LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Well aren't we all innocent as a baby.  So what the heck did you even bring up Sodom for?  First you tell us the reason everyone is gay is because of TV shows and magazines.  When we point out to you that there have been homosexual men since the beginning of time, then you assert that there was less gayness going on 100 years ago. When we point out that in some cultures gay relations were way more acceptable and common than anything like what is going on today.  Then you link their acceptance to being gay to the fall of the Roman empire to the Teutons around 450 ad.  Even by your calculation, their empire lasted 600 years.  And then you pretend that you weren't linking the fall of the Roman empire to their sexual behavior.  And then you dig up this article about a group of archeologists digging around the area of ancient Sodom and throw out the theory that it was the Minoan culture and their wild acceptance of homosexuality that was the culture going on in Sodom, which God destroyed.  So therefore God destroys cities that practice the Minoan culture of rampant homosexuality.  Then you pretend that you never inferred  hmosexual behavior was related to the destruction of Sodom.

Yeah innocent as a baby.  You never did anything.  You never put out ridiculous assumptions about what causes homosexuality and what God will do to any country that has it within their national borders.  The end is coming.  Be ware of all the gays that have embraced their orientation from watching Will and Grace.  Go ahead. say it.  You already have in so many words.

 

Look bud. I'm rather tired of you making false assumptions and accusations about me. In my very first post in this thread 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69735-lds-scientistbiographer-presents-findings-on-the-science-of-sexual-orientation/?do=findComment&comment=1209765867

I said I believe there is "an epigenetic component to homosexuality." I then went on to show why I don't believe the rhetoric that gays are "born gay." This is what seems to set you off, because you seem to have a problem with someone who doesn't want the gay lifestyle promoted all over TV, magazines and everything else in our society. I want to promote the biblical familial lifestyle. Sorry if that offends you. You want to promote the gay lifestyle apparently. I don't want my family exposed to that every time they turn on the TV. I don't accept the proposed paradigm that makes me "homophobic." Are you "heterophobic?" So your rant about my "assumptions" concerning Sodom were quite wrong. I supported what I said. The fact is that the Intermediate and Middle Bronze age in the Kikkar of the Jordan valley had some Minoan aspects for several hundred years around the time of Sodom and Abraham. The Minoans were a known pederastic society. Those are the facts. Deal with it, and get over yourself.

9 hours ago, california boy said:

And then you pretend that you weren't linking the fall of the Roman empire to their sexual behavior.

Umm...Here is the sum total of my response to you about the fall of the Roman Empire:

"The Roman Empire did not go on for 1500 years. It began as a republic, and was limited to basically Italy until it defeated the Phoenician Cathaginians, and took over their territories in the first few centuries BC. It didn't become an empire until Caesar's day when the senate began to be replaced by totalitarian emperors. The western empire of Rome began to fall to the Teutons around 450 AD and was basically gone by 550 AD so the Roman Empire itself lasted some 600 years. The Byzantine Greek Empire lived on till conquered by the Muslims. If you are implying that God allowed them to exist because they were virtuous that is nonsense. The Lord's people have always been a minority, and been subject to surrounding countries which at times the Lord used or allowed to scold His people. The Lord has often made His people subject to the kings of the earth - it was by no means because these other countries were virtuous.  For "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." Daniel 4:17."

As the reader can plainly see, I didn't broach the subject of homosexuality at all. I am not the one who brought up the Roman Empire. You did. And then you have the absolute temerity to accuse me of making the fall of Rome about homosexuality. If anything you are the one that seems to have some preconceived notions about the fall of empires and homosexuality. May I suggest you learn to read what is written? Are you really an attorney? If you think you are going to set up straw men arguments and then lambast me when I call you out, reveal them, and knock them down, you are quite mistaken.

Edited October 20, 2017 by RevTestament

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Your premise I quote you: "if genetic, then there will be the debate of whether or nor it should be considered a genetic "disorder". It also raises the possibility that through future advances in gene therapy, there may some day be a "cure". "

^^^^^^There your own words^^^^^^. Again they speak for themselves,  why would anyone debate whether being gay is a genetic disorder or in need of a cure. Your premise being that being gay requires a cure

Generally communication works best when you don't tell the other person what they believe.  It tends to work better when you listen to the other person and accept that what they tell you is genuine, otherwise you are accusing them of lying or intentionally deceiving.  Do I have any reason to lie or deceive here?  If I thought that being gay was a genetic disorder, I wouldn't be ashamed to say so, however, I have repeatedly stated that "we don't know what causes it"  I never said it "needs" to be cured. 

Those are my words, and they do speak for themselves.  They clearly say "If it is genetic, there will be a debate..."  You have not satisfied my CFR yet again.  Your constant insistence that I said something other than what I am telling you, insinuates that I am either confused and don't know what I was saying, or that I am intentionally lying to you for no good reason.  That is not a healthy foundation for effective communication, so I suggest that you accept what I am telling you now and withdraw your insistent and persistent false accusations.  You misunderstood...period. 

16 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

^^^^again your words comparing being born gay to a genetic disorder and a disease^^^^ again you said this in a reply to Greys comment wherein the subject was whether being gay was genetic or biological wherein you say "it" referring to gay,  might be more epigenetic. And then you go on by saying either way doesn't change the question . There are epigenetic diseases as well.

Ummm, nope.  Do you even know what epigenetic means?    I didn't make that point by the way, the article in the OP made the point.  Why is it insulting to state that it might be epigenetic anyway?  All that does is prove that it is not a choice!  And I never called it an epigenetic disease, I have repeatedly stated that we don't know what causes it.  So, the question has not yet been asked, but it may be asked at some future date with some future discovery.  I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE! 

If it is discovered that there is actually a gene that causes heterosexuality (the survival of the species gene), for example, and if that gene has a faulty modification of normal gene expression (a.k.a "inactive gene"), then it very well theoretically could be (as in "we don't know!")  classified as a disorder someday with such a discovery.  That is nothing to get all up in arms about, if that indeed becomes the case.  There is nothing shameful about a genetic disorder.

16 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

your own words condem you and speak for themselves 

 No, your false comprehension and interpretation of my words is what is annoyingly condemning me.

16 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

 pogi, can you even see how any of your words might be offensive to a member of the gay community. Heck I'm not even gay and they offended me.

No I don't.  First, I never called it a genetic disorder that needs to be cured.  Second, what if it is discovered that it is faulty gene expression that causes homosexuality?  So what is to be offended about?   Should my son be offended because his white hair and skin is caused by a genetic disorder?  I am offended that you think that people with genetic disorders should feel offended or ashamed of their disorder - that they should consider themselves "broken", need to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. 

Your attempt to be PC is becoming very un-PC of you!

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by pogi

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Didn't you read the argument of his presentation?

So everything he said was garbage? 

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Generally communication works best when you don't tell the other person what they believe.  It tends to work better when you listen to the other person and accept that what they tell you is genuine, otherwise you are accusing them of lying or intentionally deceiving.  Do I have any reason to lie or deceive here?  If I thought that being gay was a genetic disorder, I wouldn't be ashamed to say so, however, I have repeatedly stated that "we don't know what causes it"  I never said it "needs" to be cured. 

Those are my words, and they do speak for themselves.  They clearly say "If it is genetic, there will be a debate..."  You have not satisfied my CFR yet again.  Your constant insistence that I said something other than what I am telling you, insinuates that I am either confused and don't know what I was saying, or that I am intentionally lying to you for no good reason.  That is not a healthy foundation for effective communication, so I suggest that you accept what I am telling you now and withdraw your insistent and persistent false accusations.  You misunderstood...period. 

Ummm, nope.  Do you even know what epigenetic means?    I didn't make that point by the way, the article in the OP made the point.  Why is it insulting to state that it might be epigenetic anyway?  All that does is prove that it is not a choice!  And I never called it an epigenetic disease, I have repeatedly stated that we don't know what causes it.  So, the question has not yet been asked, but it may be asked at some future date with some future discovery.  I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE! 

If it is discovered that there is actually a gene that causes heterosexuality (the survival of the species gene), for example, and if that gene has a faulty modification of normal gene expression (a.k.a "inactive gene"), then it very well theoretically could be (as in "we don't know!")  classified as a disorder someday with such a discovery.  That is nothing to get all up in arms about, if that indeed becomes the case.  There is nothing shameful about a genetic disorder.

 No, your false comprehension and interpretation of my words is what is annoyingly condemning me.

No I don't.  First, I never called it a genetic disorder that needs to be cured.  Second, what if it is discovered that it is faulty gene expression that causes homosexuality?  So what is to be offended about?   Should my son be offended because his white hair and skin is caused by a genetic disorder?  I am offended that you think that people with genetic disorders should feel offended or ashamed of their disorder - that they should consider themselves "broken", need to be fixed, etc. etc. etc. 

Your attempt to be PC is becoming very un-PC of you!

 

 

 

Fair enough I accept your explanation.  I've moved on

[thesometimesaint]

No it isn't OK to bully people or Whopper Jr's.

SEE

 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

Look bud. I'm rather tired of you making false assumptions and accusations about me. In my very first post in this thread 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69735-lds-scientistbiographer-presents-findings-on-the-science-of-sexual-orientation/?do=findComment&comment=1209765867

I said I believe there is "an epigenetic component to homosexuality." I then went on to show why I don't believe the rhetoric that gays are "born gay."

For someone who is tired of making false assumptions and accusations, you seem to be doing quite a good job at that yourself.  I never once weighed in on whether I was born gay or not.  Because quite frankly it doesn't make one bit of difference to me how I became gay.  In the end, I am still gay.  Actually I don't think you could find one single post that I have EVER made that I said I believe I was born gay.  What I have stated and is accurate is that I knew I was gay when I was 12 years old.  

Quote

This is what seems to set you off, because you seem to have a problem with someone who doesn't want the gay lifestyle promoted all over TV, magazines and everything else in our society.

YES, this is what set me off.  While I have no idea why I am gay, I am CERTAIN that it was not from watching sit coms with a gay character in them.  I was gay as well as thousands of people, as well as thousands before TV or Magazines were even around.  That is the ridiculous assumption that "set me off".  Seriously, how can anyone actually believe that watching Will and Grace will make someone gay.  And what I did say in response to that post is this.  "Getting Mormon fundamentalism to fit sometimes takes on the role of a comedy."  Yes.  I find your theory quite hilarious and completely without merit.  

Quote

I want to promote the biblical familial lifestyle. Sorry if that offends you. You want to promote the gay lifestyle apparently. I don't want my family exposed to that every time they turn on the TV. I don't accept the proposed paradigm that makes me "homophobic." Are you "heterophobic?"

If you are relying on Television to teach your children "biblical familiar lifestyle", then you are going to be sadly disappointed even if you never see a gay person appear in any of he shows that you watch.  If you only want to watch TV shows that present Biblical values, then you are going to have a difficult time.  Stoning those that commit adultery and forcing brothers to marry the other brothers wives when one of them dies,  offering daughters up to be raped just doesn't seem to be a big ratings concept.   And what difference does it make to you if some. shows have someone who is gay in them.  News Flash, there are gay people on this earth.  And I have sat through my share of opposite sex couples kissing, holding hands, dancing hugging,  Do you see me freaking out about that?  This might surprise you, but not every person on television is going to conform to your own personal lifestyle preference.  I suggest you get rid of your TV rather than blaming shows that happen to have someone on that is not just like you.

Quote

So your rant about my "assumptions" concerning Sodom were quite wrong. I supported what I said. The fact is that the Intermediate and Middle Bronze age in the Kikkar of the Jordan valley had some Minoan aspects for several hundred years around the time of Sodom and Abraham. The Minoans were a known pederastic society. Those are the facts. Deal with it, and get over yourself.

Sodom is ALL on you.  You are the one that brought it up. I have no idea why Minoans living in the area of Sodom is important to the thread which is about an article on how someone might be gay.  Maybe you can tell us all why you decided to bring in the Minoans and Sodom.  But don't go blaming me.

Quote

Umm...Here is the sum total of my response to you about the fall of the Roman Empire:

"The Roman Empire did not go on for 1500 years. It began as a republic, and was limited to basically Italy until it defeated the Phoenician Cathaginians, and took over their territories in the first few centuries BC. It didn't become an empire until Caesar's day when the senate began to be replaced by totalitarian emperors. The western empire of Rome began to fall to the Teutons around 450 AD and was basically gone by 550 AD so the Roman Empire itself lasted some 600 years. The Byzantine Greek Empire lived on till conquered by the Muslims. If you are implying that God allowed them to exist because they were virtuous that is nonsense. The Lord's people have always been a minority, and been subject to surrounding countries which at times the Lord used or allowed to scold His people. The Lord has often made His people subject to the kings of the earth - it was by no means because these other countries were virtuous.  For "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." Daniel 4:17."

As the reader can plainly see, I didn't broach the subject of homosexuality at all. I am not the one who brought up the Roman Empire. You did. And then you have the absolute temerity to accuse me of making the fall of Rome about homosexuality. If anything you are the one that seems to have some preconceived notions about the fall of empires and homosexuality. May I suggest you learn to read what is written? Are you really an attorney? If you think you are going to set up straw men arguments and then lambast me when I call you out, reveal them, and knock them down, you are quite mistaken.

Another absolutely false statement by you.  I did not bring up the Roman Empire, Button Gwinnett did.  This is his post

On 10/18/2017 at 7:23 PM, Button Gwinnett said:

Button Gwinnett

And we know that within Roman history homosexuality was as common and a non issue as what toga one is going to wear today.  Many men, including emperors, had wife's as well as male, both adults and boys & female lovers.  It was just not that big of a deal.  The emperor Hadrian even make his male lover a god.

im not advocating we return to what Rome did, im just pointing out that it's a relatively recent phenomenon that society has become so homophobic.  The societal pendulum is actually just swinging back to where it's actually been in human history 

 

What do you mean you didn't broach the subject of homosexuality?  You broached the issue of homosexuality in your very first post on this thread with that ridiculous asserting that people become gay from watching gay people on TV.

I have "seems to have some preconceived notions about the fall of empires and homosexuality."  an yeah.  Homosexuality was practiced in all of those cultures.  And just so you remember why they were brought up. they all existed before TV and the practice was much more prevalent than homosexuality was 100 years ago, which is a claim you made that prompted Button Gwinnett to make his remark about the Roman Empire.

Do I personally think you are homophobic?  Well actually I don't know you well enough to have an opinion on that.  But I have to say you are up and running in that direction when you think gay people should not be a part of our culture including TV.  

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by california boy

[williamsmith]

Quote

LDS Scientist/Biographer Presents Findings on the Science of Sexual Orientation

 

He's wrong...

Many sins and perversions people can say they were "born that way".  LGBT+ is under no special exemption compared to other sins and weaknesses.  Sin is sin Period.
Many sins and perversions people "develop" a love for such when they never had an inclination toward such before.

Is there a biological component that makes one more "susceptible" to the development of one sin or another.  Absolutely.

But he couldn't be more wrong otherwise...  All of life is Thought, Actions, and Nurture.  As a man thinketh so shall he be PERIOD.
It's a falsehood to teach otherwise.

 

Edited November 2, 2017 by williamsmith

[kiwi57]

On 10/19/2017 at 12:56 PM, rockpond said:

Nothing in the quote you provide supports such a conclusion.  In fact, Oaks noted that he chose one "suggestion" from scientists that fit our doctrine.

Thank you for admitting that Elder Oaks' position is the one that fits our doctrine.

[kiwi57]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:07 AM, Daniel2 said:

In the video above, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince.  He's introduced here:

So I wondered: if it's all about the science, why the long gushing introduction, heavy on Prince's Mormon cred?

But if it's all about a Mormon view, why the pounding emphasis on the science?

But if it's really all about opinion-forming, then why... well actually, if it's all about opinion-forming, there aren't any questions to be asked.

[kiwi57]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:07 AM, stemelbow said:

I do think the bottom-up source is a comin'.  Sorry Elder Oaks.  I know you don't want it but it's coming. 

No. It's not.

Those who want "same sex marriage" in the Church the most, in general understand the doctrine the least.

Those who understand the doctrine the most, in general want "same sex marriage" the least.

Coincidence?

Or is it?

Because it happens that those who are most consistently involved in the Church are also those who are most committed to its mission.

Those who are committed to its mission are also those who most strongly believe in its doctrines.

And the leaders of the Church keep choosing the local leadership from among those who are most consistently involved in the Church, committed to its mission, and believe its doctrines.

And not only that, they tend to also call the higher leadership from among those who show the most commitment in their local leadership positions.

While those who are convinced that the Church is led by uninspired old men who just don't get it and who are on the wrong side of history, generally aren't that involved, committed, believing - or informed.

This, of course, is all part of a fiendish plot to keep all those deeply spiritual people who know what God really wants out of Church leadership positions.

Mwahahahahahaha!

[california boy]

From a Pew poll.  The percentage of change in just one single year. 2015-2016

Quote

 

Even though 55% of Mormons still oppose same-sex marriage, that opposition is rapidly eroding: PRRI’s 2015 data about Mormons had 66% opposing it and 26% in favor.

That’s an 11-point drop in opposition over just one year (66% to 55%), with a corresponding 11-point rise in support (26% to 37%).

 

 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

From a Pew poll.  The percentage of change in just one single year. 2015-2016

 

Its a pretty fast decline.  In some ways I wonder if the Nov 2015 policy of the church hasn't accelerated the opinions of members on this subject because that policy is so egregious that it really makes people question their position on this issue.  How long will members suffer through talks like Elder Oaks from the last conference and others who want to double down on bigotry?  Perhaps these attempts to solidify a position that is increasingly out of step will backfire.  

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No. It's not.

Those who want "same sex marriage" in the Church the most, in general understand the doctrine the least.

Those who understand the doctrine the most, in general want "same sex marriage" the least.

Coincidence?

Or is it?

Because it happens that those who are most consistently involved in the Church are also those who are most committed to its mission.

Those who are committed to its mission are also those who most strongly believe in its doctrines.

And the leaders of the Church keep choosing the local leadership from among those who are most consistently involved in the Church, committed to its mission, and believe its doctrines.

And not only that, they tend to also call the higher leadership from among those who show the most commitment in their local leadership positions.

While those who are convinced that the Church is led by uninspired old men who just don't get it and who are on the wrong side of history, generally aren't that involved, committed, believing - or informed.

This, of course, is all part of a fiendish plot to keep all those deeply spiritual people who know what God really wants out of Church leadership positions.

Mwahahahahahaha!

I think all understand what the Church wants to be true in this.  IT's not a matter of not understanding but more a matter of whether or not one agrees.  SOme in the Church make more room for what comes out as exceptions to general rules.  It makes sense and works because as it turns out there are exceptions.  That is what makes this world so interesting and what gives us, if we let it, a better understanding.  But many in the Church, I grant are far more closed to considering the goodness in God in life.  And that's sad.  I wish you well.  I realize you wish to make this about who is the moistest faithful.  But that's just silly. 

[nuclearfuels]

For the sake of argument and discussion, let's assume Dr. Prince's research is 100% accurate, correct, validatable, and reliable.

In the section of such peer-reviewed studies right beofre teh conclusion, where the authors discuss future research questions/areas, might I suggest one?

If biology = orientation, might such scholars analyze biological differences/drives for sex between men and women?

Whatever the result of such research is, laws should be made which legalize and re-institute the expression of those differences in sex drive.

Biology is biology.

And apparently biology = law = eternal doctrine = The Prophet should tell God to change marriage (which God never created but...whatever).

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No. It's not.

Those who want "same sex marriage" in the Church the most, in general understand the doctrine the least.

Those who understand the doctrine the most, in general want "same sex marriage" the least.

Coincidence?

Or is it?

Because it happens that those who are most consistently involved in the Church are also those who are most committed to its mission.

Those who are committed to its mission are also those who most strongly believe in its doctrines.

And the leaders of the Church keep choosing the local leadership from among those who are most consistently involved in the Church, committed to its mission, and believe its doctrines.

And not only that, they tend to also call the higher leadership from among those who show the most commitment in their local leadership positions.

While those who are convinced that the Church is led by uninspired old men who just don't get it and who are on the wrong side of history, generally aren't that involved, committed, believing - or informed.

This, of course, is all part of a fiendish plot to keep all those deeply spiritual people who know what God really wants out of Church leadership positions.

Mwahahahahahaha!

I doubt your conclusions.

I just finished serving for 5 years as a counselor for two bishops.  Prior to that I was an early morning seminary teacher.  Right now I am 1st counselor in the YM presidency.  (Not trying to give my "church resume" just countering your implication that I may not be fully committed to the church.)

I personally know a man who has served as stake president, mission president, and is currently serving as a temple president who agreed with me that a revelation allowing gay marriage is possible.

Believe what you want, but my lived experience differs from what you've expressed here.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I personally know a man who has served as stake president, mission president, and is currently serving as a temple president who agreed with me that a revelation allowing gay marriage is possible.

Cool! It is possible we know the same guy and that he profoundly objects to people misunderstanding and misrepresenting exactly how he might agree with them.

It is one thing to give statements like these some benefit of a doubt for the sake of discussion when the poster makes a self-referential claim, but when referring to another unnamed source, well, it gets a bit less tolerable. I think posters try this sort of rhetoric at great risk of reducing the benefit of a doubt they enjoy and detracting from the more salient points of discussion.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

It is one thing to give statements like these some benefit of a doubt for the sake of discussion when the poster makes a self-referential claim, but when referring to another unnamed source, well, it gets a bit less tolerable. I think posters try this sort of rhetoric at great risk of reducing the benefit of a doubt they enjoy and detracting from the more salient points of discussion.

I agree.  I made the point I did in this context to respond to Kiwi's implication that those who believe differently than him must not be as committed.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I doubt your conclusions.

I just finished serving for 5 years as a counselor for two bishops.  Prior to that I was an early morning seminary teacher.  Right now I am 1st counselor in the YM presidency.  (Not trying to give my "church resume" just countering your implication that I may not be fully committed to the church.)

I personally know a man who has served as stake president, mission president, and is currently serving as a temple president who agreed with me that a revelation allowing gay marriage is possible.

Believe what you want, but my lived experience differs from what you've expressed here.

1. I was speaking in generalities. I did not discount the possibility of outliers.

2. As you know, the only counter to your anonymous and unverifiable claims is to question their veracity. As you also know, if I did so, you would immediately report me to the mods, or arrange for someone else to do so so that you could say that your own hands were clean. You've made a claim that is both unverifiable and protected by forum rules. Don't worry Rockpond; you're safe there, hiding behind the teachers' skirts. But since your claims can't be tested or challenged, it rather inexorably follows that no valid argument can be adduced from them, either.

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a pretty fast decline.

You notice, though, that it hasn't reached the level of active membership yet. That's where I expect it to at least level off, if not reach a hard floor.

Of course those who aren't active in the Church, who don't give heed to the words of the apostles and prophets, and who aren't living according to the promptings of the Holy Ghost will be blown about by every wind of worldly doctrine. That's entirely to be expected.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 In some ways I wonder if the Nov 2015 policy of the church hasn't accelerated the opinions of members on this subject because that policy is so egregious that it really makes people question their position on this issue.

And yet - it's essentially the same policy that has applied to the children of polygamous families for decades, and nobody complained.

Gawrsh, I wonder what's different this time?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 How long will members suffer through talks like Elder Oaks from the last conference

It was an excellent talk. I hope we get many more; as many as it takes for the message to sink in.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

and others who want to double down on bigotry?

Do you mean anti-Mormon bigotry? Because that's the only kind of bigotry in view.

Certainly there is no reasonable person who could imagine that the Proclamation on the Family is an expression of "bigotry."

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Perhaps these attempts to solidify a position that is increasingly out of step will backfire.  

Yes, I'm sure that those most hostile to the Kingdom of God share that hope.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

1. I was speaking in generalities. I did not discount the possibility of outliers.

2. As you know, the only counter to your anonymous and unverifiable claims is to question their veracity. As you also know, if I did so, you would immediately report me to the mods, or arrange for someone else to do so so that you could say that your own hands were clean. You've made a claim that is both unverifiable and protected by forum rules. Don't worry Rockpond; you're safe there, hiding behind the teachers' skirts. But since your claims can't be tested or challenged, it rather inexorably follows that no valid argument can be adduced from them, either.

I'm not looking to "be safe".  Just seeking to counter your false and, also, unverifiable claim that I and others like me are less committed to the church.

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think all understand what the Church wants to be true in this.  IT's not a matter of not understanding but more a matter of whether or not one agrees.  SOme in the Church make more room for what comes out as exceptions to general rules.  It makes sense and works because as it turns out there are exceptions.  That is what makes this world so interesting and what gives us, if we let it, a better understanding.  But many in the Church, I grant are far more closed to considering the goodness in God in life.  And that's sad.  I wish you well.  I realize you wish to make this about who is the moistest faithful.  But that's just silly. 

And you're not trying to make this about who is more open "to considering the goodness in God in life?"

You are, of course, mistaken. I do not "wish to make this about who is the moistest faithful." (Or even the driest faithful.) I'm simply pointing out that the Church's leadership cohort is chosen from among those members who are most committed to the Church's mission, and who demonstrate most fully their belief in its core doctrines. Since those who are expecting the Church to accommodate same sex "marriage" don't really believe (however they may choose to lip-service it) that the Church is led by actual revelation that actually comes from God, I'm merely showing that the natural process of developing Church leadership doesn't give them much in the way of aid and comfort either.

Is that clear now?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And you're not trying to make this about who is more open "to considering the goodness in God in life?"

You are, of course, mistaken. I do not "wish to make this about who is the moistest faithful." (Or even the driest faithful.) I'm simply pointing out that the Church's leadership cohort is chosen from among those members who are most committed to the Church's mission, and who demonstrate most fully their belief in its core doctrines. Since those who are expecting the Church to accommodate same sex "marriage" don't really believe (however they may choose to lip-service it) that the Church is led by actual revelation that actually comes from God, I'm merely showing that the natural process of developing Church leadership doesn't give them much in the way of aid and comfort either.

Is that clear now?

It's nice that we have someone here who not only is able to comment on the commitment level of millions of church members but is also, apparently, qualified to speak on behalf of Church leadership.

[kiwi57]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's nice that we have someone here who not only is able to comment on the commitment level of millions of church members but is also, apparently, qualified to speak on behalf of Church leadership.

Oh, really? And who would that be?

Not me. A number of the brethren - including, but not limited to Elder Oaks (note please the honorific)  Elder Christofferson and President Nelson have done so; but I'm not.

I'm merely pointing to the rather non-controversial fact that those called to each level of Church leadership have demonstrated their faith and commitment, both by the things they do and the content of their teachings, in long years of unpaid service at lower levels of Church leadership. Do you disagree?

And since those who are chosen affirmatively support the Church's doctrines - not merely those that are labelled "core doctrines" (often with some private definition that is held back from discussion) but all of them - including the Family Proclamation - then the likelihood of some kind of surreptitious takeover by "LGBT allies" or similar seems rather remote.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? If, indeed, you genuinely did not previously?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Oh, really? And who would that be?

Not me. A number of the brethren - including, but not limited to Elder Oaks (note please the honorific)  Elder Christofferson and President Nelson have done so; but I'm not.

I'm merely pointing to the rather non-controversial fact that those called to each level of Church leadership have demonstrated their faith and commitment, both by the things they do and the content of their teachings, in long years of unpaid service at lower levels of Church leadership. Do you disagree?

And since those who are chosen affirmatively support the Church's doctrines - not merely those that are labelled "core doctrines" (often with some private definition that is held back from discussion) but all of them - including the Family Proclamation - then the likelihood of some kind of surreptitious takeover by "LGBT allies" or similar seems rather remote.

Do you understand what I'm saying now? If, indeed, you genuinely did not previously?

I understand what you are saying. I just found your comments to be somewhat misdirected. 

I hope that among the core doctrines believed by any church leader is that of continuing revelation and the ongoing restoration. 

[kiwi57]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I understand what you are saying. I just found your comments to be somewhat misdirected. 

I hope that among the core doctrines believed by any church leader is that of continuing revelation and the ongoing restoration. 

I'm sure that those are among the core doctrines they believe.

I'm sure that they also believe all that God has revealed (see AofF 9) about marriage and morality. And that they don't impatiently push them aside waiting for Him to reveal something more - popular.