Atheist Mormon Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: What is essential is right before your eyes. Yes, I've been accused of this more that a dozen times.....However when the scientist or craftsman tell me the same thing I can put their claims on a test and if they are right (which they are more often than not) I accept my stubbornness and let them correct me (show me the correct way).....But when you assert this claim, you have NO way of showing me what you claim to be true.... Eventually you have to test those claims with real/verifiable results.
Gray Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 2 hours 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. If you're looking for data that specific, it doesn't exist yet. But there is data that says that religious conflict and rejection can put LGBT youth at a higher risk for suicide. That's indicative of a potential problem. By contrast, none of the data you've proffered is even relevant to the group under discussion.
Danzo Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 48 minutes ago, Gray said: If you're looking for data that specific, it doesn't exist yet. But there is data that says that religious conflict and rejection can put LGBT youth at a higher risk for suicide. That's indicative of a potential problem. By contrast, none of the data you've proffered is even relevant to the group under discussion. I'm sorry, I thought you said you had data earlier, I guess you are retracting your earlier comments?
JLHPROF Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 2 hours ago, rodheadlee said: 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. Saw this and thought of you...http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865658005/Mormon-family-raises-children-on-boat-in-the-Caribbean.html 2
smac97 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, california boy said: Since every single discussion I have with you, you make it all about sexual behavior, This is a false statement. As I said in my previous post: "See what I did there? I acknowledged other aspects of the Restored Gospel {in addition to 'sexual behavior'} 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')." Quote 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. A non-sequitur. Quote 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" You are misrepresenting me here. Let's take a look at the entirety of what I said (the bolded part is what you conveniently ignored): Quote 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. I am trying to understand you better. So here's my question again: What is it about "gay relationships" are are not associated with items A and B above {A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors}, but which are still problematic in the LDS paradigm? The reason why SSA-related discussions on this board tend to focus on the sexual aspects of "gay relationships" is because those are the aspects that are problematic and incompatible with the Restored Gospel. Frankly, I don't understand your position. If anyone here is susceptible to criticism for reducing gay relationships to "sex," it is you. You spend untold hours coming to this board and haranguing against the LDS Church because of its doctrines and policies and practices relating to gay people. These doctrines/policies/practices that you talk about all the time have exactly nothing with a gay person's choices in terms of education, or food, or clothing, or music/TV/movies/literature, or travel, or skils/hobbies/pasttimes. And on and on and on. Instead, the Church's doctrines/policies/practices which are the focus of your presence here pertain to A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. It therefore makes perfect sense that Mormons-and-Gays discussions on this board gravitate toward discussion and analysis of - no surprise, really - A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. Yet here you are, getting upset that we are discussing the the issues that you talk about all the time. I don't get it. But to be honest, I don't really care to delve into your motives. I'm glad you here, as you add an important voice to this forum. Quote 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. If I was speaking with someone whose raison d'être for being on this board was to criticize the LDS Church and its leaders / members / doctrines / practices pertaining to the proscribed consumption of marijuana and 'shrooms, I would find it strange if that person subsequently complained that I "turn" the discussion back to the Word of Wisdom. But whatever. Let's see if we can get back on track. Here's my question again: So here's my question again: What is it about "gay relationships" are are not associated with items A and B above {A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors}, but which are still problematic in the LDS paradigm? That's a fair inquiry, don't you think? I'm not trying to trap you here. I want to understand your position. Quote 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? Your premise is incorrect. Again, here is what I characterized as your "entire grievance ... against the LDS Church" (emphases added): Quote 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. Did you catch that? "Centers on" and all that? I have also said this: 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. What grievances do you have against the LDS Church's treatment of gay people that do not involve the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity (aka the part of the Restored Gospel pertaining to "prohibited sexual behaviors"), or the family, saving ordinances, and revealed truths about our condition in the eternities (aka the parts of the Restored Gospel pertaining to "romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors")? This is a sincere question. I'd honestly like to know. I don't really keep track of your posts, but in the moment I can't think of any discussions I've had with you that are about any LDS-related topic except A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. My impression is that this is all you care about, that this is your only apparent reason for being on this board. So it seems really rather odd for you to come here, talk pretty much non-stop about "gay" sex, "gay" relationships, "gay" marriage, "gay" suicide, and so on, then then get upset when others follow you down those discussion trails. Quote Answer the CFR or apologize and agree to address what I am actually addressing. Here's what I think about that: In all seriousness, though. Don't try to be a bully. It's unbecoming, and it's not very effective (I speak from experience, but I'm working on it). Quote Until you get over your obsession with this being all about sex, it is pointless to have a discussion with you. Well, let's see. Here's a list of the threads in which I have participated during the last several months (the asterisked ones indicate that the topic is about SSA): Has the church made progress with race since the revelation on the priesthood? 1 Book of Alma ***The Church speaks up on SSM again The State of the Evidence Fundamental Question about your belief; Intelligent Design What percent of visitors to LDS Historical Sites are non-LDS? Are LDS members in danger of losing their belief in Christ if they leave the church? ***The Gap is too Wide to Bridge Bishop Bans Electronic Devices Rainbow flags, urban centers, and LDS This is a believing Church, with a believing leadership, and the evidence is published.\ The Ark of the Covenant is found The horrific inconsistency No More PEC Elder Holland addresses issue of depression Mormon trek and not being wise ***How Does the SLC PD View Mormons? LGBT? ***How to communicate love to LGBT members? Missionaries detained by police Fiona Givens speculates that Joseph Smith gave Priesthood Keys to women? "Major Problems with Mormonism" New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission Speculation time - Who do you think Raphael could be? Another One Bites the Dust Do Mormons practice "intercession"? June Ensign - Life After Death ***Should beliefs about Homosexuality be included in the (adult) baptismal interview? Safety and Being Too Nice Favorite Folklore Are natural disasters a sign of God's disfavor? heart of the matter...debates. Salt Lake Tribune to be Sold to Huntsman Family President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Visits LDS Church HQ Finding comfort in the embrace of another LDS Perspectives on Women Being Subject to Military Draft With all the evidence against the LDS church, why is God still telling people to join? Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism BYU's Maxwell Institute Gets a New Director Does the New Testament contain every word that Jesus ever uttered? ory withBelievers; How do you reconcile secular Evolution/Universe vs Scriptures version? I Found Proof That God Exists The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion BYU Honor Code Review BYU comm speech "disconnect from those who have lost their faith" As I count it, that's five out of 44 threads (I was actually expecting more than that, given how frequently SSA is discussed on this board). And the topics are rather eclectic, so an accusation about "obsession" with one particular topic doesn't really wash, IMO (unless the topic is Mormonism, in which case I will own that). I'll now invite you to post the last 44 threads in which you have participated (you can scroll through each page and look for a star icon to the immediate left of each thread's title - those are the ones in which you have posted). Please also identity which of them pertain to "sex"-related topics. Then we can compare which of us is more likely to have an "obsession" about "sex." Motes and beams. Glass houses. Pots and kettles. Pick your metaphor, brah! -Smac Edited July 14, 2016 by smac97 1
california boy Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 2 hours ago, rodheadlee said: 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. Sounds like an interesting thread. I hope you have time to put it up
kllindley Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 3 hours ago, Daniel2 said: 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. Hopefully you are not suggesting that I have to hang in there and do the hard work of trying to keep understanding others' perspectives, while you get to be difficult, abrasive, and repetitive? Honestly, I don't know if I believe that trying to enter respectful dialogue will be at all productive. And maybe I'm a fool for believing the best of other people, but I will try. 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: 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"...? Before I type a response, I need some clarification. Have you read the three articles I linked? Or would it be better to copy and paste them here? They explain pretty well what sort of narrative I believe you accept, and it is important to lay a groundwork in order to respond to you question in good faith.
USU78 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Yes, I've been accused of this more that a dozen times.....However when the scientist or craftsman tell me the same thing I can put their claims on a test and if they are right (which they are more often than not) I accept my stubbornness and let them correct me (show me the correct way).....But when you assert this claim, you have NO way of showing me what you claim to be true.... Eventually you have to test those claims with real/verifiable results. Define "real "
Atheist Mormon Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, USU78 said: Define "real " Very easy to define real, starting from the most complicated, Einstein's relativity theory is proven countless times, even simpler, people come to my Clinic for several tests, vaccinations, I go to bank, touch some keys and receive money....We do not deal with a stimulation like a HoloDeck of Star Trek......
california boy Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 55 minutes ago, smac97 said: This is a false statement. As I said in my previous post: "See what I did there? I acknowledged other aspects of the Restored Gospel {in addition to 'sexual behavior'} 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')." A non-sequitur. You are misrepresenting me here. Let's take a look at the entirety of what I said (the bolded part is what you conveniently ignored): I am trying to understand you better. So here's my question again: What is it about "gay relationships" are are not associated with items A and B above {A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors}, but which are still problematic in the LDS paradigm? The reason why folks like me tend to focus on the sexual aspects of "gay relationships" is because those are the aspects that are problematic and incompatible with the Restored Gospel. Frankly, I don't understand your position. If anyone here is susceptible to criticism for reducing gay relationships to "sex," it is you. You spend untold hours coming to this board and haranguing against the LDS Church because of its doctrines and policies and practices relating to gay people. These doctrines/policies/practices that you talk about all the time have exactly nothing with a gay person's choices in terms of education, or food, or clothing, or music/TV/movies/literature, or travel, or skils/hobbies/pasttimes. And on and on and on. Instead, the Church's doctrines/policies/practices which are the focus of your presence here pertain to A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. It therefore makes perfect sense that Mormons-and-Gays discussions on this board gravitate toward discussion and analysis of - no surprise, really - A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. Yet here you are, getting upset that we are discussing the the issues that you talk about all the time. I don't get it. If I was speaking with someone whose raison d'être for being on this board is to criticize the LDS Church and its leaders/members/doctrines/practices pertaining to the proscribed consumption of marijuana and 'shrooms, I would find it strange if that person subsequently complained that I "turn" the discussion back to the Word of Wisdom. But whatever. Let's see if we can get back on track. Here's my question again: So here's my question again: What is it about "gay relationships" are are not associated with items A and B above {A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors}, but which are still problematic in the LDS paradigm? That's a fair inquiry, don't you think? I'm not trying to trap you here. I want to understand your position. Your premise is incorrect. Again, here is what I characterized as your "entire grievance ... against the LDS Church" (emphases added): Did you catch that? "Centers on" and all that? I have also said this: What grievances do you have against the LDS Church's treatment of gay people that do not involve the Church's teachings on the Law of Chastity (aka the part of the Restored Gospel pertaining to "prohibited sexual behaviors"), or the family, saving ordinances, and revealed truths about our condition in the eternities (aka the parts of the Restored Gospel pertaining to "romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors")? This is a sincere question. I'd honestly like to know. I don't really keep track of your posts, but in the moment I can't think of any discussions I've had with you that are about any LDS-related topic except A) prohibited sexual behaviors, and B) romantic/familial relationships associated with prohibited sexual behaviors. My impression is that this is all you care about. That's you're only apparent reason for being on this board. So it seems really rather odd for you to come here, talk pretty much non-stop about "gay" sex, "gay" relationships, "gay" marriage, "gay" suicide, and so on, then then get upset when others follow you down those discussion trails. Here's what I think about that: In all seriousness, though. Don't try to be a bully. It's unbecoming, and it's not very effective (I speak from experience, but I'm working on it). Well, let's see. Here's a list of the threads in which I have participated during the last several months (the asterisked ones indicate that the topic is about SSA): Has the church made progress with race since the revelation on the priesthood? 1 Book of Alma ***The Church speaks up on SSM again The State of the Evidence Fundamental Question about your belief; Intelligent Design What percent of visitors to LDS Historical Sites are non-LDS? Are LDS members in danger of losing their belief in Christ if they leave the church? ***The Gap is too Wide to Bridge Bishop Bans Electronic Devices ***Rainbow flags, urban centers, and LDS This is a believing Church, with a believing leadership, and the evidence is published.\ The Ark of the Covenant is found The horrific inconsistency No More PEC Elder Holland addresses issue of depression Mormon trek and not being wise ***How Does the SLC PD View Mormons? LGBT? ***How to communicate love to LGBT members? Missionaries detained by police Fiona Givens speculates that Joseph Smith gave Priesthood Keys to women? "Major Problems with Mormonism" New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission Speculation time - Who do you think Raphael could be? Another One Bites the Dust Do Mormons practice "intercession"? June Ensign - Life After Death ***Should beliefs about Homosexuality be included in the (adult) baptismal interview? Safety and Being Too Nice Favorite Folklore Are natural disasters a sign of God's disfavor? heart of the matter...debates. Salt Lake Tribune to be Sold to Huntsman Family President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Visits LDS Church HQ Finding comfort in the embrace of another LDS Perspectives on Women Being Subject to Military Draft With all the evidence against the LDS church, why is God still telling people to join? Sad, Stereotypical Surrender to Cynicism BYU's Maxwell Institute Gets a New Director Does the New Testament contain every word that Jesus ever uttered? ory withBelievers; How do you reconcile secular Evolution/Universe vs Scriptures version? I Found Proof That God Exists The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion BYU Honor Code Review BYU comm speech "disconnect from those who have lost their faith" As I count it, that's six out of 44 threads (I was actually expecting more than that, given how frequently SSA is discussed on this board). And the topics are rather eclectic, so an accusation about "obsession" with one particular topic doesn't really wash, IMO (unless the topic is Mormonism, in which case I will own that). I'll now invite you to post the last 44 threads in which you have participated (you can scroll through each page and look for a star icon to the immediate left of each thread's title - those are the ones in which you have posted). Please also identity which of them pertain to "sex"-related topics. Then we can compare which of us is more likely to have an "obsession" about "sex." Motes and beams. Glass houses. Pots and kettles. Pick your metaphor, brah! -Smac The two of us seem to be in a cycle that is just turning into complete frustration. I am sure you are feeling it. And I am not sure how much more I can deal with . I feel like we are so polarized in our views, we are both having a very difficult time seeing what the other person is saying. When I read your posts, I scratch my head and wonder how the heck did he head in this direction. I think you are feeling the same way The truth is, I am very interested in your views. And I would really like the answers to the questions I ask. But I think we are talking about complexed issues and are asking too many questions with each post. When I read your post, I really don't even know where to start. So I would like to make a suggestion. Let's start over. Let's see if we can lay a very basic foundation on what we CAN agree upon. Let's take it slow and not try to address too many issues at once. I promise I will answer ALL of your questions time, and I hope you will answer mine as well. But let's put them on hold and try starting from the beginning. Are you ok with that? I feel like before I even ask or address any question, I need to be crystal clear about one thing. I understand the church's position is no sex ever if you are gay. The church believes this is immoral behavior. I completely respect that position and I have never and will never ask or demand that the church change it's position. Let's all this an immutable statement. It is against the doctrine of the church to have sex with the same gender under ANY situation. I promise not to ask or demand that the church change their position. And I ask that you not accuse me of asking or demanding that the church change it's position on this part of the Law of Chastity. Can we agree with that? Are we good so far?
Daniel2 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 56 minutes ago, kllindley said: Hopefully you are not suggesting that I have to hang in there and do the hard work of trying to keep understanding others' perspectives, while you get to be difficult, abrasive, and repetitive? I'm suggesting, in keeping with my own experience on this board, that anyone wishing to understand others' perspectives often has to be willing to do the hard work of trying to keep understanding others' perspectives, while oftentimes putting up with others' difficult, abrasive, and repetitious comments. More to your point: I genuinely am surprised to hear that you feel I am being difficult and abrasive. (As many have noted, I usually stick to topics related to Mormonism and the LGBT community, so I think I can at least understand the accusation of being repetative... ). It's never my intent to be abrasive, and in all sincerity, I apologize if what I have written has come off that way. It's always my goal to be respectful, even if I fall short sometimes. So, in full candor, no--I don't expect others to put up with me being abrasive or, insofar as difficulty is concerned, obtuse. Feel free to call me on the carpet anytime, in that regard. I hope you'll find that I am usually quick to self-correct, if I allow my passion for the topic to get the better of my own common courtesy. Quote Honestly, I don't know if I believe that trying to enter respectful dialogue will be at all productive. And maybe I'm a fool for believing the best of other people, but I will try. Well, I appreciate your efforts, and it's my intention to do the same. I, myself, certainly can relate to the feeling of wondering if I am a fool for believing the best of others. Quote Before I type a response, I need some clarification. Have you read the three articles I linked? Or would it be better to copy and paste them here? They explain pretty well what sort of narrative I believe you accept, and it is important to lay a groundwork in order to respond to you question in good faith. Earlier today I printed off "Conversation with a Typical Opponent of Change" to read and highlight before bedtime. In glancing through the first page, I already cringed a bit about the characterization of and verbiage used by "Mr. Ty Optic." The author's characterization seems extreme... but perhaps that is his intent. I hope to get to the full paper tonight, and intend to 'return and report' my response. I'm curious--do you know the date of the paper? Was it actually ever published in The Journal of Human Sexuality...? I haven't yet opened the other two (assuming you're referring to the post after your response to me), but plan to after I read the first one you posted. That being said: rather than point to those three links as "explaining the sort of narrative you believe I accept," it seems to me that you had something specific in mind when you said I've decided to accept a "basic narrative about the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexuality that is not supported by science." I was somewhat surprised to see that statement, because I am fairly consistent in my approach to pay explicit attention and give preference to what science has said on the subject of the nature of sexuality and sexual orientation. Without going into all the details of the three links: could you give me a high-level, brief overview/summary of this "basic narrative" you feel I've unscientifically bought-in to...? (I'm happy to discuss it and respond, even more, once I've read the links you've provided). That being said, I'd also like to issue a request of my own: did you listen to the two links I provided about the podcasts that do a good job of outlining my position on the biological factors of sexuality and sexual orientation...? Specifically, it's a four-part series entitled "Making Sense of the Research on Homosexuality— Biological Factors," and can be found here. I previously mentioned parts 3 and 4, but would recommend parts 1 and 2, as well. Edited July 14, 2016 by Daniel2
smac97 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, california boy said: The two of us seem to be in a cycle that is just turning into complete frustration. I am sure you are feeling it. And I am not sure how much more I can deal with . I feel like we are so polarized in our views, we are both having a very difficult time seeing what the other person is saying. When I read your posts, I scratch my head and wonder how the heck did he head in this direction. I think you are feeling the same way The truth is, I am very interested in your views. And I would really like the answers to the questions I ask. But I think we are talking about complexed issues and are asking too many questions with each post. When I read your post, I really don't even know where to start. So I would like to make a suggestion. Let's start over. Let's see if we can lay a very basic foundation on what we CAN agree upon. Let's take it slow and not try to address too many issues at once. I promise I will answer ALL of your questions time, and I hope you will answer mine as well. But let's put them on hold and try starting from the beginning. Are you ok with that? I feel like before I even ask or address any question, I need to be crystal clear about one thing. I understand the church's position is no sex ever if you are gay. The church believes this is immoral behavior. I completely respect that position and I have never and will never ask or demand that the church change it's position. Let's all this an immutable statement. It is against the doctrine of the church to have sex with the same gender under ANY situation. I promise not to ask or demand that the church change their position. And I ask that you not accuse me of asking or demanding that the church change it's position on this part of the Law of Chastity. Can we agree with that? Are we good so far? I like and agree to your proposal. I guess I just don't understand what it is you want to discuss. Let's start there. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 Ignore the above, glitch. Smac and cb, you should start a new thread and maybe even request others to not post in it and issue frequent reminders and then when people ignore that, just ignore them. It would be interesting to see if you two could do this here on the board, online not always being good at conveying nuances.
UtahTexan Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Ignore the above, glitch. Smac and cb, you should start a new thread and maybe even request others to not post in it and issue frequent reminders and then when people ignore that, just ignore them. It would be interesting to see if you two could do this here on the board, online not always being good at conveying nuances. Maybe I need to change my name, since I am called CB, too never mind.....don't know how to change Display Name Edited July 14, 2016 by CountryBoy
Calm Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 (edited) He is lower case. You can ask the mods to change it, isn't that how you did it before? That is how I shortened my alias. I get called Cal along with california boy. I figure people can tell by context most of the time and the rest isn't worth the effort. Edited July 14, 2016 by Calm
USU78 Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Very easy to define real, starting from the most complicated, Einstein's relativity theory is proven countless times, even simpler, people come to my Clinic for several tests, vaccinations, I go to bank, touch some keys and receive money....We do not deal with a stimulation like a HoloDeck of Star Trek...... So ... without the material, observable by the 5 senses and/or instruments amplifying/refining same, nothing is real? What is material?
kllindley Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Daniel2 said: I'm suggesting, in keeping with my own experience on this board, that anyone wishing to understand others' perspectives often has to be willing to do the hard work of trying to keep understanding others' perspectives, while oftentimes putting up with others' difficult, abrasive, and repetitious comments. More to your point: I genuinely am surprised to hear that you feel I am being difficult and abrasive. (As many have noted, I usually stick to topics related to Mormonism and the LGBT community, so I think I can at least understand the accusation of being repetative... ). It's never my intent to be abrasive, and in all sincerity, I apologize if what I have written has come off that way. It's always my goal to be respectful, even if I fall short sometimes. So, in full candor, no--I don't expect others to put up with me being abrasive or, insofar as difficulty is concerned, obtuse. Feel free to call me on the carpet anytime, in that regard. I hope you'll find that I am usually quick to self-correct, if I allow my passion for the topic to get the better of my own common courtesy. Well, I appreciate your efforts, and it's my intention to do the same. I, myself, certainly can relate to the feeling of wondering if I am a fool for believing the best of others. Earlier today I printed off "Conversation with a Typical Opponent of Change" to read and highlight before bedtime. In glancing through the first page, I already cringed a bit about the characterization of and verbiage used by "Mr. Ty Optic." The author's characterization seems extreme... but perhaps that is his intent. I hope to get to the full paper tonight, and intend to 'return and report' my response. I'm curious--do you know the date of the paper? Was it actually ever published in The Journal of Human Sexuality...? I haven't yet opened the other two (assuming you're referring to the post after your response to me), but plan to after I read the first one you posted. That being said: rather than point to those three links as "explaining the sort of narrative you believe I accept," it seems to me that you had something specific in mind when you said I've decided to accept a "basic narrative about the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, and sexuality that is not supported by science." I was somewhat surprised to see that statement, because I am fairly consistent in my approach to pay explicit attention and give preference to what science has said on the subject of the nature of sexuality and sexual orientation. Without going into all the details of the three links: could you give me a high-level, brief overview/summary of this "basic narrative" you feel I've unscientifically bought-in to...? (I'm happy to discuss it and respond, even more, once I've read the links you've provided). That being said, I'd also like to issue a request of my own: did you listen to the two links I provided about the podcasts that do a good job of outlining my position on the biological factors of sexuality and sexual orientation...? Specifically, it's a four-part series entitled "Making Sense of the Research on Homosexuality— Biological Factors," and can be found here. I previously mentioned parts 3 and 4, but would recommend parts 1 and 2, as well. I appreciate that. Regarding the narrative, the Flirting with Curiosity blog is the best for that. Also http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/mormons-can-gay-just-cant-gay I will try to provide the basic overview. There is a narrative that emerged in the late 1980s which has become dominant that: There is such a thing as sexual orientation which should be congruent with sexual identity (gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual). This sexual orientation is a relatively fixed trait largely determined by genetics and biology, with no component of choice involved whatsoever. It is a core characteristic of a person and determines/restricts the range of people with whom one may form a happy, satisfying romantic and sexual relationship. Please correct anything above that would be mistaken. I have listened to the links you provided. Unfortunately, all three panelists start from within the framework I have identified above. Therefore the research they cite is already filtered through their perspective and biases. They omit and dismiss some research that does not support their worldview, while giving preference to research that fits their narrative. Again that is what I would expect people to do. Science is not free of paradigms and worldviews. But neither can science ever dictate the paradigms through which people view data. And because the worldview from which these panelists operate is not universal (and fundamentally at odds with Mormon Theology) it is very hard to engage in a real conversation. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 14, 2016 Posted July 14, 2016 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: 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. Eternity isn't of interest to me. Theology is boring. I prefer biblical studies.
Atheist Mormon Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: So ... without the material, observable by the 5 senses and/or instruments amplifying/refining same, nothing is real? What is material? Pretty much,...... But there are some serious claims out there, thousands of people believing, like First Vision of Joseph or Apostle Paul's Vision on the road to Damascus......Smaller categories there are thousands. Among the popular ones The Lourdes Vision (where my sister goes to pilgrimage every year, lives in Paris) or alien abduction stories... The issue with above all vision is proof or Evidence, I can understand they believe in such encounters but how is it going to convince skeptics like me?
JLHPROF Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Valentinus said: Eternity isn't of interest to me. Theology is boring. I prefer biblical studies. Funny. I'm the exact opposite. Theology is much more interesting than science or history. 1
california boy Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 10 hours ago, Calm said: Ignore the above, glitch. Smac and cb, you should start a new thread and maybe even request others to not post in it and issue frequent reminders and then when people ignore that, just ignore them. It would be interesting to see if you two could do this here on the board, online not always being good at conveying nuances. With some trepidation of starting yet another gay thread, I have done as you advised. I think it is a good idea because I think this needs to be taken slowly, step by step. Love to have yours and anyone else input.
Gray Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, Danzo said: I'm sorry, I thought you said you had data earlier, I guess you are retracting your earlier comments? We've both seen the data that applies to religious LGBT teens. I don't have data that gets into specific denominations, as you know. I'm not retracting anything, of course. Every factual claim I've made is in line with the data. Edited July 15, 2016 by Gray
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 20 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Yes, I've been accused of this more that a dozen times.....However when the scientist or craftsman tell me the same thing I can put their claims on a test and if they are right (which they are more often than not) I accept my stubbornness and let them correct me (show me the correct way).....But when you assert this claim, you have NO way of showing me what you claim to be true.... Eventually you have to test those claims with real/verifiable results. You really should read more. You honestly didn't get the implications of my Little Prince homage?
USU78 Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 16 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Pretty much,...... But there are some serious claims out there, thousands of people believing, like First Vision of Joseph or Apostle Paul's Vision on the road to Damascus......Smaller categories there are thousands. Among the popular ones The Lourdes Vision (where my sister goes to pilgrimage every year, lives in Paris) or alien abduction stories... The issue with above all vision is proof or Evidence, I can understand they believe in such encounters but how is it going to convince skeptics like me? [Sigh] So much Martin Buber, so few readers in the world
Recommended Posts