rockpond Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That's because orientation is a gentle way of saying that someone has an inborn trait. Traits used to be seen as positive and negative. The negative ones (the sinful ones) used to be something to be worked on and overcome. Now if you have an inborn trait you are supposed to embrace who you are. Nobody needs to overcome anything anymore. Anger, jealousy, shyness, gluttony, arrogance, or any sinful attractions. If it's part of you , embrace it! How does one overcome their sexual orientation?
JLHPROF Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: How does one overcome their sexual orientation? How does one overcome their tendency to a violent temper? How does one overcome an attraction to pornography? How does one overcome severe shyness? How does one overcome being a workaholic? How does one overcome being prideful? There is no one answer on how to overcome our negative traits. But I believe it is possible for all of them.
rockpond Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: How does one overcome their tendency to a violent temper? How does one overcome an attraction to pornography? How does one overcome severe shyness? How does one overcome being a workaholic? How does one overcome being prideful? There is no one answer on how to overcome our negative traits. But I believe it is possible for all of them. Except sexual orientation doesn’t seem to fit into that list. Have you overcome your sexual orientation yet? Still working on it? 3
JLHPROF Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Except sexual orientation doesn’t seem to fit into that list. Have you overcome your sexual orientation yet? Still working on it? Sexual orientation is a trait. It defines what you are attracted to. That doesn't mean every variation on that is correct. These other things are traits. We are made up of numerous traits, both good and bad. Some are to be overcome. I view incorrect sexual orientations as no different than any other incorrect emotional or physical tendencies. There are some comparisons we aren't allowed to make (without getting the MOD's angry), but not every sexual attraction is good. Some of them should be overcome. Any inappropriate sexual attractions I have would need to be overcome just like anyone else. Unfortunately, society has decided that a few more of them are ok. And even more unfortunately, God's teachings disagree with society. 1
kiwi57 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Sexual orientation was not designed for political purposes. Absolutely false. I don't know if you're right, and I don't care enough to look into it, so I'll concede. It's a recent cultural construct that has been co-opted for political purposes. Will that do? 1 hour ago, rockpond said: And the concept of sexual orientation has been around since the first half of last century... by some regards it dates back to the 19th century. You and Scott have created a nice little strawman and defeated him. Well done. I don't know what strawman you are talking about. In the seventies, at the height of the so-called "sexual revolution," the catchphrase wasn't "sexual orientation," it was "sexual preferences." The discourse was focused on "freedom." Everything I ever saw from the brethren in the past was understood to address behaviour, and nothing else. You say you can't produce an unambiguous instance where they, or any of them, condemned homosexual desires when they were not being acted upon; I say that that is because there was never any such teaching. You say that you have to read all the way through the entire long argument to understand what was "really" being said. I say that if the only way to get it is to read between the lines, then that's because the text you are trying to find isn't on the lines. Which leads me to the conclusion that you can't read that message out of what the brethren said (exegesis) so you have to read it into their words (eisegesis.) I don't need to play that game. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always taught that homosexual behaviour is wrong; I have not the slightest reason to begin to imagine that that teaching will ever change. The Church does not teach that homosexual inclinations or desires are sinful unless acted upon; I have been offered no plausible reason to suppose that it has ever taught otherwise. 2
rockpond Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Sexual orientation is a trait. It defines what you are attracted to. That doesn't mean every variation on that is correct. These other things are traits. We are made up of numerous traits, both good and bad. Some are to be overcome. I view incorrect sexual orientations as no different than any other incorrect emotional or physical tendencies. There are some comparisons we aren't allowed to make (without getting the MOD's angry), but not every sexual attraction is good. Some of them should be overcome. Any inappropriate sexual attractions I have would need to be overcome just like anyone else. Unfortunately, society has decided that a few more of them are ok. And even more unfortunately, God's teachings disagree with society. Here’s why I contend that orientation doesn’t belong with those other traits. Orientation is a key piece of God’s plan. It’s a key part of what drives us to marry and have children. Additionally, as a church we used to teach and counsel the idea of overcoming a homosexual orientation. That led to far too many broken marriages, devastated families, and general pain that was not consistent with God’s plan of happiness. So now, rather than counseling to overcome, we counsel to “ignore”. Shut off that part of you and be celibate.
rockpond Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I don't know if you're right, and I don't care enough to look into it, so I'll concede. It's a recent cultural construct that has been co-opted for political purposes. Will that do? I don't know what strawman you are talking about. In the seventies, at the height of the so-called "sexual revolution," the catchphrase wasn't "sexual orientation," it was "sexual preferences." The discourse was focused on "freedom." Everything I ever saw from the brethren in the past was understood to address behaviour, and nothing else. You say you can't produce an unambiguous instance where they, or any of them, condemned homosexual desires when they were not being acted upon; I say that that is because there was never any such teaching. You say that you have to read all the way through the entire long argument to understand what was "really" being said. I say that if the only way to get it is to read between the lines, then that's because the text you are trying to find isn't on the lines. Which leads me to the conclusion that you can't read that message out of what the brethren said (exegesis) so you have to read it into their words (eisegesis.) I don't need to play that game. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always taught that homosexual behaviour is wrong; I have not the slightest reason to begin to imagine that that teaching will ever change. The Church does not teach that homosexual inclinations or desires are sinful unless acted upon; I have been offered no plausible reason to suppose that it has ever taught otherwise. No. I still disagree - sexual orientation has not been co-opted for political purposes. Are you referring, rather, to equal rights? Your third paragraph is the strawman. It describes an argument that I haven’t made. Edited October 24, 2017 by rockpond
JLHPROF Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Here’s why I contend that orientation doesn’t belong with those other traits. Orientation is a key piece of God’s plan. It’s a key part of what drives us to marry and have children. I know you see the irony here. There is always a counterfeit for God's plan. Also, as I said earlier in the thread, God did establish marriage. He defined, set its purposes, and even performed the original marriage. Heck, the entire creation seems to have been to fulfill the command you mention above. Anything else isn't marriage and doesn't come from God.
CV75 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Why is it a leap? My understanding of the gospel and God’s plan coupled with prayer, pondering, and the Spirit are how I arrived where I have. That prophets and apostles have taught some different ideas doesn’t take a leap to get through. Christ told me wherein to place my faith. No emotional appeal needed. A couple of years ago I posted on this board that soon people would assert that God told them to believe the antithetical doctrines/beliefs you've been describing. No rational appeal needed; you don't have to answer the challenging questions. I was told by someone who was arguing against the LDS teachings on this subject that I was being ridiculous! I already said that I knew your short answer was “By God saying so” but asked that you offer a more robust response that addresses specific LDS tenets. I'm not sure why you would avoid that, but as I said, I won't push it Posted 3 hours ago I'm confident you understand the leap I'm referring to and briefly described a couple of times because you clearly understand the LDS paradigm. When you ignore what I'm asking so that I can better understand you, you stifle the conversation and you get tuned out. But I already said before that I wouldn't push it. That sure cuts down on the number of responses you have to face, doesn't it! LOL
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I know you see the irony here. There is always a counterfeit for God's plan. Also, as I said earlier in the thread, God did establish marriage. He defined, set its purposes, and even performed the original marriage. Heck, the entire creation seems to have been to fulfill the command you mention above. Anything else isn't marriage and doesn't come from God. In this case, I think the counterfeit is celibacy. Marriage doesn’t have to produce children (or even have that intent) in order to be valid in God’s eyes. Just ask Oaks. Or Joseph Smith. 1
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 11 minutes ago, CV75 said: A couple of years ago I posted on this board that soon people would assert that God told them to believe the antithetical doctrines/beliefs you've been describing. No rational appeal needed; you don't have to answer the challenging questions. I was told by someone who was arguing against the LDS teachings on this subject that I was being ridiculous! I already said that I knew your short answer was “By God saying so” but asked that you offer a more robust response that addresses specific LDS tenets. I'm not sure why you would avoid that, but as I said, I won't push it Posted 3 hours ago I'm confident you understand the leap I'm referring to and briefly described a couple of times because you clearly understand the LDS paradigm. When you ignore what I'm asking so that I can better understand you, you stifle the conversation and you get tuned out. But I already said before that I wouldn't push it. That sure cuts down on the number of responses you have to face, doesn't it! LOL If you honestly think I’ve been trying to cut down in the responses I’ve had to provide, then you haven’t been paying attention to this thread. How many people am I actively fielding questions from? I’m sorry you don’t approve of my explanations. I’ve been honest and straightforward and actually haven’t been holding back from you. I can’t let you push me into writing something I don’t believe. And I don’t think you’d want that either. And I still don’t consider my beliefs a “leap” so I can’t concede that.
Gray Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: That's because orientation is a gentle way of saying that someone has an inborn trait. Traits used to be seen as positive and negative. The negative ones (the sinful ones) used to be something to be worked on and overcome. Now if you have an inborn trait you are supposed to embrace who you are. Nobody needs to overcome anything anymore. Anger, jealousy, shyness, gluttony, arrogance, or any sinful attractions. If it's part of you , embrace it! Once upon a time it was thought that skin color was a trait you could change if you were righteous enough, too Edited October 25, 2017 by Gray 3
kiwi57 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: No. I still disagree - sexual orientation has not been co-opted for political purposes. Are you referring, rather, to equal rights? Your third paragraph is the strawman. It describes an argument that I haven’t made. And that is where this becomes frustrating. What exactly did you mean when you wrote: "And the Brethren, in the past, didn't distinguish between orientation and behavior. Such a distinction didn't seem to even be on their radar." Or this: "We both know that prior to about twenty years ago church leaders did not distinguish between orientation and behavior. You wish to take that as verification that they always understood orientation to be acceptable and behavior to be the sin. I understand the change in teaching for what it is ... a change." So what is the change you "understand" to have taken place, Rockpond? The Church does not now teach that homosexual inclinations or desires are sinful unless acted upon. You aren't able to produce an instance of them saying, at any time in the past, that homosexual inclinations or desires are sinful even though not acted upon. So where's the change? 1
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 39 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: And that is where this becomes frustrating. What exactly did you mean when you wrote: "And the Brethren, in the past, didn't distinguish between orientation and behavior. Such a distinction didn't seem to even be on their radar." Or this: "We both know that prior to about twenty years ago church leaders did not distinguish between orientation and behavior. You wish to take that as verification that they always understood orientation to be acceptable and behavior to be the sin. I understand the change in teaching for what it is ... a change." So what is the change you "understand" to have taken place, Rockpond? The Church does not now teach that homosexual inclinations or desires are sinful unless acted upon. You aren't able to produce an instance of them saying, at any time in the past, that homosexual inclinations or desires are sinful even though not acted upon. So where's the change? Choice, cause, curability, etc. Detailed in the documents I referenced.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: Choice, cause, curability, etc. Detailed in the documents I referenced. Nothing in the documents you referenced supports your assertion that "the Brethren, in the past, didn't distinguish between orientation and behavior" or your assertion that " prior to about twenty years ago church leaders did not distinguish between orientation and behavior." Edited October 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nothing in the documents you referenced supports your assertion that "the Brethren, in the past, didn't distinguish between orientation and behavior" or your assertion that " prior to about twenty years ago church leaders did not distinguish between orientation and behavior." I was wrong when I picked 20 years. You’ve pointed out that they did 26 years ago. Can you point to where our early teachings on the subject unambiguously stated that a church member could openly identify as homosexual and hold a calling, have the priesthood (if male), attend the temple, and serve a mission as long as they remained celibate? And that they would, in the next life, not have any blessings withheld as long as they remained celibate and righteous? Where is that?
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, kiwi57 said: So where's the change? Since it appears that you don’t want to read the Prince manuscript or Cook’s paper, you could start with source material directly from the church. The link below provides a scan of the church produced pamphlet written by then President Kimball and Elder Peterson in which they assure us that homosexuality CAN be cured, they explain that homosexuality “is not totally the fault of family conditions”, and counsel priesthood leaders to encourage gays and lesbians to enter opposite sex marriages. It’s just 7 pages long. http://www.connellodonovan.com/transgressors.html
CV75 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 13 hours ago, rockpond said: If you honestly think I’ve been trying to cut down in the responses I’ve had to provide, then you haven’t been paying attention to this thread. How many people am I actively fielding questions from? I’m sorry you don’t approve of my explanations. I’ve been honest and straightforward and actually haven’t been holding back from you. I can’t let you push me into writing something I don’t believe. And I don’t think you’d want that either. And I still don’t consider my beliefs a “leap” so I can’t concede that. I am just recognizing your earlier complaint “of having to continuously explain yourself against a seemingly endless onslaught of responses” as the reason for not sharing fully-fleshed out ideas about bridging the gap between the civil/legal and LDS paradigms of marriage. I think that alone demonstrates there is quite a leap to be made to do so. And of course, a personal spiritual witness transcends all leaps so no one is going to knock that. As far as Jesus’ influence or the light of Christ, I agree that two men knowing nothing of eternal marriage and engaged in a sexual relationship with each other is better, for example, than killing each other. So I certainly accept your explanations and testimony, but I don’t accept that they address my more salient questions. You quite easily appeal to science, history and testimony when supporting your views, but avoid sharing specifics about the more germane doctrinal ramifications which follow and which you may or may not also support.
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I am just recognizing your earlier complaint “of having to continuously explain yourself against a seemingly endless onslaught of responses” as the reason for not sharing fully-fleshed out ideas about bridging the gap between the civil/legal and LDS paradigms of marriage. I think that alone demonstrates there is quite a leap to be made to do so. You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that. I was speaking generally of not sharing fully fleshed out ideas. My beliefs that you and I have been discussing are what I would consider "fully fleshed out" which is why I've been willing to share as much as I have with you. 1 hour ago, CV75 said: And of course, a personal spiritual witness transcends all leaps so no one is going to knock that. As far as Jesus’ influence or the light of Christ, I agree that two men knowing nothing of eternal marriage and engaged in a sexual relationship with each other is better, for example, than killing each other. So I certainly accept your explanations and testimony, but I don’t accept that they address my more salient questions. You quite easily appeal to science, history and testimony when supporting your views, but avoid sharing specifics about the more germane doctrinal ramifications which follow and which you may or may not also support. I've tried to be open with you and you keep responding as if I'm trying to avoid sharing things. If you have a question, feel free to ask. I've tried to answer all of your questions openly and honestly. What doctrinal ramifications are of interest to you?
Pete Ahlstrom Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 16 hours ago, rockpond said: How does one overcome their sexual orientation? Shock therapy? Oh wait, that doesn't work. Prayer? Fasting? ..... I'm starting to see why some of the youth sadly believe there is no way out.
CV75 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, rockpond said: You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that. I was speaking generally of not sharing fully fleshed out ideas. My beliefs that you and I have been discussing are what I would consider "fully fleshed out" which is why I've been willing to share as much as I have with you. I've tried to be open with you and you keep responding as if I'm trying to avoid sharing things. If you have a question, feel free to ask. I've tried to answer all of your questions openly and honestly. What doctrinal ramifications are of interest to you? Perhaps you can review the exchange and see how I got my impression. I don’t know whether you’re avoiding anything intentionally, but it is apparent that you haven’t taken your ideas it into the realm I’d like to talk about. I suggested a few areas of doctrinal ramification on Saturday (starting with Posted Saturday at 02:53 PM ) without any seeming engagement on your part (you eventually asked me to see Rain’s answer which didn’t really address them but we had a nice sidebar anyway), and did not want to press those particulars if there were other uniquely LDS tenets you had in mind. So I’ll leave those up to you to identify if you can. Edited October 25, 2017 by CV75
rongo Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Shock therapy? Oh wait, that doesn't work. Prayer? Fasting? ..... I'm starting to see why some of the youth sadly believe there is no way out. Some can. Others can't. It varies by individual quite a bit. I know and have many members in former and current wards who successfully navigate an orientation that doesn't mesh with the gospel. Some remain celibate. Others are married with children. One of my stellar young women in a former ward is married to a gay man. They had their first child not long ago . . . http://beingoutisin.blogspot.com/ 1
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, rongo said: Some can. Others can't. It varies by individual quite a bit. I know and have many members in former and current wards who successfully navigate an orientation that doesn't mesh with the gospel. Some remain celibate. Others are married with children. One of my stellar young women in a former ward is married to a gay man. They had their first child not long ago . . . http://beingoutisin.blogspot.com/ Yes, some are able to make heterosexual marriage work but the old counsel from the church for gays and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage has resulted in a lot of broken families. The Brethren have rescinded that counsel and I think we need to be careful when putting forward that model.
rockpond Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 12 minutes ago, CV75 said: Perhaps you can review the exchange and see how I got my impression. I don’t know whether you’re avoiding anything intentionally, but it is apparent that you haven’t taken your ideas it into the realm I’d like to talk about. I suggested a few areas of doctrinal ramification on Saturday (starting with Posted Saturday at 02:53 PM ) without any seeming engagement on your part (you eventually asked me to see Rain’s answer which didn’t really address them but we had a nice sidebar anyway), and did not want to press those particulars if there were other uniquely LDS tenets you had in mind. So I’ll leave those up to you to identify if you can. I responded to that post. I sincerely do not understand what question you want me to answer. I've explained the LDS tenets that I have in mind. If you want something more specific, you'll have to ask because I don't know what you are getting at. (And I am not trying to be coy or evasive -- honestly not understanding what you want me to explain.)
rongo Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, some are able to make heterosexual marriage work but the old counsel from the church for gays and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage has resulted in a lot of broken families. The Brethren have rescinded that counsel and I think we need to be careful when putting forward that model. I agree. I would also be very, very careful about counseling marriage in many cases (again, it varies by individual). I do not hesitate to counsel celibacy, though. Many people successfully keep all of the commandments while also being gay. 1
Recommended Posts