Mixed messages and the future of the church

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks, friend. The Church cannot take a moral stance regarding ssm. Should it also not take be allowed a stance on other departures from the traditional scriptural understanding of marriage? How do you define marriage?

Didn't say that.

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is your definition of marriage?

My personal definition:

Marriage - noun

1. Something I will probably never have.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You may be right. I sometimes don’t read carefully enough before I respond. 

I think in order to read something carefully enough to feel absolutely secure in responding, most of us would probably never respond to anything that wasn’t very simple if we were able to be that realistic about ourselves and others’ ability to communicate. 
 

Assuming a large margin for error and not being annoyed if someone says you misread them and being willing to truly try again seems the reasonable way to approach communication to me.  
 

Unfortunately once you see a comment in a certain way, it can be hard to shift perspectives. That is one reason I like communicating on this board...it often provides a number of perspectives of the same thing, thus allowing me something to help me unlock my attachment to a particular viewpoint. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Didn't say that.

My personal definition:

Marriage - noun

1. Something I will probably never have.

My definition: the lawful union of one man and one woman. Yet when I point out various departures from that standard and ask if the Church should be allowed to take a stance regarding them, it is asinine? How so?

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You may be right. I sometimes don’t read carefully enough before I respond. 

To be fair my response was as asinine as the question.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

My definition: the lawful union of one man and one woman. Yet when I point out various departures from that standard and ask if the Church should be allowed to take a stance regarding them, it is asinine? How so?

No, comparing same sex marriage to marrying a dog or a forklift is asinine.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nope. True is a way of saying ‘genuine’  ‘authentic’ and ‘not false’. I can pull the dictionary definition if you need it. 
 

 

You can pull the dictionary definition if you want.  I did.  There are a ton of definitions for that word.  I especially liked the one that defined 'true' in the phrase 'true north'.  There are actually three types of north (I only thought there were two so that was interesting).  All are considered to be 'genuinely' north, but only one is considered to be 'true'.  I thought that was intriguingly symbolic to the discussion at hand.

Look, it's fine if you want to define true happiness as it's used by the church to imply that church leaders sincerely believe that no one in a SSM has ever or will ever experience genuine happiness.  I don't think there's any way to logically argue that's what our leaders believe (especially if we assume that they actual know some couples who have SSM personally, which is very likely), but your interpretation of the church's use of that term isn't a hill I think is worth dying on.

But please acknowledge that I don't believe that's what the church is saying.

Quote

It’s okay to just admit that the church uses similar rhetorical tactics as those used by California Boy. 

Have we reached the point in the discussion where we act like we can speak for the other poster because we are so wise?  It's ok to just admit it if we have.   

If CB is doing the exact thing the church is doing, then does that mean the church is sharing their honest beliefs based on their personal experiences which are valid and we should think twice before we tell them they are wrong?

Because that's what you said CB was doing. 

Or, have you changed your mind and now believe that CB was actually just using a rhetorical tactic?  Or have I completely misunderstood what you are saying and am completely lost?

I feel like the goal posts moved a bit with this statement and I'm not sure where we are on the field anymore.  (I realize that might sound snarky but I'm trying to fix dinner, have to run, and am going to request that you assume I'm not trying to be a jerk).

 

 

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Telling what? 

your bias.  Ttribe said it better.

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not an answer. 

Best you are going to get from me on this one.

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/14/2021 at 4:11 PM, The Nehor said:

No, comparing same sex marriage to marrying a dog or a forklift is asinine.

 I said nothing about forklifts, but zoophilia [marrying a pet in this discussion] is a real thing. Do you agree that marriage is between one man and woman, or are there variants that are legitimate? Is the Church allowed to take a position against them, or just not allowed to oppose ssm?

Edited June 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Best you are going to get from me on this one.

Do you have a definition of marriage? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you have a definition of marriage? 

“the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

your bias.  Ttribe said it better.

Everyone has bias. Yours is constantly on display. But we should be able to converse in spite of them. 

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Don’t pretend to know what I think. Aberrant is a word that correctly describes this situation. It is not a pejorative in my usage, although I do believe such unions are unnatural and against God’s law. 

aberrant: Departing from an accepted standard.

(biology) being or becoming different from the normal type

I don't need to pretend anything.  You referred to SSM being an aberrant behavior and then equated it to - "...other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc." - some of which are clearly not only aberrant but indicative of severe mental illness and/or harm to children.  You did so with no qualification, no distinction, and no apparent sense of the inherent and essential differences between SSM and these other items in your list.  The pejorative is plain in the way you phrased your opinion.

If not pejorative, then that leaves you with one or more of the following: 1) a poor command of the English language; 2) a complete lack of decorum; or 3) you are backtracking because you realize what you said was absurd on its face.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

“the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”

Thanks. Should the law impose limits on age, numbers of partners, family relationships? Who is capable of giving consent?

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks, friend. The Church cannot take a moral stance regarding ssm. Should it also not take be allowed a stance on other departures from the traditional scriptural understanding of marriage? How do you define marriage?

Honestly Bernard, I for one am sick and tired of same sex marriage being compared to incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc.  I don't think I am the only one.  Is it impossible to have a single thread about LGBT issues without having reference to having sex with animals and raping children?

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Honestly Bernard, I for one am sick and tired of same sex marriage being compared to incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc.  I don't think I am the only one.  Is it impossible to have a single thread about LGBT issues without having reference to having sex with animals and raping children?

Apparently, he has no problem with this comparison because not only did he make it (again) in this thread, but when called out on it, he just diverts the discussion to vocabulary lessons.  Disingenuous nonsense, all of it.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, it’s just a cheap shot?

Who do you think it is a cheap shot at? I'm demonstrating there is no consensus by acknowledging that you see one, but considering my posts way back here: Posted 23 hours ago and here: Posted 10 hours ago ,there hasn't been much of a consensus as far as I'm concerned. And just because the basis of seeing mixed messages is poorly informed or uncritical does not render the argument a cheap shot, it's just not thorough to say the least.

Edited June 14, 2021 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where did Nehor say this?

My impression why he called the original question about extreme behaviours asinine was that it was not really a question in that typically people hold the same viewpoint on them being inappropriate, the question is a nobrainer in my terminology, you know others’ stances without asking. 
 

My other impression now I have reread his post again...

Or he could have been saying asking if the church can take a moral stand is asinine/nobrainer because of course the church can.

I was responding to this thread:

   9 hours ago,  Teancum said: 

Then don't pretend you love and have compassion towards those with SSM issues.

Should the Church be expected not to take a position on other aberrant marriages or just ssm?

 

 

Nehor entered to call the question asinine. If it is, I would like to know why. The Church took a stance on ssm and that apparently is inexcusable according to some on this thread. Are there other forms of marriage that are currently being practiced that the Church should remain silent about, or just ssm? That’s my question. Seems relevant to me. 

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you have a definition of marriage? 

My personal view it that marriage is best when between one and another partner. And not multiple partners. I am heterosexual so SSM does not work for me but I would include it in the definition.

I think plural marriage is less than ideal though I would not object to persons entering into it if it is mutually agreed on and not based on a religious requirement like it was (is in eternity) for the LDS Church.

I think open marriages are bad things and I could not do it. But some can make it work. If the couples agree then fine.

 

Ideally I think heterosexual between a one man and one woman or one same sex person and another one is best.

 

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yours is constantly on display.

Feel better now?

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

9 hours ago,  Teancum said: 

Then don't pretend you love and have compassion towards those with SSM issues.

Should the Church be expected not to take a position on other aberrant marriages or just ssm?

If you did not notice I retracted that statement.

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly Bernard, I for one am sick and tired of same sex marriage being compared to incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc.  I don't think I am the only one.  Is it impossible to have a single thread about LGBT issues without having reference to having sex with animals and raping children?

I understand your position, but I hope you would also understand mine. I believe marriage of between one man and one woman. Anything else including ssm is an aberration, meaning different than the norm, hence my question. Unless we agree on what marriage is we will constantly be at odds, and I won’t be silenced if and when the topic comes up again. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Feel better now?

I'm guessing "superior" is the more apt description of said feelings.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe I am not being very clear in what exactly I am saying.  I actually am fully supporting the right of the Church to take the position they have taken.  What I am asking for is to be even more clear on what this policy means to those that are LGBT.  I personally think those that are hoping for and even advocating for a change on SSM are doing a disservice to those that are attracted to the same sex. 

The message I think should be framed in the same way Elder Holland views eternity that has already been quoted in this thread.  Read this and similar quotes to those that have same sex attraction. 

"I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me."

                                                                -Elder Holland

Now sit them down and say, this is never going to be an option for you.  You aren't going to have this kind of relationship with anyone in this earth life.  If you stay in the Church and are expecting that to happen, don't.  If having that human connection that Elder Holland speaks of ia important to you, then this is not the Church for you.  You can find that kind of happiness in this life, but not if you stay a member of the Church.  The Church is not going to change its position.  

As far as what happens after you die?  Well we have NO revelation on how God will deal with you and your partner if you choose to have one.  We have NO revelation on whether your feelings of same sex attraction will continue in the next life.  If we believe as Elder Holland does, that our feelings for our loved ones will continue in the next life, then you will probably still be attracted to your same sex partner if you choose to have one.

Honestly, I can't see how a believing member could disagree with anything I have said.

 

Thank you for clarifying, that was very helpful.

Framed that way, I can almost completely agree.  I don't completely agree, because I do believe there is room for the church to change its views on this, if God reveals that.  I don't consider that to be likely but I'm not counting it out.

Edited June 14, 2021 by bluebell

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I don't need to pretend anything.  You referred to SSM being an aberrant behavior and then equated it to - "...other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc." - some of which are clearly not only aberrant but indicative of severe mental illness and/or harm to children.  You did so with no qualification, no distinction, and no apparent sense of the inherent and essential differences between SSM and these other items in your list.  The pejorative is plain in the way you phrased your opinion.

If not pejorative, then that leaves you with one or more of the following: 1) a poor command of the English language; 2) a complete lack of decorum; or 3) you are backtracking because you realize what you said was absurd on its face.

It would be like comparing BYU’s Honor Code to Jim Crow laws.