Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's no different from the distinction of "brother" vs "sister"

What a grossly unMormon notion

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What a grossly unMormon notion

Yes, we never refer to each other that way. It's always "Fellow Latter day (no hyphen) Saint of indeterminate gender, race, sexual orientation or age"

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think our understanding of homosexuality is on a continium edging toward greater understanding as time moves forward.

Paul's worldview on sexuality is entirely alien to us. He's coming from a culture where anything that the was unique to the gentiles concerning sex was considered "porneia" - often translated as fornication. But that includes strong sexual desire, or allowing the woman to be on top (hopefully that's not too explicit). I believe (but don't remember the details) that Paul's views on hair length were also tied to superstitions about sexual potency.

I think it's very clear we understand sexuality better today, just as we understand germ theory and physics.

 

But that punctuates the problem for Mormons who try to use Paul as a basis for their views on homosexuality. Paul's views on sexuality are utterly alien to Mormon doctrine, too.

OK. I thought you were saying something different than that. I don't really disagree with the above although I think you may be pushing porneia a tad more than legitimate. 

As I said I don't think Paul really grounds our sexual beliefs. That's why we have modern prophets. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

A persuasive case can be made that pornography exploits the actors who participate in its production.  A very high percentage of actresses involved in pornography production also engage in illegal drug use, and its production strongly correlates with other vices such as prostitution.

Not to defend pornography, but that describes the rock n' roll industry too. 

We also seem to be quite comfortable as a society with people choosing professions in athletics or entertainment that can be very, very bad for their health, but if they're okay with it and it's entertaining for us, then who cares?  Are porn actors any more exploited than boxers, NFL players, or heavy metal rock bands?

Ultimately, the arguments against pornography are best made by focusing on the effects that it has on the viewer.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, we never refer to each other that way. It's always "Fellow Latter day (no hyphen) Saint of indeterminate gender, race, sexual orientation or age"

Where in the Book of Mormon does one find support for your proposition?

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

My exegesis therefore is this: their views of homosexuality, in historical context, really have nothing at all to do with modern gay marriage. The larger principles found in the Bible can very easily be interpreted as affirming the sacredness of both gay and straight marriage.

Of course their views would have nothing at all to do with modern gay marriage. In the historical context, they didn’t conceive of such a notion, but my interpretation of the text is this: if someone proposed it to Paul in his day, in his historical context he would have rejected it.

I suppose Paul would have also agreed with the principle that any sexual behavior outside of marriage to be sin, lust also. Homosexual behavior is only one example. And the more generally and widely you frame a spiritual principle, the more leeway there is for sinful application.

Let’s consider also what sexual behaviors and practices might be construed as sinful within the divine marriage covenant. Perhaps anything that is done without the spouse’s knowledge or participation? Perhaps anything that is selfish or coerced or contrary to one's consent?

As you mentioned, there are many continua to consider, and Mormons understand the principle of degrees like nobody’s business (D&C 76; Alma 12:9)! Let’s say homosexual behavior is carried out without the spouse’s knowledge or participation because in the context of the divine marriage covenant, there is no spouse. Or that it is selfish and coerced only when done in light of knowingly rejecting the Gospel covenants as correctly understood.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Where in the Book of Mormon does one find support for your proposition?

I wasn't aware that authorization from the Book of Mormon was required in order to use descriptive adjectives. Without such authorization, is it verboten? Should the church shut down their "Mormon and Gay" website?

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wasn't aware that authorization from the Book of Mormon was required in order to use descriptive adjectives. Without such authorization, is it verboten? Should the church shut down their "Mormon and Gay" website?

From the BoM:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

And to the same effect from the NT:  

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor ^aGreek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ^bone in Christ Jesus.

So  ...  by what justification do you advocate for hypenated Mormons?  Or do you wish to refine your prior position?

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

From the BoM:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

And to the same effect from the NT:  

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor ^aGreek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ^bone in Christ Jesus.

So  ...  by what justification do you advocate for hypenated Mormons?  Or do you wish to refine your prior position?

If the Church abided by the notion of inviting all to come unto Him, you'd have a pretty good point.  But as it turns out, like all of us, the Church picks and choses what is useful from the scriptures. 

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 11:33 AM, JLHPROF said:

I know, I know, another SSM thread.  Because they always go so well and I never complain about the proliferation of them. 

But perhaps we can focus on WHY the Church membership views are changing instead of whether we think this is right/wrong or good/bad.
http://religionnews.com/2017/06/27/mormons-are-changing-their-tune-on-same-sex-marriage/

According to this survey about 1/3 of Mormons now favor SSM and barely more than half oppose it.  Now, the survey may have some issues (most do) but the change from last year is the indicator of interest assuming the survey was handled the same way both times.  We as members appear to be changing our views.

So without opening the debate about SSM itself, perhaps we can discuss the following:
1. WHY are members views changing so rapidly?
2. HOW do members reconcile the doctrinal disparity with Church teachings?
3. The Church is often accused of being afraid of nothing.  Is THIS what the Church really has to fear from the SSM movement?

 

 

It's quite apparent that the membership of the LDS church is way out in front of its leaders.  This was also the case with the priesthood ban. That so many members are rejecting the official position of the church is a promising bit of light in an other wise dark and heartless policy held by the church that offers no real hope or path for member's of the LGBT community.  It's only a matter of time before the next generation of leaders or the one after that has a convenient revelation that will open up the church and all of its claimed benefits for all of its members...but I fear that it will take the same kind of societal pressure on the church that gave us a reversal of the priesthood ban and the elimination of polygamy before anything will really change in church policy...and then we shall have a revelation.

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If the Church abided by the notion of inviting all to come unto Him, you'd have a pretty good point.  But as it turns out, like all of us, the Church picks and choses what is useful from the scriptures. 

I am making the same point Elder Bednar did, and for which he continues to take potshots from people either too ignorant or too lazy to understand the scriptural basis upon which he said what he said.

Do you, as others, hold with hyphenating Mormons?

Edited June 29, 2017 by USU78

[Kenngo1969]

Johnnie Cake,

I'm not surprised by your position.  I'm quite sure you won't be surprised that I disagree.

-Ken

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

From the BoM:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

And to the same effect from the NT:  

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor ^aGreek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ^bone in Christ Jesus.

So  ...  by what justification do you advocate for hypenated Mormons?  Or do you wish to refine your prior position?

This is such a strange fight you're trying to pick. What's your purpose? Or are you just trolling?

If you're simply trying to defend Bednar's comment "There are no homosexual members of the church", I don't quite see your point. Claiming there are no homosexual members as nothing to do with hyphenating saints but rather seems to be refusing to acknowledge diversity among the saints. There is diversity. It is worth acknowledging. But that doesn't mean we have to hyphenate the saints. This is a silly argument.

Edited June 29, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[USU78]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

This is such a strange fight you're trying to pick. What's your purpose? Or are you just trolling?

Read the antecedent posts.  The issue was Elder Bednar's statement regarding homosexuality and Mormons.  The implicit issue is being required for sociopolitical purposes to hyphenate when talking about any particular Mormon or group or Mormons. What he meant was obvious, unless you ignore Mormon scripture.  Thus after trying to coax the scripture out of somebody who ought to know, I came out with it myself.

Just what are your intentions in responding to a post not directed at you?  

Are you trolling?  Is that a useful question I am asking?  Was yours a useful question?

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I am making the same point Elder Bednar did, and for which he continues to take potshots from people either too ignorant or too lazy to understand the scriptural basis upon which he said what he said.

Do you, as others, hold with hyphenating Mormons?

I barely agree with labeling at all.  With that I enjoy allowing people to define themselves.  If someone wants to claim both homosexual and Mormon, I say great.  If the Church creates a website designed for those that are Mormon and gay, and decides to call it Mormonandgay, great...have at it.  But if someone, even an apostle, wants to tell those who so claim that they can't so claim because in his view Mormon's can't have same sex relations, well, I find that difficult to defend or maintain.  After all a person can claim to be homosexual and yet remain celibate.  who am I to say they can't claim who they are, or define themselves however they wish? 

I think Elder Bednar made a pretty egregious error on such grounds.  But, luckily, he's not infallible.  Hopefully he changes his tune.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I barely agree with labeling at all.  With that I enjoy allowing people to define themselves.  If someone wants to claim both homosexual and Mormon, I say great.  If the Church creates a website designed for those that are Mormon and gay, and decides to call it Mormonandgay, great...have at it.  But if someone, even an apostle, wants to tell those who so claim that they can't so claim because in his view Mormon's can't have same sex relations, well, I find that difficult to defend or maintain.  After all a person can claim to be homosexual and yet remain celibate.  who am I to say they can't claim who they are, or define themselves however they wish? 

I think Elder Bednar made a pretty egregious error on such grounds.  But, luckily, he's not infallible.  Hopefully he changes his tune.

Well  ...  we're obviously not going to agree on that.  From the Mormon perspective he made the right call in the right way at the right time.

The goal is having no "ites" at all, isn't it?  Why put up with people self-applying "ite" status to themselves if the point of being one [echad] with the Father and the Son and with one's fellows is that not one of those fellows is any kind of "ite" other than a person within the covenant folk of G-d.  The alternative is balkanization, fracturing of the covenant people into tribes, and wars of extermination.

Edited June 29, 2017 by USU78

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  we're obviously not going to agree on that.  From the Mormon perspective he made the right call in the right way at the right time.

Not from my Mormon perspective.  I doubt he'll be prattling on about there are no homosexual Mormons anymore.  He may have learned his lesson.  But we'll see, sometimes us humans are stubborn and refuse to the see the obvious.  To see a good example of that look for a certain poster here who probably graduated from school at USU around the year 1978. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Read the antecedent posts.  The issue was Elder Bednar's statement regarding homosexuality and Mormons.  The implicit issue is being required for sociopolitical purposes to hyphenate when talking about any particular Mormon or group or Mormons. What he meant was obvious, unless you ignore Mormon scripture.  Thus after trying to coax the scripture out of somebody who ought to know, I came out with it myself.

1-Just what are your intentions in responding to a post not directed at you?  

2-Are you trolling?  3-Is that a useful question I am asking?  4-Was yours a useful question?

1- I'm participating in a discussion. Is that okay, or must I be addressed directly before I speak?

2- Nope

3- No. The questions you are asking are not helpful. No one has claimed that we should hyphenate Mormons, but what I am seeing is people acknowledging that there is diversity among the members and that it is pointless to pretend that diversity doesn't exist. There are no male members of the church. That is a foolish statement. There are no black members of the church. Silly statement. There are no heterosexual members of the church. Dumb statement. All of these subgroups exist within the body of the church. Suggesting they don't doesn't remove any kind of hyphen it's just ignoring reality.

4- Yep. Mine was useful.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  we're obviously not going to agree on that.  From the Mormon perspective he made the right call in the right way at the right time.

The goal is having no "ites" at all, isn't it?  Why put up with people self-applying "ite" status to themselves if the point of being one [echad] with the Father and the Son and with one's fellows is that not one of those fellows is any kind of "ite" other than a person within the covenant folk of G-d.  The alternative is balkanization, fracturing of the covenant people into tribes, and wars of extermination.

You don't seem to think it is possible to recognize diversity without dividing into tribes of "ites". I don't see how that is justifiable. As I've stated earlier, we don't see comments like "there are no Samoan members of the church" because that would be ludicrous. Acknowledging that there is a diverse group of Mormons doesn't mean that they are pitted against and/or isolated against others as ites.

 

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not from my Mormon perspective.  I doubt he'll be prattling on about there are no homosexual Mormons anymore.  He may have learned his lesson.  But we'll see, sometimes us humans are stubborn and refuse to the see the obvious.  To see a good example of that look for a certain poster here who probably graduated from school at USU around the year 1978. 

Well we shall see if the issue of "no more 'ites of any kind'" comes up in any of his conference or other addresses, won't we?

[USU78]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

You don't seem to think it is possible to recognize diversity without dividing into tribes of "ites". I don't see how that is justifiable. As I've stated earlier, we don't see comments like "there are no Samoan members of the church" because that would be ludicrous. Acknowledging that there is a diverse group of Mormons doesn't mean that they are pitted against and/or isolated against others as ites.

You make the case for the balkanization of the united Lehites into tribes.  What was the result of that balkanization, which began by self-appellation by subgroups?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  we're obviously not going to agree on that.  From the Mormon perspective he made the right call in the right way at the right time.

The goal is having no "ites" at all, isn't it?  Why put up with people self-applying "ite" status to themselves if the point of being one [echad] with the Father and the Son and with one's fellows is that not one of those fellows is any kind of "ite" other than a person within the covenant folk of G-d.  The alternative is balkanization, fracturing of the covenant people into tribes, and wars of extermination.

Sorry I jumped the gun and replied before you edited.  But both of my replies seem relevant to me so I'll continue.

You are confusing me.  First you tell me a "Mormon perspective" should include something that does not agree with my view (which so happens to be a Mormon perspective)  Thus it feels very "ites" creating to me, on your part.  Then you go on to say there shouldn't be "ites". 

The existence of "ites" suggests to me that we should not see different parties opposed to each other, but should be able to accept all as members together.  It does not mean we should not acknowledge the differences among us.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well we shall see if the issue of "no more 'ites of any kind'" comes up in any of his conference or other addresses, won't we?

That would be an appropriate way to talk about the subject, assuming that's what he is trying to say. Avoiding "ites" may be a worthy goal but claiming a person who claims sexual orientation, race, gender etc as a part of their identity doesn't exist is pretty foolish. I give him benefit of the doubt that he would rephrase if given the chance.

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, USU78 said:

From the BoM:

2 Nephi 26:33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ^ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the ^fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

And to the same effect from the NT:  

Galatians 3:28

28 There is neither Jew nor ^aGreek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all ^bone in Christ Jesus.

So  ...  by what justification do you advocate for hypenated Mormons?  Or do you wish to refine your prior position?

I wonder if the next printing of the Book of Mormon, they will motify that verse in 2 Nephi to say "and he ^ainviteth them ^ball to ^ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ^ddenieth none except children of gay couples"

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You make the case for the balkanization of the united Lehites into tribes.  What was the result of that balkanization, which began by self-appellation by subgroups?

Just keep fighting against your straw man. You might win a fight against an imaginary opponent