Mixed messages and the future of the church

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And since it isn't used in Callister's or Wilson's opinion pieces, it doesn't contribute to the mixed message some people see. The mixed message is a function, i think, of paradigms affecting the application of semantics.

I wasn't talking about those opinion pieces. 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Pretty sure he's referring to the poster known as Bernard Gui's use of the term in this thread.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wasn't talking about those opinion pieces. 

Yes, I realize that, but I'm seeing several pages of quibbling over semantics when a) I'm pretty sure people understand his paradigm and word use; b) he explained his intent when called out on it; c) people don't have to like his paradigm, word use or intent, but more polemics and rhetoric won't change them.

It is the same dynamic as people finding mixed messages in the opinion pieces. Opinion pieces aren't written to build understanding or consensus (at least these two aren't). I think the subject matter of the opinions can be discussed with the "use of love, civility, justice and peace, you won’t lose” (a quote from a great article on another thread) instead of knee-jerk reactions to trigger words in opinion pieces.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I realize that, but I'm seeing several pages of quibbling over semantics when a) I'm pretty sure people understand his paradigm and word use; b) he explained his intent when called out on it; c) people don't have to like his paradigm, word use or intent, but more polemics and rhetoric won't change them.

It is the same dynamic as people finding mixed messages in the opinion pieces. Opinion pieces aren't written to build understanding or consensus (at least these two aren't). I think the subject matter of the opinions can be discussed with the "use of love, civility, justice and peace, you won’t lose” (a quote from a great article on another thread) instead of knee-jerk reactions to trigger words in opinion pieces.

Suggesting that we not use offensive analogies is not an example of polemics, IMO.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Suggesting that we not use offensive analogies is not an example of polemics, IMO.

Then there are more important things to conclude from these opinion pieces than charges of mixed messages.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Then there are more important things to conclude from these opinion pieces than charges of mixed messages.

No, they are the same point: you won't get very far when you couple messages of "tolerance" with pejoratives and disdain. 

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, they are the same point: you won't get very far when you couple messages of "tolerance" with pejoratives and disdain. 

Well, yes and no; depends. You don't get the salient Church message from these opinion pieces from the OP, and you don't get very far not understanding that neither adequately conveys Church messages. The best thing to do for the "food for thought" comment in the OP, in my opinion, is to help those (young and old) who conflate opinion pieces with Church messages to understand the difference, appreciate the roles of paradigms and bias for themselves and others, and develop the practice of critical thinking.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Faith does not have be faith in a god. 

Different types of faith.  But still there is more than faith behind their positions. As far as I can see there is not for you. It just because you believe God says so.

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

For years, I prayed and fasted and pleaded with God to make me straight.  I was praying and fasting for the wrong thing.  What I should have been focusing on is praying for God to show me how to live a full and happy life as I am, not as I may or may not ever become.  I found both that happiness and that relationship with God that has giving me both peace and a loving and caring person to go through life with.  

Praying and fasting for the Church to change is like pleading with God to make me straight.  It would be much more healthy to pray to God to help us understand that there may be another path that is much more fulfilling and healthy that God will help them find.  It is not dependent on the Church changing.  It is dependent on changing one's relationship with God, relying on Him rather than Church leaders.  That actually should be what the Church encourages every member to find.

If at some distant future, the Church changes its position on gay marriage, then that is the time to once again ask God for guidance on the best path to take.

 "Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not" (D&C 6:36)

 

Thank you for giving me another way to think about the situation. I will ponder your words and see where they take me. I think I was starting to come to the same conclusion. Our Heavenly Father knows and loves all of his children and the path to him may not be exactly the same for all. I used to rely much more on church leaders but I think my faith has matured to the point that I rely more and more on my direct relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. It is a wonderful blessing that you have found peace and happiness. I can feel the spirit in your words. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Peacefully

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that the word "aberrant" is illustrated with abusive and nonconsensual behaviors, such as child abuse and bestiality. Grouping same-sex marriage in with these behaviors is intended to be pejorative; otherwise, why not use more benign examples of "aberrant behavior," such as writing with your left hand or wearing white after Labor Day? Heck, before 1967, marriage between a white person and a black person was considered aberrant. That's a more apt analogy to same-sex marriage, and it doesn't carry the obvious moral disgust of the person making the analogy.

“Aberrant” is a provocative word and I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of the person using it, imho. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Well, yes and no; depends. You don't get the salient Church message from these opinion pieces from the OP, and you don't get very far not understanding that neither adequately conveys Church messages. The best thing to do for the "food for thought" comment in the OP, in my opinion, is to help those (young and old) who conflate opinion pieces with Church messages to understand the difference, appreciate the roles of paradigms and bias for themselves and others, and develop the practice of critical thinking.

No argument here. 

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

“Aberrant” is a provocative word and I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of the person using it, imho. 

Seems like a perfectly cromulent word to me. 😉

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you for giving me another way to think about the situation. I will ponder your words and see where they take me. I think I was starting to come to the same conclusion. Our Heavenly Father knows and loves all of his children and the path to him may not be exactly the same for all. I used to rely much more on church leaders but I think my faith has matured to the point that I rely more and more on my direct relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. It is a wonderful blessing that you have found peace and happiness. I can feel the spirit in your words. 

I really appreciate you sincerely wanting to know how I feel about this issue and giving me the opportunity to clarify.  I hope that I offer a different perspective from a very different life experience than most on this board.  

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Peacefully said:

“Aberrant” is a provocative word and I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of the person using it, imho. 

I haven't followed this particular conversation in the thread, but in my opinion it kept the conversants from engaging in toe OP. Sometimes people use these kinds of words without intending to provoke, and further discussion despite first impressions can sort that out and get to the valuable points.

If the issue to discuss, as brought up in the OP, is that the initial, unchallenged perception of mixed messaging leads someone to disconnect, I think a discussion on helping them understand how to manage messaging (whether opinion or news, first- or second-hand sources, etc.) would help them engage with people who think differently than they do, react less viscerally and think things through better. This will add to their array of skills that supports their their faith and discipleship.

[Peacefully]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

I really appreciate you sincerely wanting to know how I feel about this issue and giving me the opportunity to clarify.  I hope that I offer a different perspective from a very different life experience than most on this board.  

I appreciate your willingness to share your perspective. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Peacefully

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I haven't followed this particular conversation in the thread, but in my opinion it kept the conversants from engaging in toe OP. Sometimes people use these kinds of words without intending to provoke, and further discussion despite first impressions can sort that out and get to the valuable points.

If the issue to discuss, as brought up in the OP, is that the initial, unchallenged perception of mixed messaging leads someone to disconnect, I think a discussion on helping them understand how to manage messaging (whether opinion or news, first- or second-hand sources, etc.) would help them engage with people who think differently than they do, react less viscerally and think things through better. This will add to their array of skills that supports their their faith and discipleship.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Do you not think it is provocative to call same sex relationships “aberrant” and compare them to forms of deviant behavior such as beastiality? 

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

“Aberrant” is a provocative word and I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of the person using it, imho.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Do you not think it is provocative to call same sex relationships “aberrant” and compare them to forms of deviant behavior such as beastiality? 

Let’s clarify some things.

Perhaps we don’t all don’t agree on the meaning of aberrant in the context of my remarks. I chose the word aberrant because it accurately describes things that stray from usual practices or norms. This is how I understand the word aberrant:

1. departing from the right, normal, or usual course.

2. deviating from the ordinary, usual, or normal type

3. one whose behavior departs substantially from the norm of a group.

Origin: Mid 16th century from Latin aberrant- ‘wandering away’, from the verb aberrare, from ab- ‘away, from’ + errare ‘to stray’.

This is how I use the word aberrant in this discussion:

 

I believe ordinary, right, normal, usual marriage is the union between one man and one woman, so anything that departs or strays from that standard is aberrant according to the definitions above. Polygamy, ssm, multiple partners, group marriages, open marriage, living together without marriage, serial single parenting, child marriage, marrying an animal or an object, marrying yourself, etc. (all of which are being done now whether legal or not) are aberrant, ie., they are not normal, ordinary, right, or usual marriages. I do not and have not equated ssm with anything other than to claim that it is a departure from the normal, usual, ordinary understanding of marriage. If someone wishes to substitute their own word for aberrant that holds to my meaning, please do, but I ask that I be understood correctly. I have explained this several times.

 

Now that our society and legal system have redefined marriage as a union between consenting adults, the door is open for other aberrant possibilities, some of which can be odd, bizarre, or even perverse.

 

In this discussion, the LDS Church has been censured for opposing ssm as part of its supposed “mixed messages.” So I ask these questions:

 

1. How should marriage be defined?

2. Does the Church have the right and obligation to defend the historical and usual concept of marriage?
3. Given the new definition of marriage as a union between consenting adults, is ssm the only form of aberrant marriage (unusual, departing from the norm, out of the ordinary) that can be allowed?

4. If so, what is the rationale for reserving marriage to only heterosexual and same-sex couples?

 

For example, if a brother and sister or two sisters or two brothers want to marry and both are competent and consent, why can’t they? What is special about the number two? If eight consenting adults want to marry each other, why not? If all participants are consenting, why is plural marriage forbidden? If a competent consenting adult wishes to marry a pet or a forklift, why not?

 

I want to understand what is happening in this confused world in which I live. I don’t believe this makes me into some kind of hating raging bigoted monster, but some are free to come to that conclusion. However, they would be mistaken.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Different types of faith.  But still there is more than faith behind their positions. As far as I can see there is not for you. It just because you believe God says so.

No, I believe there are sound reasons why marriage should be between a man and a woman other than because God defines it that way.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I’m not sure what you are saying here. Do you not think it is provocative to call same sex relationships “aberrant” and compare them to forms of deviant behavior such as beastiality? 

As I said, I'm not following that particular conversation, but it can certainly be provocative.

I am trying to say 2 things: 1) in the OP, younger members are provoked by the language in the Dessert News opinion piece; Winslow likewise, who responded with his own opinion piece. That is a function of their paradigms, but the provocation inhibits understanding, which results in the assumption of mixed messaging, which (according to the OP) leads to disconnect with the Church. 2) I think learning to deal with differing paradigms expands understanding, resolves the sense of mixed messaging due to semantics (in most good-faith exchanges), and would be a good companion set of skills to faith and discipleship, contributing to continued connection with the Church, all else being equal.

I think dealing with differing paradigms includes the skills of open and clarifying conversation, critical thinking, understanding how opinion and news differ, how first- and second-hand sources should be analyzed, and so forth. This is what I consider part of a discussion of "Food for thought."

Edited June 16, 2021 by CV75

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I believe there are sound reasons why marriage should be between a man and a woman other than because God defines it that way.

Such as?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I believe there are sound reasons why marriage should be between a man and a woman other than because God defines it that way.

Feel free to share those reasons.

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Such as?

 

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Feel free to share those reasons.

There are important differences between mothering and fathering. Children need both. Marriage is the best way to bind a father to his children. A stable “two biological parents structure” provides for the best economic, health, social, educational, and developmental outcomes for children. 

Studies on the importance of marriage in raising children are all over the place in their results, but I believe the above, among others, are true and essential.
Your mileage will most likely differ.  

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

There are important differences between mothering and fathering. Children need both. Marriage is the best way to bind a father to his children. A stable “2 biological parents structure” provides for the best economic, health, social, educational, and developmental outcomes for children. 

Studies on the importance of marriage in raising children are all over the place in their results, but I believe the above, among others, are true and essential.
Your mileage will most likely differ.  

 

What are the important differences between mothering and fathering? Are these universal? Culturally determined? Learned behavior?

[Chum]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

What are the important differences between mothering and fathering? Are these universal? Culturally determined? Learned behavior?

We're pretty driven to see patterns.  I think those things are just groups of behaviors we drew lines around.

My mom was a single parent to 4. I'm a single parent to 5. Both of us were more analytical and less nurturing - except for babies because even analysts can nurture a baby.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

There are important differences between mothering and fathering. Children need both. Marriage is the best way to bind a father to his children. A stable “two biological parents structure” provides for the best economic, health, social, educational, and developmental outcomes for children. 

Studies on the importance of marriage in raising children are all over the place in their results, but I believe the above, among others, are true and essential.
Your mileage will most likely differ.  

 

Setting aside the parenting aspects (and your statement seems to assume that marriage is only for the purpose of pro-creation), what non-religious reasons do you believe exist to deny two consenting gay adults the opportunity to marry one another?

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Setting aside the parenting aspects (and your statement seems to assume that marriage is only for the purpose of pro-creation), what non-religious reasons do you believe exist to deny two consenting gay adults the opportunity to marry one another?

Let’s not set aside the parenting differences. Why should two consenting gay sisters or brothers not have the opportunity to marry each other?