jbarm Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 Have to love the "The Church needs to embrace homosexuality so we don't lose the youth" argument. Really? Do you think that the Church embracing and blessing homosexual behavior will lead to growth in the Church? Look at the Episcopal Church's growth once they embraced gay marriage and the like. They lost many of their conservative members due to their changes but didn't seem to attract many liberal members to replace them. Facts: in 2009 US Episcopal congregations officially approved blessing of gay unions. Membership 2009: 683,000 (rounded), 2018 membership: 532,000. Drop in membership of 22%. Using your logic, the Episcopalians should have attracted droves of liberal young folks. Instead they drove away the silent conservatives and lost their moral moorings. Guess what? The liberal types who attend gay rights rallies, in my observation, tend to be loosely spiritual or agnostic and tend to not be interested in organized religion. If the Church is just another club where the majority opinion can sway it from its basic moorings it will become as irrelevant as the old-school Masons, Lions Club or Jaycees are in today's society. jb 2
Meadowchik Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 43 minutes ago, jbarm said: Have to love the "The Church needs to embrace homosexuality so we don't lose the youth" argument. Really? Do you think that the Church embracing and blessing homosexual behavior will lead to growth in the Church? Look at the Episcopal Church's growth once they embraced gay marriage and the like. They lost many of their conservative members due to their changes but didn't seem to attract many liberal members to replace them. Facts: in 2009 US Episcopal congregations officially approved blessing of gay unions. Membership 2009: 683,000 (rounded), 2018 membership: 532,000. Drop in membership of 22%. Using your logic, the Episcopalians should have attracted droves of liberal young folks. Instead they drove away the silent conservatives and lost their moral moorings. Guess what? The liberal types who attend gay rights rallies, in my observation, tend to be loosely spiritual or agnostic and tend to not be interested in organized religion. If the Church is just another club where the majority opinion can sway it from its basic moorings it will become as irrelevant as the old-school Masons, Lions Club or Jaycees are in today's society. jb I don't know that anyone used it here. I would argue that gay marriage can be acceptable to the church because it can be good, too.
Calm Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I apologise, forgot about this article. Thank you
Duncan Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Sunslight said: Obviously you don't align with the church. That's weird, because you would have us believe that "As a church, as leaders, we aren't doing a good enough job of teaching same sex behavior being wrong with our children and youth" The Church needs people like you to set it back on course, tell the Church and Leaders what to do, now however you would have us believe "We are led by sound moral and Holy prophets. God bless them for not backing down to the world" The Prophets have it all figured out!! so, which is it? They need you to set the Church straight(pun intended) OR it's all good, we have it all under control, no need for anyone, pay no attention to the main behind behind the curtain!! why would you have us believe competing scenarios? FYI I have to speak today in Church today, I chose as a topic "lessons from the First Vision", a message that is all ecompassing, anyone from any sexuality can listen to, rather than "How to hate gay people in 10 easy steps" Edited March 8, 2020 by Duncan
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, sunstoned said: Duncan, I agree with you. Scientific research overwhelming concludes that sexual orientation is biological. In other words, you are born with your orientation. Even the church now acknowledges this. Past leaders were just speaking as men. Last I heard, the Church takes no position on the cause of homosexual orientation. Do you have a cite or link saying the Church acknowledges it is biological? Edited to add: From the website formerly called "mormonandgay.org": Quote What causes same-sex attraction? The Church has no position The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. In 2006, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction” (Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender Attraction,” 2006). Edited March 8, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, Tacenda said: Here's Steve Young's response: https://kslsports.com/429910/cougar-legend-steve-young-tweets-support-of-lgbtq-students-at-byu/?fbclid=IwAR3JOnkSzlYWqxXYbVlX59gQKROtpIFekTiRvsMlgVfqFGd8XEZ8Ew2gPfM Yes, and? I don't see anything new here. Just background information that we already knew about the events last week, about Steve Young and his career, and a repetition of the very brief tweet that Steve Young posted. Steve Young's response to what? I thought you were going to tell us he had elaborated later about his tweet, but there's nothing here like that. Edited March 8, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 8, 2020 Author Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, jbarm said: Have to love the "The Church needs to embrace homosexuality so we don't lose the youth" argument. Really? How about we try to do a better job of teaching the youth about marriage as authorized by the law of God and about the other precepts as emphasized in the family proclamation so they are less likely to get caught up in worldly or secular dogma and to believe that the church needs to embrace homosexuality? Edited March 8, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
teddyaware Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: How about we try to do a better job of teaching the youth about marriage as authorized by the law of God and about the other precepts as emphasized in the family proclamation so they are less likely to get caught up in worldly or secular dogma and to believe that the church needs to embrace homosexuality? It’s a difficult balancing act Scott. Coming down any more forcefully than the Church already is will bring with it even more intense accusations of the Church being bigoted, insensitive and cruel. 1
Meadowchik Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: How about we try to do a better job of teaching the youth about marriage as authorized by the law of God and about the other precepts as emphasized in the family proclamation so they are less likely to get caught up in worldly or secular dogma and to believe that the church needs to embrace homosexuality? "Because we said God said so" is becoming a weaker and weaker argument against those who experience God's affirmation of their same-sex relationships. 2
Meadowchik Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 On 3/4/2020 at 11:17 PM, Scott Lloyd said: But the honor code WAS changed. The wording was deleted. To make it consistent with the handbook was the explanation given, but it’s still not clear to me at this late date how deleting the wording fostered consistency with the handbook. I don’t think it’s self evident. Thanks for correcting!
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Duncan said: I don't know how to create sexuality You may not, but society certainly does ... and repeatedly has, in all kinds of formulations. Please do read. 3
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 8 hours ago, sunstoned said: Scientific research overwhelming concludes that sexual orientation is biological. This is simply not true. 4
smac97 Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 15 hours ago, bluebell said: Quote Quote Quote Quote (Bluebell) I'm trying, I really am, but I don't understand most of these reactions to the news. I can understand disappointment, even severe disappointment, but I don't understand "when I thought BYU was going to let me date SS partners I believed they cared about me, but now that they say SS dating is against the spirit of the honor code, I know they don't. I'm now so afraid when I wasn't a month ago when I knew the honor code didn't allow it." All this angst and feelings of betrayal and fear seem so incredibly over the top compared to what actually has happened. Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand? (Smac) Emotional manipulation. Melodrama. Public shaming. Coercion. Meanwhile, there is a corollary lack of reasoning, maturity, decorum, and seeking to discern and follow the will of God. (Bluebell) Working to understand where these people are coming from rather than assigning them motives from my perspective (something that I felt led to do by the spirit) has been a really interesting and changing experience for me. We all are immature at seeking to discern and follow the will of God sometimes, especially when emotion is involved. I’m reminded of King Benjamin’s “are we not all beggars” sermon in the BOM. (Smac) "Working to understand where these people are coming from" is essentially synonymous with "assigning them motives." (Bluebell) How so? You characterized the various expressions of "angst and feelings of betrayal and fear" as "incredibly over the top compared to what actually has happened." I characterized these same expressions as "melodramatic." What then, is the material difference between your description ("incredibly over the top") and mine ("melodramatic")? I also characterized these expressions in other ways that, frankly, see pretty obvious. "Emotionally manipulative?" Yes, I think so. Public rants, protests, publicly slandering BYU in pretty horrendous ways, etc. for what amounted to a two-week state of (mild) confusion over one aspect of the Honor Code is - as you put it - "incredibly over the top compared to what actually has happened." It seems emotionally manipulative. And coercive (why else mount public protests, disparage BYU to the news media and on social media, etc.)? "Lack of reasoning?" Again, yes. I've read most articles published about this matter. I've seen no appreciable effort to provide reasoning. Lots of emoting, yes, but no reasoning. "{Lack of} maturity {and} decorum?" Yes. Stuff like chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, the Honor Code has got to go" while protesting on private property (BYU campus), and from people who agreed to it before attending BYU, is immature, and grossly lacking in decorum. "{Lack of} seeking to discern and follow the will of God?" Yes. Again, there is no reasoning here. No citation to living prophets and apostles. The scant references to scriptures and primary songs and such were, in my view, not particularly sincere, and perhaps even examples of "wresting the scriptures." Quote I’m trying to find out, from them, what their motives are. Excuse me, Bluebell. You described to us their behavior as "incredibly over the top" (an assessment I agree with, BTW), and then asked us: "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand?" You invited public input. From us. Now you seem to be complaining about getting what you requested. Quote How is that “essentially synonymous” with assigning them motives? If describing behavior as "immature" and lacking "decorum" amounts to "assigning them motives," then so is describing behavior as "incredibly over the top compared to what actually has happened." For me, I think what you and I did was to observe the public spectacle on display, think about it in the context in which it has arisen, and then make some observations about what we think is going on. However, you seem to have taken exception to my assessment. If you think it is incorrect (while yours is apt), then I'm all ears. Do you think the "incredibly over the top" behaviors under discussion are not melodramatic? That they are mature? Reasoned? Thanks, -Smac Edited March 8, 2020 by smac97 2
smac97 Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: This is simply not true. Accusations against Hamba of bigotry and Wrongthink in 5...4...3...2... Thanks, -Smac
Popular Post smac97 Posted March 8, 2020 Popular Post Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: "Because we said God said so" is becoming a weaker and weaker argument against those who experience God's affirmation of their same-sex relationships. "I've experienced God's affirmation of same-sex relationships" seems pretty much identical with "Because we said God said so." I guess it's okay when you do it? Meanwhile, I think it is incumbent upon us to read the scriptures and listen to the counsel of living prophets and apostles, and also seek personal revelation on the matter. This process is not reasonably reduced to the sneering "because we said God said so." I also think there is massive pressure these days to bend the knee. To submit. To disregard that the scriptures and the prophets have said in favor of what is currently popular and trendy. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 8, 2020 by smac97 5
smac97 Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 9 hours ago, Calm said: Quote How many have to die before they get answers, don't even try to say it hasn't happened. And when are you going to stop normalizing suicide? https://www.lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-suicide-and-lgbt-populations.pdf I was going to ask her "When are you going to stop weaponizing suicide?" Thanks, -Smac 2
Meadowchik Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: "I've experienced God's affirmation of same-sex relationships" seems pretty much identical with "Because we said God said so." I guess it's okay when you do it? Meanwhile, I think it is incumbent upon us to read the scriptures and listen to the counsel of living prophets and apostles, and who also seek personal revelation on the matter. This process is not reasonably reduced to the sneering "because we said God said so." I also think there is massive pressure these days to bend the knee. To submit. To disregard that the scriptures and the prophets have said in favor of what is currently popular and trendy. Thanks, -Smac I've provided more than that as a basis. Can the descriptions of the pure love of Christ characterize same-sex relationships? Of course they can, in being kind, patient, not boasting, not easily angered, in rejoicing in righteousness and truth. Can people learn more about loving others and loving God in same-sex relationships? Yes, they can and they do. Can they benefit each other, their community, and society at large? Yes. The scriptural examination reveals no divine prohibition against gay marriage. The scriptural evaluation of its fruits shows that it can bear good fruit. That is what authoritarian statements of the church weigh against, and why those statements become weaker and weaker the more we witness people having the right to enter into gay marriage. Edited March 8, 2020 by Meadowchik
smac97 Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: Quote "I've experienced God's affirmation of same-sex relationships" seems pretty much identical with "Because we said God said so." I guess it's okay when you do it? Meanwhile, I think it is incumbent upon us to read the scriptures and listen to the counsel of living prophets and apostles, and who also seek personal revelation on the matter. This process is not reasonably reduced to the sneering "because we said God said so." I also think there is massive pressure these days to bend the knee. To submit. To disregard that the scriptures and the prophets have said in favor of what is currently popular and trendy. I've provided more than that as a basis. ' And the Church has provided a lot more than "because we said God said so." But that didn't stop you from posting this cheap shot. 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: Can the description of the pure love of Christ characterize same-sex relationships? I don't know what this means. "Can the description of the pure love of Christ characterize adulterous relationships?" "Can the description of the pure love of Christ characterize fornicating relationships?" How would you answer these questions? 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: Of course they can, in being kind, patient, not boasting, not easily angered, rejoicing in righteousness and truth. The Rich Young Ruler was all of these things, and yet... Obedience to the precepts in Column A (e.g. being kind, patient, etc.) does not justify disobedience to the precepts in Column B (e.g. the Law of Chastity). 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: The scriptural examination reveals no divine prohibition against gay marriage. This is false. The scriptures, as well as living prophets and apostles, are pretty clear on this. 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: The scriptural evaluation of its fruits shows that it can bear good fruit. A baby born to an unmarried or adulterous couple is "good," even though the behavior that created it was sinful. 1 minute ago, Meadowchik said: That is what authoritarian statements of the church weigh against, and why those statements become weaker and weaker the more we witness people having the right to enter into gay marriage. I don't see the correlation. Thanks, -Smac 2
bluebell Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You characterized the various expressions of "angst and feelings of betrayal and fear" as "incredibly over the top compared to what actually has happened." I did say that the expressions seemed like those things, but I felt that I was not being Christlike or fair in those judgments so I sought help in seeing it from a different perspective. Quote Excuse me, Bluebell. You described to us their behavior as "incredibly over the top" (an assessment I agree with, BTW), and then asked us: "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand?" You're excused. And yes, I did describe how the behavior appeared to me and then asked for help in seeing it differently. Quote You invited public input. From us. Now you seem to be complaining about getting what you requested. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand" what I meant was "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand where they are coming from." I thought that that was obvious but I recognize that it must not have been obvious to everyone. If I disagreed with something that you said or did, for example, and I asked "can someone please explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand" I would be asking for help in understanding your perspective. I wouldn't be asking someone with views like California Boy to explain your motives to me, because his perspective and your perspective obviously do not match. But if Scotty Lloyd attempted to explain your perspective to me then I would likely find that helpful, since he sees things like you do most of the time. Likewise, when I asked for help on the board, I was not asking for people who disagreed with them and thought all sorts of negative things about them to explain their perspective. I was asking for help from people who saw things like they did to help me understand their point of view. Quote For me, I think what you and I did was to observe the public spectacle on display, think about it in the context in which it has arisen, and then make some observations about what we think is going on. That's kind of true. I won't speak for you but for me, I fully admit that I observed the public spectacle and made some uncharitable judgments about it, and then felt the spirit gently reprimand me and tell me that I needed to do better. So that's what I set out to do. Better. Quote However, you seem to have taken exception to my assessment. If you think it is incorrect (while yours is apt), then I'm all ears. Do you think the "incredibly over the top" behaviors under discussion are not melodramatic? That they are mature? Reasoned? Thanks, -Smac As I said before, I found your assessment unhelpful to my goal of seeking to understand their perspective. Edited March 8, 2020 by bluebell 3
hope_for_things Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m claiming to have come to understand God’s will regarding me and my needs, potential, challenges, personal shortcomings. That’s reasonable within the paradigm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then insulting me based on a straw man you yourself created. I know you’re angry over how events unfolded this week, but it’s rude and it’s a cheap shot. I’m not intending to put words in your mouth at all. I’m sorry to have given that impression. When you make statements that imply Steve Young should get himself aligned with the restored word of God in this topic, it sounds to me like you are making a claim that you know God’s will and that you’re able to judge Steve’s support for BYU students as being out of alignment with God’s will. Your most recent reply sounds much less bold as it sounds like you’re measuring your personal understanding against Steve’s personal understanding, in which case it strikes me as out of step with your earlier comment about the revealed word of God. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you originally meant when you took umbrage with my comment that I was glad Steve was exercising his personal conscience.
smac97 Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I did say that the expressions seemed like those things, but I felt that I was not being Christlike or fair in those judgments so I sought help in seeing it from a different perspective. I'm not sure it's not Christlike to describe behavior fairly and accurately. 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: You're excused. And yes, I did describe how the behavior appeared to me and then asked for help in seeing it differently. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand" what I meant was "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand where they are coming from." I thought that that was obvious but I recognize that it must not have been obvious to everyone. It's still not obvious, I guess. "Where they are coming from" is what I addressed (so did you). Their behavior is, in my view, "coming from" a lack of maturity, lack of decorum, lack of reasoning, etc. 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: If I disagreed with something that you said or did, for example, and I asked "can someone please explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand" I would be asking for help in understanding your perspective. You didn't ask them for their assessment. You asked us for ours. And you asked immediately after presenting your own assessment. 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I wouldn't be asking someone with views like California Boy to explain your motives to me, because his perspective and your perspective obviously do not match. But if Scotty Lloyd attempted to explain your perspective to me then I would likely find that helpful, since he sees things like you do most of the time. Likewise, when I asked for help on the board, I was not asking for people who disagreed with them and thought all sorts of negative things about them to explain their perspective. I was asking for help from people who saw things like they did to help me understand their point of view. You asked: "Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand?" You didn't say "Can someone but only from those who agree with these protesters explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand?" You asked for input from the board. You got it. Now you're implying that I am not being "Christlike" because I gave you my frank assessment, right after you gave your (pretty similar) assessment. 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: Quote For me, I think what you and I did was to observe the public spectacle on display, think about it in the context in which it has arisen, and then make some observations about what we think is going on. That's kind of true. I won't speak for you but for me, I fully admit that I observed the public spectacle and made some uncharitable judgments about it, and then felt the spirit gently reprimand me and tell me that I needed to do better. So that's what I set out to do. Better. I am really not understanding. If the observed behavior was apparently immature, emotionally manipulative, lacking in reason, and so on, what is "uncharitable" about saying so? 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: Quote However, you seem to have taken exception to my assessment. If you think it is incorrect (while yours is apt), then I'm all ears. Do you think the "incredibly over the top" behaviors under discussion are not melodramatic? That they are mature? Reasoned? As I said before, I found your assessment unhelpful to my goal of seeking to understand their perspective. You asked: Quote I'm trying, I really am, but I don't understand most of these reactions to the news. I can understand disappointment, even severe disappointment, but I don't understand "when I thought BYU was going to let me date SS partners I believed they cared about me, but now that they say SS dating is against the spirit of the honor code, I know they don't. I'm now so afraid when I wasn't a month ago when I knew the honor code didn't allow it." All this angst and feelings of betrayal and fear seem so incredibly over the top compared to what actually has happened. Can someone explain it in a way that maybe I'll be able to understand? What if their behavior is indicative of a lack of maturity? What if their behavior is lacking docorum? Unreasoned? Emotionally manipulative? As a lawyer, I deal with people reacting to bad news a lot (losing a lawsuit, getting foreclosed on, getting evicted, etc.). I treat them with respect, but I don't see anything inappropriate about frankly (and accurately) assessing their behavior, and treating it as such. I'm not doing so out of malice, or unrighteous judgment. It's just an explanation of apparent misconduct. Thanks, -Smac 2
Tacenda Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 11 hours ago, Duncan said: it's AWFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's the nerve burning on the side of your face, I am on medication but I can still feel it still, not as bad but it's a situation for sure. The Dr. said if this 2 month meds don't work, then most likely I am off to a neurologist which may mean surgery. We'll see I feel like a broken record but have you thought of trying cbd/thc? I just got done posting about it helping with my case of shingles. It was awesome. I guess it's supposed to help with nerve endings. Good luck today with your talk, or hope it went well!
Tacenda Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes, and? I don't see anything new here. Just background information that we already knew about the events last week, about Steve Young and his career, and a repetition of the very brief tweet that Steve Young posted. Steve Young's response to what? I thought you were going to tell us he had elaborated later about his tweet, but there's nothing here like that. His response to the protests. I thought it pertinent to the topic at hand, he was kind of a big deal while playing for BYU football, and he's related to BY and has been a kind of spokesman. The tweet is in the pudding or the pudding is in the tweet. Or however that saying goes. Edited March 8, 2020 by Tacenda
Duncan Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I feel like a broken record but have you thought of trying cbd/thc? I just got done posting about it helping with my case of shingles. It was awesome. I guess it's supposed to help with nerve endings. Good luck today with your talk, or hope it went well! it went well! ah, I got carbamazepine, apparently it's the best, it's kind of working, honestly though I think I am headed to a neurologist, we'll see 1
Meadowchik Posted March 8, 2020 Posted March 8, 2020 3 hours ago, smac97 said: And the Church has provided a lot more than "because we said God said so." But that didn't stop you from posting this cheap shot. I don't know what this means. "Can the description of the pure love of Christ characterize adulterous relationships?" "Can the description of the pure love of Christ characterize fornicating relationships?" How would you answer these questions? The Rich Young Ruler was all of these things, and yet... Obedience to the precepts in Column A (e.g. being kind, patient, etc.) does not justify disobedience to the precepts in Column B (e.g. the Law of Chastity). This is false. The scriptures, as well as living prophets and apostles, are pretty clear on this. A baby born to an unmarried or adulterous couple is "good," even though the behavior that created it was sinful. I don't see the correlation. Thanks, -Smac It's not a cheap shot. Tell me what doctrinal basis is used by LDS leaders for classifying same-sex marriages as sinful.
Recommended Posts