One woman speaker

[BlueDreams]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Be tired all you like but they do apply.

During the same time as the ban the church taught that interracial marriage was a sin. Now it's not. Did they change the law of God to be more inclusive or did they repent of the racist ideas of their time and culture? Interracial couples had the choice whether or not to act on their love and marry. Following your logic God would not have changed to include them and they could have simply chosen to follow the laws of men that were presented as the laws of God.

So a gay person can choose not to act on the attraction and remain alone for their entire life and possibly eternity (depending on which LDS person you're talking to) yet we know that it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone. So what is one to do? Be eternally miserable or agree to partake of the fruit and live the law of chastity within a monogamous loving relationship? The behavior argument is just as tired to me as the gay comparison is to you. Either every individual has the ability to live by the same law (chastity as defined for boy gay and straight) and have the same access to a happy life, or God turns out to be a bit of a jerk. Some people like a jerky God but I'm not one of those people.

When the church is wrong, like it was with blacks regarding temple, priesthood, interracial marriage etc, it should repent. The same goes for when they are wrong about gays and promote policies of double standards and exclusion. The church should repent.

 

I know I'm entering at what will probably be near the end of the thread. But, as usual, I fall somewhere  in the middle. I DO think there are some comparable points. Mainly that the three are dealing with issues with what are considered minorities (women, in terms of power dynamics, not numbers) that are/were marginalized, histories are complicated, etc. 

But there are also big differences between them when it comes to the church and even in society at large. Both in concerns that need to be addressed, what addressing those concerns may look like, historical context, etc. 

Let's take race, since that's appropriated for both other causes as the historical equivalent. Interracial marriage as a sin is tied to 2 different things IMO, the policy and the cultural relevance. Even after the policy it was considered "sound advice" to be hesitant about interracial dating/marriage. And it's still there. Not just in our culture, but at society at large. Funny fact, I'm currently on a dating app. Getting older and I like men that are the same age or older than me and LDS. That means LDS dating app to find them. There's a peculiar common pattern I'm finding as I swipe up or down. With almost all the minorities that I swipe up with it'll come back as a mutual interest. Doesn't matter what sort of minority....all of them. With the white guys....not so much. I still have plenty that I match with... I'm talking with one right now as I delay breakfast to type this for some dumb reason. But at the same time  I'm also chatting and coordinated with 2-3 other guys who are definitely minorities of some sort. In a UT population. And before someone points out how that must indicate some LDS phenomenon. It doesn't. They've done surveys (See here). Ironically I have bit of a leg up. We still have a serious preference and hierarchy based of race when it comes to partnering up. The other is LDS specific. Interracial dating was a sin in a similar way drinking beer is. In that at first it was frowned on, but happened. Then became tightly enforced as it became policy and would mean the white person entering the marriage would have children barred from all priesthood functions. This wasn't the case for other form of white-minority or minority-minority mixes. Like caffeine, they could happen, but there were often cultural and social rules that kept that in check. In short, what made it a sin was the covenants made, not the actual structure. And there were examples to prove it.

That's not the case in SSM. It's a huge structural shift that's simply unprecedented in both scripture, our history, most any history, etc. And it flies in the face of some basic LDS tenets about gender essentialism. So though B/W interracial marriages and SSM have some similarities (social discomforts and policy against such) the details are quite different. 

Likewise, though it both ties in with marginalized peoples, there's still a difference. No matter how good you were, how closely you followed the tenets laid out. You were barred from the priesthood if you were black or part black. It was unilateral with only a few exceptions ever in its history. With gay members, however strict it may be or sometimes unlikely, there IS a course to take hold of all priesthood functions and blessings. Likewise for women. Ordination are out, but all ordinances and access to priesthood power and authority within their stewardship isn't. These differences don't just matter, but I find it irritating to draw wholesale comparisons. It's like pointing to the people who got crumbs off the floor from the church feast when arguing about why the people at the table should get a bigger portion of the meal when others at the table are. Is there unfairness and injustice for the people at the table? Yes. Is it the same? No. And for some black people, particularly if they're not sold on the specific brand of feminism or gay rights activism, are going to find it insulting for their heritage to be used as a platform for more privileged people. KK had to deal with the blowback of a whitecentric feminist movement through FB. I had mutual friends and watched the smack down. It wasn't pretty. So it wasn't too much of a surprise when I found her later at a conference called black, white, and Mormon. 

Pluse when these merge, one can become over-dominating. For example. I find it really ironic that a thread on not enough women talks has now dove-tailed into a thread about LGBT experience. Really ironic.

 For the line in blue: well if that's the definition I have no problem saying God is a jerk. I don't think he actually is. But you're definition includes having the same access to a happy life. Not even in my own, relatively privileged life is that true. From circumstances I had no say in, I got a family that entailed serious dysfunction that took 4 sets of therapists and Jesus to work through. I was angry, then sad, then stoic and masked, then what I call bone-deep tired much of my teens/tweens. When I left and before my mission I would call myself emotionally covered in invisible scars. I grew up faster than most because I had to. I did not have the same access to a happy childhood. But is nowhere as bad as some others that leave even longer scars to work through. I live every day feeling an immense sense of privilege that I live happy, because I realized fairly early on that happy is not a demonstrative right given. So when I read the scriptures I don't see ANY proof for this definition you've given me. What likelihood did Moroni have for a happy life when all his community, family, and friends were dead? I read his last chapters and hear the edges of PTSD and depression. I have a God who promises to avenge the martyr and wipe away all tears. Not the One who spares people from tears, loneliness, injustice, or wrongful death in this life. And I have a life that so far has taught me that true peace is not something I get from circumstance. The peace of God I have had has come from my pain, through my pain, and sometimes inspite of my pain. And because of that I find myself having a strange gratitude for my pain because it has be the anvil that has been used to forge my soul and show my Christ. It is in my deepest pains that I have had my brightest moments with God. Where I've truly learned. 

I'm not saying this to say that my pains are in someway comparable to an LGB person's. I'm not into the pain-olympics and I recognize that I have privileges afforded me that others don't. Like getting to use a dating app with the gender of my preference. But for pete's sake oversimplifying a message and the issue at hand. Isn't really going to help either. I don't know what the future will look like in this area. I don't pretend to. If I had to take a shot in the dark I assume it will be more gentle then some of the hard-line positions I've seen here over the years....but probably with more boundaries and limitations than the most progressive voices here have. But that just shows my bias of being someone who often sees merit and problems in rigid positions, whatever the end they originate from. 

 

Now, breakfast. 

With luv,

BD

Edited April 8, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Storm Rider]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you referring to slavery which was accepted in the Bible, great philosophers and  throughout religion for thousands of years until just the last 100 years?  Or are you referring to women being the property of their husbands and should not be allowed to have a voice especially in church?  That is the God you worship?  That is the never changing God you think society has destroyed?  Because that was agreed to, throughout the Bible, the Catholic church and great philosophers for centuries.  So your outrage is not that only one woman spoke in Conference, but rather that ANY woman was allowed to speak in Conference.

Wow.  God's will should be reinstituted.  We have strayed so far.  i can see your reason for your outrage.  I am a bit confused though.  You also mentioned something I am interested in hearing.  You mentioned how active God was in the lives of holy men and women since time began.  Can you tell me where I can find the record of the  thousands of holy women since time began?  Because I only know of a handful ever mentioned in all of the thousands of years recorded in scripture. 

We can start another thread on the homosexual topic, which goes on ad nauseum, but I will address the women issue.

1. Stick to reality - I never said I was outraged.  It is good spin to cast others in a negative light, but on this Forum it won't work.
2. Stick to reality - I have no opinion on the fact that one woman spoke in the most recent General Conference or if fifteen women would have spoken.  More importantly, I never said otherwise.
3. I can go on for several more things that I never said that you wrote that I said - you are wrong on everyone of them and I never said it.
4. To address the holy women topic - Why would you or anyone else limit history's participation by holy women by presenting just the Bible.  How many Catholic women Saints would you like me to list?  How many church women would you like me to list?  How many non-Christian women should I list.  Joseph and Brigham both strongly encouraged every member to seek truth everywhere.  Stop projecting such a narrow perspective while pretending to Liberal - neither of you are. You both have an agenda and you both only seek facts that support your personal agenda and reject everything else.  That behavior is neither liberal or open-minded.  

[Storm Rider]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't presume to know the answers to other peoples prayers.  I also don't know where they are in their dealing with being gay or these other issues we have been talking about.  I knew I was gay since I was 12 years old.  Yet I served a mission, taught seminary, served in a bishopric, was on the high counsel, YM president.  All the time I wrestled with this issue.  I was so unhappy and trusted no one until I started trusting God and the feelings I had of the course I should take.  Just because someone is in the church does not mean that they are at peace with this issue or any of the other issues we have talked about in this thread.  What we do know is that the majority of gay members eventually leave the church.  What I know is that this policy is not drawing people closer to God.  

Cal, we have had good discussions and poor discussions on this topic; there are many areas where we agree and others where we disagree.  Regardless, one area that we can agree upon is that I believe that you are happier living as a gay man rather than anything else.  More importantly, that this choice led you out of the Church of Jesus Christ.  In your current relationship you feel at peace and close to God.  I can understand each of these points and accept them as being real and valid.

Several years ago I met a few LDS individuals who left the church and became Roman Catholic.  They also felt at peace in their lifestyle and in the choice they had to leave the Church.  I have met other individuals who have left the Church and have not affiliated with any other church and they also tell me they are at peace with their choice.

I reconcile such positions and choices with the simple teaching of scripture that truth is found in all places.  I also believe that we each are strongly attracted to the level of commitment, or glory, in living God's teachings and following his commandments.  Said another way, in that we are all sinners we are attracted or drawn to the place where we feel most comfortable.  Those places all have varying degrees of obedience and commitment.  I would caution anyone to automatically assume that because another's path is not within the Church of Jesus Christ that it is necessarily and less righteous or difficult path.  I strongly suspect that some degrees of commitment are more holy, not because of the place, but because of the individual's choice to follow, to be obedient to God's will.  

Just because an individual admits, "I am a sinner and I accept I will never overcome some of my sins" or, even more importantly, they they think that some of their actions are not sinful and still desire to serve God, I believe that God continues to work in their lives and uses them to accomplish his will.  

I believe that some will never be led to join the Church in this life; that God is fully content in working with individuals wherever they are regardless of their church affiliation or even religious affiliation.  Truth is not relative and never has been, but God obviously works with all people throughout the world.  

I think the fact that God has a plan of salvation that will enable all to come unto him, to live in his presence is one of the great teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.  At some point there is a joining of the path, a unity of the faith.  I do not think this life is meant for that, but it will certainly happen before the judgment for those who will enter God's presence.  For almost everyone else they will enter into the glory wherein they find their home - it is comfortable and reflective of their choices. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We can start another thread on the homosexual topic, which goes on ad nauseum, but I will address the women issue.

1. Stick to reality - I never said I was outraged.  It is good spin to cast others in a negative light, but on this Forum it won't work.
2. Stick to reality - I have no opinion on the fact that one woman spoke in the most recent General Conference or if fifteen women would have spoken.  More importantly, I never said otherwise.
3. I can go on for several more things that I never said that you wrote that I said - you are wrong on everyone of them and I never said it.
4. To address the holy women topic - Why would you or anyone else limit history's participation by holy women by presenting just the Bible.  How many Catholic women Saints would you like me to list?  How many church women would you like me to list?  How many non-Christian women should I list.  Joseph and Brigham both strongly encouraged every member to seek truth everywhere.  Stop projecting such a narrow perspective while pretending to Liberal - neither of you are. You both have an agenda and you both only seek facts that support your personal agenda and reject everything else.  That behavior is neither liberal or open-minded.  

My point is, women have always been marginalized by both religion and society.  It is a principle taught both in scripture from the beginning of time and by society.  Are you really going to make a case that women have always, throughout history, been treated with equality?  

And my second point is, slavery has always been practiced throughout history as well and accepted by both society and taught in religion as being acceptable.until just the last 100 years.  The Bible even gives guidelines on how owners are suppose to treat their slaves and how slaves are suppose to be subject to their masters.  Are you going to dispute that?  All those hundreds of years, actually thousands of years, because they accepted slavery, then it must be a true principle?  Where did society and religion go wrong in abolishing slavery in just over 100 years ago?  A history of injustice and error does not make something true and the will of God.

Do you still stand by this statement that I was replying to?

Quote

When I look at every prophet of God from the beginning telling me a very similar message; when I can read the writings of the early Church Fathers of the Catholic tradition; when I can read the great philosophers and they each and every one condemn a behavior as sinful and against God's plan then I can see no reason whatsoever to think that all of the sudden God woke up and began telling his children something totally, completely different

Perhaps every prophet of God from the beginning, early church fathers of the Catholic tradition and great philosophers have not always got the will of God correct.  You are a reasonable guy.  Can you see that just because something has been believed to be the will of God for centuries, that perhaps it was not?

Edited April 8, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, we have had good discussions and poor discussions on this topic; there are many areas where we agree and others where we disagree.  Regardless, one area that we can agree upon is that I believe that you are happier living as a gay man rather than anything else.  More importantly, that this choice led you out of the Church of Jesus Christ.  In your current relationship you feel at peace and close to God.  I can understand each of these points and accept them as being real and valid.

Several years ago I met a few LDS individuals who left the church and became Roman Catholic.  They also felt at peace in their lifestyle and in the choice they had to leave the Church.  I have met other individuals who have left the Church and have not affiliated with any other church and they also tell me they are at peace with their choice.

I reconcile such positions and choices with the simple teaching of scripture that truth is found in all places.  I also believe that we each are strongly attracted to the level of commitment, or glory, in living God's teachings and following his commandments.  Said another way, in that we are all sinners we are attracted or drawn to the place where we feel most comfortable.  Those places all have varying degrees of obedience and commitment.  I would caution anyone to automatically assume that because another's path is not within the Church of Jesus Christ that it is necessarily and less righteous or difficult path.  I strongly suspect that some degrees of commitment are more holy, not because of the place, but because of the individual's choice to follow, to be obedient to God's will.  

Just because an individual admits, "I am a sinner and I accept I will never overcome some of my sins" or, even more importantly, they they think that some of their actions are not sinful and still desire to serve God, I believe that God continues to work in their lives and uses them to accomplish his will.  

I believe that some will never be led to join the Church in this life; that God is fully content in working with individuals wherever they are regardless of their church affiliation or even religious affiliation.  Truth is not relative and never has been, but God obviously works with all people throughout the world.  

I think the fact that God has a plan of salvation that will enable all to come unto him, to live in his presence is one of the great teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ.  At some point there is a joining of the path, a unity of the faith.  I do not think this life is meant for that, but it will certainly happen before the judgment for those who will enter God's presence.  For almost everyone else they will enter into the glory wherein they find their home - it is comfortable and reflective of their choices. 

I have come to the very same conclusion.  I haven't worried about whether someone else if following the same path as me towards God for a long time.  

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

My point is, women have always been marginalized by both religion and society.  It is a principle taught both in scripture from the beginning of time and by society.  Are you really going to make a case that women have always, throughout history, been treated with equality?  

And my second point is, slavery has always been practiced throughout history as well and accepted by both society and taught in religion as being acceptable.until just the last 100 years.  The Bible even gives guidelines on how owners are suppose to treat their slaves and how slaves are suppose to be subject to their masters.  Are you going to dispute that?  All those hundreds of years, actually thousands of years, because they accepted slavery, then it must be a true principle?  Where did society and religion go wrong in abolishing slavery in just over 100 years ago?  A history of injustice and error does not make something true and the will of God.

Do you still stand by this statement that I was replying to?

Perhaps every prophet of God from the beginning, early church fathers of the Catholic tradition and great philosophers have not always got the will of God correct.  You are a reasonable guy.  Can you see that just because something has been believed to be the will of God for centuries, that perhaps it was not?

I reject the idea that women have been marginalized - marginalized according to whose standard?  Why is the new standard superior?  What is the cost of this new standard that dictates an individual is marginalized IF they don't meet this new set of standards? 

The concept of equality is a relative term and extremely subjective - equal in what way?  Why?  If the human family's very existence - its ability to reproduce itself - demands a family unit, then what is the value of a mother?  What is the value of a father?  What roles should a father have?  What roles should a mother have?  At what point does society cast those aside and condemn all that has gone before because now we are supposedly progressive. In this enlighted state a part of society has concluded a woman, in order to be "equal", must denigrate the role of motherhood and reach nirvana outside the home and only outside the home.  More to the point, they must be in power.  

If you are asking me if individuals have been equal - regardless of gender, I would unequivocally answer no, they have not.  My family, for the most part, have been farmers for hundreds and hundreds of years.  Are farmers equal to others?  Define that equality.  Is a serf equal to a lord or a member of the aristocracy?  Is a male serf equal to a female member of the aristocracy?  Why are they valued differently?  What makes them unequal and what makes them equal?

See, I find the entire concept of equality to be multi-layered and often without merit because society has always exhibited power struggles.  This line of thinking - equality - is really only about power - who has it and who does not.  

After all is said and done, tell me what happens to the family unit - who is parenting the children and who isn't?  Identify what has happened to society as motherhood and the family unit have been cast aside for the new self-actualization?  The logical conclusion based on the Liberal agenda is really to have no fathers or mothers being required to raise their own children.  Why, because the entire concept of motherhood makes the female unequal and keeps her from achieving her new, real purpose in life.  What purpose?  Anything she wants except motherhood.  As soon as we can create those Axlotl tanks to birth children women will finally be free and equal.  They will no longer be held down by the curse of child birth......Now, remember what the scriptures tell us was the curse of Eve?  Enough of this, I will already be burned at the stake by every feminist alive.

Of course I don't dispute the reality of slavery.  The Jews were slaves of Egypt; they later owned slaves.  The biggest slave holding continent today is Africa.  Slavery has not gone away.  

Did God ever condemn slavery?  Not to my knowledge.  Is slavery a true principle?  No, I don't think it is, rather I think for the most part is has always been used and continues to be used for economic motivations.  From a strictly economic position, what is the difference between slavery and the benevelent master who treats their slaves in a fully charitable manner.  Both would have their health care provided, both have their own homes, and both marry the person of their choice.  One has no promise of a job tomorrow and the other knows their job will last their entire lifetime.  Let's not get carried away with using only extremes.  I think many people today being offered these two options would voluntarily choose slavery for no other reason than security, but I digress.

Now, do I think that the fact that slavery was not condemned indicates that homosexuality is therefore acceptable to God or that it could be?  That is a bridge too far and holds no logical water.  Because if history and society were in error and homosexuality is really acceptable....I just cannot see it under any circumstances.  Humanity was and has been absolutely committed to reproduction; it was a necessary part of life.  The great example of some form of homosexual behavior socially acceptable was in ancient Sparta; however, even they used it as form of training in the military and they all were required to stop and have a family.  The ultimate purpose was progeny, which homosexuality denies utterly and completely.

The scriptures don't condemn drug use; does that mean it may be acceptable?  The Bible says that sexual relations between male and female are good; does that mean today we can have sex with any woman we desire and without surcease or commitment?  Of course not, the logic is flawed and deductions are silly, if not outrageous.

If you are asking for why I believe God condemns homosexuality I would answer because it is a completely sterile relationship.  It mocks the creative process that God ordained to create and replenish the earth.  It is not balanced; there is yin and yang for a reason.  In science it does not work and in religion it does not work.  You are proposing that If religious people made mistakes in some social areas - by not condemning them - are religions now wrong when it comes to homosexuality?  No, I am sorry - the union makes no sense; it is the absolute epitome of self-centeredness, it is the ego unhinged.  

Having said that, we must still deal with the reality that some of our brothers and sisters are sexually drawn to the members of their own gender.  Some are able to deal with it and others are not.  Some can live by God's command and some cannot.   It is sin like so many other things are sin.  We sinners will accept some sins and carry on and other sinners will accept other sins and carry on.  It is a matter of degrees - we might sin a little, but we have serious problems about what we consider major sins.

Cal, I understand the dilemma you have identified, but it does not hold water.  I know that you and others want desperately to have society acknowledge that homosexuality is acceptable to God, that it is not a sin.  I have studied religion all my life.  The last twenty years I have studied more world religions than I have LDS doctrine or history.  Nothing in what I have studied would lead me to a position where homosexuality is not a sin.  I cannot do it from the position of science, or philosophically, or spiritually.  Those that have made this leap of logic are on the extreme fringe of world religions and they are heretical within the context of the religions I have studied.  

When we have itching ears we seek those who will make us feel good about our sins.  It does not matter what the sin is I see humanity do this consistently just as we are doing it today.

You and I are sinners and we can love one another deeply, but I have no doubts, in this context, about what is and what is not sin.  

May His peace be upon you, may he always guide you, and bless you with all of his richest gifts of the Spirit.  

Edited April 9, 2017 by Storm Rider

[california boy]

22 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I reject the idea that women have been marginalized - marginalized according to whose standard?  Why is the new standard superior?  What is the cost of this new standard that dictates an individual is marginalized IF they don't meet this new set of standards? 

The concept of equality is a relative term and extremely subjective - equal in what way?  Why?  If the human family's very existence - its ability to reproduce itself - demands a family unit, then what is the value of a mother?  What is the value of a father?  What roles should a father have?  What roles should a mother have?  At what point does society cast those aside and condemn all that has gone before because now we are supposedly progressive. In this enlighted state a part of society has concluded a woman, in order to be "equal", must denigrate the role of motherhood and reach nirvana outside the home and only outside the home.  More to the point, they must be in power.  

If you are asking me if individuals have been equal - regardless of gender, I would unequivocally answer no, they have not.  My family, for the most part, have been farmers for hundreds and hundreds of years.  Are farmers equal to others?  Define that equality.  Is a serf equal to a lord or a member of the aristocracy?  Is a male serf equal to a female member of the aristocracy?  Why are they valued differently?  What makes them unequal and what makes them equal?

See, I find the entire concept of equality to be multi-layered and often without merit because society has always exhibited power struggles.  This line of thinking - equality - is really only about power - who has it and who does not.  

After all is said and done, tell me what happens to the family unit - who is parenting the children and who isn't?  Identify what has happened to society as motherhood and the family unit have been cast aside for the new self-actualization?  The logical conclusion based on the Liberal agenda is really to have no fathers or mothers being required to raise their own children.  Why, because the entire concept of motherhood makes the female unequal and keeps her from achieving her new, real purpose in life.  What purpose?  Anything she wants except motherhood.  As soon as we can create those Axlotl tanks to birth children women will finally be free and equal.  They will no longer be held down by the curse of child birth......Now, remember what the scriptures tell us was the curse of Eve?  Enough of this, I will already be burned at the stake by every feminist alive.

Of course I don't dispute the reality of slavery.  The Jews were slaves of Egypt; they later owned slaves.  The biggest slave holding continent today is Africa.  Slavery has not gone away.  

I have read your post several times.  And actually I am having a hard time believing what you wrote.  There are so many statements that you are making I simply find hard to believe that you actually believe them.  You really think that women have been treated equally to men?  That they have been given the same opportunities as men have to have a say in both their own lives and society?

Then you go off on motherhood.  I don't think anyone is degrading the importance of being a mother.   I certainly believe it is by far the most important task any woman could have.  But I also believe being a father is the most important task a man can have.  That doesn't mean that we do not allow men positions of authority just because they are fathers.  Nor should we prevent women from holding positions of authority just because they are mothers.  You ask what is the role of a mother?   What is a role of a father?  I think that is entirely up to the family unit.  Some mothers are better at taking care of the day to day needs of children.  Some fathers are better at that task.  Some mothers are better at holding a job and providing for the family.  And some fathers are better at providing.  I don't think anything is set in stone the moment a child comes out of the womb.  Does that mean I don't think the family unit is important?  Of course not.  Your view of liberals all hating families and wanting children to be born in tanks is insulting.  The majority of church members identify as being conservative.  They seem to value the family unit.  Yet their divorce rate is pretty close to the rest of society.  So what does that tell us?  Should I conclude that Mormons also don't value mothers, the family unit and want their kids born in tanks?  Because Mormons seem to be willing to destroy the family unit just as much as anyone else.  Treating women equally, giving them a voice, letting them leave occasionally does not mean that they are giving up their role as mother any more than giving men those opportunities.  

 

22 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Did God ever condemn slavery?  Not to my knowledge.  Is slavery a true principle?  No, I don't think it is, rather I think for the most part is has always been used and continues to be used for economic motivations.  From a strictly economic position, what is the difference between slavery and the benevelent master who treats their slaves in a fully charitable manner.  Both would have their health care provided, both have their own homes, and both marry the person of their choice.  One has no promise of a job tomorrow and the other knows their job will last their entire lifetime.  Let's not get carried away with using only extremes.  I think many people today being offered these two options would voluntarily choose slavery for no other reason than security, but I digress.

Now, do I think that the fact that slavery was not condemned indicates that homosexuality is therefore acceptable to God or that it could be?  That is a bridge too far and holds no logical water.  Because if history and society were in error and homosexuality is really acceptable....I just cannot see it under any circumstances.  

I assume your acknowledgement of this means that you are giving up your idea that just because something is written in the Bible and been going on since the beginning of time doesn't mean it is the will of God.  

Quote

Humanity was and has been absolutely committed to reproduction; it was a necessary part of life.  The great example of some form of homosexual behavior socially acceptable was in ancient Sparta; however, even they used it as form of training in the military and they all were required to stop and have a family.  The ultimate purpose was progeny, which homosexuality denies utterly and completely.

Are you saying that not being able to have children is against God's will?  Do you think adoption of unwanted children is a viable option for creating a family?  Does God condemn couples who for whatever reason can't have children from being married and having a life together?  Or do you think that any person unable to produce children should remain celibate their entire life.  Yeah this is a tired argument that you have heard before.  Yet just as tired is to say that God condemns homosexual relations because they can't have children.  You can't have it both ways.

Quote

 

The scriptures don't condemn drug use; does that mean it may be acceptable?  The Bible says that sexual relations between male and female are good; does that mean today we can have sex with any woman we desire and without surcease or commitment?  Of course not, the logic is flawed and deductions are silly, if not outrageous.

 

Who suggested that?  If you are sincerely asking the question, I would say NO.  God has made it clear that sexual relations should be within the bonds of marriage.  

Quote

If you are asking for why I believe God condemns homosexuality I would answer because it is a completely sterile relationship.  It mocks the creative process that God ordained to create and replenish the earth.  It is not balanced; there is yin and yang for a reason.  In science it does not work and in religion it does not work.  You are proposing that If religious people made mistakes in some social areas - by not condemning them - are religions now wrong when it comes to homosexuality?  No, I am sorry - the union makes no sense; it is the absolute epitome of self-centeredness, it is the ego unhinged.  

Back to the if you are unable to have children then you should never marry and remain celibate all your life huh.  And then at the end you throw in the "we always did it that way just like slavery argument".  Really?  You think this is making sense?

Quote

 

Having said that, we must still deal with the reality that some of our brothers and sisters are sexually drawn to the members of their own gender.  Some are able to deal with it and others are not.  Some can live by God's command and some cannot.   It is sin like so many other things are sin.  We sinners will accept some sins and carry on and other sinners will accept other sins and carry on.  It is a matter of degrees - we might sin a little, but we have serious problems about what we consider major sins.

Cal, I understand the dilemma you have identified, but it does not hold water.  I know that you and others want desperately to have society acknowledge that homosexuality is acceptable to God, that it is not a sin.  I have studied religion all my life.  The last twenty years I have studied more world religions than I have LDS doctrine or history.  Nothing in what I have studied would lead me to a position where homosexuality is not a sin.  I cannot do it from the position of science, or philosophically, or spiritually.  Those that have made this leap of logic are on the extreme fringe of world religions and they are heretical within the context of the religions I have studied.  

When we have itching ears we seek those who will make us feel good about our sins.  It does not matter what the sin is I see humanity do this consistently just as we are doing it today.

You and I are sinners and we can love one another deeply, but I have no doubts, in this context, about what is and what is not sin.  

May His peace be upon you, may he always guide you, and bless you with all of his richest gifts of the Spirit.  

 

I have stated many times that the church can have whatever doctrine they want.  They can condemn loving relationships between gay couples. They can condemn their marriages.  They can treat their children any way they want.  But let's not pretend that this doctrine is the will of God because throughout history people were against homosexuality.  And let's not pretend it is because gay couples can't reproduce.  You can not defend either position.  I personally would rather you just be honest.  Tell me that you personally think gays should not marry or that their children are unworthy of baptism or that a gay family unit is unimportant and unacceptable to you.  I am not going to argue that  point of view.  I only am willing to point out the absolute nonsense of justifying your position using scriptures or history or philosophy.  

And I think you should reconsider your opinion of how men have treated women throughout time.  While motherhood is a very important role women play, women can and do offer more to society than just that.  And while fatherhood is a very important role men play, they can and have more to offer society than just that.

And on a personal note, I just want to thank you for always treating my views with respect.  I hope that you feel that while I disagree with some of your views, I still have always treated you fairly.  That is when this discussion board is at it's best.  Exchanging ideas that come from different perspectives.  I also wish you well.

[Teancum]

On 4/5/2017 at 0:45 AM, carbon dioxide said:

The Church has always been this.  Do you really think that there is something special about the year 2017?

No nothing special at all.   It's 2017 and the Church has not really changed all that much in its patriarchy stance which creates misogyny towards women. 

Even in 2017.   

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

No nothing special at all.   It's 2017 and the Church has not really changed all that much in its patriarchy stance which creates misogyny towards women. 

Even in 2017.   

Patriarchy does not create misogyny any more than Feminism creates misanthropy.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Patriarchy does not create misogyny any more than Feminism creates misanthropy.

I disagree.  

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Patriarchy does not create misogyny any more than Feminism creates misanthropy.

How are you using the terms? 

Also I think a better term would be incentivize rather than create. People are free but certain structures can create incentives towards certain behaviors.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How are you using the terms?

Also I think a better term would be incentivize rather than create. People are free but certain structures can create incentives towards certain behaviors.

Patriarchy (ruling by men) does not create misogyny (negativity towards women) any more than Feminism (the empowerment of women) creates misanthropy (negativity towards men, although usually meaning mankind, but I think it works for this point).

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How are you using the terms? 

Also I think a better term would be incentivize rather than create. People are free but certain structures can create incentives towards certain behaviors.

 

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Patriarchy (ruling by men) does not create misogyny (negativity towards women) any more than Feminism (the empowerment of women) creates misanthropy (negativity towards men, although usually meaning mankind, but I think it works for this point).

 

I'd phrase it this way:  The LDS patriarchal structure tends to be prejudiced against women when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

One can say that it is all in line with what God wants but I think there is plenty of evidence to support that statement.

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by rockpond
Edited out the word "misogynistic" and clarified with the specific definition I was using.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'd phrase it this way:  The LDS patriarchal structure tends to be mysogynistic when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

One can say that it is all in line with what God wants but I think there is plenty of evidence to support that statement.

Or the unwelcome possibility that things on earth could be a pattern of things in heaven.
There is much that we attribute to our fallen state and mortal culture that has existed through so much of the world's history and culture that the pattern may be more far reaching than we realize.  Polygamy being another example.
Or, and this is the hope of many, we are just wrong about basically everything due to our own mortal weaknesses.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'd phrase it this way:  The LDS patriarchal structure tends to be mysogynistic when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

One can say that it is all in line with what God wants but I think there is plenty of evidence to support that statement.

I'm not sure that's helpful either. What do you mean by misogyny? The normal sense is hatred towards women and thus a claim of motives and intents. I'm assuming that's not what you mean.

Rather than using jargon that tends to have largely become empty political phrases divorced from their original contexts, it'd perhaps be better to use alternative terms after clarifying how you are using them.

Edited April 10, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's helpful either. What do you mean by misogyny? The normal sense is hatred towards women and thus a claim of motives and intents. I'm assuming that's not what you mean.

Rather than using jargon that tends to have largely become empty political phrases divorced from their original contexts, it'd perhaps be better to use alternative terms after clarifying how you are using them.

I used the word as it is defined:  prejudiced against women.

 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Patriarchy (ruling by men) does not create misogyny (negativity towards women) any more than Feminism (the empowerment of women) creates misanthropy (negativity towards men, although usually meaning mankind, but I think it works for this point).

But in that sense I'm not sure we are a patriarchy. (Patriarchy the way many self-described feminists use it means something different of course)

It's true we have men in the upper heirarchy but there are women in heirarchy but the ultimate governing of us is ourselves. The church simply doesn't have the thoroughgoing structural place in our lives to be a true patriarchy the way it was in say ancient palestine. Most particularly while we may still be under patriarchy (in the sense some feminists use it) by and large we form our own structures in many ways. Most good marriages are, I suspect, jointly lead by both husband and wife with neither really having a heirarchal place.

Now in places where there's patriarchy as the ruling by men I think it does create misogyny in the sense of negativity towards women. Quite a few marriages are like that for instance.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I used the word as it is defined:  prejudiced against women.

"dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women."

It's not merely prejudice.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'd phrase it this way:  The LDS patriarchal structure tends to be mysogynistic when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

 I highly disagree with this.  Neglectful at times and not that greatly insightful at others I can see. "Prejudiced against women" no.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or the unwelcome possibility that things on earth could be a pattern of things in heaven.
There is much that we attribute to our fallen state and mortal culture that has existed through so much of the world's history and culture that the pattern may be more far reaching than we realize.  Polygamy being another example.
Or, and this is the hope of many, we are just wrong about basically everything due to our own mortal weaknesses.

The God that I believe in and the one that I find in the scriptures could not possibly favor one gender over another.

If polygamy is something that God approves of (and I don't doubt that it could be), I don't think it will be practiced in the eternities in the same way it has been practiced here on Earth during the history of our church.

So, while I wouldn't say that we are "wrong about basically everything", I do think that mortal weaknesses have led us astray quite often in our otherwise noble practice of religion.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

"dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women."

It's not merely prejudice.

Fair enough.  I edited my original statement several posts up and replaced "misogynistic" with the specific definition I was using.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The God that I believe in and the one that I find in the scriptures could not possibly favor one gender over another.

If polygamy is something that God approves of (and I don't doubt that it could be), I don't think it will be practiced in the eternities in the same way it has been practiced here on Earth during the history of our church.

So, while I wouldn't say that we are "wrong about basically everything", I do think that mortal weaknesses have led us astray quite often in our otherwise noble practice of religion.

Differentiation of roles and responsibilities along gender lines is not "showing favor", any more than a man is God's favorite because he gets called to be Bishop and his brother doesn't.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

 I highly disagree with this.  Neglectful at times and not that greatly insightful at others I can see. "Prejudiced against women" no.

I respect your disagreement but just wanted to note that I had said prejudiced against women when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

I stand by that and believe my wife would agree.  But if you don't feel that way, I'm glad that's been your experience.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Differentiation of roles and responsibilities along gender lines is not "showing favor", any more than a man is God's favorite because he gets called to be Bishop and his brother doesn't.

I wasn't referring to callings.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I respect your disagreement but just wanted to note that I had said prejudiced against women when it comes to managing the affairs of the church.

I stand by that and believe my wife would agree.  But if you don't feel that way, I'm glad that's been your experience.

So you think they intentionally shaft women while managing the affairs of the Church?