecdotal but it does happen.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I don't think so. Are you saying this is something you were tempted to do? How many of these "group sessions" are you personally familiar with that happened? The question is inappropriate.
ERayR Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Perhaps Dehlin should quit trying to run the Church his way. 4
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Because we want and need them to function in the pastoral role they have been given: to be shepherds to the flock. The occasional unfortunate incident is not enough to warrant precluding them in any way from fulfilling that role with the attendant consequences that such a preclusion would bring upon the Church at large.The "occasional unfortunate incident" is the abuse of a CHILD. Apparently, I haven't been Mormon long enough to view this merely as "collateral damage" to an important priestly function (I.e., to find out if boys and girls are touching themselves). But I have been a parent long enough to know that MY sons won't be the victims of an "unfortunate incident" because they won't be attending such meetings (at least, not by themselves).
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 It happens. I would not say most are interested in it but the Bishop who sent me on my mission later said he decided not to have his kids go to or host sleepovers because of where foolish late night sleep-deprived silliness amongst teens led them. He obviously would not go into specifics.We received multiple warnings about sleepovers for that very reason and have disallowed them in our household.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 The "occasional unfortunate incident" is the abuse of a CHILD. Apparently, I haven't been Mormon long enough to view this merely as "collateral damage" to an important priestly function (I.e., to find out if boys and girls are touching themselves). But I have been a parent long enough to know that MY sons won't be the victims of an "unfortunate incident" because they won't be attending such meetings (at least, not by themselves).Alternatively, we are talking about young people in a downward spiral of sexual sin because we are too timid to allow bishops to fulfill their pastoral role and intervene. 2
ERayR Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 The "occasional unfortunate incident" is the abuse of a CHILD. Apparently, I haven't been Mormon long enough to view this merely as "collateral damage" to an important priestly function (I.e., to find out if boys and girls are touching themselves). But I have been a parent long enough to know that MY sons won't be the victims of an "unfortunate incident" because they won't be attending such meetings (at least, not by themselves). If Bishops interviews were to be limited to your way who would be there to discover the abuse of children by parents or family members? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Yes, homosexuals masturbate just like every other guy. But if you really believe that masturbation leads to homosexuality then 99.9% of adult males would be gay. That's a ridiculous teaching.At an early age, the young people are still exploring their sexual identity. Some have tendencies in either direction that if not held in check could lead to heartbreak later on. Edited May 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
MichelleD Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I think we probably disagree regarding whether or not a person is born gay. I believe they are and that an extremely small percentage would choose to become or to be gay. We should just agree to disagree on this one.
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 No recent Church news release that I'm aware of has as its intent, even implicitly, to reshape the Church into just another "mainstream" sectarian Protestant denomination. It would be a weak argument indeed. The Church has long been in favor of joining with like-minded entities on issues of public concern. That is in no way the same thing as trying to become like them theologically or doctrinally or abandoning or forsaking our essential beliefs to curry favor with them.The very latest release saying, "We don't really know if we get our own planets," is an example of trying to go "mainstream." We discussed this at the time and the consensus was that most Mormons believed that we could become gods like our HF (who has His own planet). Yet, it sounds weird to the EVs, so the Church is trying to dispel this "caricature" (I.e., accurate, literal description) of our beliefs.As for Prop 8, a cynical person might see it as part of a continuing campaign to assure the EVs that we're not free-love polygamists but rather good "normal" Christians -- just like them. That's why we had to give a PROCLAMATION to the whole wide world (and they were listening for it) that marriage is between one woman and one man. Of course, the EVs took this as a given, but we needed to state the obvious so that they would say, "Hey, those Mormons aren't so weird, after all." When the Prop 8 battle erupted in California, we volunteered to go to the "front lines" like the Massachusetts 54th Regiment in the movie Glory. Like those black soldiers, we wanted to prove that we could be every bit as "valiant" as EV "Christian Soldiers."Of course, that's just the cynical view of SOME people.
ERayR Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) I think we probably disagree regarding whether or not a person is born gay. I believe they are and that an extremely small percentage would choose to become or to be gay. We should just agree to disagree on this one. And I hold the opinion that some are born with the tendency but without the environment that pushes them into the practice would not do so. Edited May 1, 2014 by ERayR 2
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 If Bishops interviews were to be limited to your way who would be there to discover the abuse of children by parents or family members?So that's the purpose of the bishop interview, to see if I'm touching MY kids?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I think we probably disagree regarding whether or not a person is born gay. I believe they are and that an extremely small percentage would choose to become or to be gay. We should just agree to disagree on this one.I am agnostic on whether or not a person is "born gay." But the existence of the Kinsey Scale suggests that some people are neither 100 percent homosexual nor 100 percent heterosexual in their orientation. If that be the case, given our values and beliefs as Latter-day Saints, such an individual ought to be encouraged and aided, if possible, in suppressing any homosexual aspect of his nature and, at the proper time, develop the heterosexual aspect. It seems to me it is especially important to be vigilant about this while the person is still young.
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Alternatively, we are talking about young people in a downward spiral of sexual sin because we are too timid to allow bishops to fulfill their pastoral role and intervene.If the (false) choice is between (1) clergy sexual abuse and (2) unchecked M, I'll take Door #2, Monty!
MichelleD Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 The question is inappropriate.I see your comment as not playing fair here. You are the one who accused alarson of being naive about not believing these group masturbation sessions take place with the youth and when he asks you if you have any personal knowledge of them happening, you say that's inappropriate? Why?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 And I hold the opinion that some are born with the tendency but without theenvironment that pushes them into the practice would not do so.I think this is a sensible way to look at it.
ERayR Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 So that's the purpose of the bishop interview, to see if I'm touching MY kids? Don't be obtuse it is unbecoming of you.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) If the (false) choice is between (1) clergy sexual abuse and (2) unchecked M, I'll take Door #2, Monty!As there is a far greater likelihood of the second thing happening, that is far more urgent. Edited May 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
USU78 Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 So . . . Dehlin would infantilize all youth in the Church by making them take babysitters with them into the confessional? Who's next on his list? Bat/Bar Mitzvah girls and boys? Will somebody be holding hankies up to their little snotty nosies?
pogi Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 And I hold the opinion that some are born with the tendency but without the environment that pushes them into the practice would not do so. True. That seems to be the case with the young man's story I brought up.
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I see your comment as not playing fair here. You are the one who accused alarson of being naive about not believing these group masturbation sessions take place with the youth and when he asks you if you have any personal knowledge of them happening, you say that's inappropriate? Why?More importantly, we might want to rethink our scouting and YM programs. I was not raised in this Church, or any church for that matter. My friends and I did not have the advantages of sound moral teachings and yet, the idea of a group M session was NEVER raised -- not even once. In fact, I can think of no faster way to be thrown out of the "crew" than to even HINT at the concept. It is shocking that this has occurred enough in our Church to warrant one of the Brethren to address it. I'm starting to wonder what I've got my family into here.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I see your comment as not playing fair here. You are the one who accused alarson of being naive about not believing these group masturbation sessions take place with the youth and when he asks you if you have any personal knowledge of them happening, you say that's inappropriate? Why?I didn't ask him about his personal sexual proclivities or experiences. It's not an apt comparison. And yes, his questions to me were inappropriate. Which is why I will continue to ignore them.
USU78 Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Apparently, I haven't been Mormon long enough to view this . . . Again with the snideness from atop the Rameumptom. Do you really have such bitter disdain for your [alleged] coreligionists? 3
USU78 Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Sorry, I don't believe that. Any guy (young or old) that even desires to look at gay porn and then is turned on by gay porn, already has strong gay tendencies. It's not the other way around. A heterosexual is not going to be "turned gay" because he looks at gay porn. Is this because Madison Avenue cannot possibly be used to influence populations and individuals to believe and act differently than they do? Vids are powerful . . . it's why we like movies and youtube and TV so much. The ability to change behaviors in persons and communities has been known since before Aristotle. It would be naive to claim, as you do [i believe, without considering deeply], that popular "art" and culture don't affect behaviors, often for the worse.
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 As there is a far greater likelihood of the second thing happening, that is far more urgent.We'll have to agree to disagree here. I think the harm of clergy abuse so far outweighs the harm of the M-word that it simply isn't worth the (admittedly reduced) risk. I also quite frankly can't understand why bishops are willing to take that risk. If it hasn't happened already, some bishop will be falsely accused of molestation.Once again, I'm just not Mormon enough (yet) to see why someone would place their reputation and even their freedom on the line in an effort to make absolutely sure that no young person in their ward is touching themselves. But don't give up hope for me
Recommended Posts