Being Mormon in the 21st century

[carbon dioxide]

16 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

Personally, I think the world is correct to criticize our institutional homophobia and sexism, just as it was correct to criticize our institutional racism. We could be a much more effective force for good in the world if we un-mingled such unfortunate philosophies from our scriptures and gatherings.   

To me its not homophobia but we should have sinphobia.  Being gay is not a sin but the homosexual lifestyle is and if the world mocks us that is fine.  As Nephi says that those who commit whoredoms and the scriptures would include homosexual acts as part of that will get thrust down to hell.  Better to be called a homophobe for a short time and gain eternal life than giving up and please the world for a few years and be risk damnation for eternity.  It is easy to stand for Christ when our views are popular but there is no test in that.  Standing for Christ when it is unpopular is what really earns our celestial rewards.

[Avatar4321]

55 minutes ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

You won't die from not engaging in immoral conduct. There's a difference- but you know that.

Even if those choices did kill you, they wouldn't be any less of a choice.

If I wanted to I could stop breathing. The consequences e of that choice would be my death, but that would still be a choice. It's also a choice that people, sadly make.

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, janderich said:

I was at lunch with a couple of friends at work who are not LDS. We started discussing the new policy regarding children and a homosexual couple being the primary care provider. One of them said, "Why can't you just accept these people (gays and lesbians) for who they are?" I had to tell him that I accept them and would never reject them as people but that I believed their lifestyle would never ultimately make them happy. We then got into a short discussion about how they were born that way and couldn't change it. I again felt I needed to tell them that people may be born with certain tendencies but that they always have a choice. After that, the conversation sort of died. It felt awkward for a few minutes until we finally moved on to other topics. Face to face is more awkward than on the internet.

I left disappointed. Disappointed that our society cannot recognize homosexual behavior as a choice, and disappointed in almost the sure knowledge that I will have to face this again and again with people who will refuse to understand. I too wonder how far this will go. I think we will be hated more and more by society for our views. Ostracized more and more for what we believe. But I'll square my shoulders and move forward. Sin is sin and we cannot be unclear about such things, it does no one any good.

I guess what those who are not members have a hard time understanding is the Book of Mormon statement that the natural man is an enemy to God and will always be an enemy until one puts off the natural man.  Whether one is born gay or not does not matter.  Our job is to focus our desires how the Lord wants them to be.  We are not here to magnify our natural habits or passions but to master them and be in control over them.  As Abraham 3 says we are placed here to do all the things God commands us to do.  The world says the commandments are not important.  Thus the automatically fail the test of what this life is about.  They think they are having successful lives but when the Lord issues them their grade at judgment, they will not get an A grade but many will get a big fat F.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The accusation that it is a sexist church is nonsense, most LDS members are not sexist. The LDS church values women a lot.

However, a significant number of LDS members are still homophobic. However, our church is not the only church with that problem. 

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

The word "homophobia" is so overused and wrong. Not liking something, disagreeing with something, even hating something does not constitute an actual phobia.  A phobia is an irrational fear of something like the fear of being in closed spaces.  For me I have a fear of wasps.  I don't like the homosexual lifestyle but I don't have a phobia.  Put me in a room with 6 gay people and it will not bother me.  Put me in a room with 6 wasps and you will see are real and legitimate display of a phobia.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

You won't die from not engaging in immoral conduct. There's a difference- but you know that.

Better put YOUR definition of immoral.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not only does this imaginary scientific evidence not exist, but the evidence from anthropology, linguistics, and history is virtually unanimous in opposing your preferred dogma.

 

 

Hardly.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Let's see how long you go choosing to eat, drink or breathe.

You are seriously equating sexual relations with eating and breathing??

Sounds like every teenage boy pushing for immorality..."I'll just DIE if we don't!!"

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

That is considered the equivalent of trading your birthright for a mess of pottage. Also with the same brush you sweep the efforts of every Catholic priest or nun that ever lived off the table.

 

 

I totally support a good Catholic who chooses to enter the priesthood or become a nun if they are not compelled.   

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

You can easily choose not to do any of those things. The idea that anyone forces you to do such a thing is ridiculous.

You totally missed my point.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hardly.

A well-reasoned, academically rigorous, empirically grounded, and extraordinarily convincing argument. Thank you.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are seriously equating sexual relations with eating and breathing??

Sounds like every teenage boy pushing for immorality..."I'll just DIE if we don't!!"

 

Nope.  You are missing the point as well.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A well-reasoned, academically rigorous, empirically grounded, and extraordinarily convincing argument. Thank you.

Glad to oblige.

really it is an endless argument.   The main reason people here are so anti homosexual marriage or relations  is "because my God says so."   Not really all that well reasoned, academically rigorous , empirically grounded, and extra ordinarily convincing argument either.

so I am giving about As good as I am getting.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Teancum

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Teancum said:

Nope.  You are missing the point as well.

No, I get your point about not all behaviors being a choice. 

Still a poor analogy comparing something that obviously is a choice to something that obviously isn't.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Glad to oblige.

really it is an endless argument.   The main reason people here are so anti homosexual marriage or relations  is "because my God says so."   Not really all that well reasoned, academically rigorous , empirically grounded, and extra ordinarily convincing argument either.

 

The argument isn't "because my God said so".  The argument is because it goes against every purpose, design, and revealed example traced back to God.

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The argument isn't "because my God said so".  The argument is because it goes against every purpose, design, and revealed example traced back to God.

In other words...because your God says so.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

In other words...because your God says so.

No, observation.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The main reason people here are so anti homosexual marriage or relations  is "because my God says so."

If you would be so kind, could you please point me to a single post I've ever written of that nature? My memory, admittedly faulty, is of having repeatedly provided links to academic literature discussing how history, anthropology, and linguistics all indicate that sexual identity (including but certainly not limited to homosexuality) is a late 19th-century social construction, becoming an ascendant discourse in the West only in the last 50 years and completely unknown in the rest of the world (both spatially and chronologically) except as Hollywood has colonised the non-Western imagination.

[Teancum]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, observation.

No because you think you have the true religion, that your scriptures are true.  And how your religion understands and explains them is correct and that your religion says so...Your God,

And guess what.   Applying that to you to Your family and other like believers is quite fine.  The LDS church has every right the preach away and even impose awful policy like it just did in my opinion.  Happily in the USA at least "because my God says so" is often not the way we make law.  But I would never tell the LDS church they cannot teach what they think God is saying about such things nor support anything that would stop them from doing such.

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If you would be so kind, could you please point me to a single post I've ever written of that nature? My memory, admittedly faulty, is of having repeatedly provided links to academic literature discussing how history, anthropology, and linguistics all indicate that sexual identity (including but certainly not limited to homosexuality) is a late 19th-century social construction, becoming an ascendant discourse in the West only in the last 50 years and completely unknown in the rest of the world (both spatially and chronologically) except as Hollywood has colonised the non-Western imagination.

I have not seen your posts nor do I want to search for them.  And I said most.  I will concede based on your post you are an exception.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Teancum said:

I have not seen your posts nor do I want to search for them.  And I said most.  I will concede based on your post you are an exception.

I'm guessing that means that, in addition to never having read anything I've posted, you've never read any of the research to which I've linked?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No because you think you have the religion, that your scriptures And how your religion understands and explains them and that your religion says so.   Your God,

And guess what.   Applying that to you to Your family and other like believers is quite fine.  The LDS church has every right the preach away and even impose awful policy like it just did in my opinion.  Happily in the USA at least "because my God says so" is often not the way we make law.  But I would never tell the LDS church they cannot teach what they think God is saying about such things nor support anything that would stop them from doing such.

 

Not at all.  See, according to recent surveys, as high as 25% of Church members support allowing SSM.  Blaming the Church is just too easy to do.

But even if I weren't a member, I would still see homosexuality as a bad path to follow.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Better put YOUR definition of immoral.

No, how about I use YHWH's definition of immoral in this particular circumstance:

Leviticus 18:22(1)> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

See, the difference between you and I is that I am not confused by every cultural or societal trend that comes along. I don't have to sit around trying to figure out if something is correct or not, because I am firmly grounded in His word and His commandments.

And I totally stand behind "Because my God said so." Because He did, and He is God. Like it or lump it.

Edited December 7, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm guessing that means that, in addition to never having read anything I've posted, you've never read any of the research to which I've linked?

I have read some of your posts but don't recall any links on your ideas.

 

sorry.  I don't read every thread or post here.

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, BookofMormonLuvr said:

No, how about I use YHWH's definition of immoral in this particular circumstance:

Leviticus 18:22(1)> Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

See, the difference between you and I is that I am not confused by every cultural or societal trend that comes along. I don't have to sit around trying to figure out if something is correct or not, because I am firmly grounded in His word and His commandments.

And I totally stand behind "Because my God said so." Because He did, and He is God. Like it or lump it.

In other words because My God says so....

Dogmatic a priori assumptions and positions go a long way to convincing those who see the world differently than you do.

And how do you know I am confused?  Have we met?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

sorry.  I don't read every thread or post here.

Yeah, I don't either. 'Ain't nobody got time for that'.

I was just trying to figure out on what basis you were willing to assert that I and other professional historians, anthropologists, and linguists 'hardly' know anything.