Mixed messages and the future of the church

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.'

Before you accuse me of lying again, please review these posts.

Quote

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.

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.

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

Are you interested in refuting my opinions with "studies" or do you really just want to hear my opinions? I'm not interested in another debate.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you interested in refuting my opinions with "studies" or do you really just want to hear my opinions? I'm not interested in another debate.

Personally no studies. And not sure what you mean by debate, but I can envision a follow up question or two, mainly to understand how you view things. Fine to answer or not. 

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Personally no studies. And not sure what you mean by debate, but I can envision a follow up question or two, mainly to understand how you view things. Fine to answer or not. 

Thank you.

Competent and involved fathers and mothers teach children how to deal with members of the opposite sex by the example of how they treat each other, friends, family, and future marital relationships.

Mothers and fathers relate to children differently from birth onward. Those relationships change over time but are critical to the child’s development.

Having a nurturing relationship with both a father and a mother increases the likelihood that the child will succeed academically, socially, physically, and mentally.

Engaging with a compassionate father and a loving mother will enhance future relationships and create a more balanced adult.

In my opinion after teaching school for 42 years and having a wife who has taught kindergarten for a number of years, children with unstable families or families lacking a father or a mother have more difficulty in school and other areas of their lives.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Your cynicism aside, on the whole our society has decided that it is safer to avoid the potential genetic detriments through prohibition and I am in agreement with that general approach.

 

Quote

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'm not seeing how your response addresses the scientifically documented and proven mental and emotional detriments of incest.

I am also compelled to point out that we are only having this conversation about incest because you brought it up as a direct response to my question to you in which I queried what your non-religious reasons are for objecting to SSM specifically when there are no children involved.  You didn't answer that question, you simply responded with a question of your own in which you brought up incest.  You may want to deny it, but that response implies an equality between the two subjects, in direct contradiction to your assertion below.

 

Quote

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

And yet you repeatedly respond to questions regarding your opposition to SSM with placing the act in sentences and circumstances where you bring up incest, etc.  And please quit acting like I'm the only one who keeps pointing out that you are doing that; I'm not.

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Before you accuse me of lying again, please review these posts.

 

I didn't accuse you of lying; stating something wasn't true is also a component of pointing out an error.  Nevertheless, I need you to connect the dots for me between your response and my statement.  I'm not seeing what the post you referenced has to do with anyone on the pro-SSM side of the ledger actually arguing for the optimality of SSM relative to all marriages.

Edited June 16, 2021 by ttribe

[Teancum]

5 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.  

 

You may be surprised that my personal opinion as far as probably, in general, the best situation for a child is what you describe.  However, I am do believe other situations including SSM can obtain very good results as well.

[Teancum]

1 hour 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.

But your total post is based on a position from a book you view is scripture so it does seem to be "because my God says so."

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you.

Competent and involved fathers and mothers teach children how to deal with members of the opposite sex by the example of how they treat each other, friends, family, and future marital relationships.

Mothers and fathers relate to children differently from birth onward. Those relationships change over time but are critical to the child’s development.

Having a nurturing relationship with both a father and a mother increases the likelihood that the child will succeed academically, socially, physically, and mentally.

Engaging with a compassionate father and a loving mother will enhance future relationships and create a more balanced adult.

In my opinion after teaching school for 42 years and having a wife who has taught kindergarten for a number of years, children with unstable families or families lacking a father or a mother have more difficulty in school and other areas of their lives.

That is reasonable but how do same sex couple’s children compare against children stuck in the system or with single parents? If it is even marginally better we should let them adopt and raise kids because it is better than the alternative. Heterosexual couples aren’t adopting all the kids and every single parent can’t remarry.

If it is the ideal God doesn’t seem to have that much interest in guaranteeing all his children get it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you.

Competent and involved fathers and mothers teach children how to deal with members of the opposite sex by the example of how they treat each other, friends, family, and future marital relationships.

Mothers and fathers relate to children differently from birth onward. Those relationships change over time but are critical to the child’s development.

Having a nurturing relationship with both a father and a mother increases the likelihood that the child will succeed academically, socially, physically, and mentally.

Engaging with a compassionate father and a loving mother will enhance future relationships and create a more balanced adult.

In my opinion after teaching school for 42 years and having a wife who has taught kindergarten for a number of years, children with unstable families or families lacking a father or a mother have more difficulty in school and other areas of their lives.

I may not have been clear, but I was more interested in “There are important differences between mothering and fathering.”

The above is a list of better outcomes that you see from opposite gendered parents. I’m more interested in what are the key differences between “mothering” and “fathering”. Just as you perceive them and again no obligation to go further than you want. 

[CV75]

3 hours 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.

Mine is an appeal to the Atonement of Jesus Christ and how it drives the principle of marriage. The argument could be made, I guess, that ssm can tie back to it, but I haven’t seen such an explanation.

2 hours ago, 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.

I think we share the same general paradigm. My reply to you was to just let you know I was butting in to share my reasons for supporting marriage as the Church teaches it. I agree that conflicting secular studies abound. I'm not sure how to get around that, or the limitation that secular studies cannot definitively address moral decisions (at best, they can be part of the puzzle).

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But your total post is based on a position from a book you view is scripture so it does seem to be "because my God says so."

While God said so, as do I, there are more complex reasons for why He and I say that, which I’ve provided. Similarly, your position is just because you (and/or somebody you trust) say so. I haven’t seen a good explanation for ssm that covers all bases sufficiently for the Church to adopt the practice or recognize it for ecclesiastical purposes.

[california boy]

4 hours 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.

Well actually if it has been Adam and Steve, then there would be little to no difference in population of the earth.  It is estimated that there were between 5-10 million humans living on the earth 6000 BC.  So plenty of people would have continued to produce children without much affect on the human race.  

The core problem with you presenting the Adam and Eve scenario referenced in the Bible is 1) It most likely is allegoric  2) if it is not allegoric, then where did all of these skeletons and remains of habitation on the earth prior to 6000 BC come from?

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

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

 

I have read all your posts and at this point I am just writing you off as a homophobic bigot.  Wait, you think those are loaded words?  Oh my gosh, you are right.  Kinda like comparing gay marriage to raping little children and people who want  relationships with animals.  If being called a homophobic bigot is offensive to you, perhaps NOW you just might understand why many on this board find your posts offensive, loaded, and degrading language to use when talking about gay marriage.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Mine is an appeal to the Atonement of Jesus Christ and how it drives the principle of marriage. The argument could be made, I guess, that ssm can tie back to it, but I haven’t seen such an explanation.

You are equivocating here.  It is still because you believe God says so. If you want to discuss the evidential and societal/sociological reasons why opposing SSM is a bad thing we can explore that.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Well actually if it has been Adam and Steve, then there would be little to no difference in population of the earth.  It is estimated that there were between 5-10 million humans living on the earth 6000 BC.  So plenty of people would have continued to produce children without much affect on the human race.  

The core problem with you presenting the Adam and Eve scenario referenced in the Bible is 1) It most likely is allegoric  2) if it is not allegoric, then where did all of these skeletons and remains of habitation on the earth prior to 6000 BC come from?

Actually the reason I use the  Atonement of Jesus Christ (not the Adam and Eve allegory) is because all that follows can be taken both/either figuratively and literally with equal impact on the validity of marriage. Additionally, I believe the figurative perspective actually proves my point better. So it is not a core problem at all: there was no Adam and Steve, figuratively or literally. All men are Adam, (figuratively and literally), and there was no Adam and Adam alone (figuratively or literally).

This why I haven't seen a good tie-in for ssm with the Atonement of Jesus Christ, literally or figuratively.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are equivocating here.  It is still because you believe God says so. If you want to discuss the evidential and societal/sociological reasons why opposing SSM is a bad thing we can explore that.

Well, I am not using "ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself (online definition of equivocate). Your position is still because those you and those you trust say so. My explanation is part of the societal/sociological reasons to be explored, so if you have any questions for me I would be happy to answer them. If you want to discuss how ssm can tie back to the Atonement of Christ we can explore that. Why simply focus on why ssm is a bad (or a good thing, for that matter) -- seems a bit strange to be focusing on that at this stage of the thread.

[Bernard Gui]

I apologize to all for offending.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I apologize to all for offending.

I'm glad to see you have some gracious acknowledgement in the "Like" buttons.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I apologize to all for offending.

Thank you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As a side note, it’s being reported on exmormon Reddit that the op-Ed author has been called in to account with his stake president for the letter. They cited a caller on Mormonism-Live named Dave matching the oped description. FWIW. 

[bluebell]

23 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I haven't had time to consider it much but I hope to get back to it in the next day or two.   

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As a side note, it’s being reported on exmormon Reddit that the op-Ed author has been called in to account with his stake president for the letter. They cited a caller on Mormonism-Live named Dave matching the oped description. FWIW. 

I was listening when he called in and he did say he's been summoned.

Edited June 17, 2021 by ttribe

[why me]

On 6/14/2021 at 12:02 AM, jkwilliams said:

Food for thought. 

Young people today have been experiencing wokeness in schools and from the media. It is a constant message coming from those sources. It is more and more seeming like a brainwashing. One must think a certain way in schools, especially in universities. And not go against the woke crowd. And so, it is no surprise that young church members have been influenced by all this.

These days religion must be woke to be popular. And if a church is not woke, it may suffer the consequences. However, Islam seems to be strong and not suffering from wokeness. It has a much tighter bond among its members. And it doesn't experience much media criticism even though it is very conservative on issues that would go against wokeness. Christianity get the blow back.

 

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

the op-Ed author has been called in to account with his stake president for the letter.

So he writes an article criticising the church in multiple aspects, makes claims that pull statements out of context (as this thread shows), claims he has lost trust in the church, and then when a church leader wants to talk to him about it, he calls into an anti-Mormon podcast.

If I gambled, I would put money on where I see this going.

Edited June 17, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So he writes an article criticising the church in multiple aspects, makes claims that pull statements out of context (as this thread shows), claims he has lost trust in the church, and then when a church leader wants to talk to him about it, he calls into an anti-Mormon podcast.

If I gambled, I would put money on where I see this going.

Just goes to show, you can believe anything you want, as long as you don't talk about it publicly.

[why me]

On 6/14/2021 at 12:02 AM, jkwilliams said:

I definitely have seen how this kind of disconnect affects younger members. Some young members I know have said they pray every night that Heavenly Father will open the hearts of church leaders. Other young members I know have simply walked away from the church. 

Food for thought. 

The church is a world wide church. I am sure that we are speaking about western youth and not youth from other parts of the world. Young people in the west are being influenced by social media and how they are being educated in schools and in other areas of learning. It is no surprise that some may walk away. The values of the church are being attacked but this has been the case for quite some time. But now it is different. We see groups attempting to block the word mother from being used or father. We have new words coming into play such as birthing parent and one can no longer use he or she, among others. And conservatism is out of fashion. In fact, in the university if a student is conservative and has what can be called conservative values, that student will experience the wrath from teachers, lecturers and professors and students.

But all this is a western trend, not a world wide trend. But it will influence western church members who are teenagers and in their twenties.