Jump to content

The Matthew Gong Letter


pogi

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I'm confused as to what you are saying, then.  And as we're not moving towards clarification, I'll retract my statements, apologize for the misunderstanding, and ask that we move past this point.

I'm not telling telling you how to do anything.  I'm having a conversation with you.  I am disagreeing with you in some respects, agreeing in others, and apparently misunderstanding in still others.

You are characterizing a "total and complete prohibition" as "extreme."  I disagree with that.

"Extreme" is defined as:

I totally and completely prohibit my children from taking the Lord's name in vain, using physical violence against siblings to get their way, using alcohol/drugs, and many, many, many other things.  

Are you suggesting that these prohibitions are "extreme"?  That they are "farthest removed from the ordinary or average"?  That they are "utmost or exceedingly grate in degree"?

The Church totally and completely prohibits adultery.  Are you suggesting that this is "extreme"?  

Soceity totally and completely prohibits many behaviors (murder, sexual assault, armed robbery, tax evasion, etc.).  Are you suggesting that these prohibitions are "extreme"?

But it's not tangential at all.  It's not just an issue of semantics.  Let me recap (in the next post).

I think my use of the word "extreme" clearly falls under definition #3

Quote

farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost:the extreme limits of a town.

I clearly mentioned the scale and continuum of two opposing extremes, or outermost/endmost points - complete prohibition being one extreme (you can't get further from center than that going one way) and complete acceptance/allowance (and you can't get further from center than that going the other way).  They are two opposing extremes.  Perfectly correct and proper use of the term.   

Thank you for the retract and apology though.  I really appreciate it. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
39 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I lack standing to object to how the church defines apostasy.

Okay.  I'd still like to understand your perspective, though.

Quote

No where did I state I objected to the church defining same sex marriage as apostasy.

You sure did give that impression.

I said: "For the last many years, the Church has utilized a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior.
You responded: "Is that what we call labeling same-sex marriage 'apostacy'?"

It sounded like you were saying (using sarcasm) that characterizing same-sex marriage as a form of apostasy falls outside of "a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior."

Now here you are saying you don't object to the Church defining same-sex marriage as apostasy.

Quote

I do object to you calling that policy moderate and compassionate.

To clarify, I was not referring tot he 2015 policy specifically, but rather to the Church's overall approach.

"For the last many years, the Church has utilized a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior."

Was the 2015 policy "moderate and compassionate"?  In my view, yes.  Very much so.  As Elder Christofferson so aptly put it:

Quote

So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ.

This is all moderation and compassion.  There is no vilification of gay people.  No fire and brimstone denunciations.  No advocacy of violence against or shunning of gay people.  Instead, Elder Christofferson spekins of "love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving indoing all we can for anybody."  He speeks of "the Savior's pattern."  He speaks of the Savior's "compassion" as being "unexcelled," and yet the Savior "never excused or winked at sin" and "never redefined it."  He speaks of "efforts to help people find what brings happiness."  He speaks of not wanting "to mislead people," saying that "{t}here's no no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true."

Quote

You asked what I thought about plural marriage and I stated my opinion (which as far as I know, the church still considers plural marriage an eternal principle).  Also as far as I’m aware the church handbook does not list polygamy as apostasy either.

Fair enough.

Quote

It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You stated: “For the last many years, the Church has utilized a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior.“

Yes.

Quote

The church teaches that same-sex behavior (including dating, hugging kissing etc IIRC) is forbidden.

Yes.

Quote

How can this possibly be moderate?

The Church also teaches that adultery is forbidden.  A married man may not engage in leading-up-to-but-not-including-actually-penetrative-sex behavior with a woman other than his wife.

This is not an extreme position.  It is, instead, a reasonable one.  A "moderate" one (as in "kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense").

Do you agree?

Quote

The church in 2008 helped organize a campaign to remove the civil right for gays to marry in California.

I dispute this characterization.  There was no delineated "civil right" to same-sex marriage until the bare majority of Supreme Court justices said so in the 2015 case, Obergefell v. Hodges.

I also don't think it is the provice of the Supreme Court to fabricate civil rights out of thin air, but that's a discussion for another day.  (And yes, notwithstanding my dispute, I nevertheless accept same-sex marriage as the law of the land.)

Quote

While defending the traditional family led by a married father and mother, the church warns about “counterfeit” lifestyles implying gays and lesbian families are counterfeit. The church releases a policy mandating church discipline for entering a government sanctioned same-sex relationship. This is all within the church’s right to do. That said, you don’t get to redefine words and call this compassionate and moderate towards homosexual behavior. Moderate compared to what? Saudi Arabia? Is that the standard?

The Church sought to preserve the institution of marriage, or more specifically, its innate quality as being a relationship between a man and a woman.  This relationship was a core aspect of the very definition of "marriage" in virtually all societies throughout history, up until just the last few years.  

The attempt to preserve that definition was "moderate."  The attempt to re-define marriage was radical.  Extreme. 

Quote

My sister once opined how it was unfair that people thought her bigoted for her opinion on same-sex marriage.

Golly!  Strangers imputing hateful motives onto her?  Motives which she does not recognize in herself, and which she herself objects to and rejects?  What's objectionable about that?

Quote

I pointed out to her that she considers them sinners, and believed they were bound for Eternal punishment. Things they probably that were unfair... Again you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are characterizing a "total and complete prohibition" as "extreme."  I disagree with that.

Allow me to help. Take US immigration. On one extreme we have people who want to stop nearly all immigration, and send anyone here illegally no matter the circumstances back to their country of origin. On the other extreme we have people calling for open borders and benefits for everyone. Each position is extreme. The church has a moderate stance on the issue. 
 

Let’s take medical marijuana. Some people define the term so loosely, that all you need is your best friends say so to get a “prescription”. Others feel medical marijuana should be illegal in all circumstances. These are extremes. The church is very moderate on this issue. 
 

Let’s take homosexual behavior. One extreme would say never appropriate under any circumstances. Another would say whatever goes whenever. A moderate position would be somewhere in the middle. 
 

Your appeal to murder is hardly relevant unless you can point to a significant number of people saying that murder is justifiable. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Ummmm... I thought we had moved beyond this?

When Calm endeavored to post search strategies, it appeared that perhaps not everyone had moved beyond it, so I thought I would try to save folks some time by undertaking my own examination and reporting the results. 

Quote

Good job, you have proven that I really was using hyperbole and not being literal as we have both already acknowledged.  

You acknowledged it after I raised the question; not sure you would have otherwise.

Quote

You have  also effectively demonstrated his fixation on the subject for me.  From 2010 to now, there were only two years he didn’t mention it.  That is nearly every year! 1/4 of his talks!

Not only is your math fuzzy,  your observations are off. Look again. From 2010 to now, there was no mention of the subject in talks given in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016. That's five out of the 10 years, not two! And with two conferences per year, that's half, not one-quarter, plus the fact that in the other years, he only mentioned the subject in one out of the two conferences. As I reported, there were 75 percent of the conference talks he gave in which the subject was not brought up. And as I noted, even when it was, most of the time it was only a mention, not a "focus." I wanted to be fair to you and be sure to not under count, but I wouldn't call that a "focus." Nor would I call it a "fixation." 

Quote

 Can you show me any other apostle who has fixated on issues surrounding a group of sinners as much as President Oaks has on the LGBT issues (porn, adultery, lust, word of wisdom, gambling, etc.) - speaking about it nearly every year?

As I said, it wasn't "nearly every year," it was on average once every two years for the past 10 years. And as I've said, it doesn't bother me that it would be a recurring subject for him. It has been extremely topical over the past 10 years. It is the duty of the First Presidency and Twelve as a body to teach and warn the people, and responding to changing trends and whims in society would fall under that responsibility. If others of the Brethren have left it largely to him to discuss it, I would say it's likely because he is a wise and intelligent man whose talents equip him for the task. If others of them were to bring it up somewhat frequently, perhaps you would be accusing them of "fixating" as well.

Quote

 No wonder my mother in law was so easily able to predict the message of his talk.  I highly doubt she could have so easily predicted any other apostles topic.

I don't know your mother-in-law, but maybe it's a subject that has been on her mind and she is thus alerted when a conference speaker mentions it, be it President Oaks or someone else. You did say she was conservative.

Quote

I understand why he has fixated on it - To him, this is a battle against critics who are seeking to take away our religious freedom.

I think it goes beyond that. I think it's a genuine concern by one of the prophets, seers and revelators to warn the people and equip them with knowledge against the cacophony of voices spouting messages that might lead them into misery. Or to keep them grounded by maintaining doctrinal boundaries in the Church of Jesus Christ. Or to help them deal with vexing problems and questions arising from loved ones having been led astray.

Quote

 I get it, that is important to him, but again I think that many families dealing with these issues are getting caught in the cross fire without receiving the type of attention they desperately need. I understand not all families take issue with his approach.

I think there have been efforts by the Church leaders -- including President Oaks -- to provide such attention. The mormonandgay.org web site (in which President Oaks is featured in videos) is one example. The pamphlet "God Loveth His Children" is another. 

But I wonder whether complaints by you and others about this or that Church leader being "fixated" might work against the motivation to provide such attention.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
Link to post
21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

You are characterizing a "total and complete prohibition" as "extreme."  I disagree with that.

Allow me to help. Take US immigration. On one extreme we have people who want to stop nearly all immigration, and send anyone here illegally no matter the circumstances back to their country of origin. On the other extreme we have people calling for open borders and benefits for everyone. Each position is extreme. The church has a moderate stance on the issue. 

I think that is a fair characterization.

Quote

Let’s take medical marijuana. Some people define the term so loosely, that all you need is your best friends say so to get a “prescription”. Others feel medical marijuana should be illegal in all circumstances. These are extremes. The church is very moderate on this issue. 

I'm less sure about this one, but I'll go with it for now.

Quote

Let’s take homosexual behavior. One extreme would say never appropriate under any circumstances. Another would say whatever goes whenever. A moderate position would be somewhere in the middle. 

Let's take adultery.  One extreme would say it is never appropriate under any circumstances.

Well, no.  That's not extreme.  That's reasonable.  That's moderate.  Because adultery is "never appropriate under any circumstances."  

Similarly, it is not "extreme" to say that rape is "never appropriate under any circumstances."  Nor is it "extreme" to say that murder is "never appropriate under any circumstances."

And on and on and on.

There are all sorts of behaviors in our society that are per se "never appropriate under any circumstances."  

Quote

Your appeal to murder is hardly relevant unless you can point to a significant number of people saying that murder is justifiable. 

My appeal to murder is highly relevant.  The point under discussion is whether a "total and complete prohibition" is necessarily "extreme."  It's not.  There are all sorts of such prohibitions that exist in society, which prohibitions are not reasonably characterized as "extreme."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think my use of the word "extreme" clearly falls under definition #3

I clearly mentioned the scale and continuum of two opposing extremes, or outermost/endmost points - complete prohibition being one extreme (you can't get further from center than that going one way) and complete acceptance/allowance (and you can't get further from center than that going the other way).  They are two opposing extremes.  Perfectly correct and proper use of the term.   

Thank you for the retract and apology though.  I really appreciate it. 

Pogi, I think if the church had stayed as you are mentioning in the OP and here, we likely wouldn't have seen SSM legalized, nor the November '15 hoopla. But that's just my take. It just seems like the harder the church comes against the more the defenders defend or feel the need to. IMO, I don't believe that gay marriage or gay couples lessen the experience of heterosexuals in the hereafter or in this life time. I don't think the church would have their religious rights taken away either, by giving equality to gays.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I'd still like to understand your perspective, though.

Maybe repeat the question. It’s my understanding that the church does not consider plural marriage apostasy in its current handbook. Since in my understanding that many in the church (including its current leader) consider themselves to be in an eternal plural marriage I think it would be doubly wrong to consider plural marriage apostasy. Wrong because plural marriage is an eternal principle and wrong because it doesn’t in my mind necessarily fit the term (as a stand alone act) as defined by the church. I also think that same sex marriage (as a stand alone act) doesn’t fit the definition laid out by the church. This is just my opinion and the church can do as it pleases. 

Quote

You sure did give that impression.

I said: "For the last many years, the Church has utilized a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior.
You responded: "Is that what we call labeling same-sex marriage 'apostacy'?"

It sounded like you were saying (using sarcasm) that characterizing same-sex marriage as a form of apostasy falls outside of "a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior."

That’s exactly correct. I object to calling “expanding the definition of apostasy to include same-sex marriage “ as compassionate or moderate towards same-sex behavior. 

Quote

Now here you are saying you don't object to the Church defining same-sex marriage as apostasy.

I guess it probably boils down to semantics. The church can do what it wants, but it doesn’t get to redefine words. 

Quote

To clarify, I was not referring tot he 2015 policy specifically, but rather to the Church's overall approach.

"For the last many years, the Church has utilized a very moderate and compassionate approach to same-sex behavior."

Was the 2015 policy "moderate and compassionate"?  In my view, yes.  Very much so.  As Elder Christofferson so aptly put it:

You can put lipstick on a pig and it’s still a pig. One can have compassionate motives and still act without compassion. In the words of President Nelson, the policy “ created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others.” Because the policy resulted in harm (not consistent with compassion) the church rescinded it. So compassionate- no. What about moderate? This change introduced mandatory discipline on certain homosexual behavior and introduced significant new restrictions on their children. This cannot be defined as a moderating policy. 

Quote

 

Yes.

Yes.

The Church also teaches that adultery is forbidden.  A married man may not engage in leading-up-to-but-not-including-actually-penetrative-sex behavior with a woman other than his wife.

This is not an extreme position.  It is, instead, a reasonable one.  A "moderate" one (as in "kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense").

Do you agree?

You seem to be mixing terms. Extreme and moderate have one set of connotation, while extreme vs unreasonable have another. You seem to view moderate as a synonym for reasonable. Is that correct?

On infidelity the church takes a position that is nearly universally accepted and is neither extreme nor unreasonable. On chastity in general the church takes an extreme position, but not unreasonable based on its belief set. 

Quote

I dispute this characterization.  There was no delineated "civil right" to same-sex marriage until the bare majority of Supreme Court justices said so in the 2015 case, Obergefell v. Hodges.

You are wrong as a matter of fact here. Californians enjoyed a few months with the civil right to marry before prop 8 passed in Nov 08. 

Quote

 

Golly!  Strangers imputing hateful motives onto her?  Motives which she does not recognize in herself, and which she herself objects to and rejects?  What's objectionable about that?

Meh, from my perspective, believing your neighbor is committing abominations and is due for Eternal punishment is on the same level as believing your neighbor is bigoted. Ymmv. 

Quote

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

My appeal to murder is highly relevant.  The point under discussion is whether a "total and complete prohibition" is necessarily "extreme."  It's not.  There are all sorts of such prohibitions that exist in society, which prohibitions are not reasonably characterized as "extreme."

Thanks,

-Smac

With respect no one here except is arguing that a "total and complete prohibition" is in and of itself necessarily "extreme." Due to its negativity connotations, I’d rather avoid it entirely and it was not me who brought it into this discussion. 
 

Take the spectrum of human opinion in the United States on any subject where people of good faith have widely differing opinions. Mark the 10 percentile mark on either end. I’d call people that hold those positions to be on one extreme or the other. I would not call their positions extreme necessarily because of it’s negative connotations. Positions from about 35-65 I would call moderate. Hopefully it helps to understand how I use the term. You seem to use the term as an opposite of reasonable and “moderate” as a synonym of the same. 

Link to post
23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When Calm endeavored to post search strategies, it appeared that perhaps not everyone had moved beyond it, so I thought I would try to save folks some time by undertaking my own examination and reporting the results. 

She clarified that was not her point, yet, you continue on... You seem to be the only one who is not moving on.

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You acknowledged it after I raised the question; not sure you would have otherwise.

Do most people you know preface their hyperbole announcing, "this is hyperbole"?

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not only is your math fuzzy,  

5/20 talks = 1/4

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When Calm endeavored to post search strategies, it appeared that perhaps not everyone had moved beyond it, so I thought I would try to save folks some time by undertaking my own examination and reporting the results. 

You acknowledged it after I raised the question; not sure you would have otherwise.

your observations are off. Look again. From 2010 to now, there was no mention of the subject in talks given in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016.

No, I think your observations are off.  Neither do I trust your ability to scan talks.  2012 he clearly talked about it in his talk, Protect the Children:

Quote

We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, “same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences.”24

I haven't checked the others yet, there may be more.

So, He talked about it in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019.  That is most years. 

 

Link to post
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

FWIW I used Calm’s search link on the terms “same-sex” and “same-gender”. Non exhaustive I realize. 12 of 22 references since 2010 were from President Oak’s talks. 

As I indicated, in only 25 percent of the talks he has given in that 10-year period did he bring up issues about gays. I think that's a better indicator than a mere word search. And as I said, I examined individually each talk he gave during the past decade.

Edited to add: Pogi caught my oversight; it is 30 percent, not 25.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I indicated, in only 25 percent of the talks he has given in that 10-year period did he bring up issues about gays. I think that's a better indicator than a mere word search. And as I said, I examined individually each talk he gave during the past decade.

Indicator for what? Your search was helpful for determining the frequency that Elder Oaks speaks on the subject. Mine shows how often he speaks on it vs others leaders of the church. Seems to me both are relevant when it comes to people’s perceptions on the matter. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying his past comments marginalize, reject or persecute LBGT people? Is that your position? Otherwise I can’t figure out what relevance that paragraph has for this discussion. If lease explain why you find it relevant. 

16 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Then why is it problematic to understand his current remarks in light of his previous expressed views on the topic. You act as if I’m committing some great offense here. I’m just trying to understand him. 

I think we are talking past each other. If you TRULY can't see why what I posted is relevant and you TRULY are just trying to understand Elder Oaks, then I invite you to re-read my past comments. Or you can ready Maestrophil's great summary:

14 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I'll back up, as it seems we might be talking past one another - because my response is also geared towards Calms comments.

If the point being made is that Oaks is a bit 'old school' and traditional in his personal approach or understanding of LGBTQ issues - then I can agree with that whole heartedly.

If the point being made is that Pres. Oaks comments are advising, encouraging, or condoning mistreatment of LGBTQ people, or that his opinion or imagining of what 'most' parents would do somehow means he thinks that is the way we should treat gay people - that is where I see a failure to draw a definitive link.  The original assertion that I was addressing is that Pres. Oaks frequently makes hurtful, and even morally repugnant comments about LGBTQ.  I don't see that as defensible,

Any other interpretation of my comments go beyond my intended mark.  🙂

 

I don't really have more to say that I haven't already said on the topic. I am assuming you understood my point of view and I certainly feel I now understand your point of view better. As such, I'll bow out of the conversation for now. But I do appreciate you explaining your point of view further.

  • Like 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

She clarified that was not her point, yet, you continue on... You seem to be the only one who is not moving on.

 

When she posted search strategies, it appeared there was still some question whether to take literally your assertion about "the majority of his talks" being "focused" on gay issues. So I thought I would help.

 

Quote

5/20 talks = 1/4

You said he talked about it nearly every year. That's not true. 

Quote

No, I think your observations are off.  Neither do I trust your ability to scan talks.  2012 he clearly talked about it in his talk, Protect the Children:

So I missed one. I apologize. That's six talks out of 20, or 30 percent. It's still not close to "the majority."**

Quote

I haven't checked the others yet, there may be more.

By all means, check them out. And I hope you report your results either way.**

Quote

So, He talked about it in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019.  That is most years.

It's not eight out of the 10 years, as you claimed in your last post. And it's only six out of the total 20 talks -- not "the majority" as you initially claimed.

-------

**Edited to add: I want to strive for accuracy. So I went back and re-scanned all of the talks from President Oaks in which I had not previously noticed any references to gay issues. I'm fairly confident now that I didn't miss any others.

But I don't know that this will be meaningful for you, as you said you don't trust my ability to scan talks. So again, I invite you to undertake your own examination and then report back to us your findings. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indicator for what? Your search was helpful for determining the frequency that Elder Oaks speaks on the subject. Mine shows how often he speaks on it vs others leaders of the church. Seems to me both are relevant when it comes to people’s perceptions on the matter. 

Obviously, there are going to be a number of occurrences of a word or expression in any single instance in which the subject is brought up. that's not an indicator of how often the subject is brought up. Remember, Pogi's initial claim was that "the majority" of President Oaks's talks "focus" on gay issues.

Link to post
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

@Tacenda - The news article you quoted doesn't really say exactly what Elder Oaks said that was so hurtful. It mostly only gave quotes from people who said they were hurt by Elder Oaks' talk. The only quote it gave from Elder Oaks is this very mild:

Quote

“Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires us to oppose many of the current social and legal pressures to retreat from traditional marriage or to make changes that confuse or alter gender or homogenize the differences between men and women. We know that the relationships, identities and functions of men and women are essential to accomplish God’s great plan. ”

 

You have now in this thread said that Elder Oaks "has caused tons of hurt by being the point man for the church." 

You have also said about his recent conference talk:"Just when I thought he was going to give it a rest, he starts it right off the bat. I read on other boards and have saw that this indeed hurt the LGBTQ crowd that are believing members or parents/family that are. Please read through the talk and see why."

You have also made similar comments about Elder Oaks in past threads.

I really want to know what Elder Oaks has said that caused a ton of hurt? Can you please site actual statements Elder Oaks makes that are offensive and hurtful to you? Specifically, can you back your claim and say:
i) What statements in his recent conference talk did you find hurtful?
ii) Can you compile a top 10 list of statements that he has made overall in the last 40 years that are hurtful? 

 

Lastly, I am curious if you believe the following statements are hurtful to the LGBT community as well:
A) "Marriage  as ordained by God is and should only ever be between a man and a woman"  
B) "ALL HUMAN BEINGS were made by God as either male and female. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

  • Like 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

And I would suggest that extreme teachings can be both reasoned and reasonable. 

I think the connotation of "extreme" means most will interpret the teachings are seen as unreasonable as opposed to thinking it in terms of limits.  Perhaps a better word would be absolute.

Quote

SYNONYMS FOR EXTREME

2greatest, highest; superlative. 

3ultimate, last, uttermost, remotest. 

6extravagant, immoderate, excessive, fanatical, uncompromising, unreasonable.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/extreme

The four examples they use include three---the ones about feelings---that are implied to be irrational:

Quote

Investigators will focus on whether the sudden emergency was so extreme that no degree of pilot skill would have helped.

FLIGHT 8501 POSES QUESTION: ARE MODERN JETS TOO AUTOMATED TO FLY?|CLIVE IRVING|JANUARY 4, 2015|DAILY BEAST

No one likes it when their sandcastle is knocked over, but his reaction is a bit, err, extreme.

WAS BABY JESUS A HOLY TERROR?|CANDIDA MOSS|DECEMBER 21, 2014|DAILY BEAST

The grief in this house is extreme of course; this is a horror movie, after all.

GRIEF: THE REAL MONSTER IN THE BABADOOK|TIM TEEMAN|DECEMBER 19, 2014|DAILY BEAST

To not give in to profiteers, paid-off politicians and an extreme minority who hate its government and way of life.

THE GUN BATTLE SINCE NEWTOWN|CLIFF SCHECTER|DECEMBER 14, 2014|DAILY BEAST

 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously, there are going to be a number of occurrences of a word or expression in any single instance in which the subject is brought up. that's not an indicator of how often the subject is brought up.

Correct, but it is an excellent indicator of how focused one is on the topic. 

Quote

 


Remember, Pogi's initial claim was that "the majority" of President Oaks's talks "focus" on gay issues.

No one but you read that literally. He has clarified. Move on. 
 

What is clear is that Elder Oaks speaks in conference about the subject frequently, and appears to focus on the subject (based on word usage) more than the rest of church leadership combined. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

I think my use of the word "extreme" clearly falls under definition #3

I can think of behaviours and positions about homosexuality that are further on the spectrum though, as in criminalizing homosexual behaviour or punishment involving physical abuse including death.

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

Can you show me any other apostle who has fixated on issues surrounding a group of sinners as much as President Oaks has on the LGBT issues

I wouldn't call it sinning, but my memory is Elder Holland often speaks about some variation of faith crisis, doubt.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Correct, but it is an excellent indicator of how focused one is on the topic.  

As I said, it doesn't bother me that he would give attention to this subject, as topical as it has been during the past decade.

Quote

No one but you read that literally. He has clarified. Move on. 

I explained that I was ready to move on until I saw Calm's post giving search strategies. I took this as an indication that there was still a question in the minds of some. Apparently it was in yours, as you used one of her suggestions to undertake your own investigation based on word search.
 

Quote

What is clear is that Elder Oaks speaks in conference about the subject frequently, and appears to focus on the subject (based on word usage) more than the rest of church leadership combined.

Again, I'm not scandalized by this. Maybe the other leaders reckon that President Oaks has the subject well in hand, so they don't see the need to add much.  If others were addressing the subject frequently would you and Pogi be accusing them of 'fixating" as well?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I wonder whether complaints by you and others about this or that Church leader being "fixated" might work against the motivation to provide such attention.

I think it more likely to motivate leaders to provide clearer instruction on the Church's position while avoiding personal extrapolating (I see the examples from 2006 of family behaviour as likely extrapolating).

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can think of behaviours and positions about homosexuality that are further on the spectrum though, as in criminalizing homosexual behaviour or punishment involving physical abuse including death.

I can see what he means, though, I think.  You're taking about penalties for people who engage in that behavior, but at the basic level there is either right or wrong with "I don't care" in the middle.

We fall into the camp of - it is always wrong for people of the same sex to have sexual relations (intercourse) with each other, even if 2 people of the same sex are married by some law of the land.  We are on that end of the spectrum.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

think if the church had stayed as you are mentioning in the OP and here, we likely wouldn't have seen SSM legalized,

I think you are way overestimating the Church's influence.  Just look at all the other countries that have legalized SSM.  Are you suggesting the Church is the cause of legalized SSM there?

Link to post
55 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I think we are talking past each other. If you TRULY can't see why what I posted is relevant and you TRULY are just trying to understand Elder Oaks, then I invite you to re-read my past comments. Or you can ready Maestrophil's great summary:

 

I don't really have more to say that I haven't already said on the topic. I am assuming you understood my point of view and I certainly feel I now understand your point of view better. As such, I'll bow out of the conversation for now. But I do appreciate you explaining your point of view further.

That’s fair, though I will attempt one more time to explain myself. Elder Oak’s recent talk is about the two great commandments. He talks about walking the fine line between law and love. If you read the public affairs he is talking about exactly the same thing. So it appears to me that Elder Oaks believes the proper path for most people to walk this line between law and love is not allow a partner of a gay son or daughter into the home. It appears to me that he feels setting expectations that parents not “deal” with their child’s partnership in public is entirely consistent with loving their child, but also loving god. When he says we shouldn’t marginalize LGBT people, he specifically doesn’t view the above behaviors are marginalizing. This is important to know IMO. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently it was in yours, as you used one of her suggestions to undertake your own investigation based on word search.

What are you talking about!? I never once thought it would be close to the majority. I’m surprised it’s as close to 50% as it is. I merely think it is interesting to understand where the actual numbers lie. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...