Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[cursor]

What if we started to embrace youth who are sexually active and decided not to be married? What about if we started to embrace members who decided to have sex changes or decide they are happiest in jobs working in the porn industry? Should we embrace transvestites and hookers also?

I see a trend in society, even in our church and it is sad. That trend is showing tolerance to the point of embracing alternative sexual and immoral lifestyles as normal. It will get to a point where we will even be afraid to speak of homosexuality as sinful in church in fear we might hurt someone's feelings. Oh the careful and cunning snare of the devil!

 

Your post seems to me to be is insincere, and is ... hell, why even bother with your drivel ... again.

[DBMormon]

 

Rob Osborn, on 03 Jan 2015 - 2:28 PM, said:

What if we started to embrace youth who are sexually active and decided not to be married? What about if we started to embrace members who decided to have sex changes or decide they are happiest in jobs working in the porn industry? Should we embrace transvestites and hookers also?

I see a trend in society, even in our church and it is sad. That trend is showing tolerance to the point of embracing alternative sexual and immoral lifestyles as normal. It will get to a point where we will even be afraid to speak of homosexuality as sinful in church in fear we might hurt someone's feelings. Oh the careful and cunning snare of the devil!

 

 

 

Rob, I totally hear your point and I validate it as one viable perspective.  But I also read of the Savior who sat right in the midst of the sinners.  He talked with them, ate with them, he even implied that he fit in better with those who were outwardly apparent that they were sinning deeply.  The question at the heart of this matter is what is the balance between using discipline to encourage one to improve and using Charity and friendship and non judgmental love to help them to become better?

 

For example say we have a single young women who is sleeping around.  It is sin, no doubt about that.  We could if were were the Bishop, hold a disciplinary court. It may or may not help her see the error of her ways and she may or may not change.  She also may leave the church, not feeling of worth due to our seeing the one serious ill in her life rather than the validation and friendship and emptiness she feels which leads to such choices.  Perhaps she does a dozen things really well and yet our focus on the one perceived ill has us seeing no choice but to limit her church participation or cut off her membership.

 

What if we, while not validation her sin as "not Sin", simply loved her and accepted her and said we know you have this problem here... but we also see all the good you do and all the blessings you bring to others, and simply focus on them as a child of God who needs to be loved and valued.  Maybe she continues to sleep around, but does she improve in other areas?  Does she grow closer to Christ?  Does she in other ways improve?  Are we willing to set a perceived sin aside while we help the individual come unto Christ in other areas of their life?  We each have sins and some of our are more hidden and out of sight....  I am grateful that the Savior allows me to move forward even in my sins as I work to repent and become like him.  Is it better we cast them out or keep them in while working with them and perhaps even ignoring their one sin n favor of helping them improve in other areas..... I don't know but I do at least see room and argue in favor of the latter.

 

EDITED TO ADD:  I can see he is gone, too bad.

Edited January 14, 2015 by DBMormon

[cursor]

When as a new missionary for the LDS Church, I was previously engaged to a wonderful young woman. After 20 months on a Span-Am mission, and becoming an AP (Assistant to the President), I wrote off my fiancee, explaining that I needed—instead—someone more directly connected with the Book of Mormon. What a dumb *** I was. I was, however, totally sincere (in my own mind). I fasted, I prayed, and I received a prayerful response. Six months later I was married in the temple to a Latin American gal (that'd be a Lamanite) from Guatemala.

 

We survived 12½ years of marriage, which included two very wonderful children.

 

I'm currently convinced that the answer to my prayers was the direct result of my sociological interpretation. My father, to whom I owe much, was deeply connected with the Book of Mormon and mesoamerican life. So was I.

 

Answered prayers to God are subject to personal interpretation.

 

Certainly, beyond interracial marriages/connections MUST be considered the plausible reality of homosexual relationships. No?

[Hamba Tuhan]

What are you saying? Homosexuality is a modern invention within the past 150 years? I must be misunderstanding you. Could you please clarify.

 

Nope, no misunderstanding. The notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge.

 

If you're genuinely interested, a more academic introduction can be found in 'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation':

 

The social-constructionist approach has posed important challenges to ahistorical, essentialist accounts of sexual orientation and extended our understanding of the impact of culture on human sexuality. Most constructionist analyses have focused on homosexual identities, however, ignoring heterosexuality and bisexuality. By attending predominantly to homosexual identities, researchers may seem to support the notion that only "deviant" sexuality (i.e., homosexuality) is socially constructed as opposed to the more radical idea that all sexual orientations are constructed, or that the entire concept of a sexual orientation is itself a social construction. After all, heterosexuality as a sexual identity (rather than as a default behavior pattern) is a rather recent phenomenon in our society, only called into being by the existence of homosexuality.

 

...

Sexual orientation, according to this definition, has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space. I will not dwell on the third quality, that of consistency, although there is considerable evidence to challenge the notion that sexual orientation is consistent over time and/or space. Instead, I wish to examine the first and second factors, those of sexuality and gender. I will claim that "sexual orientation" (as it is understood in modern Western culture) privileges both sexuality and gender as fundamental, biological categories of experience. By this I mean that the way in which sexual orientation is understood by both the mainstream culture and the scientific community has resulted in the assumption of sexuality and gender as basic and self-explanatory. Our cultural construct of sexual orientation focuses attention narrowly on sexuality and gender as the key elements of relationships instead of examining the wide range of human bonding preferences.

 

...

Perhaps sex-centrality was inevitable given the increasing discourse of sexuality in Western culture and the proliferation of a sexual zoology ... In addition to typologies of sexuality becoming more elaborate, Freudian theory increased the pervasiveness of sexual discourse by fostering the notion that no human bonding is free from sexuality. Thus not only were a variety of sexual categories available, but all human relationships( friendships, parent-child relationships) became imbued with sexuality, and emotional attachment came to be seen as linked with sexual desire.

 

I'm a historian by profession and work in a research school with other historians, anthropologists, and linguists. I'm not aware of a single one who would contest the reality that 'sexual orientation' is a recent construct with a knowable history or that it is a specifically Western construct that has spread into our part of the world only because of Western colonialism (including the entertainment industry's colonising of the imagination).

[tonie]

I think we base our assumptions on what we do not see.  We do not see or know the individual spiritual pecularities of everyone in our congregations. I know three people by name in my current ward.

 

Someone I am close with, stated, that in his ward a female was called as Assistant Executive Secretary. I can not confirm this, but I have no reason to doubt the source (the only doubt I would have concern the exact calling). Anyways, I think Bishops the best they can with what they have. I also believe that unless we are privy to what a Bishop or SP knows about their flock, we rarely can not say what type of actions leadership has taken that we might consider "thinking out of the box"

[DBMormon]

I think we base our assumptions on what we do not see.  We do not see or know the individual spiritual pecularities of everyone in our congregations. I know three people by name in my current ward.

 

Someone I am close with, stated, that in his ward a female was called as Assistant Executive Secretary. I can not confirm this, but I have no reason to doubt the source (the only doubt I would have concern the exact calling). Anyways, I think Bishops the best they can with what they have. I also believe that unless we are privy to what a Bishop or SP knows about their flock, we rarely can not say what type of actions leadership has taken that we might consider "thinking out of the box"

If it is not prohibited in the handbook, we should feel open to think outside the box.... awesome idea though I thought at one time assistant exec sec was addressed in the handbook

[Mars]

@Hamba Tuhan

 

If DBMormon doesn't have any objections (as it's his thread) - could you dumb that big quote down for me?

[HappyJackWagon]

Nope, no misunderstanding. The notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge.

 

If you're genuinely interested, a more academic introduction can be found in 'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation':

 

 

I'm a historian by profession and work in a research school with other historians, anthropologists, and linguists. I'm not aware of a single one who would contest the reality that 'sexual orientation' is a recent construct with a knowable history or that it is a specifically Western construct that has spread into our part of the world only because of Western colonialism (including the entertainment industry's colonising of the imagination).

Very interesting . Thanks for sharing.

So does this suggest that it is simply better defined as a part of western discourse? Obviously this behavior has always existed. Is the newness merely a comfort level in publicly identifying in this way instead of in secret?

[DBMormon]

@Hamba Tuhan

 

If DBMormon doesn't have any objections (as it's his thread) - could you dumb that big quote down for me?

I have no objections to dumbing down anything..... 

[Mars]

I have no objections to dumbing down anything..... 

 

Ha!  Nor do I.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If DBMormon doesn't have any objections (as it's his thread) - could you dumb that big quote down for me?

 

I'll try, though the three quotes I provided were just 'tastes', not some kind of coherent whole:

 

Accounts of sexual orientation that treat it as something that exists in and of itself (essentialist) or as something that has existed throughout history (transhistorical) do not hold up when we recognise it as a social construction. It is not just certain sexual orientations (such as homosexuality) that are socially constructed; the entire concept of sexual orientation is itself a social construction.

 

As defined by society, sexual orientation is (1) a sexual attraction, (2) defined by the gender of its object and (3) fixed in time and space. Considerable evidence exists to challenge the idea that sexual orientation is fixed and unchanging, but more importantly, neither sexuality nor gender exist as fundamental, biological categories of experience. The construction of sexual orientation has therefore created artificial categories that obscure the full range of human bonding practices known from human history.

 

Freudian theory and the rising importance of sexual discourse in Western culture contributed to the sexualisation of human attraction by insisting that emotional attachment (love) is necessarily linked with sexual desire.

 

Did that help?

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

So does this suggest that it is simply better defined as a part of western discourse? Obviously this behavior has always existed. Is the newness merely a comfort level in publicly identifying in this way instead of in secret?

 

No. You are right that a whole range of sexual behaviours has always existed. What is completely new is the entire notion that people have sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender. The complete novelty of this construction can be seen in part in the fact that the words homosexual and heterosexual were first coined less than 150 years ago, that they have no semantic equivalent in any historical languages, and that as the discourse of sexual orientation has colonised the world's cultures, people have found it necessary to adopt these very words because their languages lack any equivalent expressions. Children raised in cultures where the discourse of sexual orientation has become naturalised tend to find their identities shaped by that discourse because, well, that's precisely how dominant discourses work. The end result is the many participants on this board who insist they were born 'straight', that being so is a natural category of being, etc. In societies where Western culture has enjoyed less penetration, such statements make no cultural sense and leave people shaking their heads, like my former co-worker in Indonesia who was simultaneously pursuing a female marriage partner whilst enjoying the services of ubiquitous male prostitutes, because 'sex is sex', and the gender of the other participant simply has no impact on the physical sensation.

 

In short, when our Church leaders encourage us not to identify people as homosexual, they show themselves to be astutely historically aware.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Mars]

So...  I'm not straight?  I just happen to be attracted to girls, right now?  And that could change?

[california boy]

Did you know that cells did not exist on the earth until Robert Hooke first proposed the idea in the 17th century.  Or that the earth did not start spinning around the sun until Copernicus first proposed the idea in 1543?

[HappyJackWagon]

Did you know that cells did not exist on the earth until Robert Hooke first proposed the idea in the 17th century.  Or that the earth did not start spinning around the sun until Copernicus first proposed the idea in 1543?

I think this is a good point. It's merely the creation of a socially constructed identity that is new. The reality is that the behavior and orientation has always existed.

Edited January 16, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think this is a good point. It's merely the creation of a socially constructed identity that is new. The reality is that the behavior and orientation has always existed.

 

Actually, the comparison is nonsense. Cells and planets exist in and of themselves. Yes, sexual behaviour of all kinds has always existed. Sexual orientation is a social construct with a completely knowable genealogy, the spread of which has displaced other knowable and equally culturally bound constructions of human sexuality. To believe otherwise may be comfortably familiar and useful to one's cause, as pointed out in the Salon interview, but it is demonstrably ahistorical.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

So...  I'm not straight?

 

You are if you say you are, and in 21st-century Western culture such a statement 'makes sense'.

 

But if you had been born in many Melanesian societies as recently as 50 years ago, what would you have been? You would have spent the first 5-6 years of your life living with your mother in the women's compound with other women and children, enjoying only occasional visits from your father. Then when you were finally deemed a man, your father would have gone to collect you and take you to live in the men's compound with him and the other men and older boys. There an elaborate cultural matrix of story, ritual, roles and behaviour would have shaped you such that you would have understood that sexual behaviour between older and younger males was natural and necessary for a boy to become capable of fatherhood. Ten to 15 years later you would have married and started a family, your wife and young children remaining in the women's compound, but your primary and privileged mode of sexual experience would have continued to occur in the men's compound, where it would have been your duty to help other boys become capable of fatherhood. And all this would have equally 'made sense' to you and those around you.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there a church teaching that homosexual tendancies will cease in the next life?

The mormonsandgays website, for one source. I'd link to it, but that's difficult to do with an iPod touch.

It might do you good to go there anyway and explore it. It appears you are not well acquainted with it. It's also the place where the Chrisofferson quote I gave is found.

 

Edited to add:

 

The statement I had in mind is actually on "Newsroom" at lds.org. I have provided a link in a subsequent post (of Jan. 18).

Edited January 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Rob Osborn, on 03 Jan 2015 - 2:28 PM, said:

 

 

 

Rob, I totally hear your point and I validate it as one viable perspective.  But I also read of the Savior who sat right in the midst of the sinners.  He talked with them, ate with them, he even implied that he fit in better with those who were outwardly apparent that they were sinning deeply.  The question at the heart of this matter is what is the balance between using discipline to encourage one to improve and using Charity and friendship and non judgmental love to help them to become better?

 

For example say we have a single young women who is sleeping around.  It is sin, no doubt about that.  We could if were were the Bishop, hold a disciplinary court. It may or may not help her see the error of her ways and she may or may not change.  She also may leave the church, not feeling of worth due to our seeing the one serious ill in her life rather than the validation and friendship and emptiness she feels which leads to such choices.  Perhaps she does a dozen things really well and yet our focus on the one perceived ill has us seeing no choice but to limit her church participation or cut off her membership.

 

What if we, while not validation her sin as "not Sin", simply loved her and accepted her and said we know you have this problem here... but we also see all the good you do and all the blessings you bring to others, and simply focus on them as a child of God who needs to be loved and valued.  Maybe she continues to sleep around, but does she improve in other areas?  Does she grow closer to Christ?  Does she in other ways improve?  Are we willing to set a perceived sin aside while we help the individual come unto Christ in other areas of their life?  We each have sins and some of our are more hidden and out of sight....  I am grateful that the Savior allows me to move forward even in my sins as I work to repent and become like him.  Is it better we cast them out or keep them in while working with them and perhaps even ignoring their one sin n favor of helping them improve in other areas..... I don't know but I do at least see room and argue in favor of the latter.

 

EDITED TO ADD:  I can see he is gone, too bad.

At what point do you help her understand that her "sleeping around" is a pattern of grievous sin and self-destructive behavior that urgently needs to cease? Or do we all sit around hoping for the Brethren to declare heterosexual promiscuity OK after they have already done so regarding homosexual behavior?

[DBMormon]

At what point do you help her understand that her "sleeping around" is a pattern of grievous sin and self-destructive behavior that urgently needs to cease? Or do we all sit around hoping for the Brethren to declare heterosexual promiscuity OK after they have already done so regarding homosexual behavior?

I have no perfect answer, only offering that longsuffering, kindness, meekness etc... prevail.  Your right though, at some point and there is a line somewhere, other options must be exhausted 

[Teancum]

At what point do you help her understand that her "sleeping around" is a pattern of grievous sin and self-destructive behavior that urgently needs to cease? Or do we all sit around hoping for the Brethren to declare heterosexual promiscuity OK after they have already done so regarding homosexual behavior?

 

 

You help her understand that right up front and work with her in long suffering and kindness along they way.  How often does one forgive?   Who can say what drives someone to one behavior or another?   Do you want to kick her out?  Do it then.  She will likely never come back.

 

 And I see nothing DB has said that implies he things the brethren should change their stance on the law of chastity.  Have you?

[DBMormon]

You help her understand that right up front and work with her in long suffering and kindness along they way.  How often does one forgive?   Who can say what drives someone to one behavior or another?   Do you want to kick her out?  Do it then.  She will likely never come back.

 

 And I see nothing DB has said that implies he things the brethren should change their stance on the law of chastity.  Have you?

I am completely in favor of having a law of chasity and that when one is sexually intimate outside of marriage that it is sin.  I am not saying the girl in the hypothetical I shared is sinless in this regard.  Thanks for saying this.

[mfbukowski]

If it is not prohibited in the handbook, we should feel open to think outside the box.... awesome idea though I thought at one time assistant exec sec was addressed in the handbook

I knew a Bishop who called an "Assistant Secretary to the Bishop" who was a very efficient and qualified woman who helped him with paperwork.  Nothing wrong with that.

[mfbukowski]

I'll try, though the three quotes I provided were just 'tastes', not some kind of coherent whole:

 

 

Did that help?

Helped me, thanks.

 

Social constructivism.  Works for me.  A phenomenon does not exist until it is defined.  That's why I say there was no concept of "death" before the fall therefore it  did not "exist" but no one here buys that.

 

Good luck in having anyone understand that pov around here.

[mfbukowski]

So...  I'm not straight?  I just happen to be attracted to girls, right now?  And that could change?

No, it has to do with language creating reality as we know it.  Your experience of love is attraction to certain qualities of other humans including the shape of their bodies.  That is one description.

 

Nowadays, if you are attracted to bodies we call "female" you are defined linguistically as "straight" therefore it is true to say "You are straight" as contrasted with someone who feels attraction to male bodies and is defined as "homosexual".

 

If we did not have the word homosexual we would not be able to understand what it is- in that sense it would not "exist".  Do unicorns exist?  In a sense, because we have a word for "them".