The Church speaks up on SSM again

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, SteveO said:

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

So old-school that I don't even have anything as newfangled as a sexual orientation...

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Please re-read what I wrote.  Here are the key bits:

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.  

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

Since every single discussion I have with you, you make it all about sexual behavior, I will issue a CFR.  Find ONE  yes ONE post in the 8 years that I have been posting here where I have demanded or suggested that the church should change it's definition of the law of Chastity.  

You assert in every dialogue I have with you that "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"  So find ONE time that I have said such a thing. Until then, we obviously can not have a rational conversation because every time I ask you a point, you turn it back to sex.  Since you assert that this is pretty much the entire grievance I hold agains the LDS church it should be pretty easy for you to find just one don't you think?  

Answer the CFR or apologize and agree to address what I am actually addressing.  Until you get over your obsession with this being all about sex, it is pointless to have a discussion with you.  

[california boy]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

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.

Since you make the same assertion as SMAC, I will issue you the same CFR.  Find one post where I have demanded or even suggested that the church should change it's definition of the Law of Chastity  or apologize for following like sheep and apologize for the false accusation.  Now you got two of you searching over 8 years of posts to find just one.

 

[california boy]

3 hours 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.

Well I would LOVE to have a conversation with someone about the questions and statements I brought up without them turning it around constantly and focusing on the Law of Chastity.  So please give me your thoughts.  This is what I stated.

 

 

Quote

 

Can a gay person get into the Celestial Kingdom without being straight?  

The message I am getting is NO.  You have to become straight in order to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  If that is not telling someone who is gay that God rejects them for being gay, then I don't know what is. 

Are you hearing a different message?  Does God allow someone who is gay into the Celestial Kingdom without becoming straight?  Or does the Mormon God reject every gay person until they become straight.

 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[california boy]

7 hours 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.

Are you on limited access?  Can you not start a thread on other subjects?  If you are, send me a message and I will be happy to start a thread for you on a subject you are more interested in.

I think the question that should be asked is WHY are there so many threads on gay issues?  It is certainly not me or Daniel that are starting these threads.  I have started less than a handful of threads on gay issues.  Love to hear your thoughts and others about why so many threads on this subject.

And I think another topic that should be discussed is why are there so many members that are negative towards the church.  What changes do they see need to be made.  Perhaps someone should be paying attention to the issues they have.  If not, then why not.

[JLHPROF]

14 hours 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.

So true.

9 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Boring! There are plenty of way more relevant topics to discuss here than the church's stance on SSM.

Also true.

What happened to the theological discussions over matters of substance and eternity?
All we are concerned about is our social condition.
As if the gospel/Church is nothing more than a social club and member retention and recruitment are all that matter so these unpopular stands should be debated to death.
SO many more interesting topics on Mormonism that who doesn't like the organization rules.
 

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you on limited access?  Can you not start a thread on other subjects?  If you are, send me a message and I will be happy to start a thread for you on a subject you are more interested in.

I think the question that should be asked is WHY are there so many threads on gay issues?  It is certainly not me or Daniel that are starting these threads.  I have started less than a handful of threads on gay issues.  Love to hear your thoughts and others about why so many threads on this subject.

And I think another topic that should be discussed is why are there so many members that are negative towards the church.  What changes do they see need to be made.  Perhaps someone should be paying attention to the issues they have.  If not, then why not.

The real question is, Who is gonna listen?.....Certainly not the Brass....who runs the Church affairs & makes crucial decisions.....

Their stand agains these sensitive issues are  DIRECT response from the intellectual members exodus.....The drainage of intelligentsia from the Church became acceptable loss for THEM ever since Internet surfaced like nemesis.....In his (John Dehlin) pleading days He did everything to build a bridge between the hardliners and moderates (StayLDS.com)...It was all for naught.....(Not only that they excommunicated him, not to mention Kate Kelly)

The line is already drawn in the sand, they will not back off....And if you do not tow the line of Leadership you are welcome to leave. But I love this place from the standpoint that I can read so many moderate, thoughtful individuals who try their hardest, (against insurmountable evidences, issues) to make a difference.

End of the day (my take, of course) all the efforts will be futile, it will dwindle to a point of big freeze, like astronomers predict Universe's end).....

[Gray]

16 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.

My theories are in line with the data. Yours are not. You seem to be driven by a need to absolve church teachings of any connection to youth suicides. Even when the research says that rejection leads to LGBT teen suicides, you seem to need to reject that in favor of your own pet theories.

Do you think gay LDS kids don't get kicked out of the house for being gay? Talk to the people who run the shelters for kids like that in Utah. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Gray

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

My theories are in line with the data. Yours are not. You seem to be driven by a need to absolve church teachings of any connection to youth suicides. Even when the research says that rejection leads to LGBT teen suicides, you seem to need to reject that in favor of your own pet theories.

Do you think gay LDS kids don't get kicked out of the house for being gay? Talk to the people who run the shelters for kids like that in Utah. 

please show your data.

Show me data that says active LDS youth are more likely to commit suicide.

You have theories, but no data.

You don't seem to be actually concerned about suicide.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Danzo

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, kllindley said:

You...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.  

Before I respond to the rest of your post, can you please clarify what "basic narrative about the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexuality that is not supported by science" you believe I have "decided to accept"...?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

My theories are in line with the data. Yours are not. You seem to be driven by a need to absolve church teachings of any connection to youth suicides. Even when the research says that rejection leads to LGBT teen suicides, you seem to need to reject that in favor of your own pet theories.

Do you think gay LDS kids don't get kicked out of the house for being gay? Talk to the people who run the shelters for kids like that in Utah. 

I have been to the RoadHouse in SLC.  You are spot on.

[USU78]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you make the same assertion as SMAC, I will issue you the same CFR.  Find one post where I have demanded or even suggested that the church should change it's definition of the Law of Chastity  or apologize for following like sheep and apologize for the false accusation.  Now you got two of you searching over 8 years of posts to find just one.

Excuse me?  You accuse the Church of all sorts of ill will in this here thread.  Your posting history is replete with accusations of hatred, control, lying and whatnot.  And you refuse to accept that, as an alleged member of a self-identifying taxonomic subgroup based upon observable behavior and unobservable feelings, it is your behavior and only your behavior that determines whether you may be in full fellowship with your now former faith community.

Behavior that is prohibited by the Law of Chastity.

If you are now saying that you do not call for that Law's abolishment, I guess we'll have to accept that that's your present position.

Are we permitted to doubt your bonafides based upon what you otherwise post?

And just how does the Church repent of its alleged hatred, control, lying and whatnot without abolishing the Law of Chastity?

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

please show your data.

Show me data that says active LDS youth are more likely to commit suicide.

You have theories, but no data.

You don't seem to be actually concerned about suicide.

 

 

 

You keep trying to change the focus away from what we're talking about. The subject is not active LDS church members in general. It's LGBT kids. You've seen the data, but prefer to ignore it in favor of generalized data that doesn't deal with LGBT populations at all. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

the intellectual members exodus.....The drainage of intelligentsia from the Church became acceptable loss for THEM ever since Internet surfaced like nemesis.

Say what?  You are asserting that the exiting handful of critics are the intelligensia and the rest of us numbskulls  ...  aren't?

Demonstrate, please, how said alleged exiting critics constitute an intelligensia.

USU "This should be fun to watch" 78

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

You keep trying to change the focus away from what we're talking about. The subject is not active LDS church members in general. It's LGBT kids. You've seen the data, but prefer to ignore it in favor of generalized data that doesn't deal with LGBT populations at all. 

Gray, could you point me towards this data.  I've read several news stories and blogs, many with conflicting claims about the actual data.  I've scanned over this thread but have been unable to find a link to an actual primary source for this information (my apologies if I've missed it).

[thesometimesaint]

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

please show your data.

Show me data that says active LDS youth are more likely to commit suicide.

You have theories, but no data.

You don't seem to be actually concerned about suicide.

Theories are dependent on data. Idea's not so much.

[Atheist Mormon]

46 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Say what?  You are asserting that the exiting handful of critics are the intelligensia and the rest of us numbskulls  ...  aren't?

Demonstrate, please, how said alleged exiting critics constitute an intelligensia.

USU "This should be fun to watch" 78

handful of critics??? Surely you are jesting or pleading some kind of amnesia..........

Just to give you a valid, small example of Hans Matson gang from Sweden and unfortunately (or fortunately) most of the exoduses are not at all publicized....After John Dehlin podcast came even more damagaing episodes of John Larsen. Prominent figures like G.Palmer, J Runnels and many others led thousands of people (Families) away. 

And yet there's no acknowledgment, as you demonstrate.....Which leads me to believe.....Everything is honky doory.....

Your accusation of "Say what?  You are asserting that the exiting handful of critics are the intelligensia and the rest of us numbskulls  ...  aren't?"  I couldn't say that. Perhaps I could use that language to my siblings or friends but certainly not you or anybody here,,,,

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You keep trying to change the focus away from what we're talking about. The subject is not active LDS church members in general. It's LGBT kids. You've seen the data, but prefer to ignore it in favor of generalized data that doesn't deal with LGBT populations at all. 

 

I apologize, I must have missed your post, could you  show it to me again? 

Could you show me the data that show that Active, LDS, LGBT youth have a higher suicide risk than Non active (or non) LDS, LGBT  youth.

 

 

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, kllindley said:

I apologize for not recognizing sooner that this is not a place for authentic dialogue.  

For what it's worth, the above comment isn't reflective of my experiences on this board.  From my perspective, there's a lot of authentic dialogue that occurs for those that are willing to hang in their and do the hard work of trying to keep understanding others' perspectives, rather than abandoning dialogue despite the fact that its sometimes difficult, abrasive, repetitive, and sometimes tedious.  There are always new voices and new ears, despite the fact that some conversations can seem cyclical and some individuals' motives may initially appear to be not what we presume they are.  I appreciate the respectful environment that most strive to maintain, and think the discussions continue to be valuable.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

I apologize, I must have missed your post, could you  show it to me again? 

Could you show me the data that show that Active, LDS, LGBT youth have a higher suicide risk than Non active (or non) LDS, LGBT  youth.

 

 

From what I understand, the data collected on suicides doesn't [yet] include the sexual orientation of teens who take their own lives.  Most of the evidence, so far, remains from first-hand accounts and other 'anecdotal' evidence, since no hard data is yet available.  That's my understanding, at least--if someone has info otherwise, I'm very open and willing to review it.

I think that's one of the changes that I hope happens, as the Health Officials have called for more research into the issue.  At the end of the day, wherever such further research lies, the efforts will be worth it if it's answers help stem the tide of teen suicide among teens (straight AND gay).

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

handful of critics??? Surely you are jesting or pleading some kind of amnesia..........

Just to give you a valid, small example of Hans Matson gang from Sweden and unfortunately (or fortunately) most of the exoduses are not at all publicized....After John Dehlin podcast came even more damagaing episodes of John Larsen. Prominent figures like G.Palmer, J Runnels and many others led thousands of people (Families) away. 

And yet there's no acknowledgment, as you demonstrate.....Which leads me to believe.....Everything is honky doory.....

Your accusation of "Say what?  You are asserting that the exiting handful of critics are the intelligensia and the rest of us numbskulls  ...  aren't?"  I couldn't say that. Perhaps I could use that language to my siblings or friends but certainly not you or anybody here,,,,

In the biopic of Will Rodgers, his father chided him on his being like the smart-aleck who stood on the street corner making fun of all the people in the 4th of July parade down their Oklahoma town's main street.  Will responded that he did it because they deserved it because they're ridiculous.  "Maybe," was the response, "But you're better than that.  You should be leading the whole dang thing."  /too lazy to look up the actual quote

If the few, and they are few, especially given the large numbers involved, were to take Will Rodger's father's advice instead of serving their own vanity, serve mankind, serve their brothers and sisters in the Kingdom, maybe just maybe they are still on the hither side of the divide, doing some good instead of congratulating one another on being oh so very clever.

What is essential is right before your eyes.

 

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

From what I understand, the data collected on suicides doesn't [yet] include the sexual orientation of teens who take their own lives.  Most of the evidence, so far, remains from first-hand accounts and other 'anecdotal' evidence, since no hard data is yet available.  That's my understanding, at least--if someone has info otherwise, I'm very open and willing to review it.

I think that's one of the changes that I hope happens, as the Health Officials have called for more research into the issue.  At the end of the day, wherever such further research lies, the efforts will be worth it if it's answers help stem the tide of teen suicide among teens (straight AND gay).

I too am hoping for better data to help avoid more suicides.

Gray seemed to indicate that he had posted data relevant to the issue, and I am anxious to see it.  Any information would be helpful.

For now, I am going to continue encouraging youth to be active in the church (Gay or Straight). According to the data that I we have, that will be one of the most helpful things to help our children.

I also recognize that the data show that bullying to be on of the things increase suicide rates.  It is definitely appropriate to teach the youth (and adults) never to bully anyone for any reason.

Educating people on mental health is also very important.  There continues to stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health issues, we need to tell people its OK to seek help.

Discouraging substance abuse will also go a long way.  

Most of all we need intact families that love and care our children.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Excuse me?  You accuse the Church of all sorts of ill will in this here thread.  Your posting history is replete with accusations of hatred, control, lying and whatnot.  And you refuse to accept that, as an alleged member of a self-identifying taxonomic subgroup based upon observable behavior and unobservable feelings, it is your behavior and only your behavior that determines whether you may be in full fellowship with your now former faith community.

Behavior that is prohibited by the Law of Chastity.

If you are now saying that you do not call for that Law's abolishment, I guess we'll have to accept that that's your present position.

Are we permitted to doubt your bonafides based upon what you otherwise post?

And just how does the Church repent of its alleged hatred, control, lying and whatnot without abolishing the Law of Chastity?

Of course I have been very vocal about the church working to take away the civil rights of gays.  Yes I think that is shameful.  And I have been critical gf the church for refusing to baptize children of gay families.  And yes I was absolutely lied to by church leaders who promised that God would make me straight if I just got married to a woman.  All of those statements are accurate.  How is being critical of those policies  a violation of the Law of Chastity???  Please explain.

The church can repent of those actions just like anyone else.  Stop trying to take the civil rights away from anyones civil rights, especially gays.  Abandon this ridiculous policy of not baptizing children.  And apologize to the thousands of gay men that the church promised that if they would marry someone of the opposite sex, they would become straight.  NONE of those actions changes the Law of Chastity one bit.

I have NEVER suggested or demanded that the church change it's views on the Law of Chastity.  This is not only my current position, it has been my posotopm from the first post I did 8 years ago.  You claim I have in the past demand that the Law of Chastity be changed  So I am asking for a CFR on THAT statement.  Since you think I have done nothing but challenge the Law of Chastity, then find ONE post where I have.  You certainly have plenty of posts to assert your claim.  If you can not support your claim, then I fully expect you to withdraw your claim.  Apology is optional.

 

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you on limited access?  Can you not start a thread on other subjects?  If you are, send me a message and I will be happy to start a thread for you on a subject you are more interested in.

I think the question that should be asked is WHY are there so many threads on gay issues?  It is certainly not me or Daniel that are starting these threads.  I have started less than a handful of threads on gay issues.  Love to hear your thoughts and others about why so many threads on this subject.

And I think another topic that should be discussed is why are there so many members that are negative towards the church.  What changes do they see need to be made.  Perhaps someone should be paying attention to the issues they have.  If not, then why not.

That's a nice offer but I am not on limited status. I just have limited time to visit the board. I'm trying to get my boat ready to go back to sea. I would like to see a thread on the Cardston Temple prophecy but no one likes to have a thread on doom and gloom. Politics would probably be involved to an extent too. China with the ruling of the court on their designs in the South China Sea/ Russia and their designs on the Baltic states, US sending tripwire troops to the Baltic States the upcoming election all make for a dangerous period of uncertainty in my opinion. Then factor in racial strife in our nation and this prophecy is well on it's way to being fulfilled. it won't take much to knock over the dominoes.

It would be nice to know if there was a way to hold this off, prevent it. The funny thing is when I get my boat ready to leave where will I go? The islands I choose would probably be over run by the Chinese in a war, Mexico will hate us if we elect Trump and the Gaddianton Robbers run wild down there, my family needs me here and they won't get a passport and leave with me so I don't know what I'm going to do. Much prayer, try to get Temple worthy, keep my food and water storage up and more prayer.

[Daniel2]

50 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I too am hoping for better data to help avoid more suicides.

Gray seemed to indicate that he had posted data relevant to the issue, and I am anxious to see it.  Any information would be helpful.

For now, I am going to continue encouraging youth to be active in the church (Gay or Straight). According to the data that I we have, that will be one of the most helpful things to help our children.

I also recognize that the data show that bullying to be on of the things increase suicide rates.  It is definitely appropriate to teach the youth (and adults) never to bully anyone for any reason.

Educating people on mental health is also very important.  There continues to stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health issues, we need to tell people its OK to seek help.

Discouraging substance abuse will also go a long way.  

Most of all we need intact families that love and care our children.

Well said.  I fully agree with all of the above, with one exception ("encouraging youth to be active in the church"), and on that one, I would provisionally agree; namely, insofar as the gay LDS youth in question find and feel fulfillment, hope, love, communal and familial support, and stability in their physical, emotional, and spiritual health in their full church activity, without effects that lead to suicidal tendencies, then I also agree.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Daniel2