SteveO Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Thinking said: What about the single men? What about them? I have far less sympathy for the men of the church who are single, but I will grant the possibility there are some who are single unwillingly...I know of none personally though. It's the Church who keeps the focus on them by frequently making statements and policies. Are those policies and statements made in a vacuum? The brethren just wake up some days and think "how can we really kick the hornets nest today"?
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 6 hours ago, california boy said: Unless you are gay. Evidently you could be perfect and live every commandment perfectly. But if you are gay, you must become straight before you could be admitted into the Celestial Kingdom. Even though being gay is not a sin, it still must be overcome. There is a big sign out in front. No gay people allowed. It is not about whether it is immutable or not, it is about choice. If having same sex attraction is not a sin, why must someone be straight in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Why can't a gay person enter heaven?. Why must you become straight. Why can't being gay be ok with God. Are you now claiming that the church teaches that you can still be gay in the Celestial Kingdom?? I can certainly dig up the words of Elder Oaks if you need them. Isn't that what all of this speculation of no gays allowed comes from? Has his words now become a revelation as well? A person can have absolute faith in Christ and keep all of His commandments. He is still not getting into the Celestial Kingdom until he becomes straight. God does not allow gay people into heaven. A requirement of getting in is to become straight. In all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, he taught that who we are in this life rises with us in the next. There is no magic abrra cadabra moment where we suddenly become a different person with different wants and desires. There is no basis in Mormon theology for this concept. You would have to believe that being gay is some kind of sickness that you need to be cured from to believe that you are somehow magically transformed into being what you always should have been,,,,straight. Being gay is not like having cancer. Or is that also a Mormon belief? I can certainly say without any contradiction that the Mormon church believes a person has to magically become straight in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom. No gays allowed here. You must become straight. That is what is taught. Your magical transformation HAS to take place or you are out. What the heck does any of this have to do with what I have stated. I am not being hostile to the church. I am presenting the teachings of the church. If you find them negative, can you imagine how a gay teen feels about them? Where have I stated that the church doesn't believe homosexual relations were not sinful. Where in this discussion am I asking for someone who has sinned to enter the Celestial Kingdom. I am talking about in the event that someone is gay and does EXACTLY what the church asks them to do, live a completely celibate life, never sharing their life with any companionship and eternal mate, and then finding out that wasn't good enough. They still have to become straight, something they never wanted on earth or even had a hope of becoming while on earth magically is forced upon them as a requirement to enter heaven. If they don;t want to become straight, then they are out. No matter how good of life you have lived. No gays allowed in heaven. Period. Yeah God allows anyone into the Celestial Kingdom who wants to go there and who exercises faith in Christ and no matter how obedient they are to all the commandments, as long as they are straight. There is no place for someone who is gay in the plan of salvation. You gotta be "fixed" first. That is the message I get. That is the message that Mormon kids get. That is the doctrine of the church. And people can't understand why a gay teenage Mormon feels that no matter what they do, no matter what choices they make in this life, they will still never be good enough for the church or God until they become straight. You are treating "gay" as an immutable, eternal trait. Or even more than that, as a state of being. It's not. I am surprised that you suggest - with apparent indignation - that "You gotta be 'fixed' first" as a part of inheriting the Celestial Kingdom is, somehow, a bad thing. That keeping our "appetites, passions, and desires" within the parameters set by God is a bad thing. That repentance ("fixing" ourselves) when we fail to do so is a bad thing. We all need to be "fixed," CB. All of us have our sins. All of us need to rely on Christ and obey his commandments. That is "the doctrine of the Church." Our value to God is not - as you apparently insist - predicated solely on our sexual preference/orientation in this life. Our value to God exists because we are His children and He loves us. He has therefore established a Plan whereby we can return to His presence if we choose to do so. Part of that plan involves coming to earth. Part of coming to earth involves being tested with various challenges, frailties, and on. To pass these tests, God has established commandments to govern our words and thoughts and deeds. One of these commandments is the Law of Chastity, which sets the appropriate bounds for sexual activity in this life. The Law of Chastity limits sexual activity to between a husband and wife. There are some in this world whose first and most important means of self-identity are sexual "orientation." Put another way: "I define myself first and foremost by my sexual preferences." For others, the first-and-foremost identity is nationality, or race, or gender, or profession, or political affiliation/ideology, or any of a number of categorizations. I submit that these forms of self-identity are, or should be, secondary to what's really important: our familial relationship with God. Once we place that identity first, the secondary forms of self-identity start to re-gain the proper proportion and place in our lives. Thanks, -Smac 4
Gray Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, smac97 said: No, it's not. Your analogy fails because the rules of the club are discriminatory. The LDS Church does not discriminate in its application of The Law of Chastity. Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is prohibited from engaging in same-sex behavior. And adultery. And fornication. And same-sex marriage. The church is definitely discriminatory against gay people. But the way you're framing it here would allow the club in my example to claim it wasn't discriminatory against Mormons. They could simply say, using your framing: "Our rules apply equally to everyone. No one who is a member of our club may affiliate with the Mormon church. That rule applies equally to Catholics and Muslims, who are also prohibited from affiliating with the Mormon church. Therefore we do not discriminate against Mormons. We accept Mormons, so long as they adhere to our rules." Edited July 13, 2016 by Gray 2
Gray Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 11 hours ago, SteveO said: Except there are plenty of single sisters in the church who were never given that opportunity and most likely will never be given that opportunity in this life--who have committed to staying true to the standards regarding sex outside of marriage. I doubt being made to feel you weren't/aren't good enough to marry is any less painful or difficult to cope with. And that's why I have trouble with the LGBT movement within the church...you'd think they are the only ones with problems, and that everyone should drop what they're doing to make sure the attention and efforts are focused exclusively on them. This is another artificially created problem. The taboo against interfaith marriage is creating a lot of lifelong single people in the church.
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: The church is definitely discriminatory against gay people. No, it's not. There is one uniform Law of Chastity that applies to all members of the Church. All of us are prohibited from engaging in homosexual conduct. Quote But the way you're framing it here would allow the club to claim it wasn't discriminatory against Mormons. They could simply say, using your framing: "Our rules apply equally to everyone. No one who is a member of our club may affiliate with the Mormon church. That rule applies equally to Catholics and Muslims, who are also prohibited from affiliating with the Mormon church. Therefore we do not discriminate against Mormons. We accept Mormons, so long as they adhere to our rules." I'll leave it to you to sort out the coherence of a hypothetical where a club prohibits its members to "affiliate with the Mormon church" but then also claims to "accept Mormons." These are mutually contradictory statements. In contrast, the Church's position is relatively straightforward: A person with same-sex attraction can join and be in full fellowship with the Church. Such a person must adhere to the same standards of conduct that apply to all the rest of us, including the Law of Chastity. There is no distinction made based on "attraction" or "orientation." All are welcome to join our community of faith. But that invitation is not come-as-you-are. There are conditions for entry. Developing faith in Christ, repentance, baptism/confirmation, having willingness and desire to obey the commandments of God, and so on. These conditions are what distinguish our community. They are what make our community. Thanks, -Smac 3
Gray Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: No, it's not. There is one uniform Law of Chastity that applies to all members of the Church. All of us are prohibited from engaging in homosexual conduct. I'll leave it to you to sort out the coherence of a hypothetical where a club prohibits its members to "affiliate with the Mormon church" but then also claims to "accept Mormons." These are mutually contradictory statements. In contrast, the Church's position is relatively straightforward: A person with same-sex attraction can join and be in full fellowship with the Church. Such a person must adhere to the same standards of conduct that apply to all the rest of us, including the Law of Chastity. There is no distinction made based on "attraction" or "orientation." All are welcome to join our community of faith. But that invitation is not come-as-you-are. There are conditions for entry. Developing faith in Christ, repentance, baptism/confirmation, having willingness and desire to obey the commandments of God, and so on. These conditions are what distinguish our community. They are what make our community. Thanks, -Smac I'm not seeing the difference between my hypothetical club and the church here. The church accepts gay people so long as they reject entirely their homosexuality. Just as the club accepts Mormons who reject entirely their Mormonness. The club might permit Mormons who have some lingering belief in Mormonism, but they are not allowed to express that belief and must affirm that the belief is harmful if acted upon. Edited July 13, 2016 by Gray 2
california boy Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 3 hours ago, smac97 said: You are treating "gay" as an immutable, eternal trait. Or even more than that, as a state of being. It's not. I am surprised that you suggest - with apparent indignation - that "You gotta be 'fixed' first" as a part of inheriting the Celestial Kingdom is, somehow, a bad thing. That keeping our "appetites, passions, and desires" within the parameters set by God is a bad thing. That repentance ("fixing" ourselves) when we fail to do so is a bad thing. We all need to be "fixed," CB. All of us have our sins. All of us need to rely on Christ and obey his commandments. That is "the doctrine of the Church." Our value to God is not - as you apparently insist - predicated solely on our sexual preference/orientation in this life. Our value to God exists because we are His children and He loves us. He has therefore established a Plan whereby we can return to His presence if we choose to do so. Part of that plan involves coming to earth. Part of coming to earth involves being tested with various challenges, frailties, and on. To pass these tests, God has established commandments to govern our words and thoughts and deeds. One of these commandments is the Law of Chastity, which sets the appropriate bounds for sexual activity in this life. The Law of Chastity limits sexual activity to between a husband and wife. There are some in this world whose first and most important means of self-identity are sexual "orientation." Put another way: "I define myself first and foremost by my sexual preferences." For others, the first-and-foremost identity is nationality, or race, or gender, or profession, or political affiliation/ideology, or any of a number of categorizations. I submit that these forms of self-identity are, or should be, secondary to what's really important: our familial relationship with God. Once we place that identity first, the secondary forms of self-identity start to re-gain the proper proportion and place in our lives. Thanks, -Smac You view everything through the lens of a straight man who is assured that he will continue to be straight through out eternity. You feel safe and secure knowing that you will be with the person that makes your life here on earth worth living You have the sure knowledge that if you are both faithful, she will be with you in the next life, sanctioned by God and glorified by the atonement of Christ. I guess it is just to difficult for you to see the position someone who is not straight could possibly have. It must be their sinfulness. It must be their lack of faith. It must be how they view themselves as not needing to be "fixed" when it is clear to YOU that they must become straight and be just like you. Then they will find happiness. Then they will be blessed by God. Why is that so hard for a gay person to understand. It is as clear as day to you. It must be the plan of God. God is obviously one of these parents who want all His children to be straight, even if they want to share eternity with the one that they love just like you. But their love is an evil thing, a wickedness that God can not tolerate. Even if they are forever celibate with that person. That is not enough. This is not about the law of chastity. Because even if a gay person never has sex with the person he loves, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. I could be celibate with my partner for the rest of my life if I could be with him for eternity like you can with your wife. But there is much more to it that that isn't there. This is about how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex. They must renounce the person they love and become like you. Once they are straight, they will see that this is best for them, and their life and trials on earth and the person they loved was all just like a bad dream. They are going to love being married to a woman for eternity, just like you are going to love being with my wife in eternal glory. You are so sure what a gay person should want to have that you can not see the reasons why they have no interest in what the teachings of the church offers them. What is that statement by Joseph Smith? Quote Joseph used to say that he would have her (Emma Smith) hereafter, IF HE HAD TO GO TO HELL FOR HER, AND HE WILL HAVE TO GO TO HELL FOR HER AS SURE AS HE EVER GETS HER." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 17, page 159) Obviously Joseph didn't understand how wonderful the Celestial Kingdom would be without her. He was confused about his sexual preference for Emma. Kinda like how confused I am about the person I love. Maybe I will see Joseph and Emma in hell. 1
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: You view everything through the lens of a straight man who is assured that he will continue to be straight through out eternity. You feel safe and secure knowing that you will be with the person that makes your life here on earth worth living You have the sure knowledge that if you are both faithful, she will be with you in the next life, sanctioned by God and glorified by the atonement of Christ. First, I don't need a "lens" to see the plain teachings of the Restored Gospel on this point. These are core doctrines. The prohibition in the Law of Chastity against homosexual behavior doesn't really require nuanced interpretation. The teaching is there, plain as day. We can surmise and speculate about why God has set things up this way, but that would be a discussion for another day. Second, I would appreciate you not telling me what I "view" and "feel" and "know." I'm willing to share these things to some extent. But speculation on your part about what I believe and why is not very helpful. Quote I guess it is just to difficult for you to see the position someone who is not straight could possibly have. It must be their sinfulness. It must be their lack of faith. I'll not respond to snide, bitter jabs, except to point out that they are snide, bitter jabs. Quote It must be how they view themselves as not needing to be "fixed" when it is clear to YOU that they must become straight and be just like you. First, I have never held myself up as an exemplar in this way. Second, what I am saying about a person needing repentance and forgiveness and change and "fixing" is not limited to those with same-sex orientation. We all have things that we must change. We all have appetites and preferences that we must evaluate and determine whether they can be acted upon. Third, what I am saying is not my personal opinion. I am promulgating the principles of the Restored Gospel. You seem to want to personalize this discussion, as if the prohibition in the Law of Chastity comes from me. It doesn't. It comes from God. That is what I believe. And that becomes a rather important point. Quote Then they will find happiness. Then they will be blessed by God. Why is that so hard for a gay person to understand. I'm not sure why these concepts are so hard for some people, including some gay folks, to understand. All of us must be "fixed" in various and sundry ways in order to "find happiness" and "be blessed by God." Perhaps part of the problem is special pleading by folks who want to set up same-sex attraction as being in some sort of unique category, as if such persons have struggles which are worse than all other categories. There are all sorts of people who are beset with appetites of the flesh that are prohibited by the Restored Gospel. There are all sorts of people who are in circumstances that seem unfair as compared to the lots of others around them. There are all sorts of people whose struggles are lifelong. Not being able to ever act on sexual impulses must be a very difficult burden. I understand that and empathize. But lots of people have that burden. Not being able to be married must be a very difficult burden. I understand that and empathize. But lots of people have that burden, too. And there are many, many types of burdens that, I think, are comparable to or even surpass the challenge of living according to the Law of Chastity. Quote It is as clear as day to you. It must be the plan of God. I believe the Plan of Salvation as taught by the LDS Church. That includes eternal families. Recent sociological alterations of the concept of "family" do not alter the Church's teachings on this point. Quote God is obviously one of these parents who want all His children to be straight, even if they want to share eternity with the one that they love just like you. God is omnipotent and omniscient. I am fine with trusting Him about such things. Quote But their love is an evil thing, a wickedness that God can not tolerate. Oi. It sure would be nice to have a reasoned discussion. I'm not fond of melodrama. The Plan of Salvation requires that we curb our appetites and passions, that we observe boundaries for them as set by God. So with respect, I reject the "If it feels good to me, it must be right and damn the consequences!"-line of argument. Such an argument could be used to justify fornication. And adultery. And incest. And all sorts of wicked acts which - as you snidely put it - "God can not tolerate." But despite the snideness, what you are saying is correct. God does impose standards of behavior on His children. Behaviors that plainly violate those standards are wrong (or "sinful," or "evil," depending on the context, I think). Quote Even if they are forever celibate with that person. That is not enough. Correct. Same-sex relationships, even though styled in this life as "marriages" by man's law, will end at death (as will all others that are not sealed). I am sure this is a bitter thing for you. But that is what the LDS Church teaches. And more to the point, I think the teachings of the LDS Church are true and reflect the mind and will of God. I respect differing opinions about this issue. Quote This is not about the law of chastity. Yes, it is. It's not like people of the same gender are prohibited from having any relationship with each other. The restriction pertains to sexual same-gender relationships/behaviors, which are plainly governed by the Law of Chastity. This discussion also includes other teachings in the Gospel, about the family, saving ordinances, and revealed truths about our condition in the eternities. Quote Because even if a gay person never has sex with the person he loves, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. I could be celibate with my partner for the rest of my life if I could be with him for eternity like you can with your wife. Correct. Eternal familial relationships require sealing ordinances, and there is no such ordinance for same-sex couples. I don't think there ever will be. Quote But there is much more to it that that isn't there. This is about how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex. I love many people of my same sex. But that "love" does not have a romantic or sexual dimension (which brings us back to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity, families, sealing ordinances, etc.). Similarly, I love many women other than my wife, but that love does not have a romantic or sexual dimension. The love I have for my wife is unique and limited to her and her alone. So it's not about "how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex." Instead, it is about keeping that love within parameters set by God. Quote They must renounce the person they love and become like you. And a man who is in a loveless marriage and has a mistress on the side whom he well and truly loves, and who wants to join the Church, must "renounce" the adulterous relationship. A woman who is living with her long-term boyfriend, whom she well and truly loves, and who wants to joint the Church, must "renounce" or terminate that relationship. The commandments of God can be difficult. I concede that. Quote Once they are straight, they will see that this is best for them, and their life and trials on earth and the person they loved was all just like a bad dream. They are going to love being married to a woman for eternity, just like you are going to love being with my wife in eternal glory. You are so sure what a gay person should want to have that you can not see the reasons why they have no interest in what the teachings of the church offers them. Oh, i can see plenty of such reasons. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2016 by smac97 3
Danzo Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: This is tough because you're playing fast and loose with different data sets. When you say, "substance is one fo the biggest correlators" you aren't sure if that's true in the case of Utah teens. That is a general indicator. I really wish you would read the links provided. Its hard to have a discussion when one side refuses to look at the data. By substituting your own pet theory for suicide rather than looking at the actual data, you are at risk be making the problem worse instead of better. According to the State of Utah 63% of suicide decedents having had contact with the juvenile courts. 54% of the decedents who had contact with juvenile court had a referral(s) for substance possession, use, or abuse and 32% had one felony referral. 23% had a special education evaluation, primarily for behavioral disorders. 35% had either a suspension or expulsion from school. Only 1% of the suicide decedents were in public mental health treatment at the time of death. http://www.health.utah.gov/vipp/teens/youth-suicide/ I have included this information already, but unfortunately you have your own opinion and facts seem to be irrelevant. Edited July 13, 2016 by Danzo
Gray Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) I would guess that a big part of LGBT suicide is complete parental rejection, over and above doctrinal rejection. You hear stories about parents kicking out their gay teenage kids. I'm sure that level of rejection sends suicide rates through the roof. I'm sure many try to cope for a while by self medicating with drugs and alcohol. Edited July 13, 2016 by Gray
california boy Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: First, I don't need a "lens" to see the plain teachings of the Restored Gospel on this point. These are core doctrines. The prohibition in the Law of Chastity against homosexual behavior doesn't really require nuanced interpretation. The teaching is there, plain as day. We can surmise and speculate about why God has set things up this way, but that would be a discussion for another day. Second, I would appreciate you not telling me what I "view" and "feel" and "know." I'm willing to share these things to some extent. But speculation on your part about what I believe and why is not very helpful. I'll not respond to snide, bitter jabs, except to point out that they are snide, bitter jabs. First, I have never held myself up as an exemplar in this way. Second, what I am saying about a person needing repentance and forgiveness and change and "fixing" is not limited to those with same-sex orientation. We all have things that we must change. We all have appetites and preferences that we must evaluate and determine whether they can be acted upon. Third, what I am saying is not my personal opinion. I am promulgating the principles of the Restored Gospel. You seem to want to personalize this discussion, as if the prohibition in the Law of Chastity comes from me. It doesn't. It comes from God. That is what I believe. And that becomes a rather important point. I'm not sure why these concepts are so hard for some people, including some gay folks, to understand. All of us must be "fixed" in various and sundry ways in order to "find happiness" and "be blessed by God." Perhaps part of the problem is special pleading by folks who want to set up same-sex attraction as being in some sort of unique category, as if such persons have struggles which are worse than all other categories. There are all sorts of people who are beset with appetites of the flesh that are prohibited by the Restored Gospel. There are all sorts of people who are in circumstances that seem unfair as compared to the lots of others around them. There are all sorts of people whose struggles are lifelong. Not being able to ever act on sexual impulses must be a very difficult burden. I understand that and empathize. But lots of people have that burden. Not being able to be married must be a very difficult burden. I understand that and empathize. But lots of people have that burden, too. And there are many, many types of burdens that, I think, are comparable to or even surpass the challenge of living according to the Law of Chastity. I believe the Plan of Salvation as taught by the LDS Church. That includes eternal families. Recent sociological alterations of the concept of "family" do not alter the Church's teachings on this point. God is omnipotent and omniscient. I am fine with trusting Him about such things. Oi. It sure would be nice to have a reasoned discussion. I'm not fond of melodrama. The Plan of Salvation requires that we curb our appetites and passions, that we observe boundaries for them as set by God. So with respect, I reject the "If it feels good to me, it must be right and damn the consequences!"-line of argument. Such an argument could be used to justify fornication. And adultery. And incest. And all sorts of wicked acts which - as you snidely put it - "God can not tolerate." But despite the snideness, what you are saying is correct. God does impose standards of behavior on His children. Behaviors that plainly violate those standards are wrong (or "sinful," or "evil," depending on the context, I think). Correct. Same-sex relationships, even though styled in this life as "marriages" by man's law, will end at death (as will all others that are not sealed). I am sure this is a bitter thing for you. But that is what the LDS Church teaches. And more to the point, I think the teachings of the LDS Church are true and reflect the mind and will of God. I respect differing opinions about this issue. Yes, it is. It's not like people of the same gender are prohibited from having any relationship with each other. The restriction pertains to sexual same-gender relationships/behaviors, which are plainly governed by the Law of Chastity. This discussion also includes other teachings in the Gospel, about the family, saving ordinances, and revealed truths about our condition in the eternities. Correct. Eternal familial relationships require sealing ordinances, and there is no such ordinance for same-sex couples. I don't think there ever will be. I love many people of my same sex. But that "love" does not have a romantic or sexual dimension (which brings us back to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity, families, sealing ordinances, etc.). Similarly, I love many women other than my wife, but that love does not have a romantic or sexual dimension. The love I have for my wife is unique and limited to her and her alone. So it's not about "how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex." Instead, it is about keeping that love within parameters set by God. And a man who is in a loveless marriage and has a mistress on the side whom he well and truly loves, and who wants to join the Church, must "renounce" the adulterous relationship. A woman who is living with her long-term boyfriend, whom she well and truly loves, and who wants to joint the Church, must "renounce" or terminate that relationship. The commandments of God can be difficult. I concede that. Oh, i can see plenty of such reasons. Thanks, -Smac An entire post about the law of chastity. How typical of you and many Mormons who think that gay relationships are reduced solely to sex. When THIS IS THE CORE OF WHAT I WROTE Quote Even if they are forever celibate with that person. That is not enough. This is not about the law of chastity. Because even if a gay person never has sex with the person he loves, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. I could be celibate with my partner for the rest of my life if I could be with him for eternity like you can with your wife. But there is much more to it that that isn't there. This is about how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex. I even put it in bold so that even YOU would not miss it. Yet you still wrote an entire post centering your response on the law of chastity. How pathetic. Let me know the you want to have a real discussion about the issues I brought up. Edited July 13, 2016 by california boy
Danzo Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: I would guess that a big part of LGBT suicide is complete parental rejection, over and above doctrinal rejection. You hear stories about parents kicking out their gay teenage kids. I'm sure that level of rejection sends suicide rates through the roof. I'm sure many try to cope for a while by self medicating with drugs and alcohol. You get points for creatively trying to fit the data around your theory. It's much easier than changing your theory in response to the data. Edited July 13, 2016 by Danzo
smac97 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, california boy said: An entire post about the law of chastity. How typical of you and many Mormons who think that gay relationships are reduced solely to sex. Please re-read what I wrote. Here are the key bits: Quote Quote This is not about the law of chastity. Yes, it is. It's not like people of the same gender are prohibited from having any relationship with each other. The restriction pertains to sexual same-gender relationships/behaviors, which are plainly governed by the Law of Chastity. This discussion also includes other teachings in the Gospel, about the family, saving ordinances, and revealed truths about our condition in the eternities. ... Quote But there is much more to it that that isn't there. This is about how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex. I love many people of my same sex. But that "love" does not have a romantic or sexual dimension (which brings us back to the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity, families, sealing ordinances, etc.). Similarly, I love many women other than my wife, but that love does not have a romantic or sexual dimension. The love I have for my wife is unique and limited to her and her alone. So it's not about "how wrong it is to love someone of your own sex." Instead, it is about keeping that love within parameters set by God See what I did there? I acknowledged other aspects of the Restored Gospel that are implicated in this discussion (teachings on the family, saving ordinances, post-mortal life, etc.). And I also discussed a person being able to love a person of the same gender in a non-sexual way ("does not have a romantic or sexual dimension"). Pretty much the entire grievance held by you and yours against the LDS Church centers on the Church's teachings regarding A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. So we are not speaking of the sum total of the life experiences of people with same-sex attraction. We are instead speaking of their lives insofar as they intersect with the LDS Church and with items A and B above. But I'll go along with you for a moment. You fault Mormons for purportedly thinking that "gay relationships are reduced solely to sex." Putting aside, for the moment, the falsity of that accusation, what is it about "gay relationships" are are not associated with items A and B above, but which are still problematic in the LDS paradigm? I'm all ears. You see, if we set aside items A and B, then the relationships by and between people of the same gender become . . . perfectly fine. Quote When THIS IS THE CORE OF WHAT I WROTE. I even put it in bold so that even YOU would not miss it. Yet you still wrote an entire post centering your response on the law of chastity. How pathetic. Please re-read my post. You missed quite a bit. Or perhaps we should just move past each other. I'm not sure you are listening to what I have to say. Thanks, -Smac Edited July 13, 2016 by smac97
USU78 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I would guess that a big part of LGBT suicide is complete parental rejection, over and above doctrinal rejection. That is the narrative. With no treatment of the phenomenon (not entirely unknown/unknowable) of the obnoxious/unmanageable/dangerous child who leaves home but blames mom & dad ... because that fits the narrative.
USU78 Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 22 minutes ago, california boy said: An entire post about the law of chastity. Yes, because that is the sole and only issue, unless you want to address character, mental health and other issues that everybody skirts because they're too polite. You want the Law of Chastity [please note the caps] to disappear and not to be the Church's motivation, because it pleases you to accuse people you don't know of heinous social crimes, which disappear if there truly is a religious and, thus, constitutionally protected basis for excluding those committed via obscene and abominable rites to commit serial serious violations of the Law of Chastity.
Danzo Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 8 minutes ago, USU78 said: That is the narrative. With no treatment of the phenomenon (not entirely unknown/unknowable) of the obnoxious/unmanageable/dangerous child who leaves home but blames mom & dad ... because that fits the narrative. He needs to show that the LGTB youths who committed suicide didn't live it home Only then do we need to go into why they weren't living at home. Theories need to adapt to data.
rodheadlee Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 On 7/6/2016 at 9:39 AM, stemelbow said: Church listing reasons for their promotion of marriage between one man and one woman. Here is one I want to ask about: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-statement-on-marriage--religious-freedom-and-civility Anyone want to help me understand what this means? What space? Are they saying if a country, like Australia, allows same sex marriage, those who disagree with lose space? How does allowing gay marriage in a country challenge members of the Church to be true to all aspects of their belief of man-woman marriage? This comes off as nonsense to me, but I wanted to see if anyone had a good way of applying this. Thanks. Sure, it's bandwidth. I mean look at this board, it's all SSM all the time, 24/7. Even threads that didn't start out that way end up that way. When I joined here 8 years ago there were many great scholarly discussions, now it's limited to a few with many SSM discussions. Another difference is the antis used to be outside the Church, now they are inside. They claim membership but never post one positive thing about the Church. 1
kllindley Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 20 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Sure, it's bandwidth. I mean look at this board, it's all SSM all the time, 24/7. Even threads that didn't start out that way end up that way. When I joined here 8 years ago there were many great scholarly discussions, now it's limited to a few with many SSM discussions. Another difference is the antis used to be outside the Church, now they are inside. They claim membership but never post one positive thing about the Church. Profound. I think that is a real concern.
kllindley Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 On 7/12/2016 at 2:08 PM, Daniel2 said: Petitions may be signed about preventing a one hour special about mixed-orientation marriages (an action which is perfectly in-keeping with freedom of speech), but at least marriages like yours have NEVER been legally, legislatively, or electorally under-attack. The ability to enter into marriages like yours have never been recognized as a constitutional right, and then rescinded by popular vote. Marriages like yours have never been illegal, or unrecognized, and they continue to be legal and fully-recognized by both government and in the civic square. Your choice to marry as you wish remains fully intact, and always will, because allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't diminsh your ability to marry someone of the opposite-sex. In those regards, you may count yourself lucky/blessed. There are many desires to extend restrictions to all types of people... but the law weighs, measures, filters, and sifts the constitutionality of all-such desires, if they are enacted into law, and none that pass the constitutional muster can stand. That is ultimately exactly what happened with marital prohibitions for same-sex couples. 17-year-olds today who live in the growing number of states that restrict therapists from attempting reparative or conversion therapy would (and should) be counseled about the realistic possibilities and unrealistic outcomes of conversion and reparative therapy. No. I emphatically and unequivocally disagree and reject the notion that the restriction of therapists, counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists today from providing reparative or conversion therapy to underage minors is in ANY sense an infringement on anyone's "freedom to practice religion," as you claim. No. I emphatically and unequivocally disagree and reject the notion that "when a resource that would enable a young man to live [and, I would add... exponentially increase 'dying for'] his religion despite countervailing norms is a target of legal restrictions, lawsuits, petitions to silence dissenting opinions," then that MUST be "a restriction of freedom." To begin, what you refer to as a "young man" here is misleading, because as far as this issue is concerned, this law applies to legally-held "underage minors"--not "men" or "women." Moving on: the practice of medicine, in all it's forms (including mental health) is highly regulated in this country. Health care professionals are held to the highest of standards based on the best available medical knowledge. Health care professionals cannot misrepresent the outcomes of their treatments, and are held accountable by facing medical malpractice suits, restrictions of licenses, etc. when they fail to live up to the rigorous medical standards based on the best and most advanced medical findings available. Additionally, parents do not have an unfettered right to impose their religious ideologies on their children, especially when said religious ideologies have been found to directly and immediately endanger the wellbeing, health, and life of their children. Governmental agencies are empowered to remove children from parents who are found to be neglectful or abusive towards their children. Parents who espouse the Jehovah's Witness Faith cannot refuse life-saving blood transfusions to their children in the name of "freedom to practice religion being infringed," despite such being a refusal to "enable a young man to live his religion despite countervailing social norms," and that is NOT a legally-unauthorized "restriction of freedom." Parents who espouse the Jehovah's Witness Faith cannot refuse life-saving blood transfusions to their children in the name of "freedom to practice religion being infringed," despite such being a refusal to "enable a young man to live his religion despite countervailing social norms," and that is NOT a legally-unauthorized "restriction of freedom." The same is true of parents who subscribe to religious prohibitions against snake antidote, sustenance, or other medical treatments. Religion can NOT be used as an excuse to impose parents' religious views regarding the application of medical treatments on their underage children when the wellbeing and lives of the children are at risk, and especially when the denial of such would be classified as neglect or abuse. Regarding the data collected surrounding the dangers of conversion therapy or reparative therapy, there is a wide and well-documented, medically-based consensus among virtually all major medical professional organizations and licensing bodies concerning the dangers of such attempts, particularly to underage minors, and the virtual impossibility of changing sexual orientation. Claiming that one's religious freedom is being denied because modern medicine refuses to bend fact-based science to one's religious beliefs is NOT a true denial of what is legally-recognized as the practice of freedom of religion. In sum, Kllindley, while you can believe whatever you like about my comments above, in the US, adults are free to refuse treatments for themselves, as well as to pursue non-medical, religious-based treatments for themselves, but they are NOT free to impose those beliefs on their own children when such practices represent a direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to their children, even if they claim that their "freedom of religion" is being unjustly violated. I could engage in an conversation and point out the half-truths and misleading statements above. I could type in references to actual research studies that do not say what you claim they say. I can point out that I agree with everything about forcing children; that it is unconscionable. But it won't get anywhere. You, CB, Gray, and others have already decided to accept as true a basic narrative about the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexual identity, that is not supported by science. From this fundamental paradigm, you interpret data in a particular way that reinforces your prejudices. I don't mean that as an insult. That is what I do, too. It's called faith, belief. I respect your right to believe what you do and to interpret data in a way that suits you. All I'm asking for is the honesty to own this as your belief system. Because it's dishonest and insulting to insist that your belief is superior based on science, or legal precedent, or universal morality. I resent the same attitude from other Mormons. When they try to "prove" that geology supports a young earth or Book of Mormon Claims, when they insist that their political views are God's because maybe Moroni appeared to George Washington. The end result will still be pretty much the same as this conversation: http://therapistsembracingfreedom.org/2016/01/conversation-with-a-typical-opponent-of-change/ Quote Final comment by opponent: All right, I’m really getting tired of this discussion. Frankly, I don’t really care about your arguments. I just know in my heart that what you and others like you are trying to do is wrong and should be stopped. Nothing is going to change my mind about that. Final comment by defender: Thank you for your honesty. I have to say your dismissal of scientific findings you don’t like sounds a lot like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals majority opinion that upheld the constitutionality of California’s law preventing minors from talking to licensed therapists in a manner that could be construed as promoting change in SSAB. Preferring politics over science, Judge Graber opined, “And we need not decide whether SOCE actually causes ‘serious harms’; it is enough that it could ‘reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisions makers.’” I apologize for not recognizing sooner that this is not a place for authentic dialogue. 2
kllindley Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Finally, for others on this board who may be open to honest dialogue, the following resources may be helpful. First, The issues of sexuality/gender and conservative religious belief are complex. Discussion about them is made even more complicated by the fact that we often talk past each other. We assume that the other holds a similar belief about such seemingly innocuous words as identity, choice, attraction, relationship. Jacob Hess has done some amazing work sorting through the contrasting narratives around this conversation. http://www.flirtingwithcuriosity.org/?m=201511 Whether your initial views are more "liberal" or "conservative," it may be valuable to accept that while you believe what you believe, someone on the other side may genuinely believe differently, not because they are rebellious or bigoted or close-minded, but because the disagreement goes deeper than it appears. Second, I am surprised how timely this article was. The author references several of the philosophical and scientific disagreements about sexuality and artfully explores how the truths of the Restored Gospel are actually more in harmony with current scientific knowledge than many would believe. http://ldsmag.com/trying-to-reconcile-homosexuality-and-the-gospel/ Thanks to those who truly support LDS LGBT members by sustaining the General Authorities and Doctrines of the gospel while reaching out in love and fellowship. Please don't stop because some voices tell you the only way to support us is to oppose the Church. 3
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted July 14, 2016 Popular Post Posted July 14, 2016 7 hours ago, california boy said: You view everything through the lens of a straight man who is assured that he will continue to be straight through out eternity. As a never-married, non-straight man, I challenge this bald assertion. Smac's perspective is identical to mine as a disciple of Jesus Christ. 6
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, kllindley said: You, CB, Gray, and others have already decided to accept as true a basic narrative about the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexual identity, that is not supported by science. From this fundamental paradigm, you interpret data in a particular way that reinforces your prejudices. I don't mean that as an insult. That is what I do, too. It's called faith, belief. Thank you for patiently pointing this fact out. 3 hours ago, kllindley said: [T]he truths of the Restored Gospel are actually more in harmony with current scientific knowledge than many would believe. Indeed. And as I've repeatedly attempted to point out on this board, the Church's position on this issue is also in perfect alignment with what we historians know. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Danzo said: You get points for creatively trying to fit the data around your theory. It's much easier than changing your theory in response to the data. Dude, you are so not playing by the rules. When someone has picked a target, personalised it, polarised it, and found an excellent stick with which to freeze it, you're supposed to just roll over and beg for mercy, not point out that the stick is hollow.
Damien the Leper Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Boring! There are plenty of way more relevant topics to discuss here than the church's stance on SSM.
SteveO Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 57 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: As a never-married, non-straight man, I challenge this bald assertion. Smac's perspective is identical to mine as a disciple of Jesus Christ. So you're saying its your discipleship that brings happiness and meaning to your life--and not your sexual orientation? kind of old school there 2
Recommended Posts