The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I live and work among people who exhibit respect and tolerance every day. We live in a very diverse area, ethnically and religiously, and I don't see this rampant crude and rude behavior or the marginalization you speak of. Maybe they just do that in Utah.  

There are indeed small areas in the West in which one can go about everyday business and not be accosted by gross intolerance.  Utah County (the most Mormon county in the world) is a throwback to the 1950s in that respect, which is why they apply the borrowed term "Happy Valley" to it, but I am not speaking only of some small area of that sort, but of Western society generally.  In Denmark, for example, any schoolchild who has a religious belief is openly bullied for that, and Western media is generally contemptuous of religion, chastity, or other religiously restrained behavior.  The typical college freshman is expected to engage in hard partying, drinking, cussing, and other lewd behavior in order to be considered O.K. by fellow students.  Amsterdam prostitution, porn, and drugs are not simply available and tolerated, but are blatantly in your face.  Crudity and rudeness are normal now on most blogs, and those who don't appreciate that are forced to go elsewhere.  This is true of internet values generally, and has become very popular even in some political campaigns.  Western society has become reminiscent of ancient Corinth, and will be moreso in future.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are indeed small areas in the West in which one can go about everyday business and not be accosted by gross intolerance.  Utah County (the most Mormon county in the world) is a throwback to the 1950s in that respect, which is why they apply the borrowed term "Happy Valley" to it, but I am not speaking only of some small area of that sort, but of Western society generally.  In Denmark, for example, any schoolchild who has a religious belief is openly bullied for that, and Western media is generally contemptuous of religion, chastity, or other religiously restrained behavior.  The typical college freshman is expected to engage in hard partying, drinking, cussing, and other lewd behavior in order to be considered O.K. by fellow students.  Amsterdam prostitution, porn, and drugs are not simply available and tolerated, but are blatantly in your face.  Crudity and rudeness are normal now on most blogs, and those who don't appreciate that are forced to go elsewhere.  This is true of internet values generally, and has become very popular even in some political campaigns.  Western society has become reminiscent of ancient Corinth, and will be moreso in future.

Well, maybe I live in an island of civility, but what you describe is not at all what I experience every day. We were just at a party given by my wife's employer the other day, and other than the cooler of beer, it was pretty much like any party I went to in Utah County. 

My son has a friend from the ward who is pretty gung-ho about sharing the gospel with other students at their high school. He says no one bullies this kid or shouts him down. 

As for the Kardashians, the best I can say about them is they live in my hometown. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

There have been plenty of changes to church doctrine and practice that removed things previously "known" (believed)

Never said we can't be wrong.  Only that truth is eternal and unchanging.  Whether we get it right or not.
If God actually clearly speaks on an issue, that's eternal truth and cannot change.
If we interpret God on an issue, mistakes can happen.

The difficulty is determining when God is speaking vs when we are interpreting.

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

The Church officially spent very little money on Prop 8.

That's like saying the Church officially didn't do anything at the last Mormon Helping Hands service project.

[Sky]

In light of the events in Orlando, and that LGBT people are in a state of mourning everywhere, can we give this topic a rest?  

I never asked for the Church to change anything - I just want a little compassion and understanding, which shouldn't be too much to ask.  

Continually pushing the Church's position on homosexual behavior at a time like this isn't helping...

 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's like saying the Church officially didn't do anything at the last Mormon Helping Hands service project.

Did Prop 8 volunteers wear those "Mormon Helping Hands" t-shirts?

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

Alas, I am afraid I have discovered that the gap between members of the Church who value and sustain the traditional family and the brethren and those members (and their LGBT allies) who accept SSM as a viable (in God's eyes) option. In another thread, I was told that it is Church's fault that LGBT youth feel like they are outside of the Plan of Happiness and that the only way for the Church to remedy this is to minimize the importance and exclusivity of man/woman marriage in our doctrines and teachings (despite the word of the Lord doing the exact opposite).  Anything less than this is insufficient. The problem is that this is a non-negotiable. I believe I am capable and that the Church is also capable of showing forth true, Christlike love without budging on this position.

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

I agree, and I find it fascinating. 

The most interesting thing to me is that it strikes at the heart of one of the Church's core claims.  Namely, that the gospel is "the plan of happiness" for everyone. 

For generations, we pretended this somehow applied to homosexual members of the Church as well (and since they kept quiet and went along with it, there wasn't much evidence to the contrary).  Well, they're not keeping quiet anymore.  It turns out there is a group of people out there for which living the gospel isn't "the plan of happiness."  It's "endure to the end and hope that I am fundamentally changed in a magical way after I die so that I can be happy living this way."

Ultimately, something is going to have to change.  It will be fascinating to see what happens.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Never said we can't be wrong.  Only that truth is eternal and unchanging.  Whether we get it right or not.
If God actually clearly speaks on an issue, that's eternal truth and cannot change.
If we interpret God on an issue, mistakes can happen.

The difficulty is determining when God is speaking vs when we are interpreting.

I think evaluating what is God's eternal truth is a subjective exercise and is different for each individual.  I'm not convinced truth is eternal and cannot change though.  I'm channeling a little MFBukowski now and I believe he would say that Mormonism espouses that truth is relative to its sphere based on some D&C scripture.  :-)  

[consiglieri]

22 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

The Church cannot budge on this, for it is truth eternal. It appears we have reached an impasse.

No gap is so wide that it cannot be bridged with respect and understanding.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

No gap is so wide that it cannot be bridged with respect and understanding.

Nice sentiment, but not true.
I can respect and understand someone's belief, and even their right to that belief.  But if their belief I consider to be fundamentally sinful there remains an unbridgeable gap.

[Doctor Steuss]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nice sentiment, but not true.
I can respect and understand someone's belief, and even their right to that belief.  But if their belief I consider to be fundamentally sinful there remains an unbridgeable gap.

Come to think of it, I do have a rascally time trying to bridge the gap with my friends that shop on Sundays.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Doctor Steuss

[USU78]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

This.  The policy was so unnecessary and hurt so many on both sides of the fence. 

Horse pucky.  It was absolutely necessary to guard against abuses.

Not a soul was hurt.  Many, however, have merely feigned hurt  ...  IMNSHO.

[USU78]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes indeed.

For you dogma wins the day.  It is not a new thing. And it won't be the last thing where dogma wins over reason, evidence and rational thought.  How unfortunate.

On the other hand, it is now dogma that same sex attraction disorder is no disorder but a genetically generated alternative sexuality, and no dearth of evidence, reason, argument or rational thought can budge the true believer from his dogmatic adherence to his team's colors.

[ERMD]

54 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

No gap is so wide that it cannot be bridged with respect and understanding.

Somebody should have told Jesus that before he went after the money changers.

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nice sentiment, but not true.
I can respect and understand someone's belief, and even their right to that belief.  But if their belief I consider to be fundamentally sinful there remains an unbridgeable gap.

So it's unbridgeable because of your judgment?

If you recognize that as a problem, maybe it can be fixed.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

No gap is so wide that it cannot be bridged with respect and understanding.

...  on both sides  ...  which we'll never see.

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

On the other hand, it is now dogma that same sex attraction disorder is no disorder but a genetically generated alternative sexuality, and no dearth of evidence, reason, argument or rational thought can budge the true believer from his dogmatic adherence to his team's colors.

I am not sure I see the connection here. 

And based on what I have read the position that same sex attraction is genetic, or that sexuality can cross a spectrum is based on the best research and evidence that those who study this have.  Of course future evidence can change that conclusion.  Thus you are incorrect to call this dogma. On the other hand the idea that homosexuality is a sin and worthy of religious discipline is dogma because those who hold do so based on the Idea tha "my God and/or prophet says so."   

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure I see the connection here. 

And based on what I have read the position that same sex attraction is genetic, or that sexuality can cross a spectrum is based on the best research and evidence that those who study this have.  Of course future evidence can change that conclusion.  Thus you are incorrect to call this dogma. On the other hand the idea that homosexuality is a sin and worthy of religious discipline is dogma because those who hold do so based on the Idea tha "my God and/or prophet says so."   

???

Simon le Vay was proven wrong in all particulars.  He hasn't even tried to defend his prior, shoddy work.  Nobody has come up with anything that looks remotely like a genetic marker or other organic cause.  Lots of theories but no hits.

And thus you demonstrate your allegiance to a dogma unsupported by " evidence, reason, argument or rational thought "

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

???

Simon le Vay was proven wrong in all particulars.  He hasn't even tried to defend his prior, shoddy work.  Nobody has come up with anything that looks remotely like a genetic marker or other organic cause.  Lots of theories but no hits.

And thus you demonstrate your allegiance to a dogma unsupported by " evidence, reason, argument or rational thought "

uh who is Simon Le Vay?  And he certainly is not the only researcher on this topic.  

Buy hey if EVIDENCE shows that homosexuality is not a genetic issue I am happy to look at it.  Are you if it shows it is and it contradicts what you think your God and prophet had to say about this?

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

???

Simon le Vay was proven wrong in all particulars.  He hasn't even tried to defend his prior, shoddy work.  Nobody has come up with anything that looks remotely like a genetic marker or other organic cause.  Lots of theories but no hits.

And thus you demonstrate your allegiance to a dogma unsupported by " evidence, reason, argument or rational thought "

I don't understand the false dichotomy where it's either genetics or choice. It's obvious people don't wake up one morning and decide to choose social and familial ostracism. What does it matter where it comes from?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't understand the false dichotomy where it's either genetics or choice. It's obvious people don't wake up one morning and decide to choose social and familial ostracism. What does it matter where it comes from?

I quite agree.  Even if we were to find a genetic, heritable source it wouldn't matter since, in the LDS world-view based upon LDS scripture, G-d may well grant one weakness or another to an individual in order, from G-d's perspective, best to position the spirit inhabiting the weak body to achieve One-ness with G-d.  As His sons and daughters, our job is to seek to overcome our weaknesses, make them strengths, and become as close to the ideal human life as we can, while understanding that without Him, His strength and His love and care, we can't do much right.

The claim had been that Mormons are dogmatic  ...  which is, apparently, bad.  A rather over-simple reduction, wouldn't you think?  My response is that there's plenty of dogmatism going around, especially among the same sex dogmatics hereabouts.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

uh who is Simon Le Vay?  And he certainly is not the only researcher on this topic.  

Buy hey if EVIDENCE shows that homosexuality is not a genetic issue I am happy to look at it.  Are you if it shows it is and it contradicts what you think your God and prophet had to say about this?

Quoth Elder Oaks:

Quote

The Insights of Science

In contrast to our doctrinal approach, many persons approach the problems of same-sex attraction solely from the standpoint of current science. While I am not qualified as a scientist, with the aid of scientific literature and with the advice of qualified scientists and practitioners, I will attempt to refute the claim of some that scientific discoveries demonstrate that avowed homosexuals and lesbians were “born that way.”

We live in a time of accelerating scientific discoveries about the human body. We know that our inheritance explains many of our physical characteristics. At the same time, we also know that our behavior is profoundly influenced by psychosocial factors such as parental and sibling relationships (especially during the formative years) and the culture in which we live. The debate over whether, or the extent to which, specific behavior is attributable to “nature” or to “nurture” is centuries old. Its application to the subject of same-sex feelings and behaviors is only one manifestation of a highly complex subject on which scientific knowledge is still in its infancy.

Some scientists deny that behavior is genetically influenced. 8 Others are advocates of evidence or theories suggesting that “there is substantial evidence for genetic influence on sexual orientation.” 9

We are, of course, aware of evidence that inheritance explains susceptibilities to certain diseases like some cancers and some other illnesses like diabetes mellitus. There are also theories and some evidence that inheritance is a factor in susceptibilities to various behavior-related disorders like aggression, alcoholism, and obesity. It is easy to hypothesize that inheritance plays a role in sexual orientation. However, it is important to remember, as conceded by two advocates of this approach, that “the concept of substantial heritability should not be confused with the concept of inevitable heritability. … Most mechanisms probably involve interactions between constitutional predispositions and environmental events.” 10

Wherever they fall along the spectrum between outright rejection and total acceptance of biological determinism of sexual orientation, most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies.

A study of fifty-six pairs of identical male twins in which one twin classified himself as “gay” reported that 52 percent of the co-twins also classified themselves as gay. 11 A similar study of female identical twins yielded approximately the same proportion of co-twins who classified themselves as gay (thirty-four of seventy-one pairs, 48 percent). 12 If these studies show some inherited influence on whatever causes a man or woman to classify himself or herself as homosexual or lesbian, it is clear that this influence is not determinative. As a prominent scientist observed, “Even the identical twin of a gay man has a 50 percent or more chance of being heterosexual—even though he has the exact same genes and is reared by the same parents.” 13 We should also note that the results of these studies (and others described below) are based on the subjects’ self-classifications, a shaky foundation for scientific conclusions when “there is still no universally accepted definition of homosexuality among clinicians and behavioral scientists—let alone a consensus regarding its origins.” 14

In any emerging area of knowledge, a new source of evidence is most welcome. In July 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer made worldwide headlines when he announced that he had found “a statistically significant correlation between the inheritance of genetic markers [an identifiable strip of DNA] on chromosomal region Xq28 and sexual orientation in a selected group of … homosexual men and their relatives over age 18.” In other words, “it appears that Xq28 contains a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.” 15 Putting the most positive interpretation on his discovery, Dr. Hamer’s subsequent book concludes:

“We can make only educated guesses about the importance of Xq28 in the population at large. On the high side, the region couldn’t possibly influence more than 67 percent of gay men, the proportion ‘linked’ to this region in our highly selected group of gay siblings. On the low side, if much of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, or by a large number of interacting genes, Xq28 could account for as little as a few percent of the variation in male sexual orientation. The median range, taken from our linkage data and from the available twin and family studies, suggests that Xq28 plays some role in about 5 to 30 percent of gay men. The broad range of these estimates is proof that much more work remains to be done.” 16

“Some role in about 5 to 30 percent” of self-classified “gay” men surely falls far short of justifying the claim that science has shown that “homosexuality” is “caused by” genetic inheritance. One eminent scientist identified two of the uncertainties:

“What evidence exists thus far of innate biological traits underlying homosexuality is flawed. … Confirmation of genetic research purporting to show that homosexuality is heritable makes clear neither what is inherited nor how it influences sexual orientation.” 17

In their impressive reappraisal of biologic theories of human sexual orientation, Drs. Byne and Parsons of Columbia University’s Department of Psychiatry offer these important cautions and suggestions:

“It is imperative that clinicians and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic.

“Conspicuously absent from most theorizing on the origins of sexual orientation is an active role of the individual in constructing his or her identity. … We propose an interactional model in which genes or hormones do not specify sexual orientation per se, but instead bias particular personality traits and thereby influence the manner in which an individual and his or her environment interact as sexual orientation and other personality characteristics unfold developmentally.” 18

This observation, but one of many suggestions from scientists, is particularly persuasive because it takes account of the vital element of individual choice that we know to be a true principle of our mortal condition.

___

  8. R. C. Lewontin and others, Not in Our Genes (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984); R. Hubbard and E. Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993).
  9. R. C. Friedman and J. Downey, “Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships,” Journal of Neuropsychiatry 5 (1993): 149.
  10. Ibid.
  11. J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089–96.
  12. J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard, and others, “Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientation in Women,” Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 217–23.
  13. D. Hamer and P. Copeland, The Science of Desire (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 218.
  14. W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised,” Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 228.
  15. Dean Hamer and others, “A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261(16 July 1993): 321–27.
  16. The Science of Desire, pp. 145–46.
  17. W. Byne, “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May 1994, pp. 50, 55.
  18. Byne and Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation,” pp. 236–37.

That's a considerably more nuanced assessment than "homosexuality is {} a genetic issue."

Of course, Elder Oaks' remarks are 20+ years old.  More recently, the APA has this to say:

Quote

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Seems like "homosexuality is {} a genetic issue" is a rather facile characterization of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quoth Elder Oaks:

That's a considerably more nuanced assessment than "homosexuality is {} a genetic issue."

Of course, Elder Oaks' remarks are 20+ years old.  More recently, the APA has this to say:

Seems like "homosexuality is {} a genetic issue" is a rather facile characterization of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think I noted that the science and evidence on this is in a continual state of flux. 

The comments by Elder Oaks recognizes this. 

But his opposition to those who are homosexual and may act on their homosexuality, and I assume yours as well, is simply because you think God has said this is a sin. You and he have no evidence to support that other than your personal faith. 

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I quite agree.  Even if we were to find a genetic, heritable source it wouldn't matter since, in the LDS world-view based upon LDS scripture, G-d may well grant one weakness or another to an individual in order, from G-d's perspective, best to position the spirit inhabiting the weak body to achieve One-ness with G-d.  As His sons and daughters, our job is to seek to overcome our weaknesses, make them strengths, and become as close to the ideal human life as we can, while understanding that without Him, His strength and His love and care, we can't do much right.

The claim had been that Mormons are dogmatic  ...  which is, apparently, bad.  A rather over-simple reduction, wouldn't you think?  My response is that there's plenty of dogmatism going around, especially among the same sex dogmatics hereabouts.

Uh no.  Your argument above is entirely based on dogma. 

[ERMD]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think I noted that the science and evidence on this is in a continual state of flux. 

The comments by Elder Oaks recognizes this. 

But his opposition to those who are homosexual and may act on their homosexuality, and I assume yours as well, is simply because you think God has said this is a sin. You and he have no evidence to support that other than your personal faith. 

Now THAT is a revelation--the notion of sin derives from personal faith.

BRILLIANT!