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

[rockpond]

2 hours 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 wanted to further comment on Kiwi’s remarks about reporting to the mods...

I fundamentally disagree with reporting people on this board unless they’ve done something particular heinous and disrespectful.  I’ll explain why:

We’re all adults and most of us are Christians who profess to conduct ourselves in a certain manner.  We ought to be able to self police and we all ought to be invested in maintaining a certain level of dialogue here.  I try to always remember that the mods are volunteers. 

If I am involved in a discussion and feel someone has violated a board guideline, I may point it out but I don’t feel that I should report anything.  I am not innocent of having violated a rule on occasion (not with malicious intent) and I’ve been guilty of falling into some childish behavior as well.  I always hope to do better in the next conversation. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

As do I. 

[LittleNipper]

Sin is genetic. We inherited it from Adam and Eve. 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Sin is genetic. We inherited it from Adam and Eve. 

So we can remove sin with a little genetic engineering?  Who needs Jesus!?

[california boy]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I tend to agree with you.  The more radical the church is.  The more the church steps away from treating gay families fairly, the more tighter they try and control the situation, the more they loose.

It is history repeating itself.  I have long maintained that Prop 8 did more to move the country to acceptance of gay marriage than any single event.  After Prop 8 passed, gay marriage was regularly discussed on national TV programs and the media.  The more those that supported gay marriage and had the chance to explain why gay marriage was the right thing to embrace, the more support gay marriage got.  Conversely, the more those that fought gay marriage gave their reasons, the more hollow their excuses became.  Bringing the discussion out in the bright sunlight of public discourse did more to change the public than any other possible method.  From that time forward, momentum shifted in favor of gay marriage.

The October policy is doing the exact same thing.  Only this time, it is the membership of the church that is discussing the unfair actions church leaders have taken towards gay families.  The only thing that would accelerate members accepting of gay marriage faster would be if church leaders institute another policy that is even more unfair and targeted.  

[stemelbow]

7 hours 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?

Well whatever you fancy to prattle on about,, I’ll maintain my opinion that you took issue with—someday we’ll see the church changing.  The bttom up approach Is coming.  We’ll see 

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I tend to agree with you.  The more radical the church is.  The more the church steps away from treating gay families fairly,

In our recent election, one of the political parties began their campaign by claiming that there was something called a "housing crisis" in New Zealand.

After that initial claim, they stopped claiming it. They simply referred to "the housing crisis" as though it were an established fact.

It was a clever, manipulative, and none too scrupulous bit of demagoguery.

Much like your statement I have bolded above. You are smuggling your assumptions into the discussion as though they were established facts.

But they are not.

You seem to assume that anything less that giving you everything you want, immediately and all the time, is not "fair." Well, guess what: the Church doesn't owe you anything. Your sense of aggrieved entitlement is misplaced.

5 hours ago, california boy said:

the more tighter they try and control the situation, the more they loose.

It is history repeating itself.  I have long maintained that Prop 8 did more to move the country to acceptance of gay marriage than any single event.  After Prop 8 passed, gay marriage was regularly discussed on national TV programs and the media.  The more those that supported gay marriage and had the chance to explain why gay marriage was the right thing to embrace, the more support gay marriage got.  Conversely, the more those that fought gay marriage gave their reasons, the more hollow their excuses became.  Bringing the discussion out in the bright sunlight of public discourse did more to change the public than any other possible method.  From that time forward, momentum shifted in favor of gay marriage.

The October policy is doing the exact same thing.  Only this time, it is the membership of the church that is discussing the unfair actions church leaders have taken towards gay families.  The only thing that would accelerate members accepting of gay marriage faster would be if church leaders institute another policy that is even more unfair and targeted.  

I'm sure that narrative plays well in your mind.

Now here's what I think is happening:

"Same sex marriage" is now a legal fictionfact, and is becoming generally accepted in the wider culture. Many less-active Latter-day Saints (and a few of the active ones too, I suppose) take more notice of popular culture than they do the inspired teachings of prophets and apostles. Thus, among them, "same sex marriage" is becoming accepted.

However, there remains a core of faithful, believing Latter-day Saints who are not afraid of being at odds with a world in decline. Among that group, "same sex marriage" is not finding acceptance; nor will it.

So tell us honestly, CB: do you know of even one family led by a same-sex pairing, that is directly affected by the policy that was announced in November 2015? Which "two dads" are angsting out because the Church won't let them ask some straight guy to baptize a child in their care?

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well whatever you fancy to prattle on about,, I’ll maintain my opinion that you took issue with—someday we’ll see the church changing.  The bttom up approach Is coming.  We’ll see 

No it won't, no it isn't, and yes - we will see.

How is Scott's countdown clock going?

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

So we can remove sin with a little genetic engineering?  Who needs Jesus!?

That is not the truth I'm reveaing. A genetic predisposition to do something or act a certain way is absolutely no excuse to live in sin. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

 

Now here's what I think is happening:

"Same sex marriage" is now a legal fictionfact, and is becoming generally accepted in the wider culture. Many less-active Latter-day Saints (and a few of the active ones too, I suppose) take more notice of popular culture than they do the inspired teachings of prophets and apostles. Thus, among them, "same sex marriage" is becoming accepted.

 

It seems to me that this is true of everyone who believes the scriptures fallible. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

It seems to me that this is true of everyone who believes the scriptures fallible. 

Wait... don’t we all believe that the scriptures are, in some respects, fallible?  We don’t believe them to be infallible, right?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well whatever you fancy to prattle on about,, I’ll maintain my opinion that you took issue with—someday we’ll see the church changing.  The bttom up approach Is coming.  We’ll see 

Now that's an interesting way to phrase it... While the biology of sexual orientation is debatable, it is interesting to me that the Lord’s covenants, while spiritual in nature, often suggest a biological component.

Goats and sheep used in the Mosaic sacrifices are distinct biological organisms (species and genus) with differing number of chromosomes. Only males were to be used for the congregational offerings performed by the High Priest (burnt offerings, scapegoat and Passover). Other female animals were permitted to be used in some of the individual sin, trespass and peace offerings, though according to the economics of flock husbandry the males were generally more expendable. In any case, ancient Israel could not use “scape-sheep” for Yom Kippur nor female lambs for the Passover; can you imagine?

Baptism is interesting as it addresses the biological necessity for air (immersion in water representing death). The sacrament addresses the biological necessity for water and bread and for blood and flesh, and we understand the biological basis for life and death in this world (who knows about immortality, except it entails a change (3 Nephi 28). The priesthood covenant entails a relationship between mortal servants and God, and refers to the sons of Moses and the seed of Abraham, both relationships speak to the biological aspect of covenants. The temple endowment as an expansion of the priesthood covenant culminates in the marriage covenant wherein husband and wife bring the biological component to the altar. Each of these covenants has to do with the perpetuation of life. The progression begins with individual rescue from death (baptism and sacrament), expands into rescuing the family (priesthood covenant) and culminates in the creation of life (marriage). None of the biological analogs of these covenants are interchangeable either; that would alter them beyond any kind of effectiveness and remove any tie to the Atonement as key components get taken and  separated out.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In our recent election, one of the political parties began their campaign by claiming that there was something called a "housing crisis" in New Zealand.

After that initial claim, they stopped claiming it. They simply referred to "the housing crisis" as though it were an established fact.

It was a clever, manipulative, and none too scrupulous bit of demagoguery.

Much like your statement I have bolded above. You are smuggling your assumptions into the discussion as though they were established facts.

But they are not.

You seem to assume that anything less that giving you everything you want, immediately and all the time, is not "fair." Well, guess what: the Church doesn't owe you anything. Your sense of aggrieved entitlement is misplaced.

I'm sure that narrative plays well in your mind.

Now here's what I think is happening:

"Same sex marriage" is now a legal fictionfact, and is becoming generally accepted in the wider culture. Many less-active Latter-day Saints (and a few of the active ones too, I suppose) take more notice of popular culture than they do the inspired teachings of prophets and apostles. Thus, among them, "same sex marriage" is becoming accepted.

However, there remains a core of faithful, believing Latter-day Saints who are not afraid of being at odds with a world in decline. Among that group, "same sex marriage" is not finding acceptance; nor will it.

So tell us honestly, CB: do you know of even one family led by a same-sex pairing, that is directly affected by the policy that was announced in November 2015? Which "two dads" are angsting out because the Church won't let them ask some straight guy to baptize a child in their care?

You must be right.  I am the ONLY person (well and a few inactive members who really don't count anyway) who thinks the church has first tried to prevent gay couples from legally marrying.  And now I am the ONLY person who thinks that prohibiting children of gay couples from baptism is unfair.  Everyone thinks the Mormon church loves gays and is welcoming to them and their families.  And it is only the inactive that think policies towards gay families are at odds with the teachings of what Christ taught concerning little children.  And those polls that show the Mormon church as being the least liked of every religion in America except Muslins are wrong.  Your reality is that the Mormon. church is well respected and thought of as the one everyone wants to find out more about and join.

"All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well"

And in your mind, this policy has not affected one single family.  There are on grandparents who are upset because their grandchildren can not be baptized into the church.  There are no joint custody problems that this policy has affected.  Anyone who is gay could not possible want their children growing up with the Mormon faith.  So why did the church institute the policy?  Just so I and a few inactive members would feel that the church is targeting gay families unfairly once again?  Yeah this all makes sense.

No argument from me.  I am sorry I even brought this up.  Obviously I am completely dissolutional. I am imagining all the angst against the Mormons church here in California and well, according the the polls, across America.

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In our recent election, one of the political parties began their campaign by claiming that there was something called a "housing crisis" in New Zealand.

After that initial claim, they stopped claiming it. They simply referred to "the housing crisis" as though it were an established fact.

It was a clever, manipulative, and none too scrupulous bit of demagoguery.

Much like your statement I have bolded above. You are smuggling your assumptions into the discussion as though they were established facts.

But they are not.

You seem to assume that anything less that giving you everything you want, immediately and all the time, is not "fair." Well, guess what: the Church doesn't owe you anything. Your sense of aggrieved entitlement is misplaced.

I'm sure that narrative plays well in your mind.

Now here's what I think is happening:

"Same sex marriage" is now a legal fictionfact, and is becoming generally accepted in the wider culture. Many less-active Latter-day Saints (and a few of the active ones too, I suppose) take more notice of popular culture than they do the inspired teachings of prophets and apostles. Thus, among them, "same sex marriage" is becoming accepted.

However, there remains a core of faithful, believing Latter-day Saints who are not afraid of being at odds with a world in decline. Among that group, "same sex marriage" is not finding acceptance; nor will it.

So tell us honestly, CB: do you know of even one family led by a same-sex pairing, that is directly affected by the policy that was announced in November 2015? Which "two dads" are angsting out because the Church won't let them ask some straight guy to baptize a child in their care?

I'm perfectly fine with keep SSM a sin while keeping it legal.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

No it won't, no it isn't, and yes - we will see.

How is Scott's countdown clock going?

I think his clock stuff has been embarrassing and hasn't really been brought up to except to tease him every once in a while. 

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Wait... don’t we all believe that the scriptures are, in some respects, fallible?  We don’t believe them to be infallible, right?

No, you don't. I believe them to be under GOD's control.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

No, you don't. I believe them to be under GOD's control.

I always understood that since we don’t believe that prophets are infallible, the scriptures they write must also have some aspect of fallibility inherent in them and it is on us to study with the Spirit to find the divine messages contained therein. 

[smac97]

On 11/3/2017 at 1:11 PM, 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.

My Dad, whom I admire and respect greatly, has previously said pretty much the same thing.  But context matters.  He was speaking in very broad terms.  He noted that "possible" covers anything from .01% to 99.99%, such that conceding something as "possible" means virtually nothing.  He also said that the Ninth Article of Faith compels him to keep an open mind about the mere theoretical (as in de minimis)  possibility of things like gay marriage, but that he finds it "extraordinarily unlikely" that such a thing would ever happen.  It just does not seem to jibe with the Plan.  And it has the double disadvantage of A) flatly contravening the unequivocal and unified voice of the Brethren, and B) being exactly in line with calls (demands?  threats?) from "The World."  

My talks about this topic with my Dad were a few years ago.  A lot has happened since then, including the November 2015 policy changes, and Pres. Nelson's remarks about them being revelatory, and Pres. Oaks' remarks about the Proclamation being the result of a "revelatory process."

So yes, I concede there is a vanishingly small, de minimis possibility of "a revelation allowing gay marriage."  These days I think it's about on par with the "possibility" of a revelation denouncing The Book of Mormon as fraudulent, or of a revelation revoking the prohibition against adultery and fornication.  

Also, another point my Dad emphasized was that regardless of what the Brethren may do in the future, it is not within our stewardship to speak or act against them as to what they are doing now, or as to what we think they ought to do in the future.  We can pray about such things and as God to direct them, to be sure.  

Sound counsel, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I always understood that since we don’t believe that prophets are infallible, the scriptures they write must also have some aspect of fallibility inherent in them and it is on us to study with the Spirit to find the divine messages contained therein. 

How prophets live is not perfect in the absolute extent of the definition; however, GOD is infallible, absolute and in command.  He can make the imperfect perfect according to HIS will. The Bible is of His design and He formulated it and preserves it in accordance with His plan. The Bible doesn't rely on man for its existence but relies entirely on the will of God. The Bible is a living book --- unlike any book ever written in the entire history of humanity here on earth.

[smac97]

On 11/3/2017 at 8:24 AM, hope_for_things said:

How long will members suffer through talks like Elder Oaks from the last conference and others who want to double down on bigotry? 

Isaiah 30:9-10 comes to mind...

Quote

9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord:

10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits...

There wasn't a scintilla of bigotry in Elder Oaks' remarks.  You are bearing false witness.  Against an apostle.  I hope, for your sake, that you are not a member of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

I tend to agree with you.  The more radical the church is.  The more the church steps away from treating gay families fairly, the more tighter they try and control the situation, the more they loose.

Declining to fundamentally transform the very meaning of marriage is now "radical"

Night is day.  Up is down.  Right is wrong.

The mind reels.

-Smac

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Declining to fundamentally transform the very meaning of marriage is now "radical"

Night is day.  Up is down.  Right is wrong.

The mind reels.

-Smac

I was thinking the whole forbidding the baptizing of children thing as being pretty radical.  For you, that seems normal.  I get it.  

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

How prophets live is not perfect in the absolute extent of the definition; however, GOD is infallible, absolute and in command.  He can make the imperfect perfect according to HIS will. The Bible is of His design and He formulated it and preserves it in accordance with His plan. The Bible doesn't rely on man for its existence but relies entirely on the will of God. The Bible is a living book --- unlike any book ever written in the entire history of humanity here on earth.

That’s a beautiful sentiment and I don’t disagree.  How do I apply that to the topic we were discussing? ... are you suggesting that I take every verse of the Bible as the perfect word of God?

Edited November 5, 2017 by rockpond

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was thinking the whole forbidding the baptizing of children thing as being pretty radical.  

The postponing of the baptism of children, you mean.  

It sure would be nice to have some good faith enter into this discussion.  Mighty nice, indeed.

And I note, once again, that nobody has characterized as "radical" the nearly identical and in-place-since-the-1920s policy regarding the children of polygamous families.

Quote

For you, that seems normal.  I get it.  

Frankly, it is normal.  The Church has long had sensible constraints on children from polygamous families, and largely for the same reasons as have been given for the more recent policy.

But I guess it's more dramatic to resort to fabricated Captain Renault-esque hyperbole:

CB is shocked - shocked! - to find that the LDS Church places constrains on children from same-sex parent households, even though identical constraints as to children from children from polygamous families have been in place for nearly 100 years.

Shocking!  Radical!

Kabuki theatre.  Pearl-clutching.  Pick your metaphor.  It all comes across the same way these days.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 5, 2017 by smac97

[rockpond]

Calling it postponing isn’t good faith either.  That dismisses the value and importance of everything we do the first 18 years of our lives in the church. 

And I’m also strongly opposed to the policy for children of polygamous couples.