Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Well, I have no idea where he's going with the cog dis reference. But, your response is beyond off base. I was asked a personal question by Alarson, and I answered with my personal opinion. How was it off base?
ttribe Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I was asked a personal question by Alarson, and I answered with my personal opinion. How was it off base? Geez, your response to HJW, as I already explained.
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Geez, your response to HJW, as I already explained. I felt that he was mocking my answer to ALarsen He said"Kind of a cop out answer." ""My sexuality might change, except I covenanted with my wife, therefore it can't change."" (misquoted me to distort my answer) "How convenient for you. I hope it allows you to avoid Cog Dis." (Accusing me of having Cognitive Dissonance, over what? I don't know) Perhaps I should have ignored him instead.
Calm Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 The wayback machine has a different version starting here, made a mistake before because I read Jan as being the oldest, but that was only Jan 15.: https://web.archive.org/web/20141021235725/https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Commentary on the changes, here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/01/lds-org-recently-updated-the-race-and-the-priesthood-gospel-topic-essay/ So changes not that recent given the lifetime of the essay itself, almost a year now. 2
BlueDreams Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 But since race and sexual identity are both social constructs, both are subject to changes as society changes Danzo, I actually agree on your overarching point but think that the details are a little skewed. Your mixing orientation with identity. ID, or how we express and share sexuality, has changed and differs from society to society. That's pretty obvious. Orientation, though, is less mobile. Some do exhibit greater sexual motility or fluidity in their orientation, others don't. Micro changes (ie. the individual's general orientation) are far less mobile in this than macro changes (social expression and interpretation of sexual practices). Sexuality is much more malleable than race.I don't know about that....race is pretty malleable. For example, my perceived race changes every time I go Latin dancing. It also can change based on the age of the people I'm with, what part of the country they were raised in, and who I am currently surrounded by. That's pretty dang malleable. Of course that's malleable because I have a specific set of looks that allows for it. Others have less motility. with luv,BD 1
Danzo Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Danzo, I actually agree on your overarching point but think that the details are a little skewed. Your mixing orientation with identity. ID, or how we express and share sexuality, has changed and differs from society to society. That's pretty obvious. Orientation, though, is less mobile. Some do exhibit greater sexual motility or fluidity in their orientation, others don't. Micro changes (ie. the individual's general orientation) are far less mobile in this than macro changes (social expression and interpretation of sexual practices). I know that mixing terms is a problem with me, it seems that in these discussions a lot of disagreement is on defining terms. It almost feels to me that one wins or loses arguments based on how one define terms. Questions like "will there be 'gay' people in the celestial kingdom"? hinges on how to define "GAY"Will there be people in the Celestial Kingdom who define themselves as 'Gay' in this life? almost certainly, but will it mean anything in the celestial kingdom? probably not.But if you change the question to Will there be people in the celestial kingdom that willfully disobey the commandments of god and don't repent?, then I think the answer according to our doctrine is no. But, at least according to me, how you define "gay" is going to to be how you answer the question. which has been repeated in these forums in different forms over and over again.
Gray Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) No, you can assume that a phrase that meant something completely different to the people of said era was interpreted completely differently due to the culture of the people who received it due to their cultural influences....even though the translation may have been fairly correct. And the translation/revelation/whatever you prefer to call it, could still be ancient (could also be mythos of origins too, but from an ancient perspective). No need to patchwork anything. Read the text, looking for what their definition of "black" may mean. It's not the same. I'll help you out. In the JST of genesis talking about Ham's curse (the one tied to the egyptians) is described as a "dark veil" came upon him. Not dark skin. Likewise in moses 7 it speak of Satan ruling the earth with "chains" and the whole earth being "veiled with darkness" at the point that the earth was destroyed by flood. Lamech, a decsendant of Cain actively seeks out his curse in order to have the same effects doubly pronounced on him because he viewed it as power. He is also described as having his "works were in the dark" (moses 5:51). Through the PoGP (Book of Moses especially) there is a pattern of a people following a path of light and a people in the dark or actively seeking darkness. Much of that is shorthanded for what they were choosing....but we are the ones who have honed in on one phrase of "black" assumed it means black skin (even though a) that's not a thing and b) it never even mentions skin in correlation with the darkness in the entire PoGP). Among a whole lot of other long assumptions about egyptians, lineage, and modern-day race etc. So yeah, I think it's fair to say we might have read our racism into a text that wasn't actually meaning to say that...and then used that as sloppy justification for later policies that weren't apart of the church at first (if this curse thing was such a big deal, you think they would have caught on a little earlier). With luv,BD You can take that approach, but IMO it requires a rather circuitous reading, and it also doesn't account for any of the other modern ideas and historical anachronisms in the POGP. A modern composition is consistent with all the evidence, IMO. Of course, it can still be scripture, and be a modern composition done in the voice of ancient patriarchs. IE something like a Mormon Midrash. Edited October 1, 2015 by Gray
BlueDreams Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I know that mixing terms is a problem with me, it seems that in these discussions a lot of disagreement is on defining terms. It almost feels to me that one wins or loses arguments based on how one define terms. Questions like "will there be 'gay' people in the celestial kingdom"? hinges on how to define "GAY"Will there be people in the Celestial Kingdom who define themselves as 'Gay' in this life? almost certainly, but will it mean anything in the celestial kingdom? probably not.But if you change the question to Will there be people in the celestial kingdom that willfully disobey the commandments of god and don't repent?, then I think the answer according to our doctrine is no. But, at least according to me, how you define "gay" is going to to be how you answer the question. which has been repeated in these forums in different forms over and over again. Welcome to the fun world of identity politics. Which is also why clarity in terms is helpful because people may be thinking about the same thing, but getting the wrong assumptions based on them. When dealing with the odd gray zones in race, ethnicity, and sex/gender things can quickly become (understandably) touchy. I personally don't think there will be any gay people in heaven. Or straight people. Or black people. Or white people. Or even mixed people. Or (fill in socially derived label). I think we will probably see ourselves and our experiences overlaid in the way God sees us, how we were in the pre-existance, and the meaning They attribute to our experiences. But often we're working with the assumptions that these labels will maintain validity, because they are pertinent to our current circumstances. (and I use them and feel getting rid of them now would be premature and inadvertently favor one temporal-bound experience over others). Of course I enjoy this odd ambiguous ground that often leaves people uncomfortable and I enjoy watching the evolution of how we view and regroup, then regroup ourselves again. It's part of the ground I've always played in. Bringing it back to the main topic. I see this also with the scriptures....we overlaid one set of culturally derived definitions onto a text. We've ingrained it so well, that it's hard for us to move around it, even when a strong case can be made that it is false. (those who may believe it's false, may still read that paradigm into the text and then assume the text is ergo in error). Anywho, perspectives and lenses are interesting, i probably should now pay attention to work or something before i go too meta. With luv,BD 2
BlueDreams Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 You can take that approach, but IMO it requires a rather circuitous reading, and it also doesn't account for any of the other modern ideas and historical anachronisms in the POGP. A modern composition is consistent with all the evidence, IMO. Of course, it can still be scripture, and be a modern composition done in the voice of ancient patriarchs. IE something like a Mormon Midrash. I'm not talking about the whole book or potential anachronisms. I'm too lazy to become the jack of all trades when it comes to all issues surrounding the PoGP (ain't within my field of interests). I'm speaking of only this one thing, and with this one thing, you don't have to read it that way. It's not a circuitous reading, it makes it more congruent with all texts dealing with curses and removals from God, IMO. The only reason it feels that way is mentioned in the bottom of my response to danzo...basically we're used to it and is the way we've been presented as the only real way to read it. No other way has really been entertained. With luv,BD 1
Buckeye Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I'm not talking about the whole book or potential anachronisms. I'm too lazy to become the jack of all trades when it comes to all issues surrounding the PoGP (ain't within my field of interests). I'm speaking of only this one thing, and with this one thing, you don't have to read it that way. It's not a circuitous reading, it makes it more congruent with all texts dealing with curses and removals from God, IMO. The only reason it feels that way is mentioned in the bottom of my response to danzo...basically we're used to it and is the way we've been presented as the only real way to read it. No other way has really been entertained. With luv,BD With all due respect, you are quite simply the least lazy poster on this board. You consistently post lengthy researched and well thought out comments. 4
ttribe Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 With all due respect, you are quite simply the least lazy poster on this board. You consistently post lengthy researched and well thought out comments. And there goes her humility. Way to go! Now you've put her entire salvation in jeopardy! 3
BlueDreams Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 With all due respect, you are quite simply the least lazy poster on this board. You consistently post lengthy researched and well thought out comments. Haha, thanks. I get really embarassed though with compliments. So hopefully that'll negate the big head I've now received.
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I dunno. Ask Teancum. He's the expert on throwing bodies under the bus.This reminded me that I need to get caught up on season five of The Walking Dead. Thanks, Scott! 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 How about it took long enough for God to give the revelation? Don't you think that God could have overruled the brethren and ended the ban much earlier if He really wanted to to so? Did you ever stop to think that for His own heretofore undisclosed reasons God may have allowed the ban to stay in place for all those years that a greater good might ultimately be accomplished? And now the saints are being tested to see who will trust in the Lord and the prophecies of scripture and who will repudiate and revile the Lord's servants and trust in the arm of flesh. Do you not realize this is not the first time the Lord has allowed His people to pass through a trial that would make them very unpopular in the eyes of the world?Or maybe God never wanted the ban in the first place. Instead we have rogues implementing social prejudices that never belonged in the church. I'll give God the benefit of the doubt so as not to be blame Him for human stupidity and bias. He does not deserve to be condescended to the status of troglodyte. 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Only those who do not understand the difference between what is essential and what is peripheral to the restored Gospel could imagine that there will be any "future changes to marriage (including gays)."To those who do understand that difference, same sex "marriage" remains a doctrinal impossibility.Can we please not get Russell started?!? It's like poking a sleeping T-Rex.
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 So do you classify the racist rationales for the ban, taught as doctrine, as more of God's revelations that were given to test members and make Mormons unpopular?Or are you saying that God was behind the revelation to end the ban, even though there is no evidence of revelation to start the ban nor any revelation behind the proposed justifications for having it. If it was uninspired to start it and uninspired to perpetuate it, what convinces you that inspiration ended it. Surely all three (starting, perpetuating, ending) are simply symptoms of 15 or so well-intentioned men being blown by the winds of their own perspectives and cultural influences.Could you please add question marks? I'm not above having a meltdown and I'm definitely not above dragging Scott Lloyd into the meltdown with me. 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Haha, thanks. I get really embarassed though with compliments. So hopefully that'll negate the big head I've now received.You are a walking library of dissertations. I dig it.
Jeanne Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 How about it took long enough for God to give the revelation? Don't you think that God could have overruled the brethren and ended the ban much earlier if He really wanted to to so? Did you ever stop to think that for His own heretofore undisclosed reasons God may have allowed the ban to stay in place for all those years that a greater good might ultimately be accomplished? And now the saints are being tested to see who will trust in the Lord and the prophecies of scripture and who will repudiate and revile the Lord's servants and trust in the arm of flesh. Do you not realize this is not the first time the Lord has allowed His people to pass through a trial that would make them very unpopular in the eyes of the world? Kind of like we let the blacks pass through a trial that made them unpopular.
canard78 Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Could you please add question marks? I'm not above having a meltdown and I'm definitely not above dragging Scott Lloyd into the meltdown with me.Thank you kind and gallant grammar knight. Getting grammar and punctuation wrong is genuinely far more mortifying for me than discovering that Mormon prophets are no more inspired than you or I. If I have the time or inclination, I'll go back and correct my sloppiness. In the mean time... Have a rep point. 1
canard78 Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Or maybe God never wanted the ban in the first place. Instead we have rogues implementing social prejudices that never belonged in the church. I'll give God the benefit of the doubt so as not to be blame Him for human stupidity and bias. He does not deserve to be condescended to the status of troglodyte.Ding, ding, ding!!!! Valentinus gets it. Prize every time... 3
canard78 Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 With all due respect, you are quite simply the least lazy poster on this board. You consistently post lengthy researched and well thought out comments.+1!!!It might not do your credibility any good. But I endorse this comment. Blue Dreams, you're awesome. 1
Buckeye Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 For those wanting a full analysis of the changes see Blair Hodges post on bcc. http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/01/lds-org-recently-updated-the-race-and-the-priesthood-gospel-topic-essay/ 1
Calm Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 For those wanting a full analysis of the changes see Blair Hodges post on bcc. http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/01/lds-org-recently-updated-the-race-and-the-priesthood-gospel-topic-essay/It would appear I am not the only one a bit asleep. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66130-update-of-the-essay-of-race-and-the-lds-church/?p=1209542291
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Or maybe God never wanted the ban in the first place. Instead we have rogues implementing social prejudices that never belonged in the church. I'll give God the benefit of the doubt so as not to be blame Him for human stupidity and bias. He does not deserve to be condescended to the status of troglodyte.Yup ! 1
Russell C McGregor Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Or maybe God never wanted the ban in the first place. Instead we have rogues implementing social prejudices that never belonged in the church. Rogues? Compared to whom, exactly? I'll give God the benefit of the doubt so as not to be blame Him for human stupidity and bias. He does not deserve to be condescended to the status of troglodyte. How very humble of you, to assume that anyone who thinks differently than you must be a "troglodyte" and unworthy of respect.
Recommended Posts