Mixed messages and the future of the church

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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

Yes. Of course individuals may have different characteristics, but yes nevertheless.

 

A battle of competing studies is pointless.

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

There you go again, equating SSM with incest.  You appear unable to engage in a good faith discussion on this topic.

I'm curious, what do you think is the cause of homosexuality? Are people born that way? Do they choose to be that way?

[AtlanticMike]

43 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm curious, what do you think is the cause of homosexuality? Are people born that way? Do they choose to be that way?

Both

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Leaving aside the inbreeding and the whole thing being gross the general consensus is that there is far too great a potential for grooming and predatory aspects in incestuous relationships even after both individuals are adults. Would you trust an 18 year old deciding to marry her 40 year old father or mother and just assume she came to this conclusion out of rational thought and out of real affection and romantic love?

Plus it makes genealogy really weird:

On a related note why the constant bestiality and incest comparisons?????

Every time temple sealings are brought up I don’t want to have to start making dispassionate comparisons to fertility orgies and sex slavery. But I will if I have to.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. Of course individuals may have different characteristics, but yes nevertheless.

 

A battle of competing studies is pointless.

 

So, if competing studies disagree over inherent male and female characteristics, you’re pretty much acknowledging that, absent scientific consensus, your position is not much more than personal opinion. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, if competing studies disagree over inherent male and female characteristics, you’re pretty much acknowledging that, absent scientific consensus, your position is not much more than personal opinion. 

Whatever. Not any more than you do about your position. I'm not interested in dueling studies.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whatever. Not any more than you do about your position. I'm not interested in dueling studies.

I’m not either. You said that was a good reason to disallow gay marriage, yet you provide no support for your statements. I don’t really have a position on what kind of gender mix makes for the best parenting, but the lack of scientific consensus suggesting it’s not disqualifying for gay couples. 

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I don’t know you but I assume you are not a raging, bigoted monster. I do think you have bias towards gay relationships because you keep doubling down on making them analogous to deviant sexual behavior such as beastiality. Why even go there?

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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."

I think you should follow my conversation if you want to understand where I am coming from. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Leaving aside the inbreeding and the whole thing being gross the general consensus is that there is far too great a potential for grooming and predatory aspects in incestuous relationships even after both individuals are adults. Would you trust an 18 year old deciding to marry her 40 year old father or mother and just assume she came to this conclusion out of rational thought and out of real affection and romantic love?

Plus it makes genealogy really weird:

On a related note why the constant bestiality and incest comparisons?????

Every time temple sealings are brought up I don’t want to have to start making dispassionate comparisons to fertility orgies and sex slavery. But I will if I have to.

I use the term zoophile, not bestiality, but the terminology can be very confusing.  Zoophiles do not necessarily want sexual relations with animals. Some would be horrified to have that hung around their necks. Perhaps they just want some sort of "official" or "permanent" arrangement with a beloved pet that does not involve intimacy. It is possible that some advocate now or will advocate for legalizing the practice in the future. I would hope it is exceedingly rare, but I ceased being surprised by anything a long time ago. If they are competent adults, why not if it makes them happy? (According to the new definition of marriage-competent adults, that is). On the other hand, if you can trust Wikipedia, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia#Non-sexual_zoophilia), there appear to be those who do want such relations. Since the advent of the internet, it seems more people have become open about it.

Quote

The popular newsgroup [x] said to be in the top 1% of newsgroup interest (i.e. number 50 out of around 5000), – and reputedly started in humor [my edit] – along with personal bulletin boards and talkers, chief among them [x], [x], and [x], were among the first group media of this kind in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These groups rapidly drew together zoophiles, some of whom also created personal and social websites and Internet forums. By around 1992–1994, the wide social net had evolved. This was initially centered around the above-mentioned newsgroup, which during the six years following 1990 had matured into a discussion and support group. The newsgroup included information about health issues, laws governing zoophilia, bibliography relating to the subject, and community events.

Weinberg and Williams observe that the internet can socially integrate an incredibly large number of people. In Kinsey's day contacts between animal lovers were more localized and limited to male compatriots in a particular rural community. Further, while the farm boys Kinsey researched might have been part of a rural culture in which sex with animals was a part, the sex itself did not define the community. The zoophile community is not known to be particularly large compared to other subcultures which make use of the internet, so Weinberg and Williams surmised its aims and beliefs would likely change little as it grew. Those particularly active on the internet may not be aware of a wider subculture, as there is not much of a wider subculture, Weinberg and Williams felt the virtual zoophile group would lead the development of the subculture.

Websites aim to provide support and social assistance to zoophiles (including resources to help and rescue abused or mistreated animals), but these are not usually well publicized. Such work is often undertaken as needed by individuals and friends, within social networks, and by word of mouth.

Zoophiles tend to experience their first zoosexual feelings during adolescence, and tend to be secretive about it, hence limiting the ability for non-Internet communities to form.

Lamentably, grooming and abuse can occur in many ways. Due to the wide-spread availability of permanent means to prevent pregnancy, inbreeding is no longer an issue with marrying a close relativ. Lawyers could figure that one out. Because it is a widely held taboo, we recoil at the thought, but not so long ago there were similar taboos and rejections at the mention of ssm. It seems to me that if we accept the definition of marriage is a union between consenting adults, then it is likely that other aberrant (unusual, non-conforming, divergent, atypical) forms of "marriage" between consenting adults can and will become acceptable.

I Am My Own Grandpa

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I don’t know you but I assume you are not a raging, bigoted monster. I do think you have bias towards gay relationships because you keep doubling down on making them analogous to deviant sexual behavior such as beastiality. Why even go there?

Of course I have a bias towards ssm.  I have stated numerous times that I believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. I don't believe we should redefine it.  While I cannot support it even if it is legal, please give me the benefit of the doubt when I specifically said I am not making them analogous to such things as beastiality and incest. SSM is an unusual, atypical, divergent, not ordinary, uncommon version of that definition of marriage. A word that describes this is aberrant. Anything that deviates from that definition is aberrant. That does not make them analogous. I have made the point many times. I hope you can understand that.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

There you go again, equating SSM with incest.  You appear unable to engage in a good faith discussion on this topic.

I'm curious, what do you think is the cause of homosexuality? Are people born that way? Do they choose to be that way?

I have been engaging in good faith for many pages. That you can't accept my viewpoint is not my problem.

[Bernard Gui]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m not either. You said that was a good reason to disallow gay marriage, yet you provide no support for your statements. I don’t really have a position on what kind of gender mix makes for the best parenting, but the lack of scientific consensus suggesting it’s not disqualifying for gay couples. 

The lack of scientific consensus suggests that there is a lack of scientific consensus.

[Chum]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Both

I think when we learned that environment (eg: trauma) shapes both our DNA and that of our offspring, it was the first nail in the nature vs nurture debate.

[CV75]

5 hours 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.

I am going to butt in here and share my ideas for the sake of the following:

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Such as?

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Feel free to share those reasons.

Eden seems to be the go-to reference (whether one takes the account figuratively or literally) for establishing that a couple of the same sex cannot do what Adam and Eve did. Things could not have played out as they did; conceptually, the man would remain alone (not good for many reasons), no matter how many men lived together in a same-sex union (whether a couple or polyandrous).

The image and likeness of Adam and Eve came from “Someone [plural].” Their respective primary roles are to bring spirits to earth (Adam arrived first, but could not procreate without being a couple with Eve) and back to heaven again (Eve saw the way to progress first, but could not spiritually rebirth those procreations without being a coupe with Adam). Two men could not have done this from the way we have figured human life to have come about on earth.

That said, I do not think things simply began with the Creation, but with the Atonement of Christ, which informed all the intentional actions and events that followed to prepare us for life as gods with God. It was established before the foundation of the world, meaning it was foundational to the plan that was presented before the War in Heaven, and foundational to what preceded that. After the War in Heaven, things were created spiritually, then naturally upon the earth – none of this could have been done without the Atonement of Christ in the first place, as it was carried out in the beginning (His suffering in Gethsemane and the cross were the physical manifestation of what He did long before that). There would be too many laws left in in chaos without an atoning principle in order to allow for the continuation of estates along the way from “co-eternal” with God in the infinite past to the continuation of the lives and seeds forever.

These ideas do not support the notion that the reason for marriage between a man and a woman, and not same-sex, is "because God said so" or "some mystic said so." They follow a set of spiritual principles and beliefs found in our religion which follow an internal consistency. This may fall within a different paradigm than ones that you two embrace, but it is reasonable.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am going to butt in here and share my ideas for the sake of the following:

Eden seems to be the go-to reference (whether one takes the account figuratively or literally) for establishing that a couple of the same sex cannot do what Adam and Eve did. Things could not have played out as they did; conceptually, the man would remain alone (not good for many reasons), no matter how many men lived together in a same-sex union (whether a couple or polyandrous).

The image and likeness of Adam and Eve came from “Someone [plural].” Their respective primary roles are to bring spirits to earth (Adam arrived first, but could not procreate without being a couple with Eve) and back to heaven again (Eve saw the way to progress first, but could not spiritually rebirth those procreations without being a coupe with Adam). Two men could not have done this from the way we have figured human life to have come about on earth.

That said, I do not think things simply began with the Creation, but with the Atonement of Christ, which informed all the intentional actions and events that followed to prepare us for life as gods with God. It was established before the foundation of the world, meaning it was foundational to the plan that was presented before the War in Heaven, and foundational to what preceded that. After the War in Heaven, things were created spiritually, then naturally upon the earth – none of this could have been done without the Atonement of Christ in the first place, as it was carried out in the beginning (His suffering in Gethsemane and the cross were the physical manifestation of what He did long before that). There would be too many laws left in in chaos without an atoning principle in order to allow for the continuation of estates along the way from “co-eternal” with God in the infinite past to the continuation of the lives and seeds forever.

These ideas do not support the notion that the reason for marriage between a man and a woman, and not same-sex, is "because God said so" or "some mystic said so." They follow a set of spiritual principles and beliefs found in our religion which follow an internal consistency. This may fall within a different paradigm than ones that you two embrace, but it is reasonable.

That portion of the discussion was specifically in response to BG's assertion that he did not have to appeal to God or scripture to justify opposition to SSM.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 6/15/2021 at 9:10 AM, bluebell said:

This was my clumsy and shorthanded way of coming back to what you said earlier concerning CB--

"California Boy has walked the church's path in a way that I will never be able to understand. I'm certainly not going to tell him he is wrong." 

...and wondering if you believed the same applied to our apostles and prophets. Since they have walked the church's path in a way that you (and I, and most of us) will never be able to understand, are you also not going to tell them that they are wrong?

I asked this in conjunction with the idea that church was only doing what CB was doing.  If that was true, I was wondering if the church leaders deserved the same considerations that you were giving to CB.

Hey bluebell great questions and great points. I’m struggling to come up with time to give a proper response, so you are going to get what I can come up with while I’m walking my daughter for the days exercise. 
 

I was over broad in my language as I don’t think anyone’s experience should be taken without question or should be beyond question. On the other hand, I absolutely do cut certain people slack for rhetoric that I might otherwise find distasteful. As an example, Juliann comes on a bit strong for my taste when it comes to women’s issues on this board. A lot of times I agree with her, other times I don’t. But I always try to  weight her opinion higher than I otherwise would, and I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to tell her she is wrong to use the rhetoric that she does. Klindley (sp) is someone that I believe has the opposite extreme to CB that I disagree with. There has been a time or two that I thought his rhetoric choice was not what I would use, but to me by living the life he lives, I don’t think I have the right to question that. I think that people it have struggled and persevere in the face of adversity have earned the right to a little rhetorical flair. I hope this doesn’t come across as condescending, s as it’s not my intent. If I had more time perhaps I could put it better. I guess bottom line, people like klindley and CB have earned the right (imo) to speak louder on these issues because they understand them in a very personal way. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with them, but I do feel that their opinions carry weight that mine can’t so I don’t mind the forcefulness in rhetoric. 
 

For church leaders? I used to feel that they had a special connection with God and then yes, I would have put them in the same category as having a special understanding. Now though? There have been a ton of talks on doubt over the last decade. As a believer who struggled, did I ever feel like they understood me? No. It felt like they built up straw men to beat down. On same sex attraction? Do I feel like they have a special understanding there? Not when they talk about “counterfeit” families, or when Elder Oaks gives an interview on the topic bemoaning how gay kids are asking to be seen in public partner in tow with their parents. So no I don’t think they understand. 
 

On spiritual matters, are they on a plane above? Many apostles described the priesthood revelation as one of the most powerful experiences of their lives but their descriptions describe an out pouring of the Holy Spirit. So maybe different in degree but not in kind to any human on the planet. 
 

Obviously you see it differently, but hopefully this helps you understand where I am coming from. 

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have been engaging in good faith for many pages. That you can't accept my viewpoint is not my problem.

You consider an overt comparison to incest to be "engaging in good faith?"  Geez, I'd hate to see what you consider bad faith, if that's the case.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

That portion of the discussion was specifically in response to BG's assertion that he did not have to appeal to God or scripture to justify opposition to SSM.

My point exactly. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You consider an overt comparison to incest to be "engaging in good faith?"  Geez, I'd hate to see what you consider bad faith, if that's the case.

You continue to misrepresent my position despite the many posts since the start of my participation in this thread to the contrary. I looked up "bad faith" in Wikipedia and there it was - your responses as a textbook example.

Why would you be opposed to incest?

[ttribe]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

You continue to misrepresent my position despite the many posts since the start of my participation in this thread to the contrary. I looked up "bad faith" in Wikipedia and there it was - your responses as a textbook example.

Why would you be opposed to incest?

There are scientifically proven mental, emotional, and genetic detriments associated with incest.

Noticeably, you've not answered any of my questions and only answered with questions you expect me to answer and I'm the one engaging in bad faith....riiiiiiggghhhhtt.

BTW, simply stating that you are not equating SSM with incest, etc., does not change the fact that you are repeatedly making statements which do exactly that. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am going to butt in here and share my ideas for the sake of the following:

Eden seems to be the go-to reference (whether one takes the account figuratively or literally) for establishing that a couple of the same sex cannot do what Adam and Eve did. Things could not have played out as they did; conceptually, the man would remain alone (not good for many reasons), no matter how many men lived together in a same-sex union (whether a couple or polyandrous).

The image and likeness of Adam and Eve came from “Someone [plural].” Their respective primary roles are to bring spirits to earth (Adam arrived first, but could not procreate without being a couple with Eve) and back to heaven again (Eve saw the way to progress first, but could not spiritually rebirth those procreations without being a coupe with Adam). Two men could not have done this from the way we have figured human life to have come about on earth.

That said, I do not think things simply began with the Creation, but with the Atonement of Christ, which informed all the intentional actions and events that followed to prepare us for life as gods with God. It was established before the foundation of the world, meaning it was foundational to the plan that was presented before the War in Heaven, and foundational to what preceded that. After the War in Heaven, things were created spiritually, then naturally upon the earth – none of this could have been done without the Atonement of Christ in the first place, as it was carried out in the beginning (His suffering in Gethsemane and the cross were the physical manifestation of what He did long before that). There would be too many laws left in in chaos without an atoning principle in order to allow for the continuation of estates along the way from “co-eternal” with God in the infinite past to the continuation of the lives and seeds forever.

These ideas do not support the notion that the reason for marriage between a man and a woman, and not same-sex, is "because God said so" or "some mystic said so." They follow a set of spiritual principles and beliefs found in our religion which follow an internal consistency. This may fall within a different paradigm than ones that you two embrace, but it is reasonable.

Thank you. There is nothing here with which I have even the slightest disagreement. How would my position be in a different paradigm? The question was if I had any evidence that ssm is not optimal other than religious belief. I believe there is evidence, but discussing it inevitably turns into a battle of dueling studies, which I am loathe to pursue.

[ttribe]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. There is nothing here with which I have even the slightest disagreement. How would my position be in a different paradigm? The question was if I had any evidence that ssm is not optimal other than religious belief. I believe there is evidence, but discussing it inevitably turns into a battle of dueling studies, which I am loathe to pursue.

This is not true.  No one has attempted to argue whether it is "optimal."  You've repeatedly argued that it shouldn't be allowed.  There's a BIG difference between 'optimal' and 'optional.'

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours 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.  

 

 

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. Of course individuals may have different characteristics, but yes nevertheless.

 

A battle of competing studies is pointless.

 

I for one am also not interested in competing studies, but am really interested in your *opinion in the important differences between mothering and fathering.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

There are scientifically proven mental, emotional, and genetic detriments associated with incest.

Noticeably, you've not answered any of my questions and only answered with questions you expect me to answer and I'm the one engaging in bad faith....riiiiiiggghhhhtt.

BTW, simply stating that you are not equating SSM with incest, etc., does not change the fact that you are repeatedly making statements which do exactly that. 

To be certain there are detriments, but there is no genetic danger given modern contraceptive and surgical procedures that prevent pregnancy. A good lawyer could figure out the particulars. The argument is no longer viable. The sexual revolution solved that problem.

As to other reasons, it has been pointed out many times here that marriage is not only for sexual relations and reproduction, but can be helpful to satisfy needs for care, companionship, comfort, health, etc. A number of marriages (though not between close family members) with which I am familiar are for exactly those reasons and do not involve sexual relations. It is not unreasonable to propose that close relatives might have the same motivations.

I have not simply stated it, I have given lengthy explanations that you refuse to accept. That is your problem, not mine.