Bryce Cook's article reviewing church's stance on gay marriage

[kllindley]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have complete respect for you kllindley, and do not doubt your own unique experience.  I have not asked you to acknowledge any "truth" regarding what you have been through and I would not do that to anyone.

Thank you. I do appreciate the intent. 

 

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 I was only referring to acknowledging past teachings from our church leaders.

And I legitimately don't interpret those teachings the same way you seem to. 

 

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And once again, I would hope that you'd be grateful many of those teachings are no longer expressed or believed (in the church or out).   

This seems like you telling me how I should feel. I am grateful that the language our leaders has evolved to fit better with current usage. 

 

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know where you're at in your life, but I hope you've found some peace.

Married, with children (after working through sexuality issues, not as a cure),  active on the Church, and very much at peace. 

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

The mutuality of this "solemn responsibility" belies the notion that the Church imposes "rigid" gender roles.

Again, lots of mutual responsibility here.

All of this pertains to having both a mother and a father where possible ("is most likely to be achieved...").  Again, not a lot of rigidity here.

The emphasized portion above also belies notions of rigidity.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, both care for their children, but apparently men are responsible for the physical/financial side of the equation, while women nurture? A kind of separate but equal situation of the genders? I don't think that works. That's hiding our light under a bushel.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

I sincerely hope that rigidly defined gender roles are not fundamental to Mormonism. But I have never claimed to be a fundamentalist.

A favorite way among antagonists to poison a well, it would seem, is to brand one you disagree with as a "fundamentalist."

I see it as being in some respects like a business partnership, with each partner having his/her own abilities and talents, but each being able and willing to assist the other as occasion calls for it.

I don't see that paradigm as being unreasonable or "rigid" or "fundamentalist" at all. I'm disappointed that you do.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I mean what I said - I wouldn't be qualified to oversee her work. And are men ultimately supposed to be the overseers of the family budget? By some divine decree perhaps?

Well, I never said anything about "oversee." So you're the one who started changing what was said. I won't argue for something I didn't say. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A favorite way among antagonists to poison a well, it would seem, is to brand one you disagree with as a "fundamentalist."

I see it as being in some respects like a business partnership, with each partner having his/her own abilities and talents, but each being able and willing to assist the other as occasion calls for it.

I don't see that paradigm as being unreasonable or "rigid" or "fundamentalist" at all. I'm disappointed that you do.

I don't know how else to describe it other than fundamentalism. You even used the word "fundamentals."

In any case, we obviously disagree. I think the rigidly separated gender roles is quite wasteful of the talents of both men and women.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, I never said anything about "oversee." So you're the one who started changing what was said. I won't argue for something I didn't say. 

This is what you said.

 

Quote

Well, it actually uses the word "responsibility." I can see that read as "expected to do the work of" but I have always heard it explained as "responsible to see that the work is done, whether by self or assignment." Like the Bishop is responsible for collecting fast offerings and the administration of the sacrament. Not that he alone does those tasks, but sees that they are done and done correctly. 

Another way of saying "responsibility to see that the work is done" is "oversee". Just like bishops oversee collection of fast offerings and administration of the sacrament.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, both care for their children, but apparently men are responsible for the physical/financial side of the equation, while women nurture?

Generally, yes.  "Rigidly," no.

Again: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed."

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

A kind of separate but equal situation of the genders?

We are having a pleasant and civil discussion here.  Please don't inject sideways accusations of bigotry / hatred / misogyny into it.  

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think that works. That's hiding our light under a bushel.

Your unfair and inaccurate caricature of what the Church teaches may not work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, both care for their children, but apparently men are responsible for the physical/financial side of the equation, while women nurture? A kind of separate but equal situation of the genders? I don't think that works. That's hiding our light under a bushel.

You don't think it works?  So no family in which the mother has been primarily responsible for nurturing of children, freely and ably assisted by the father in that duty, has ever reared happy, healthy successful children who have brought credit to themselves as well as their parents?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know how else to describe it other than fundamentalism. You even used the word "fundamentals."

In any case, we obviously disagree. I think the rigidly separated gender roles is quite wasteful of the talents of both men and women.

And yet the Church does not teach "rigidly separated gender roles."

Plenty of mothers earn bread (in addition to or in the place of the father's breadwinning).

Plenty of fathers are heavily involved in the rearing of their children.

And again, the Church teaches that "{d}isability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I think you are substantially mischaracterizing what the Church teaches.  Red herring.  Straw man.  Whatever it is, it is not accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know how else to describe it other than fundamentalism. You even used the word "fundamentals."

 

You're using differing connotations to twist my words. For the record, I find such behavior contemptible.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is what you said.

Another way of saying "responsibility to see that the work is done" is "oversee". Just like bishops oversee collection of fast offerings and administration of the sacrament.

 

Which seems to be another way to say "good faith duscussion not welcome here." Got the message loud and clear 

Edited August 28, 2017 by kllindley

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is what you said.

 

Another way of saying "responsibility to see that the work is done" is "oversee". Just like bishops oversee collection of fast offerings and administration of the sacrament.

I suggest you begin reading for comprehension rather than using semantics to twist another's intended meaning.

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Generally, yes.  "Rigidly," no.

Again: "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed."

We are having a pleasant and civil discussion here.  Please don't inject sideways accusations of bigotry / hatred / misogyny into it.  

Your unfair and inaccurate caricature of what the Church teaches may not work.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, I don't mean to be uncivil. But let me put it this way - despite no death or disability in our family, I've managed to be equally as nurturing to our child as my wife. And she has managed to be equal in her professional career to me. I think I would look back on my life with regret if I had left 80% of the nurturing to my wife.

According to the BYU article I linked several pages back, there are also advantages for children who have mothers who work. Isn't that how God communicates his principles - good trees bear good fruit?

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You don't think it works?  So no family in which the mother has been primarily responsible for nurturing of children, freely and ably assisted by the father in that duty, has ever reared happy, healthy successful children who have brought credit to themselves as well as their parents?

Let me rephrase to be clearer - I don't think that's optimal. Obviously it works. But is it best? Maybe for some, certainly not for everyone.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the Church does not teach "rigidly separated gender roles."

Plenty of mothers earn bread (in addition to or in the place of the father's breadwinning).

Plenty of fathers are heavily involved in the rearing of their children.

And again, the Church teaches that "{d}isability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

I think you are substantially mischaracterizing what the Church teaches.  Red herring.  Straw man.  Whatever it is, it is not accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

What do you think the church is teaching about women and careers? To me it sounds like they think it's good to have a backup plan, but otherwise women should primarily stay in the home.

[Gray]

delete

Edited August 29, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

Which seems to be another way to say "good faith duscussion not welcome here." Got the message loud and clear 

Bishops don't oversee the blessing of the sacrament? Who does, then?

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suggest you begin reading for comprehension rather than using semantics to twist another's intended meaning.

I'm not twisting anyone's words. Oversee is synonymous with what he was saying ( "responsible to see that the work is done, whether by self or assignment." )

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

No, I'm not twisting anything, Scott. Fundamentalism is literally about getting back to the fundamentals.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals

 

I think you are deliberately taking advantage of the pejorative connotation to twist my words.

I'm declaring our conversation ended.

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

What do you think the church is teaching about women and careers?

This: "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

Quote

To me it sounds like they think it's good to have a backup plan, but otherwise women should primarily stay in the home.

For some women, focusing on "the nurture of their children" may entail them giving up a career that they would have otherwise wanted to pursue.  Such is one of the many sacrifices of having children.  I, as a father, would very much like to be able to spend as much time with my children has my wife does.  However, I presently focus on being "responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families," which for us includes me having a career in which I put in many long hours.  That's my sacrifice.

I know many, many women who work outside of the home.  They are in full fellowship in the Church.  

I also know many, many men who are not able to fully meet the responsibility "to provide the necessities of life."  They too are in full fellowship in the Church.

"Individual adaptation" of general principles regarding family responsibilities is fully provided for in The Proclamation.  "Rigid" gender roles are not.  Your invidious comparison of the sound and time-tested and anything-but-"rigid" counsel set forth in The Proclamation as being akin to Plessy v. Ferguson is risible and offensive.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by smac97

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are deliberately taking advantage of the pejorative connotation to twist my words.

I'm declaring our conversation ended.

 

Scott, it seems I owe you an apology. My memory is that you used the word "fundamentals" but you didn't. This is actually what you said:

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then I do believe you fundamentally reject a tenet of the Church of Jesus Christ. It runs deeper than the proclamation being outdated in wording.

 

 

My mischaracterization was not intentional, believe it or not. Call it a misfired neuron.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This: "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation."

For some women, focusing on "the nurture of their children" may entail them giving up a career that they would have otherwise wanted to pursue.  Such is one of the many sacrifices of having children.  I, as a father, would very much like to be able to spend as much time with my children has my wife does.  However, I presently focus on being "responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families," which for us includes me having a career in which I put in many long hours.  That's my sacrifice.

I know many, many women who work outside of the home.  They are in full fellowship in the Church.  

I also know many, many men who are not able to fully meet the responsibility "to provide the necessities of life."  They too are in full fellowship in the Church.

"Individual adaptation" of general principles regarding family responsibilities is fully provided for in The Proclamation.  "Rigid" gender roles are not.  Your invidious comparison of the sound and time-tested and anything-but-"rigid" counsel set forth in The Proclamation as being akin to Plessy v. Ferguson is risible and offensive.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think we're mostly on the same page then about what we' think the church is teaching. Where I differ is that I don't think that shared responsibilities for both nurturing and work outside the home should be a rare exception as circumstances declare. I also think that if one spouse does have to stay home, it doesn't matter if it's the husband or the wife.

I do see the church's position as rigid, despite its allowance for exceptions. Obviously you disagree.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scott, it seems I owe you an apology. My memory is that you used the word "fundamentals" but you didn't. This is actually what you said:

 

 

My mischaracterization was not intentional, believe it or not. Call it a misfired neuron.

Thank you for the fact checking and the apology.

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

CA, help me out "worthy of what" that was a very long paragraph? This is an emotional issue, one that hits very close to home. So I am not seeking to be cruel, as it is not, nor every was in my nature to do so. I am only seeking to be accurate in my understanding of the scripture and  teach doctrine and principles. So, I mean no harm, no forethought of malice, as this too is not in my nature. So again, "not worthy of what"? 

Never mind.  Mormons want to exclude gays from the joys of family and having a spouse, then so be it.  So despite everything about my life and what I value, and as wrong as I feel this is to tell ANYONE that they are unworthy of marriage, I just have to come to grips that Mormons think that is a perfectly acceptable position to have.  I just pray that every gay Mormon growing up will come to the realization that they can have a happy and productive life, filled with joy and with all the blessings that marriage gives everyone.  It just has to happen outside the Mormon church.  Because Mormons will always believe that simply because you are gay, you are not worthy of the blessings of marriage.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find your description interesting here.  The progression of "attraction" --> "behavior" --> "orientation" --> "identity".

What are the characteristics of "orientation" that differentiate it from "identity"?

Thanks,

-Smac

This progression is not my experience at all.  I identified as being gay when I was 12.  I knew it would be a problem my whole life.  As it turns out, it was only a problem while I remained active in the Mormon church.