hope_for_things Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 31 minutes ago, smac97 said: As to matters of race (namely, racial animus), I think there is some merit to this criticism. But only "some." Fortunately, the Church is doing extremely well on such issues now. As to matters of homosexuality, again there is some merit to this criticism. Again, the Church is doing much better on these issues. As to matters of, how shall I put it, "condescending paternalism" expressed toward women, and addressing the role of women in the Church, I think there is some merit to this criticism. Again, the Church is doing much better on these issues. Still room to improve, I think, but isn't that always the case? But as to many, many other matters, the Church has not really needed to "adjust to new information." The Word of Wisdom has allowed the Saints to sidestep many problems with substance abuse. The Church was way ahead of the "societal curve" on this, and remains so to this day. (I would like to see more emphasis/guidance on A) abuse of prescribed medications, and B) the opioid epidemic in general.) The Church's emphasis on the importance of the family has been excellent. And the vital roles played by both mothers and fathers. The Church's position on abortion is clear, and yet a bit nuanced. Very good, IMO. The Church's position on immigration is compassionate and humanitarian, while not straying into extremist "abolish the borders" nonsense. The Church's position on education is excellent. The Church's position on avoiding/minimized debt is excellent. The Church's position on self-reliance is excellent. The Church's position on emergency preparedness is excellent. The Church's position on medical and mental health care is excellent. The Church's position on the ills of pornography is excellent. The Church's position condemning physical/sexual/emotional abuse is excellent. The Church's position on facilitating the reporting of abuse by priesthood leaders to law enforcement is excellent. And on and on and on. I think the Church is, in the main, doing an excellent job of providing moral and spiritual guidance to its members. I'll commend you on sharing some of the areas where you think the church has fallen short, this is a good sign and not as close to the infallible leader/blind obedience paradigm I see some people operating in. As I said before, I think the church does some things well and others not as well. I don't agree with all you've stated here about what they do "excellent" with either, but thats ok. 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote I would challenge your below statement. I don't see anything that "by definition" is an "immoral relationship". I was speaking from within the LDS paradigm. Homosexual behavior, among other things, is unequivocally "immoral" within that paradigm. I would say that this is more of a temporary policy position, than a principled orientation. 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote You don't call their sacred relationships immoral. This is disrespectful. It's not really a matter of "respect." It's a matter of truth. I think Elder Christofferson's remarks from 2015 (about the policy changes) are helpful (emphasis added): Subjective and relative truth.
jkwilliams Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm saying that much of the "conflict" has been based more on vitriolic and caustic reactions to the policies, as compared to the policies themselves. By way of evidence, I will point, once again, to the near-total lack of "conflict" as pertaining to the Church's nearly identical and longstanding policy regarding the children of polygamous families. No overwrought rhetoric. No mass media coverage. No histrionics. Nothing. And this policy has worked well for decades. Critics of the Church, though, have insisted on whipping up and maintaining a frenzied emotional reaction to the policies enacted in 2015. We'll never know how effective those policies could have been, and how much acrimony and angst and conflict could have been avoided, because critics and opponents of the Church have insisted on fomenting discord and ill will and hard feelings about those policies. For years now. We'll never really know, I think, because the critics of the Church have never given the 2015 policies a chance to be appropriately implemented (as the Church has done for nearly a century with the nearly-identical policy for children from polygamous families). I'm not sure how "organized" the efforts to foment ill will and anger and anxiety and stress and fear and resentment against the Church's policies have been. But those efforts have been in place and ongoing since 2015, and continue to this day. Thanks, -Smac I think you are misunderstanding me. I am talking about conflict within individual families over who raises the kids and how. The policy changed the calculus for a number of families I know, and in every case it introduced conflict. I don’t think custody issues are much of a factor in polygamous households. Either way, the conflict in these families has nothing to do with any external outrage, fabricated or not.
hope_for_things Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 35 minutes ago, smac97 said: I already did here: I also said this earlier in this thread (to you): And I've still said nothing to disparage LGBT people. Thanks, -Smac I just don't understand how you're using that comparison and not implying that the drug abuser's behaviors are equivalent to a gay person having a sexual relationship. Why make that comparison in the first place? Why even bring up the example of someone with a substance abuse problem when we're on a totally different topic? You already said homosexual relationships are "by definition" immoral in the LDS paradigm, and that is the paradigm that you align with.
smac97 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: I'll commend you on sharing some of the areas where you think the church has fallen short, this is a good sign and not as close to the infallible leader/blind obedience paradigm I see some people operating in. I can't think of any informed, observant Latter-day Saint who subscribes to an "infallible leader/blind obedience paradigm." That seems to be a common trope to bring up by critics, but it's not reflected in my experience in the Church. Just now, hope_for_things said: As I said before, I think the church does some things well and others not as well. I don't agree with all you've stated here about what they do "excellent" with either, but thats ok. Yes, I wasn't really expecting you to fully agree. But the Church's teachings and practices are overwhelmingly reasoned and reasonable and defensible. Just now, hope_for_things said: Quote Quote I would challenge your below statement. I don't see anything that "by definition" is an "immoral relationship". I was speaking from within the LDS paradigm. Homosexual behavior, among other things, is unequivocally "immoral" within that paradigm. I would say that this is more of a temporary policy position, than a principled orientation. Not sure what you are saying here. The Church's teaching prohibiting homosexual behavior has a long pedigree. And it's not going anywhere. Just now, hope_for_things said: Subjective and relative truth. Indeed. That door swings both ways, does it not? Ultimately, your position is based on what you perceive to be "subjective and relative truth." So is mine, but it's also corroborated by the scriptures, and by continuing guidance from prophets and apostles. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I just don't understand how you're using that comparison and not implying that the drug abuser's behaviors are equivalent to a gay person having a sexual relationship. Why make that comparison in the first place? Why even bring up the example of someone with a substance abuse problem when we're on a totally different topic? You already said homosexual relationships are "by definition" immoral in the LDS paradigm, and that is the paradigm that you align with. I've clarified already. Twice now. Let's just move on. Thanks, -Smac
hope_for_things Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 26 minutes ago, smac97 said: Nobody has done this. Certainly not me. I invite you consider the difference between "sexual orientation" and "sexual behavior." How about we flip this scenario around and consider the difference between heterosexual orientation and heterosexual behavior and see if the distinction makes any sense. Ok, lets say its ok for you to be heterosexual, God loves heterosexuals, but please don't cross that behavioral line from just thinking heterosexual thoughts into actually behaving that way. No holding hands, no kissing, maybe a hug, but not too tight, definitely no back rubs. You can be platonic friends with someone of the opposite sex, but please don't get a crush on them, thats totally crossing the line. Its like the missionary rule to lock your heart, just keep it locked your whole life. And if you can survive an entire life living these strict rules, you'll have wonderful blessing of being fixed from your broken heterosexual orientation in the next life, because we know there are no heterosexual relationships in the Celestial Kingdom. Its possible you might even be able to advance from that lower ministering angel position to a higher degree, except that might be a heresy according to Bruce, so we don't really know... 2
smac97 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: How about we flip this scenario around and consider the difference between heterosexual orientation and heterosexual behavior and see if the distinction makes any sense. Yes, it still makes sense. Plenty of unmarried (divorced, widowed, or never-married) hetrosexuals are asked to adhere to the Law of Chastity. The distinction between thought/feeling and action/conduct is plainly there. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: And if you can survive an entire life living these strict rules, you'll have wonderful blessing of being fixed from your broken heterosexual orientation in the next life, because we know there are no heterosexual relationships in the Celestial Kingdom. Its possible you might even be able to advance from that lower ministering angel position to a higher degree, except that might be a heresy according to Bruce, so we don't really know... Ah. I thought you were proposing a good faith thought experiment. I was in error. I'll leave you to . . . whatever it is you are doing here. Thanks, -Smac 3
jkwilliams Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Yes, it still makes sense. Plenty of unmarried (divorced, widowed, or never-married) hetrosexuals are asked to adhere to the Law of Chastity. The distinction between thought/feeling and action/conduct is plainly there. Ah. I thought you were proposing a good faith thought experiment. I was in error. I'll leave you to . . . whatever it is you are doing here. Thanks, -Smac I didn't realize unmarried heterosexuals were prohibited from kissing, holding hands, hugging, etc. Is that a new policy? 3
LoudmouthMormon Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: 24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'll commend you on sharing some of the areas where you think the church has fallen short, this is a good sign and not as close to the infallible leader/blind obedience paradigm I see some people operating in. I can't think of any informed, observant Latter-day Saint who subscribes to an "infallible leader/blind obedience paradigm." That seems to be a common trope to bring up by critics, but it's not reflected in my experience in the Church. The pope is infallible when speaking Ex Cathedra, but critics don't believe it. The Prophet of the LDS church is fallible, but critics don't believe we believe it.
hope_for_things Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: I've clarified already. Twice now. Let's just move on. Thanks, -Smac The word "clarified" would connote some kind of clarity. But in absence of that, I'll move on anyway. 11 minutes ago, smac97 said: I can't think of any informed, observant Latter-day Saint who subscribes to an "infallible leader/blind obedience paradigm." That seems to be a common trope to bring up by critics, but it's not reflected in my experience in the Church. I agree that I can't think of any members who would self identify as believing this way. But in practice I don't see how they behave is substantively different. Actions speak much louder than words. 13 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote I would say that this is more of a temporary policy position, than a principled orientation. Not sure what you are saying here. The Church's teaching prohibiting homosexual behavior has a long pedigree. And it's not going anywhere. Who knows what the future holds. 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote Subjective and relative truth. Indeed. That door swings both ways, does it not? Ultimately, your position is based on what you perceive to be "subjective and relative truth." So is mine, but it's also corroborated by the scriptures, and by continuing guidance from prophets and apostles. The scriptures are kind of like a confirmation bias archive, you can essentially pick and choose and interpret things to support about any position imaginable. 3
hope_for_things Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, it still makes sense. Plenty of unmarried (divorced, widowed, or never-married) hetrosexuals are asked to adhere to the Law of Chastity. The distinction between thought/feeling and action/conduct is plainly there. Ah. I thought you were proposing a good faith thought experiment. I was in error. I'll leave you to . . . whatever it is you are doing here. Thanks, -Smac Ahh, my second paragraph made it much clearer, you can see the significant differences when you flip the heterosexual/homosexual rules on their head. I'm amazed that you think divorced, widowed, never married are asked to adhere to the same rules though. Perhaps you missed this part of my hypothetical "No holding hands, no kissing, maybe a hug, but not too tight, definitely no back rubs. You can be platonic friends with someone of the opposite sex, but please don't get a crush on them, thats totally crossing the line. Its like the missionary rule to lock your heart, just keep it locked your whole life." Last time I checked a divorced heterosexual can still seek romantic relationships, but maybe I missed something along the way. Thankfully I'm not divorced, that sounds like real hell if a divorced person can never seek romance again. 4
smac97 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: Ahh, my second paragraph made it much clearer, you can see the significant differences when you flip the heterosexual/homosexual rules on their head. I'm amazed that you think divorced, widowed, never married are asked to adhere to the same rules though. Perhaps you missed this part of my hypothetical "No holding hands, no kissing, maybe a hug, but not too tight, definitely no back rubs. You can be platonic friends with someone of the opposite sex, but please don't get a crush on them, thats totally crossing the line. Its like the missionary rule to lock your heart, just keep it locked your whole life." Last time I checked a divorced heterosexual can still seek romantic relationships, but maybe I missed something along the way. Thankfully I'm not divorced, that sounds like real hell if a divorced person can never seek romance again. We weren't speaking of "heterosexual/homosexual rules." We were speaking of "sexual orientation" versus "sexual behavior." Thanks, -Smac 1
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted July 12, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Ahh, my second paragraph made it much clearer, you can see the significant differences when you flip the heterosexual/homosexual rules on their head. I'm amazed that you think divorced, widowed, never married are asked to adhere to the same rules though. Perhaps you missed this part of my hypothetical "No holding hands, no kissing, maybe a hug, but not too tight, definitely no back rubs. You can be platonic friends with someone of the opposite sex, but please don't get a crush on them, thats totally crossing the line. Its like the missionary rule to lock your heart, just keep it locked your whole life." Last time I checked a divorced heterosexual can still seek romantic relationships, but maybe I missed something along the way. Thankfully I'm not divorced, that sounds like real hell if a divorced person can never seek romance again. Yeah, it's really not the same expectation at all. A hetero couple in church holding hands, placing an arm around the other etc wouldn't be any big deal, but if a gay couple were to do it there would be a massive scandal and talks about how inappropriate the behavior is. The church has the law of chastity and then the law of chastity(gay). Not the same thing. 5
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yeah, it's really not the same expectation at all. A hetero couple in church holding hands, placing an arm around the other etc wouldn't be any big deal, but if a gay couple were to do it there would be a massive scandal and talks about how inappropriate the behavior is. The church has the law of chastity and then the law of chastity(gay). Not the same thing. I think it's going to take some time for people to accept seeing these interchanges between gay couples. Even I have to catch myself from feeling different about it vs. seeing a heterosexual couple kiss etc. But it's coming and hope sooner than later. It's just something we're needing to get use to as people. We've been conditioned for different socially acceptable behaviors. But here's an article of behaviors in men back in the 19th century. Men held hands and another article of LDS men being affectionate and holding hands. https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/bosom-buddies-a-photo-history-of-male-affection/ https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V28N04_119.pdf In the one below it mentions "male only" dances, and LDS leaders sleeping with another man, even when they didn't have to. https://books.google.com/books?id=UXVj398JvnsC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=did+lds+leaders+hold+hands+in+the+19th+century&source=bl&ots=WOyLDJ5ECE&sig=l_b6zD-Hu_dOLQkhi50aGl4JE5I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ9Lndo5rcAhWn7oMKHVNvCaoQ6AEInAEwCQ#v=onepage&q=did lds leaders hold hands in the 19th century&f=false Edited July 12, 2018 by Tacenda
jkwilliams Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I think it's going to take some time for people to accept seeing these interchanges between gay couples. Even I have to catch myself from feeling different about it vs. seeing a heterosexual couple kiss etc. But it's coming and hope sooner than later. It's just something we're needing to get use to as people. We've been conditioned for different socially acceptable behaviors. Yep, what some people see as sweet and touching, others find offensive. We're getting there.
smac97 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yeah, it's really not the same expectation at all. I agree. Heterosexual behavior is privileged and authorized, and homosexual behavior is altogether prohibited. I think it would stand to reason, then, that incidential-but-innocuous expressions of heterosexual conduct (holding hands, etc.) are okay, but corollary expresseions of homosexual conduct are not. 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: A hetero couple in church holding hands, placing an arm around the other etc wouldn't be any big deal, but if a gay couple were to do it there would be a massive scandal and talks about how inappropriate the behavior is. Huh? 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: The church has the law of chastity and then the law of chastity(gay). Not the same thing. I disagree. The Church as the Law of Chastity that applies to everyone in the same way, regardless of sexual orientation. Sex is allowed between a husband and wife, and is otherwise prohibited. See here: Quote Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” I do not deny that there is a disparate impact of the Law of Chastity. But the law itself applies to all of us. Heterosexuals have to confine their behavior to parameters set by God. No adultery, no fornication, no homosexual behavior, and so on. So do homosexuals. Thanks, -Smac 1
jkwilliams Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: I agree. Heterosexual behavior is privileged and authorized, and homosexual behavior is altogether prohibited. I think it would stand to reason, then, that incidential-but-innocuous expressions of heterosexual conduct (holding hands, etc.) are okay, but corollary expresseions of homosexual conduct are not. Huh? I disagree. The Church as the Law of Chastity that applies to everyone in the same way, regardless of sexual orientation. Sex is allowed between a husband and wife, and is otherwise prohibited. See here: I do not deny that there is a disparate impact of the Law of Chastity. But the law itself applies to all of us. Heterosexuals have to confine their behavior to parameters set by God. No adultery, no fornication, no homosexual behavior, and so on. So do homosexuals. Thanks, -Smac Getting back to the OP, I'm glad the church has done this. Suicide doesn't occur in a vacuum. How parents, teachers, friends, and religious leaders respond to someone (gay or otherwise) has a huge impact on whether they ever get to the point of suicidal ideation. Ultimately, the choice to attempt suicide is one's own, but we can certainly try harder to provide resources and support for those who might be heading in that direction. 2
california boy Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 This is the hill SMAC is willing to die on. SMAC thinks the October policy comes straight from God and is the best policy the church could ever have towards gay families. Labeling gay couples as apostates doesn't phase him in the least. He just wants to have harmony in the home and not baptizing children under 18 is the very best God can do. Sorry you are gay, but rules are rules. At some point, don't we just have to move on? Does anyone really believe they can say something to SMAC to soften him on this issue? 2
jkwilliams Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, california boy said: This is the hill SMAC is willing to die on. SMAC thinks the October policy comes straight from God and is the best policy the church could ever have towards gay families. Labeling gay couples as apostates doesn't phase him in the least. He just wants to have harmony in the home and not baptizing children under 18 is the very best God can do. Sorry you are gay, but rules are rules. At some point, don't we just have to move on? Does anyone really believe they can say something to SMAC to soften him on this issue? I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I've said what I think about the policy, and it would be nice to be able to share that without being lumped in with some coordinated effort to defame the church. I know a lot of faithful church members who feel the same way I do about the policy. They are going about their lives and praying that someday the policy will change, though some of them have spoken out publicly. They aren't hysterical Mormon-haters, just members who are troubled by a policy they believe is wrong. By the way, the elders quorum president is coming by tonight. What was it someone said about finding myself sucked back in? 😆 3
smac97 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Posted July 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, california boy said: This is the hill SMAC is willing to die on. Huh? 5 minutes ago, california boy said: SMAC thinks the October policy comes straight from God and is the best policy the church could ever have towards gay families. I think the policies are revelatory because Pres. Nelson said as much. As for it being the "best policy the church could ever have," I've never said that. 5 minutes ago, california boy said: Labeling gay couples as apostates doesn't phase him in the least. I've never said that, either. 5 minutes ago, california boy said: He just wants to have harmony in the home and not baptizing children under 18 is the very best God can do. Sorry you are gay, but rules are rules. At some point, don't we just have to move on? Does anyone really believe they can say something to SMAC to soften him on this issue? Previously I said: "I think the Church's position was not, and still has not been, given a fair hearing. Instead, we've gotten a lot of overheated, knee-jerk, emotionalistic, borne-of-ignorance-and/or-hostility rhetoric. For years now." Thank you for showing up and so amply demonstrating my point. -Smac 2
USU78 Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, california boy said: This is the hill SMAC is willing to die on. SMAC thinks the October policy comes straight from God and is the best policy the church could ever have towards gay families. Labeling gay couples as apostates doesn't phase him in the least. He just wants to have harmony in the home and not baptizing children under 18 is the very best God can do. Sorry you are gay, but rules are rules. At some point, don't we just have to move on? Does anyone really believe they can say something to SMAC to soften him on this issue? Indeed. Why don't you move on?
jkwilliams Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: Indeed. Why don't you move on? I don't know about you, but I was content to express my appreciation for the church's donation, but things kind of went downhill from there.
USU78 Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't know about you, but I was content to express my appreciation for the church's donation, but things kind of went downhill from there. It was right there in the Trib article. Unavoidable.
california boy Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 26 minutes ago, USU78 said: Indeed. Why don't you move on? Actually I have moved on. I no longer respond to SMAC's post once he made it perfectly clear what he thinks of me and gay people in general. I wish him well.
USU78 Posted July 12, 2018 Posted July 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, california boy said: Actually I have moved on. I no longer respond to SMAC's post once he made it perfectly clear what he thinks of me and gay people in general. I wish him well. If you had moved on, you would have no cause to continue to slam the policy, eh? 1
Recommended Posts