Jump to content

MormonsandGays.org is updated...


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

They cannot possibly maintain and prepare their children per the scriptural requirements in good faith because they are apostate to being a parent in Zion (married according to the LDS definition), and apostate to maintaining their children in a covenant the Church can support (the Church cannot support the ssm civil/secular covenant). Tell me if I'm repeating myself... I feel sorry for you if you think I'm not!

That's OK... my point is they use the term appropriately for their respective ecclesiastical administration. Seems like you've lost track of yourself.

You still haven't told me why it is not possible for gay parents to prepare their children for baptism.  Are couples living together a covenant the church can support?  Are non members "parents in Zion".  Is that a requirement of baptism?

You aren't really repeating yourself.  Mostly you aren't answering the questions.  And without those answers, what you are saying doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

You still haven't told me why it is not possible for gay parents to prepare their children for baptism.  Are couples living together a covenant the church can support?  Are non members "parents in Zion".  Is that a requirement of baptism?

You aren't really repeating yourself.  Mostly you aren't answering the questions.  And without those answers, what you are saying doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

Zion, by definition, excludes unbelievers and those who live in willful and determined transgression of the laws of God. So, by definition, those who do so can't be classified as "parents in Zion."

And while this will not sit well with some individuals, it is actually very egalitarian doctrine. All that is required to be included -- if one is not included already -- is to repent and come to (or return to) the fold of the Shepherd and be one with those therein. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Zion, by definition, excludes unbelievers and those who live in willful and determined transgression of the laws of God. So, by definition, those who do so can't be classified as "parents in Zion."

And while this will not sit well with some individuals, it is actually very egalitarian doctrine. All that is required to be included -- if one is not included already -- is to repent and come to (or return to) the fold of the Shepherd and be one with those therein. 

Totally understand.  But you don't have to be a believer to allow your child to be baptized.  Which by your own explanation is required to be as "parents in Zion", but not a requirement to have your child baptized.   Not sure why you brought up Zion.  You are going to have to explain your point more clearly for me to understand why that is relevant as to whether a child is denied baptism or not.  Do you think it is a requirement for someone to be a believer or a parent in Zion to have their children baptized?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
55 minutes ago, california boy said:

Totally understand.  But you don't have to be a believer to allow your child to be baptized.  Which by your own explanation is required to be as "parents in Zion", but not a requirement to have your child baptized.   Not sure why you brought up Zion.  You are going to have to explain your point more clearly for me to understand why that is relevant as to whether a child is denied baptism or not.  Do you think it is a requirement for someone to be a believer or a parent in Zion to have their children baptized?

I only brought up Zion because of your use of the phrase "parent in Zion."

Link to post
12 hours ago, california boy said:

You still haven't told me why it is not possible for gay parents to prepare their children for baptism.  Are couples living together a covenant the church can support?  Are non members "parents in Zion".  Is that a requirement of baptism?

You aren't really repeating yourself.  Mostly you aren't answering the questions.  And without those answers, what you are saying doesn't make any sense, at least to me.

I see Scott answered this. But I think I already did also, here: Posted 15 hours ago

"They cannot possibly maintain and prepare their children per the scriptural requirements in good faith because they are apostate to being a parent in Zion (married according to the LDS definition), and apostate to maintaining their children in a covenant the Church can support (the Church cannot support the ssm civil/secular covenant)."

Maybe I can simplify: Apostates are so far removed from Zion that no good-faith involvement with her exercise of the ordinance keys in meeting her ultimate aims is possible.

And maybe I can break it down into greater detail:

Apostate ssm parents are not "in Zion" and not under the same requirements to prepare and maintain their children as those in Zion (see the treatment of those not in Zion in the next-to-last paragraph below). Sustaining apostate ssm parents in preparing their children for only some of the Church covenants is not something the Church can do. Neither can the Church sustain these parents in promoting a covenant of marriage that is antithetical to hers. The Church cannot begin with sustaining the parents in the naming, baptizing and confirming of the child and then back off when it comes to sealing to parents and eternal marriage. The "gate" isn't designed for that kind of termination. That is what makes it impossible. Likewise, apostate ssm parents cannot prepare and maintain their children in any of the ordinances and covenants when the aim of any of them is sealing to parents and marriage (the apostates cannot be sealed and have their children sealed to them). Plus it is impossible to do something you have rejected--let's be honest! That said, any policy will allow exceptions.

Garden variety ssm parents are in no better shape, except they haven't the hurdle of apostasy to overcome before repenting and joining the Church. When their intent is not to support sealing for marriage and family as the Church teaches by their own actions, the Church cannot get involved: children have claim upon their parents first and foremost, and if their parents are on board with the Church, the Church can be on board with them. That said, any policy will allow exceptions.

Garden variety "traditional," unmarried cohabitating parents who are LDS are likely undergoing some sort of discipline that shows good faith in the direction the Church can sustain. They are "in Zion." The same with non-LDS parents, married or unmarried. They are not "in Zion" and not under the same requirements to prepare and maintain their children as those in Zion, and so their case requires some inspired judgement. In all these cases, the bishop will require the parents' permission to baptize, assuming he authorizes the baptism to take place upon his assessment of the Church's ability to sustain the parents in what they are doing in the home to prepare and maintain their children in these covenants.

Whether I simplified or broke it down further, I answered the question a number of times. Unless by the term "gay parents" you mean something that wasn't covered here.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I only brought up Zion because of your use of the phrase "parent in Zion."

If I've followed the thread correctly, it was CV75 who first used that phrase ("parents in Zion") here and california boy was just responding to him using it (cb didn't bring it up).

Edited by JulieM
Link to post
16 hours ago, CV75 said:

That's OK... my point is they use the term appropriately for their respective ecclesiastical administration. Seems like you've lost track of yourself.

Which, again, is total renunciation of beliefs, plus a whole lot of other administrative hoops piled on  top of that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see Scott answered this. But I think I already did also, here: Posted 15 hours ago

"They cannot possibly maintain and prepare their children per the scriptural requirements in good faith because they are apostate to being a parent in Zion (married according to the LDS definition), and apostate to maintaining their children in a covenant the Church can support (the Church cannot support the ssm civil/secular covenant)."

Maybe I can simplify: Apostates are so far removed from Zion that no good-faith involvement with her exercise of the ordinance keys in meeting her ultimate aims is possible.

And maybe I can break it down into greater detail:

Apostate ssm parents are not "in Zion" and not under the same requirements to prepare and maintain their children as those in Zion (see the treatment of those not in Zion in the next-to-last paragraph below). Sustaining apostate ssm parents in preparing their children for only some of the Church covenants is not something the Church can do. Neither can the Church sustain these parents in promoting a covenant of marriage that is antithetical to hers. The Church cannot begin with sustaining the parents in the naming, baptizing and confirming of the child and then back off when it comes to sealing to parents and eternal marriage. The "gate" isn't designed for that kind of termination. That is what makes it impossible. Likewise, apostate ssm parents cannot prepare and maintain their children in any of the ordinances and covenants when the aim of any of them is sealing to parents and marriage (the apostates cannot be sealed and have their children sealed to them). Plus it is impossible to do something you have rejected--let's be honest! That said, any policy will allow exceptions.

Garden variety ssm parents are in no better shape, except they haven't the hurdle of apostasy to overcome before repenting and joining the Church. When their intent is not to support sealing for marriage and family as the Church teaches by their own actions, the Church cannot get involved: children have claim upon their parents first and foremost, and if their parents are on board with the Church, the Church can be on board with them. That said, any policy will allow exceptions.

Garden variety "traditional," unmarried cohabitating parents who are LDS are likely undergoing some sort of discipline that shows good faith in the direction the Church can sustain. They are "in Zion." The same with non-LDS parents, married or unmarried. They are not "in Zion" and not under the same requirements to prepare and maintain their children as those in Zion, and so their case requires some inspired judgement. In all these cases, the bishop will require the parents' permission to baptize, assuming he authorizes the baptism to take place upon his assessment of the Church's ability to sustain the parents in what they are doing in the home to prepare and maintain their children in these covenants.

Whether I simplified or broke it down further, I answered the question a number of times. Unless by the term "gay parents" you mean something that wasn't covered here.

Well this is just your theory which I think most would disagree with. Why can't apostates prepare and support their children in baptism. And why can't the church support such children. Home teachers,Sunday school teachers, priesthood leaders, bishoprics eats are not barred from entering a house where the parents are living in sin

Link to post
28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Which, again, is total renunciation of beliefs, plus a whole lot of other administrative hoops piled on  top of that. 

More accurately, “Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία (apostasia), "a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this is just your theory which I think most would disagree with. Why can't apostates prepare and support their children in baptism. And why can't the church support such children. Home teachers,Sunday school teachers, priesthood leaders, bishoprics eats are not barred from entering a house where the parents are living in sin

This is silly. Apostates are so far removed from Zion that no good-faith involvement with her exercise of the ordinance keys in meeting her ultimate aims is possible. Their ultimate aims on the subject of eternal sealing are not congruent.

Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

This is silly. Apostates are so far removed from Zion that no good-faith involvement with her exercise of the ordinance keys in meeting her ultimate aims is possible. Their ultimate aims on the subject of eternal sealing are not congruent.

 

Well actually it is not silly.  It is a serious question   Just because a gay couple chooses to marry does not mean they have no other redeeming qualities that would make them perfectly good parents in supporting their child's decision to baptize.  It would be exactly the same as any other unmarried couple.  The only difference is that while not married in the eyes of the church, they are married in the eyes of the law.  The church is able to provide strong support to both families.  

We are talking about a child's baptism here not sealing the parents together for eternity.  Don't you believe that God can work out the rest just like He promises to do for everyone else?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well actually it is not silly.  It is a serious question   Just because a gay couple chooses to marry does not mean they have no other redeeming qualities that would make them perfectly good parents in supporting their child's decision to baptize.  It would be exactly the same as any other unmarried couple.  The only difference is that while not married in the eyes of the church, they are married in the eyes of the law.  The church is able to provide strong support to both families.  

We are talking about a child's baptism here not sealing the parents together for eternity.  Don't you believe that God can work out the rest just like He promises to do for everyone else?

 

That whole post (which was a statement; there was no question in it!) is silly. But to answer your most recent question in your latest post: “Don't you believe that God can work out the rest just like He promises to do for everyone else?”

You can skip to the bottom but don’t expect me to repeat the first three paragraphs later!

I said before: “I believe apostates can reflect the light of Christ in many ways, but as I've addressed …a number of times already, in other ways apostates can be so far off base they cannot possibly maintain and prepare their children per the scriptural requirements in good faith. They may feel fine about saying they can, but it's still in bad faith.”

A person can reject a religious principle that is so fundamentally important to the religion that it constitutes abandonment of the religion. Rejection of the religious definition of marriage is an example. Rejection of the commandment to enter only the defined type of marriage is another. The Church cannot engage with the family in the abandonment of the religion.

Of course any family is welcome to attend, but that is the extent of involvement until the parents commit to make and keep the marriage covenant. Baptism is only the beginning. Apostasy on the point of marriage and sealing makes baptism and Church involvement in the family’s maintenance with the aim of marriage and sealing of zero use due to the conflicting goals of the family and the Church on this essential point.

God does work on these issues with the individuals involved in them by the light of Christ they possess and are willing to follow. It may take a while, and He doesn’t need the Church to do that, and the parties can certainly and ideally remain involved with each other on a social, non-covenant basis.

Link to post
18 hours ago, CV75 said:

I thought you were moving on! This is the Wikipedia definition of apostasy. I think it works, and that the Church applications (both doctrinal and administrative) parallel it. In my view, the LDS Church holds that ssm is an abandonment of the divinely established religious institution of marriage. Are some ssm couples engaged in apostasy unknowingly? Sure, and that can be addressed. Are LDS ssm couples engaged in apostasy unknowingly? I don't think so!

I just realized I missed the rest of your question: I can picture that there might be people that don’t fully appreciate their apostasy and want their children baptized in the Church. I can imagine there are others who appreciate it and are still comfortable with the inherent conflict. I think both the apostasy and the child baptism policies are for our day, and are needed to provide clarity and guidance as ssm becomes more socially acceptable.

I was. I forgot. Sorry.  ;)

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

That whole post (which was a statement; there was no question in it!) is silly. But to answer your most recent question in your latest post: “Don't you believe that God can work out the rest just like He promises to do for everyone else?”

 

You can skip to the bottom but don’t expect me to repeat the first three paragraphs later!

I wouldn't think of skipping any of your post.  The reason I asked the questions is not to push my idea of what is right and what is wrong, but to sincerely hear your ideas.  I want to know how you work all of these issues out and still maintain your point.  We obviously are not going to agree on this issue.  But that doesn't mean I don't want to hear what you have to say.  If anything, your position is more valid that mine ever will be.  I am not a member any longer, so what I think is pretty irrelevant.  So if you will indulge me just a little more I would love to keep getting clarification on you point of view.

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

I said before: “I believe apostates can reflect the light of Christ in many ways, but as I've addressed …a number of times already, in other ways apostates can be so far off base they cannot possibly maintain and prepare their children per the scriptural requirements in good faith. They may feel fine about saying they can, but it's still in bad faith.”

How are apostates so far off base?  Because they believe in gay marriage?  Because they believe the church is wrong in it's position?  How about members who share that belief?  Or is it simply that one act of deciding to marry that makes it impossible for them to prepare their children for baptism even when everything else in their life may very well align with the church?

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

A person can reject a religious principle that is so fundamentally important to the religion that it constitutes abandonment of the religion. Rejection of the religious definition of marriage is an example. Rejection of the commandment to enter only the defined type of marriage is another. The Church cannot engage with the family in the abandonment of the religion.

Well that perhaps is your answer.  It is just that one act of marriage that disqualifies them from being able to prepare their child for baptism.  It is kind of sounding like you place gay marriage above all other possible sins anyone could ever commit,  Is that how you view gay marriage?  That no matter what else this couple does, because of the decision to marry, they completely destroy the plan of salvation by that one single act?  Is that the importance you place on this issue?

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

Of course any family is welcome to attend, but that is the extent of involvement until the parents commit to make and keep the marriage covenant. Baptism is only the beginning. Apostasy on the point of marriage and sealing makes baptism and Church involvement in the family’s maintenance with the aim of marriage and sealing of zero use due to the conflicting goals of the family and the Church on this essential point.

Interesting position.  So having the gift of the Holy Ghost throughout those teen years is of no worth because the parents are married?  Baptism and having the Holy Ghost is of zero use because the parents are in a gay marriage?

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

God does work on these issues with the individuals involved in them by the light of Christ they possess and are willing to follow. It may take a while, and He doesn’t need the Church to do that, and the parties can certainly and ideally remain involved with each other on a social, non-covenant basis.

 

I really appreciate your patience with me.  I hope you don't just find my questions annoying.  It seems this issue requires a lot of nuances to understand how it is viewed by Mormons.  Do you think your views are in keeping with how the church looks at this issue, or are they just your ideas.  Certainly you have given this a great deal of thought.

Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

How are apostates so far off base?  Because they believe in gay marriage?  Because they believe the church is wrong in it's position?  How about members who share that belief?  Or is it simply that one act of deciding to marry that makes it impossible for them to prepare their children for baptism even when everything else in their life may very well align with the church?

The "off-baseness" is not only in rejecting a religious belief, but in acting on that rejection. To reject that marriage is only between a man and a woman is one thing, but then to marry a person of the same sex (in jurisdictions where it is permitted) constitutes apostasy.

In the LDS Church, apostasy is definitely about action, as used in the administrative manuals, where apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Are in a same-gender marriage.

5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

So the Church considers apostasy a very active state or condition. "When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy."

https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well that perhaps is your answer.  It is just that one act of marriage that disqualifies them from being able to prepare their child for baptism.  It is kind of sounding like you place gay marriage above all other possible sins anyone could ever commit,  Is that how you view gay marriage?  That no matter what else this couple does, because of the decision to marry, they completely destroy the plan of salvation by that one single act?  Is that the importance you place on this issue?

SSM is one of the few apostate things people can do to disqualify themselves from having the Church help them raise (prepare and maintain) their children, because they are not on the same page with the Church on the ultimate aim of the preparing and the maintaining. They are worse than not being on the same page; they are modeling a life that runs against the ultimate goal.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting position.  So having the gift of the Holy Ghost throughout those teen years is of no worth because the parents are married?  Baptism and having the Holy Ghost is of zero use because the parents are in a gay marriage?.

Parents maintain their children in spiritual things as they model and help them develop in the use of their baptismal covenants and the gift of the Holy Ghost. A child having baptismal covenants and the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the parents and the Church being on the same page for realizing their ultimate purpose is set up to fail. It is worse than not being on the same page; the parents are modeling a life that runs against their ultimate purpose. The devil wants us to be baptized and confirmed without a correct vision of where they lead and especially wants children to be raised from the start with that lack of vision.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I really appreciate your patience with me.  I hope you don't just find my questions annoying.  It seems this issue requires a lot of nuances to understand how it is viewed by Mormons.  Do you think your views are in keeping with how the church looks at this issue, or are they just your ideas.  Certainly you have given this a great deal of thought.

I think my views are in line with what Elder Christofferson explained from the start. I do think I’m over-explaining the ideas he shared in far simpler terms. His interview was not part of a detailed, probing discussion, as we are having.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 10/31/2016 at 0:32 PM, Daniel2 said:

I apologize if you feel that I have left any such posts intentionally unanswered... Although real life occasionally prevents me from checking in on a daily basis, I DO try to get back to the threads that I've participated in

I realize that real life is more important and that the last few weeks have been particularly eventful and crazy.  I was just wondering if you had noticed my Nov 3. responses to your points? 

 

Quote

 

1. I think it’s always helpful to clearly (albeit as simply as possible) articulate the point that any of us is trying to explore, defend, or advocate on behalf of.  I’m not sure that either of us has done so, which may be why I feel as though listing all the references you’ve provided hasn’t added clarity in my mind as to what you’re suggesting.  So, in the spirit of trying to be specific, I’ll try and add more relevance to my point, with an invitation for you to do likewise, so that we can then delve into the sources you listed to see how they relate to the point you’re attempting to make…

First, thanks for this real response.  I would love to have a more serious and productive dialogue.

I am mostly defending three ideas The first is that sexual orientation is a social construct.  Especially a view of sexual orientation that simply categorizes homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual.  The second is that gay, straight, and bi (as ways to self-identify) do not always match orientation.  The third is that where as sexual orientation is the least likely to change (fluidity), identity, behavior, and attractions are more fluid.  I note that I separate attraction from orientation not to pathologize or anything, but because orientation (to me) implies a long-lasting pattern of attraction that is different from the feelings of attraction I may feel in a particular moment or time in my life.   

 

2.  What I’ve asked for clarification on and references for is the suggestion that “recent research (after the passage of marriage equality) now indicates that sexual orientation is fluid,” at least, in so far as that phrase is intended to suggest or is proposed to mean that ‘now that marriage equality has been achieved, studies are now willing to admit that sexual orientation can change.’

I felt that the Bailey, Diamond, et al article (2016) that I quoted (and which you also stated you liked) was in some ways an admission, that some of the previous claims about the immutability or solely biological causes of sexual orientation were overplayed in an attempt to argue for rights which should not have to depend on anything other than human dignity.  Also, it is less common since 2015, that for example the psychology today articles are posted without numerous comments denying bisexuality.   The  Copen 2016 article is the clearest in showing that discrepancies exist in self-reported attractions and self-reported sexual identity.  And since that came out after June 2015 . . . . 

 

3.  In so doing, my use of the term ‘sexual orientation’ is the same as that contained in the “Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients” section of the Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in APA Guidelines and Policy Documents, which define sexual orientation this way:   Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum (e.g., Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolff, 1985; Shiveley & DeCecco, 1977) In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000).”

 

4.  You’ll note that the last sentence of the paragraph above acknowledges that “some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people,” and notes that that “may especially be true for women,” but the three references therein all pre-date marriage equality, and emphasize that such is especially true of women.

Yes, I acknowledge that is correct.  And the more recent research by Epstein shows that men are more fluid than previously thought too.  I acknowledge that there has been research prior to that.  I also noted that the definition I quoted from a 2015 APA guide acknowledged the possibility of fluidity, where as the one I had been working with previously (2009) did not.  Thank you for pointing out that they had added that as early as 2012.

 

5.  Based on my own personal experience and experiences in discussing sexual orientation with other men (straight, gay, and bisexual) and women across the spectrum of sexual orientation (both which obviously inform my own beliefs on the subject), I find it very true that women tend to be more sexually fluid than men, and that the category of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” tend to be more rigidly defined and unchangeable with regards to men rather than women.

I'm surprised to see you leave out "bisexual" as a category.  I understand fluidity to refer to changes in general patterns of attraction, not the capacity to be attracted to both sexes.

 

6.  I have said before that any given individual’s sexual behavior may or may not be an expression of any given individual’s innate sexual orientation. Individuals don’t always choose to engage in sexual activities to which they are inherently attracted to (celibacy is the most extreme example of this, but so is respectful modesty in any modern society… We almost take it for granted in modern society that no one is given free rein to go around and simply grab whomever they’re attracted to and force them to engage in sexual activities).  And sometimes individuals choose to engage in sexual behaviors to which they aren’t attracted to (these may range from mixed-orientation marriages due to religious convictions to heterosexual men engaging in homosexual behaviors due to being in populations where there’s a scarcity of the opposite sex).  Just because a man has had sex with a man doesn’t mean he’s gay, or even bisexual, depending on the circumstances.  And just because a man has sex with a woman doesn’t mean he’s straight, or even bisexual, depending on the circumstances.  Accordingly, sexual behavior isn’t always the determinative indicator of an individual’s sexual orientation.

 

We are totally on the same page!  My focus was less on the difference between orientation and behavior and more on the distinction between orientation and identity.  Which you address in a following comment.  Where I think we also agree.  

7.  Some of your sources speak of the fluidity of sexual orientation in terms of a different set of ranges of other physical characteristics—aside from and unrelated to gender—to which individuals may be attracted (age, race, body type/size, eye color, muscle mass, hair/body hair, individual looks/characteristics, etc.)  While these other types of physical characteristics that vary from person to person and even culture to culture may change over time, they’re really beyond the scope of what I’m focused on and concerned about, which is sexual orientation as it relates to gender.  That goes back to the definition of sexual orientation I referenced in the “Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients” that “Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals).”  In other words, what I’m saying is that any of your references that speak of the fluidity of sexual orientation in terms of characteristics other than gender really aren’t related to the point I’m trying to discuss. 

I agree. The way I posted that with an exclamation mark and then said "but seriously"  was meant to imply some humor.  I think that article does do a good job not of disproving sexual orientation or anything, but of helping expand our view of sexuality in general.  There are certainly some differences between gender and other characteristics, but I think it is valid to ask why sex/gender gets it's own ticket as an innate immutable orientation while age, race, and other characteristics are seen as different.  Maybe there is some research to show that there is a qualitative difference.  I have never seen that.  And in fact, his research suggest that there may be less than we want to think.  In fact he argues that these other characteristics are not really that fluid either.  The biggest take away for me is that if this is some of the most recent research into sexuality, maybe we don't understand sexual orientation quite as much as we think we do, simply prompting some openness rather than claiming that the science is settled.  

 

8.  I also want to make one thing clear (and I’m speaking generally to here, not just to you, Kllindley): I believe it’s NEVER helpful to try to misrepresent the views of those who may hold different opinions than myself, nor to attempt to personally attack anyone as a means of ending dialogue.  I believe it’s always in the best interests of having informed and productive discussion to strive to understand and accurately respond to the actual points of one’s “opponent” (although I use that term without mal intent, despite its oppositional implication).

I also agree.  I hope I have not acted in poor faith in this regards.  I apologize and will accept correction if you feel I have.  

 

So, Kllindley… with all of the above in mind, as I’ve browsed through your list sources…  Is there any aspect of what I’ve said about my approach that you’d like to discuss in a more focused fashion, either as it relates to one/some of your sources? 

I think that much of what you have written in response to others later in the thread resolves much of our potential disagreement.  I really do support anyone identifying as gay or lesbian and think that should be respected.  There is unfortunately a lack of popular language to distinguish between a gay (maintaining gospel standards) individual and a gay (in or pursuing same-sex relationship) individual.  There is also unfortunately a lack of good language to describe bisexual people in general as there are so many different "flavors" of bisexuality. Heterosexually coupled monogamous, heterosexually coupled open, homosexually coupled monogamous, homosexually coupled open, homoerotic-heteroromantic, heteroerotic-homoromantic, and on and on and on.  Most bi men in relationships with men are assumed to be gay.  Most bi men with women are assumed to be straight.  

Is there a way we can identify someone as gay without assuming one way or another what their relational behavior is?  Is there a way we can refer to non-heterosexual people, without assuming they are gay and erasing the possibility of bisexuality?  

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I realize that real life is more important and that the last few weeks have been particularly eventful and crazy.  I was just wondering if you had noticed my Nov 3. responses to your points? 

 

 

I have, thanks!  It's a lengthier post, and I really appreciated what you wrote.  It sounded to me that much of what we had discussed was resolved by subsequent posts I'de made, but I will write a more comprehensive response when I get a bit more time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, kllindley said:

I realize that real life is more important and that the last few weeks have been particularly eventful and crazy.  I was just wondering if you had noticed my Nov 3. responses to your points? 

 

I think it may be easier to take your responses in smaller bytes, so here’s the first:

 

I am mostly defending three ideas The first is that sexual orientation is a social construct.  Especially a view of sexual orientation that simply categorizes homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual.  The second is that gay, straight, and bi (as ways to self-identify) do not always match orientation.  The third is that where as sexual orientation is the least likely to change (fluidity), identity, behavior, and attractions are more fluid.  I note that I separate attraction from orientation not to pathologize or anything, but because orientation (to me) implies a long-lasting pattern of attraction that is different from the feelings of attraction I may feel in a particular moment or time in my life. 
 
OK.  I would say that the concept of “sexual orientation” is a relatively new (given the course of written human history) term which, depending on the context in which it’s used, could be viewed from either a social or a scientific standpoint.
 
As I see it, the term “sexual orientation” was coined when scientific and medical knowledge advanced to the point of understanding and identifying the reality that people’s sexual identity and behavior are usually functions or drives of their “sexual orientation.” When considering attractions based on ‘sex’ (and by ‘sex’ I agree with and use the APA’s definition, “a person’s biological status, which is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex (including gonads, internal reproductive organs, and external genitalia).”
 
Therefore, when speaking of a person’s “sexual orientation” insofar as “sex” is concerned, when I use it, I am referring to “the
sex(es) of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted.”
 
Further, I agree with the APA’s further clarification that, “Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one’s own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum.
 
In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women.”
 
With the above in mind, I guess I’m not sure what you mean by saying that “sexual orientation is a social construct.”
 
Given that I believe “sexual orientation” can accurately and appropriately be used in discussing psychological and even physiological aspects of a person (including innate drives, internal or external identity classifications, personal characteristics, and/or personality traits), perhaps it would help if I were to understand how you define what you mean when you say “social construct”…?
 
Edited by Daniel2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

I recently shared the following post on my social media feed.  The TED Talk I referenced seems applicable, in this thread:

It’s clearly no secret to many of you who are my friends and family that I am gay and happily married to an incredible husband. 

 

Occasionally, I post something that’s ‘gay-related,’ but I usually try to focus on bridge-building efforts to expand understanding of and respect for one another, rather than exploitive or divisive actions that increase tensions or hostility from any side/s of this issue.  I clearly understand that homosexuality is a controversial topic, especially within the deeply-felt, and honestly-sincere religious community in which I was raised.  If recent years indicate anything, it’s that homosexuality continues to be controversial and, in my mind, misunderstood.  I dearly love and appreciate my LDS family and friends.  Unfortunately, the gender of my spouse, our atypical sexuality, and the nature of our relationship continues to challenge and cause distance within some of my most cherished relationships. 

 

So, with all of the above in mind, I hope those of you that have made it this far will take 12 minutes to listen to the following TED talk by one Dr. James O’Keefe.

 

 

 

I found it to be an insightful and illuminating examination of the medical science that drives the epigenetic expression of homosexuality, as well as the evolutionary advantages driving the homosexual adaptation relating to kin selection.  WELL worth the 12 minute investment if you have a gay loved one and are searching for answers about the nature, causes, and purpose behind why homosexuality has endured through the ages. 

 

A few of my favorite highlights, especially as they relate to my own life, especially in speaking as the youngest son in a family of five boys:

 

 

Quote

“Diversity is nature’s secret weapon.  If all males were gay, that’d be a problem.  But if all males were warriors, we’d always be at war…  The recipe for a successful human culture is a synergy of many different ingredients.  Homosexuality is like a catalyst to help emotionally connect groups of people together.  For heterosexuals to disapprove of gays is kind of like the white flour in bread disapproving of the yeast…

 

“If your genome is your hardware, epigenetics is your software.  You have many different DNA programs downloaded on your DNA, and epigenetics chooses from among these to determine which version of you is the best version for the current environment… In this way, the dynamic power of epigenetics changes the genetic expression of so that we’re born with traits that allow us and our family to best succeed in the current conditions.  So, you probably have gay genes in your DNA, but unless they were turned on in your mother’s womb, they remain coiled up and silent.  A recent ground-breaking study from UCLA found that by looking at a group of men, some gay and some straight, and by looking at epigenetic tags in nine different sites, they could predict with 70% accuracy their sexual orientation.

 

“So, what conditions in the uterus, turn on those gay genes?  For a male, your chances of homosexuality increase in proportion to the number of previous baby boys who inhabited your mother’s uterus.  So, for every biological brother born that you have, your chances of being born gay go up 33%.  Long before we invented the pill, nature devised homosexuality as a prescription for birth control.  After four straight (heterosexual) males, nature says, ‘enough already,’ and the mom’s immune system switches on the epigenetic switch so a gay male is born into the family.  This one will not be overburdening the family with yet more mouths to feed in the next generation (sometimes more isn’t better).  And he’s not going to be killing his brother in a fight over who gets the girl."

 

Many countries, organizations, and people assert that “Homosexuality is ‘against the order of nature.’  Except that it’s not.  Nature proscribes homosexuality at specific times and places, and endows these people with special traits to help the people around them to flourish.  What is against the order of nature is the ongoing persecution of the sexual minority.  These are not confused or defective people that need to be cured or punished or ostracized… They need to be accepted for who they are and embraced--THEY make US better. 

 

“If you’d have told me 30 years ago as I held my baby boy that he would grow up to be gay, I would have been devastated.  But looking back, I see mother nature knew what she was doing.  Her clairvoyant intelligence, forged during eons of evolution, instinctively knew my family would need the advantages of a gay son.  Now, admittedly the science of homosexuality is still in it’s infancy, but as his father, what I can tell you for sure is that Jimmy is exactly who he was meant to be, and my family is stronger and happier because he’s in our clan. 

 

"How about you?  Can you set sex aside, and realize that gay men and gay women are essential to humanity… ? It’s in our diversity that we find our collective strength.  Thank you.”

 

 

Edited by Daniel2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
56 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I recently shared the following post on my social media feed.  The TED Talk I referenced seems applicable, in this thread:

It’s clearly no secret to many of you who are my friends and family that I am gay and happily married to an incredible husband. 

 

Occasionally, I post something that’s ‘gay-related,’ but I usually try to focus on bridge-building efforts to expand understanding and respect for one another, rather than exploitive or divisive actions that increase tensions or hostility from any side/s of this issue.  I clearly understand that homosexuality is a controversial topic, especially within the deeply-felt, and honestly-sincere religious community in which I was raised.  If recent years indicate anything, it’s that homosexuality continues to be controversial and, in my mind, misunderstood.  I dearly love and appreciate my LDS family and friends.  Unfortunately, my sexuality and relationship continues to challenge and cause distance within some of my most cherished relationships. 

 

So, with all of the above in mind, I hope those of you that have made it this far will take 12 minutes to listen to the following TED talk by one Dr. James O’Keefe.

 

 

 

I found it to be an insightful and illuminating examination of the medical science that drives the epigenetic expression of homosexuality, as well as the evolutionary advantages driving the homosexual adaptation relating to kin selection.  WELL worth the 12 minute investment if you have a gay loved one and are searching for answers about the nature, causes, and purpose behind why homosexuality has endured through the ages. 

 

A few of my favorite highlights, especially as they relate to my own life, especially in speaking as the youngest son in a family of five boys:

 

 

Back in 2010 BYU biology profession, Dr. Bradshaw, gave a lecture at BYU on homosexuality that touched on this same idea.  For those interested, the lecture can be heard here:  http://mormonstories.wpengine.com/?p=1158

Thanks for posting this TED talk!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 0:14 PM, kllindley said:

Is there a way we can identify someone as gay without assuming one way or another what their relational behavior is?

In my experience, members of religions that believe that homosexual relationships are immoral are more concerned with the use of 'gay' or 'bisexual' as a term that implies actively pursuing same-sex romantic and/or sexual behaviors than people or groups that aren't members of such Faiths.

To say it another way: I think most Latter-day Saints add additional meaning to the term 'gay' than most people don't; LDS often presume that an individual is sexually active if said individual self-identifies as 'gay.'  Conversely, most non-LDS people I know don't automatically presume that people who self-identify as 'gay' are out dating and being sexually active.

In answer to your question, then, of "Is there a way we can identify someone as gay without assuming one way or the other what their relational behavior is?" I would respond by saying: I am skeptical that any one (or two or three or any specific number...) of us will ever find a universal solution that will work for EVERYONE in terms of how to appropriately refer to other people... BUT, there's a silver lining in that, because I think there doesn't need to be a universal answer, because, as I think these threads illustrate, different people are more comfortable with different labels or terms.  In other words, I think education and ongoing discussions such as these ARE the answer.  The more all of us become better acquainted with one another's beliefs and terminology we use, he more we will better understand (and hopefully better respect) one another. 

As for how we can avoid making assumptions about others based on the labels they use, I don't know that I could say it better than President Uchtdorf:

 

Is there a way we can refer to non-heterosexual people, without assuming they are gay and erasing the possibility of bisexuality?  

Absolutely.  We can respect their own self-designation by referring to them as they refer to themselves.  If they say they're bisexual, call them bisexual.  If they say they have same-sex attraction, refer to them as having same-sex attraction.  When discussing such issues with such individuals, and you'd like further clarification about the extent of their attractions and whether they experience more or less attractions to their same or the opposite gender, and if the groundwork within our relationship with said individuals is established enough so as avoiding offense, then ASK them.  Don't assume.  Don't judge.  As Uchtdorf said, simply stop pre-judging others.  Honor and respect their personal autonomy by asking for further clarification, if you want to know and understand one another more.  By the way, I think the church's newly updated website does a good job of doing the very thing that I've discussed in this paragraph.

Does it need to be more difficult or complicated that that...?

 

 

 

Edited by Daniel2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Back in 2010 BYU biology profession, Dr. Bradshaw, gave a lecture at BYU on homosexuality that touched on this same idea.  For those interested, the lecture can be heard here:  http://mormonstories.wpengine.com/?p=1158

Thanks for posting this TED talk!

Thanks for the link to one of his original lectures... I have seen a few of his presentations, and I find them valuable and convincing, though I know that others don't find them as compelling and feel Bradshaw misrepresents his evidence.

I am impressed with O'Keefe's talk in that he shares some knew evidence that has come out since Bradshaw's lectures.  And as he says, the science of homosexuality is still in it's infancy, so undoubtedly there will continue to be ongoing research and new revelations regarding it's origins, causes, and social benefits.

What makes me sad is that Mormonism thus far struggles with seeing the value that a diversity of sexuality could represent, so far as homosexuality is concerned.  I think currently, Mormonism is so focused on the eventual perfection and deification (and thereby omnipotence) of a united opposite-sex couple that most members can't conceptualize kingdoms of glory where different people could serve different purposes.  Mormonism presumes there is only ONE purpose... and, like most cultures that presume that God is a reflection of their own image (or vice versa), Mormonism presumes that perfection and exaltation MUST be heterosexual, in substance and by its' very nature. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 0:14 PM, kllindley said:

I think it is valid to ask why sex/gender gets it's own ticket as an innate immutable orientation while age, race, and other characteristics are seen as different.  Maybe there is some research to show that there is a qualitative difference.  I have never seen that.  And in fact, his research suggest that there may be less than we want to think.  In fact he argues that these other characteristics are not really that fluid either.  The biggest take away for me is that if this is some of the most recent research into sexuality, maybe we don't understand sexual orientation quite as much as we think we do, simply prompting some openness rather than claiming that the science is settled.  

I'm not sure I would agree that orientation based on gender "gets it's own ticket as an immutable orientation while age, race, and other characteristics are seen a different," but I understand why you may feel it has.

I think the reason that social issues in terms of same-sex marriage and LGBT discrimination have, in recent years, focused more on sexual orientation based on gender is because legal questions of equal protection and anti-discrimination as related to the other physical characteristics have already been settled by law.  Loving vs. Virginia and the Civil Rights movement, for example, already challenged and addressed legalized anti-interracial discrimination, which settles attractions based on racial characteristics.  Legal recognition of and protections according to the age of legal consent already address, restrict, and protect attractions based on age (including limiting pedophile's access to children, while allowing consenting adults of any ages to choose to live however they so choose, regardless of intergenerational age differences within marriages). 

As for the other physical characteristics mentioned, I'm unaware of any of them coming into play so far as social restrictions are concerned (for example, no one restricts civil marriage based on body type, eye color, amputee-ism, etc).  Given their general lack of restrictions and therefore controversy in public (or even religious) circles, as well as having little-to-no concern as a source of threatening or victimizing pathologies, I think it's understandable they haven't been a focus of much medical or psychological attention.  If they ever do, I imagine that science will likely turn it's attention to them to try to better understand them and add to the social and legal dialogue, as well.

Be that as it may, as I said earlier, protecting freedoms based on personal autonomy and choice (i.e. choice of religious affiliation, where to live, one's occupation, or whom to marry) is just as important as protecting freedom based on immutable characteristics (i.e. freedoms tied to race, gender, physical ability, etc).  Civil rights aren't and shouldn't always be dependent on immutable characteristics, regardless.

At the end of the day, regardless of scientific trends, when it comes to making informed personal choices, I believe that each of us can (and should) only presume to be able to fully understand and be 'experts' on our own personal abilities or limitations.  In other words, just because someone else ISN'T fluid, doesn't mean that I CAN'T be... And just because someone else IS fluid, doesn't mean I COULD be, too.  In sum, we each discover our own truths with regards to what's personally possible and what's not, and we make the best decisions on how to live our lives based on the answers we learn for ourselves.

Or, as Reinhold Niebuhr put it far more succinctly, it's up to each one of us to discover and "accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to post
  • 3 months later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Daniel2
      While it’s content offers little or nothing that will strike most here as anything new, it’s worth noting anything like this that appears in the mainstream media.... I imagine it’s content WILL be new(s) to many of its non-LDS viewers, so it’s worth taking note if nothing else to stay informed as to what members of other Faiths (or of no Faith at all) are hearing about Mormonism. 
       
    • By Daniel2
      In the video above, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince.  He's introduced here:


    • By Maidservant
      Elder Quentin L. Cook opens Black Church Leadership Summit
      Mormon Newsroom YouTube bit
      Transcript of Elder Cook's remarks
      Highlights for me:  Mentions meeting Bernice King while (both) attending the Pope (sweet); affirming LGBT rights in the society (nice); that (unlike many churches of the day) blacks (the few) and whites worshiped together in the same early Mormon Church (let's not forget that; beautiful); 'battle' and 'attack' imagery (I really challenge that, not how I see the world, but I find it fascinating that our religious, in fact human, struggle continues to be encapsulized that way); his challenge to the challenge to the colonial narrative (cool, it's time; although let's not overdo it, colonial narrative, not to mention colonialism, is alive and well and still doing damage); continued affirmation of the Church's very specific stance on religious freedom (what it means and what it looks like) (ok); reiterating the Church's persecution foundation (what?! sigh; let's DO forget that).
      And this spectacular quote from the Prophet Joseph.
      ///A few months before he was killed by a mob in 1844, our prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that moral agency was essential for each individual: “God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood.” ///
      My hero.  (The Prophet, not Elder Cook )
      Lots more in the talk . . .
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.
      A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.
      I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.
      http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831
    • By EntropyJustKillUsNow
      I was really questioning something... Is the Mormon Church really supporting the LGBT?? The gays and lesbians aren't going to stay married or still be "in love" in the afterlife. You guys know this, right? I'm guessing this is just a way to attract more members, and it's a pretty effective way to do it. But please, we aren't seriously condoning this, are we? Must I remind you people the deadly disease epidemic these people have brought on themselves, and many other innocent individuals? Not to mention that at least a 1/3rd of the people who are gay or lesbian are only that way because of traumatic experiences of sexual abuse, which alters people's minds and bodies in extremely dysfunctional ways, including sexual confusion. The other 2/3rds is composed of people who are just born that way. So we are supporting the biproduct of sexual abuse and mental illness, we are supporting the abominable results of sexually transmitted diseases that come with it, and now the foundation of our church is finally hanging by a thread, JUST like our own prophecy said!! This is what I hate about entropy...
×
×
  • Create New...