Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: Maybe it is in church manuals or church instructions, I don't know. CFR that you can find it in the manuals My point is that it doesn't have to be specifically provided for in a Church manual. That is your own unsupported supposition. The one presiding over a meeting has supervision over the content of that meeting. In theory there are a number of means at his disposal for accomplishing that, of which turning off the microphone is but one. You are the one who is asserting implicitly that there is something untoward or impermissable about a priesthood leader turning off a microphone in the course of a meeting. How about you providing a reference to support your position? The bottom line is no one is entitled to stand at the pulpit and say anything he or she likes in sacrament meeting. Speaking in the meeting is a privilege, not a right, and if someone, young or old, abuses the privilege via unwelcome behavior, he or she should expect to be stopped in the act. Edited June 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 8
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Gray said: You think that because of your personal bias. Isn't that so? The Spirit manifest plainly that gay marriage is holy before God, just as straight marriage is. That is my personal bias, but I feel deep down in my bones that it's true. I agree that this truth isn't currently welcome in conservative churches like the LDS church, just as certain truths we take for granted today weren't welcome in conservative churches a generation ago. As it happens in this instance, what you feel "deep in your bones" is not sustained by the Lord's prophets and apostles. Therefore, you should not expect to have it privileged, any more than preaching modern-day polygamy is privileged, even though there are those who cherish 《that》 deep in their bones. Edited June 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 5
longview Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 10 hours ago, Gray said: Yes, clearly an overblown concern then. Antagonists intimidating people and shutting down debates are overblown concerns? Your perspective is "illegitimate" where the Constitution is concerned. Mod: Your comparison to violent anarchists has been removed. This is your last warning,
bluebell Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 21 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: CFR that "whoever is presiding over that meeting has a responsibility to stop them." The person who presides is responsible for the content of the meeting. That is one of their duties. "The person who presides or is in charge usually prepares the agenda. He or she ensures that it includes everything necessary to accomplish the purposes of the meeting." 4
Gray Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As it happens in this instance, what you feel "deep in your bones" is not sustained by the Lord's prophets and apostles. Therefore, you should not expect to have it privileged, any more than preaching modern-day polygamy is privileged, even though there are those who cherish 《that》 deep in their bones. I have no expectation that my views will be privileged, nor anyone else's views, in the context of a group that is hostile to marriage for gay folks.
Garden Girl Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 7 hours ago, california boy said: For some reason your post is the one that has just put me over the top. This statement is not directed solely at you. It is directed at all those who have gone on for 25 pages attacking this young 12 year old girl for saying "God made me perfect just the way I am." Guess what SHE IS RIGHT. Being gay is not some disease like ADHD that you can pop a pill and medicate. Being gay is not like some guy that wants to marry multiple wives. Being gay is a HUMAN condition. Some people are gay. They are attracted to the same sex. They don't feel like they are damaged good just because they are gay. They feel like they are PERFECTLY fine and healthy humans. Humans still capable of having dreams and hopes. Humans that want to find that person to share their life with. Humans perfectly capable of having healthy relationships. Humans that feel just because they are gay is no reason to be forced to live how straight people live their lives. Attack, attack attack. This girl is 12 years old for heavens sake. She said what was in her heart. Which I might add is not that much different than any other 12 year old or 20 year old or 50 year old. We all seek happiness in this life. We all want fulfilling and emotionally whole relationships. Every parent wants that for their kid. She is gay. Her relationships and hopes are going to be different than yours. It is HER choice how she lives her life. Good morning CB... I agree that being gay is not a disease, or something that a person can choose (unless done on purpose)... God has nothing to do with it... Something happens in the physiological development of cells, chromosomes, genes, etc., that some people are born with a psychological, emotional, and physical attraction to their same sex... it has nothing to do with God... you're right, it's a human condition... Some gay people like to say "God made me this way." God doesn't make someone to live at odds with his purposes. It is perfectly obvious what God's intention was when he created or "made" the male and female... culminating with the fitting together physically for the creation of life. The physiological development can be such that results with some percentage of people being born gay. It has apparently always been this way because we have scriptures that clearly address this... but IMO because this is physiological, and gay people do feel as you have described above, I believe God will judge this fairly because he is just and takes all things into consideration, including the depths of our hearts. As a believing member, I follow the Church's position... and I still maintain my long-time friendships with my gay former co-workers. GG 3
Gray Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Garden Girl said: Good morning CB... I agree that being gay is not a disease, or something that a person can choose (unless done on purpose)... God has nothing to do with it... Something happens in the physiological development of cells, chromosomes, genes, etc., that some people are born with a psychological, emotional, and physical attraction to their same sex... it has nothing to do with God... you're right, it's a human condition... Some gay people like to say "God made me this way." God doesn't make someone to live at odds with his purposes. It is perfectly obvious what God's intention was when he created or "made" the male and female... culminating with the fitting together physically for the creation of life. The physiological development can be such that results with some percentage of people being born gay. It has apparently always been this way because we have scriptures that clearly address this... but IMO because this is physiological, and gay people do feel as you have described above, I believe God will judge this fairly because he is just and takes all things into consideration, including the depths of our hearts. As a believing member, I follow the Church's position... and I still maintain my long-time friendships with my gay former co-workers. GG And yet God engineered homosexuality. No doubt for a wise purpose. For example, gay couples are well situated to care for the children abandoned by straight folks. 1
Popular Post Garden Girl Posted June 18, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 18, 2017 19 minutes ago, Gray said: And yet God engineered homosexuality. No doubt for a wise purpose. For example, gay couples are well situated to care for the children abandoned by straight folks. Hello Gray... No, I don't agree that God engineered homosexuality... your example is generalizing... not all gay couples are well situated to care for children. I lived in San Fran for over 12 years and worked in an environment that was probably 90% LGBT... having many such friends. I know how "well situated" gay couples are... and many are not suited to adopt... just like not all heteros are suited for adoption for reasons not just how well situated they are... And how do you know that the children were "abandoned." Do you know the heartache and confusion it is for a young girl or woman to give up a child for adoption? GG 8
california boy Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 53 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: Good morning CB... I agree that being gay is not a disease, or something that a person can choose (unless done on purpose)... God has nothing to do with it... Something happens in the physiological development of cells, chromosomes, genes, etc., that some people are born with a psychological, emotional, and physical attraction to their same sex... it has nothing to do with God... you're right, it's a human condition... Some gay people like to say "God made me this way." God doesn't make someone to live at odds with his purposes. It is perfectly obvious what God's intention was when he created or "made" the male and female... culminating with the fitting together physically for the creation of life. The physiological development can be such that results with some percentage of people being born gay. It has apparently always been this way because we have scriptures that clearly address this... but IMO because this is physiological, and gay people do feel as you have described above, I believe God will judge this fairly because he is just and takes all things into consideration, including the depths of our hearts. As a believing member, I follow the Church's position... and I still maintain my long-time friendships with my gay former co-workers. GG It doesn't really matter how a person becomes gay does it? She should still not be chastised for stating her one personal beliefs for 25 pages. She is 12 years old for heavens sake. Is the whole Mormon Church going to collapse because a 12 year old girl makes a sincere effort to share her beliefs? The Mormon Church is no place for a gay person. It looks like she is finding this out at age 12. I found out way later in life. I wish her success and hope she finds happiness in the choices she makes. One should never allow their life to be lived by the opinion of others. We should live our lives by what the Spirit prompts us to do.
california boy Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As it happens in this instance, what you feel "deep in your bones" is not sustained by the Lord's prophets and apostles. Therefore, you should not expect to have it privileged, any more than preaching modern-day polygamy is privileged, even though there are those who cherish 《that》 deep in their bones. Or teaching that the church shouldn't discriminate against blacks. 1
JLHPROF Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: And yet God engineered homosexuality. No he didn't. The fall engineered homosexuality along with all other mortal weaknesses. There is nothing eternal in homosexual relationships. Quote No doubt for a wise purpose. For example, gay couples are well situated to care for the children abandoned by straight folks. What a joke. 1
Garden Girl Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 35 minutes ago, california boy said: It doesn't really matter how a person becomes gay does it? She should still not be chastised for stating her one personal beliefs for 25 pages. She is 12 years old for heavens sake. Is the whole Mormon Church going to collapse because a 12 year old girl makes a sincere effort to share her beliefs? The Mormon Church is no place for a gay person. It looks like she is finding this out at age 12. I found out way later in life. I wish her success and hope she finds happiness in the choices she makes. One should never allow their life to be lived by the opinion of others. We should live our lives by what the Spirit prompts us to do. CB... It matters to me when someone tries to drag God into it... No, the whole Mormon Church is not going to collapse because one 12 year old decides to get up in F&T meeting with an agenda and use the pulpit to "share" what believing members consider false doctrine... I just consider her actions inappropriate. By the way, CB, while we differ here and in similar issues, I do wish you well... always... GG 1
california boy Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 3 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: CB... It matters to me when someone tries to drag God into it... No, the whole Mormon Church is not going to collapse because one 12 year old decides to get up in F&T meeting with an agenda and use the pulpit to "share" what believing members consider false doctrine... I just consider her actions inappropriate. By the way, CB, while we differ here and in similar issues, I do wish you well... always... GG So tell me why it matters to you when someone drags God into it. Let me understand 25 pages of rebuke for her stating her beliefs about how she feels about God. Thank you for the well wishes. And the same back to you.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: Or teaching that the church shouldn't discriminate against blacks. If you were to change that to "Or alleging that the Church discriminates against blacks," I would be in full agreement. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, california boy said: So tell me why it matters to you when someone drags God into it. Let me understand 25 pages of rebuke for her stating her beliefs about how she feels about God. Thank you for the well wishes. And the same back to you. I see it as 25 pages of condemnation of the priesthood leader for cutting the mic, combined with lionization of the 13-year-old, mitigated by some defense of the priesthood leader's action. Of course it may be that you and I are each viewing the content through the lenses of our own biases. 2
Guest Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 12 hours ago, california boy said: Is all you are pointing out is that marriage is not all about sex. I would totally agree with you. I actually think it is a minor part of most strong mature marriage relationships. I personally believe that the vast majority of marriages that are strong and loving would continue whether sex was a part of it or not. How many would leave their spouse just because they don't have sex with them? By far, the emotional connection between the couple is a far more accurate gauge of how a marriage is doing. I agree, if sex was the only thing a couple had or have n common, that marriage is doomed. This is why when Evangelicals preach and teach that our doctrine is a lie, and that there is no marriage in heaven, because God has something greater than sex in heaven. I feel a swell of pity for them as they assume that marriage is only for sex, and that Mormons only want to be sealed to our wives so we can have sex in heaven. It is a childish view of the very institution of marriage, the emotional bond in marriage is so much deeper (or I hope it is for all), sexual relations is just one of the blessings to deepen that bond, but not the only one. 1
DemonsAway Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: For example, gay couples are well situated to care for the children abandoned by straight folks. Great comment, a point I've been arguing for years. 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: What a joke. Are you kidding me? This is one of the most valuable services the gay community can provide is adopting children. You ask a child in an orphanage if they'd rather stay in the orphanage or go to loving gay parents and see what they choose. Unless they're highly indoctrinated in some religion I'm willing to bet they'd choose they gay couple every time. And yes gay parents are just as capable of providing a child with a happy and healthy life as any straight couple.
california boy Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you were to change that to "Or alleging that the Church discriminates against blacks," I would be in full agreement. ok or alleging that the Church discriminates against blacks. Put lipstick on it. Does that help?
california boy Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I see it as 25 pages of condemnation of the priesthood leader for cutting the mic, combined with lionization of the 13-year-old, mitigated by some defense of the priesthood leader's action. Of course it may be that you and I are each viewing the content through the lenses of our own biases. I don't think that is a question. we both come from completely different perspectives. And that is why this is a discussion site. I always enjoy reading your perspective. Well most of the time anyway. lol.
juliann Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: So tell me why it matters to you when someone drags God into it. Let me understand 25 pages of rebuke for her stating her beliefs about how she feels about God. Thank you for the well wishes. And the same back to you. And here is the problem. When Mormons state their beliefs on a Mormon board, you see it as a "rebuke" as more and more critics crowd in to drown out any effort to explain or understand what has happened. Do you think it is in anyway helpful or even fair to label disagreement as rebuke? Why do you do that? Why don't you go through the thread and tally the responses before assigning ever more negative labels to posters? 4
juliann Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, california boy said: ok or alleging that the Church discriminates against blacks. Put lipstick on it. Does that help? As in put lipstick on a pig. Nice. What a conversation starter.
Popular Post Guest Posted June 18, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 18, 2017 16 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: but it is easier for people without that gene to obey the law of chastity, perhaps much easier. I disagree that affairs are always bad behavior. According to some psychologists affairs are sometimes (depending on the circumstances) necessary to save a marriage. Please don't condemn people that disagree with your views. Adultery, affairs are always wrong, it does not matter how many Doctors say otherwise, using the most extreme examples to make their case. As it relates to LDS Handbook teaches, it is a serious sin no matter the state of the marriage. It is also not (as many proclaim) victimless crime. My bio-father engaged in this sin, until it became bigamy, and my Mother and her three children ended up homeless (I was one of those children) for a time, when he left his true family for his illegal family. When marriage vows are violated, the inocent always suffer, "always". 6
clarkgoble Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: I suspect that most men who are faithful to their spouces don't have that gene. I'm very, very skeptical. As I said, genetics and expression might bias one towards certain actions but certainly aren't often determinative. To suggest that one couldn't have an inclination and rationally choose not to follow those inclinations seems demonstrated by many characteristics most likely biased by genes. To appeal to ones genes to suggest one has no accountability seems to go against the biology we know. Everyone has weaknesses and most people by the time they are into adulthood have learned to control their weaknesses. To use my prior example, it seems clear that humans a biologically promiscuous yet most people don't engage in promiscuous behaviour. Ditto polygamy. Culture shapes in part how we respond to our biology. And free will is present in some form as well. We are reasoning creatures not tied to whatever impulse comes into our head. Edited June 18, 2017 by clarkgoble 3
clarkgoble Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 17 hours ago, Gray said: It doesn't really have to do with phobias anymore. It's about prejudice. It doesn't have a single meaning nor has it removed the connotations of the former denotation. You could easily pick a different word with less baggage. There's also a strong circularity to your use. The word means this clearly means that in very recent years it's come to be used in this way and therefore people shouldn't complain. That completely avoids the question of the connotations of the word as if they don't matter. In the same way I could say by plain English usage religious intolerance applies to anyone who doesn't accept religious belief that's been there for thousands of years. Further that word usage would have far more history than the one you bring up. I say this not because I think the term is inappropriate. Merely that I think you should simultaneously expect a certain reaction. Indeed I rather suspect you knew the reaction which is why you chose that word rather than a semantically equivalent term. 3
california boy Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 24 minutes ago, juliann said: And here is the problem. When Mormons state their beliefs on a Mormon board, you see it as a "rebuke" as more and more critics crowd in to drown out any effort to explain or understand what has happened. Do you think it is in anyway helpful or even fair to label disagreement as rebuke? Why do you do that? Why don't you go through the thread and tally the responses before assigning ever more negative labels to posters? You know i already did something very similar to what you are asking a couple pages back when I was asked to do the same thing. Go back a few pages, You will find the quotes from the posts that have been made about this little girl. I have from the beginning said that the church leader has every right to turn off the mike. I think the church should correct anyone who presents something that is not doctrine. That is totally fair. It is the chastising of the mother, the child, the conspiracy theories, the outrage that this girl dared to say that she thinks God made her perfect just the way she is. The outrage that this little girl wants to grow up and find happiness like every other kid. How dare she. Doesn't she know that she is gay and doesn't get to get married or even dream about such ridiculous ideas. This kid should get as far away from this church as she possibly can. There is no place for her in the Mormon Church. She wants too much happiness and has too much hope for her life. You want to give it another label than rebuke, fine. Insert your own word.
Recommended Posts