MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You fail to recognize that by not knowing about it they really shouldn't be so definitive.  If they have reliable means to know we should be made aware.  But that hasn't happened at all.  They just assure us by saying they know because they say so.  We aren't children to be treated like we don't count.  That to me is a problem. 

You have altogether ignored my point. Not totally knowing the as yet undiscovered science or biology behind it does not disqualify them from acting in their God-given role of declaring doctrine as they are inspired to do so. By seeking to impede them in that role, you are the one who is stepping outside your purview.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm guessing that you don't really think that any of the Q15 in 1995 (or now) had in mind children in any marriage --- gay or straight. But, maybe, just maybe, this can be used as an escape clause in the future when the Church needs to abandon ship? 

I honestly don't really know about that or have even thought about what you ask here (what do you mean by "abandon ship"?).

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I honestly don't really know about that or have even thought about what you ask here. 

I find that really hard to believe, to be honest.

You think that the PotF allows for gay marriage, and for children to ideally be in any family as long as the parents are legally married, but you "don't really know" or "have even thought about" whether the Brethren whose names are attached in 1995 or our current apostles thought or think the same thing? C'mon!

The parsing and seeking for legalistic wiggle room breaks down when people are pinned down on what the Brethren think. 

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Comments of members indicate otherwise.

Sure.  I guess that depends on what we mean by necessary.  In my estimation it's not necessary.  People comment on it but the same teaching would still exist with or without it.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have altogether ignored my point. Not totally knowing the as yet undiscovered science or biology behind it does not disqualify them from acting in their God-given role of declaring doctrine as they are inspired to do so. By seeking to impede them in that role, you are the one who is stepping outside your purview.

I wish your point had more value.  They haven't declared God's will it seems.  If they have, how would I know?  They certainly haven't shown me reason to think they've declared God's will.  It's much like the officially sanctioned statements regarding the reasons for the priesthood ban.  Those have all officially been denounced, but at one point they were said to be the will of God. 

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

Oh, I mixed you two up in quoting! Sorry stemelbow and rockpond! It wasn't on purpose.

Apology not necessary on my end.  I'm flattered. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

You said:  "ALarson explained my thoughts on that just fine," rather than respond yourself. Is that a false claim?

 

No, it's hyperbole with a little humor. You said, "The November policy doesn't prevent children from being raised by gay parents." I guess using a Captain Obvious meme wouldn't have been well-received either, huh?  

 

 

Where did I do that?

 

 

 

You did it in the quote that I had responded to.

And Stemelbow already explained your incorrect quote attribution.

Edited October 27, 2016 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

It has been very clear that Scott was willing to use the terms gay and lesbian to refer to specific individuals who choose to so identify. 

The backlash he continues to receive is for using the phrase that not only the Church uses, but it also used in scientific literature to describe the very real phenomenon of attractions which often do not align with identity. 

In clarification of my position, I will say that klindley is right in that I am willing to use those terms for people who want to self-identify with them.

My problem with california boy and others of similar mindset, is their apparent insistence on forbidding or demonizing the generic use of the phrase same-sex attraction. As I indicated, I have been denounced with hostility and, in one instance on this thread, called a vile name, all because I refuse to knuckle under to that social edict.

This thread is very fast moving, and perhaps I've missed it if it happened, but so far I've not seen anyone address my impression: that those who object to the use of "same sex attraction" do so because they want to see continued blurring of the lines between those who have such attraction but refuse to act on it and those who have the attraction and do act on it. They want not just to marginalize those who don't think like they do, they want to make it appear in the popular vernacular that such individuals do not even exist. Well, klindley is one example of one such individual, one who is intelligent, articulate and well-read.

It's time for california boy and others to recognize that they don't speak for everyone on this matter, not even everyone who has emotional, physical or sexual attraction to individuals of the same sex.

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's sad that the Proclamation was even necessary.

It's already showing its age. The church is already backing away from rigid gender roles prescribed in it, to some extent. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In clarification of my position, I will say that klindley is right in that I am willing to use those terms for people who want to self-identify with them.

My problem with california boy and others of similar mindset, is their apparent insistence on forbidding or demonizing the generic use of same-sex attraction. As I indicated, I have been denounced with hostility and, in one instance on this thread, called a vile name, all because I refuse to knuckle under to that social edict.

This thread is very fast moving, and perhaps I've missed it if it happened, but so far I've not seen anyone address my impression: that those who object to the use of "same sex attraction" do so because they want to see continued blurring of the lines between those who have such attraction but refuse to act on it and those who have the attraction and do act on it. They want not just to marginalize those who don't think like they do, they want to make it appear in the popular vernacular that such individuals do not even exist. Well, klindley is one example of one such individual, one who is intelligent, articulate and well-read.

 

 

Thank you for saying that you'll use the terms gay/lesbian for those who identify with them.  I appreciate that!

When I use the term gay or lesbian is does not indicate someone who acts on it.  It means someone who has the orientation and/or identifies as such.  If you look up the definitions of gay and lesbian they stipulate that the individual being "acting on it".

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Thank you for saying that you'll use the terms gay/lesbian for those who identify with them.  I appreciate that!

When I use the term gay or lesbian is does not indicate someone who acts on it.  It means someone who has the orientation and/or identifies as such.  If you look up the definitions of gay and lesbian they stipulate that the individual being "acting on it".

So I take it, then, that you will no longer take up with california boy and others when they castigate me for using the phrase same-sex attraction in a generic sense.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In clarification of my position, I will say that klindley is right in that I am willing to use those terms for people who want to self-identify with them.

My problem with california boy and others of similar mindset, is their apparent insistence on forbidding or demonizing the generic use of same-sex attraction. As I indicated, I have been denounced with hostility and, in one instance on this thread, called a vile name, all because I refuse to knuckle under to that social edict.

This thread is very fast moving, and perhaps I've missed it if it happened, but so far I've not seen anyone address my impression: that those who object to the use of "same sex attraction" do so because they want to see continued blurring of the lines between those who have such attraction but refuse to act on it and those who have the attraction and do act on it. They want not just to marginalize those who don't think like they do, they want to make it appear in the popular vernacular that such individuals do not even exist. Well, klindley is one example of one such individual, one who is intelligent, articulate and well-read.

It’s pretty crazy. According to this Wikipedia (which seems to use ‘same-sex” as the preferred term) article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality, “some style guides recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy. In particular the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction [n acceptable term] as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973. The Associated Press and New York Times style guides restrict usage of the terms.”

“…same-sex is the preferred adjective…”

“People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual. The most common terms are gay (both men and women) and lesbian (women only). Other terms include same gender loving and same-sex-oriented.”

“Adhesive love was frequently used by Walt Whitman in his Calamus poems, a term the poet borrowed from phrenology's adhesiveness, which he associated with "comradeship", manly bonding and male same-sex attraction.”

And in this article (redirected from Same-sex attraction)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality :

“Some synonyms for same-sex attraction or sexual activity include men who have sex with men or MSM (used in the medical community when specifically discussing sexual activity) and homoerotic (referring to works of art)”

“Many people, despite having same-sex attractions, may be reluctant to identify themselves as gay or bisexual. The research must measure some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation. The number of people with same-sex desires may be larger than the number of people who act on those desires, which in turn may be larger than the number of people who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

“…some use same-sex behavior and not same-sex attraction as the operational definition of homosexuality (e.g., Billy et al., 1993); many sex researchers (e.g., Bailey et al., 2000; Bogaert, 2003; Money, 1988; Zucker and Bradley, 1995) now emphasize attraction over overt behavior in conceptualizing sexual orientation." (p. 33) Also: "...the prevalence of male homosexuality (in particular, same-sex attraction) varies over time and across societies (and hence is a "moving target")…”

But, Oh be still my heart! if “conservative Christians” use the term, it is simply awful!

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take it, then, that you will no longer take up with california boy and others when they castigate me for using the phrase same-sex attraction in a generic sense.

It depends on the context:  Generally, you tend to use SSA when referring to groups who prefer to be called by other terms.  Since you are frequently critical of participants here who fail to call people by their correct titles, your refusal to accommodate others shows an intentional lack of respect directed at the LGBT community.  I reserve the right to call you out on that, just as you do with others.  To the extent that you use it to recognize people who identify as such, I won't castigate you.  As for California Boy specifically, you ought to acknowledge how the term is offensive to him.

[ALarson]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

I find that really hard to believe, to be honest.

It's the truth, but ok.  I guess I don't think as deviously or suspiciously as you think I do  

And, you didn't answer this question:

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

what do you mean by "abandon ship"?

Still curious...

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already explained that my concern is for those people beset with same-sex attraction who don't want to be lumped with those who act it out.

I notice you have not denied that your intent is to keep the lines blurred between those two categories. As I said, ideologically driven. It is always so with political correctness.

I completely deny that my intent is to keep the lines blurred between the two categories.  Is that clear enough?

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's already showing its age. The church is already backing away from rigid gender roles prescribed in it, to some extent. 

I'm very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. Do you see anything besides or other than this part, which I agree is not emphasized or talked about any more?

 

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Our patriarch's wife used to work for our current stake president in the 80s. Following a general conference talk by President Benson where he emphasized women not working, she called him and tendered her resignation. Imagine that happening today! I can't remember the last time I heard men providing/women nurturing in talks.  

My family is very traditional, and my wife has been a homemaker our family's whole life, but we are the exception and not the norm. I haven't emphasized it as a bishop because a lot of it is due to economics. And, while a lot of families could be as frugal as mine so that mom doesn't have to work, in reality, most won't and will just feel bad or be resentful if encouraged strongly. And, there are women who, for their own well-being, are much better off working. While it's ideal, in our changing world it's harder and harder to realize the ideal.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's the truth, but ok.  I guess I don't think as deviously or suspiciously as you think I do  

I believe you. It's just hard for me to in this instance.  

Quote

And, you didn't answer this question (what do you mean by "abandon ship?":

Still curious...[/quote]

I think you added it in an edit. Or, I didn't see it. 

I meant "make a big change in law of chastity definition or policy regarding gay marriage."

Edited October 27, 2016 by rongo

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It’s pretty crazy. According to this Wikipedia (which seems to use ‘same-sex” as the preferred term) article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality, “

It's not the usage of "same-sex" that is offensive.

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

I believe you. It's just hard for me to in this instance.  

Ok, I understand.

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

I meant "make a big change in law of chastity definition or policy regarding gay marriage."

I don't believe a change would need to be made to include gay marriage as a part of keeping the current law of chastity (if you're referring to the one stated in the temple).

But then it has been changed or altered in the past, so why not?

 

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I'm very interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this. Do you see anything besides or other than this part, which I agree is not emphasized or talked about any more?

 

Our patriarch's wife used to work for our current stake president in the 80s. Following a general conference talk by President Benson where he emphasized women not working, she called him and tendered her resignation. Imagine that happening today! I can't remember the last time I heard men providing/women nurturing in talks.  

My family is very traditional, and my wife has been a homemaker our family's whole life, but we are the exception and not the norm. I haven't emphasized it as a bishop because a lot of it is due to economics. And, while a lot of families could be as frugal as mine so that mom doesn't have to work, in reality, most won't and will just feel bad or be resentful if encouraged strongly. And, there are women who, for their own well-being, are much better off working. While it's ideal, in our changing world it's harder and harder to realize the ideal.

Hi Rongo, I think not only the gender roles thing but the part about the commandment to multiply are showing their age. There isn't the pressure in the church anymore to have huge families with 7 or even 10 children, which is I think where the talk of a commandment to multiply is coming from. That died out some time after the death of the taboo against birth control. 

 

Quote

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

 

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

 

However, some parts of the proclamation are, in my view, more critical than ever:

 

Quote

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

There are real factors that can work to destroy families, such as marital infidelity and abuse of spouse or children. In that sense I think the Proclamation is very valuable. For some reason this part doesn't seem to be what people emphasize. These things pose the real threat to marriage/family. Gay people were never a threat. Families lead by gay parents are just as valuable as any other kind of family. The proclamation could be tweaked to include them, and still provide value by warning against the real threat to families. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok, I understand.

I don't believe a change would need to be made to include gay marriage as a part of keeping the current law of chastity (if you're referring to the one stated in the temple).

But then it has been changed or altered in the past, so why not?

 

 

It all depends on whether the prohibition against homosexual relations is as much an innate part of the law of chastity as not committing adultery is.  That's what it all boils down to.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

It’s pretty crazy. According to this Wikipedia (which seems to use ‘same-sex” as the preferred term) article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_homosexuality, “some style guides recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy. In particular the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction [n acceptable term] as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973. The Associated Press and New York Times style guides restrict usage of the terms.”

 

“…same-sex is the preferred adjective…”

 

“People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual. The most common terms are gay (both men and women) and lesbian (women only). Other terms include same gender loving and same-sex-oriented.”

 

“Adhesive love was frequently used by Walt Whitman in his Calamus poems, a term the poet borrowed from phrenology's adhesiveness, which he associated with "comradeship", manly bonding and male same-sex attraction.”

 

And in this article (redirected from Same-sex attraction)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality :

 

“Some synonyms for same-sex attraction or sexual activity include men who have sex with men or MSM (used in the medical community when specifically discussing sexual activity) and homoerotic (referring to works of art)”

 

“Many people, despite having same-sex attractions, may be reluctant to identify themselves as gay or bisexual. The research must measure some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation. The number of people with same-sex desires may be larger than the number of people who act on those desires, which in turn may be larger than the number of people who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

 

“…some use same-sex behavior and not same-sex attraction as the operational definition of homosexuality (e.g., Billy et al., 1993); many sex researchers (e.g., Bailey et al., 2000; Bogaert, 2003; Money, 1988; Zucker and Bradley, 1995) now emphasize attraction over overt behavior in conceptualizing sexual orientation." (p. 33) Also: "...the prevalence of male homosexuality (in particular, same-sex attraction) varies over time and across societies (and hence is a "moving target")…”

 

But, Oh be still my heart! if “conservative Christians” use the term, it is simply awful!

 

Thank you.

It struck me as weird when I first saw california boy assert that the so-called "Mormon church" were the only ones who ever used the phrase same-sex attraction He continues to do it. I guess if you assert a falsehood often enough, people begin to accept it as fact. Or so the conventional reasoning goes.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It all depends on whether the prohibition against homosexual relations is as much an innate part of the law of chastity as not committing adultery is.  That's what it all boils down to.  

As stated, the current law of chastity could apply to those who enter into a SSM:

 

Quote

 

The Law of Chastity

• • 

  What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=en

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

As stated, the current law of chastity could apply to those who enter into a SSM:

The Law of Chastity

• • 

  What is the law of chastity?

We are to have sexual relations only with our spouse to whom we are legally married. No one, male or female, is to have sexual relations before marriage. After marriage, sexual relations are permitted only with our spouse.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=en

Yes, it could.
Should have left the original wording and not emphasized civil marriages.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

It depends on the context:  Generally, you tend to use SSA when referring to groups who prefer to be called by other terms.  Since you are frequently critical of participants here who fail to call people by their correct titles, your refusal to accommodate others shows an intentional lack of respect directed at the LGBT community.  I reserve the right to call you out on that, just as you do with others.  To the extent that you use it to recognize people who identify as such, I won't castigate you.  As for California Boy specifically, you ought to acknowledge how the term is offensive to him.

I will continue to use same-sex attraction as a generic term in reference to the general population of individuals who are, well, sexually attracted to the same sex. That has been and continues to be my consistent position.

As for california boy, his choice to take offense at use of a term that is facially obvious in application is just that, his choice.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd