kimpearson Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: This is a correct statement. Same-sex sexual behaviour is ubiquitous. For example, in many (though not all) pre-Christian Melanesian societies, every single male engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour over nearly his entire lifetime, beginning as a receiver of seed once taken from the women's compound (around age 5) and eventually growing into a giver of seed for both wives and younger males. Naturally, love played a role in all this, with the most emotionally intimate relationships between males and their male mentors/protectors. Now try asking historians, anthropologists and linguists about fixed, gendered sexual identities, and you'll get a very different answer. Hint: the consensus is that these are late 19th-century social constructs, without precedent in human history. Could you just tell me in plain English what points you are trying to make about homosexuals and transgender people?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 54 minutes ago, kimpearson said: Could you just tell me in plain English what points you are trying to make about homosexuals and transgender people? I'm not trying to make points about people, though I understand that it would be useful to label me as somehow anti-someone. Instead, you made a false statement: 'The incidence of queerness is uniform across the world'. I pointed out that this statement is factually incorrect. When you challenged my response, I began providing a glimpse of the real situation (which is very messy and in no way supports the dominant narrative). Clearly, you prefer your black-and-white position. I understand. The dominant narrative has been constructed and refined specifically to have political/ideological utility, and complicated reality undercuts that utility. Edited January 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan
Robert F. Smith Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 4 hours ago, Fether said: No, It’s not about thoughts. It’s about your intentions with your actions. If I’m holding hands with a man because it’s culturally appropriate to do between friends, all is well. But if I am holding hands with a man, and I’m doing so to show romantic affection, that is where the sin lies. I can just see the adult deacon in an oldtime Congregational or Puritan Church meeting reaching out with his long stick to wake up sleeping parishioners or to strike misbehaving boys. So, handholding men would not be acceptable, but intentionally sitting close to each other would be? Would it be OK to eat a meal together, or to go see a film together? What fits in with your "romantic affection" category, and how stringent do we want to be?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: What fits in with your "romantic affection" category, and how stringent do we want to be? I could be wrong, but I suspect @Fether is trying to indicate the impossibility of external judgement and therefore of 'stringent' rules? 1
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 1 hour ago, SkyRock said: Before the Sexual Revolution, many if not most with SSA ended up marrying and having children. Many out were able to overcome their attraction and live differently, in accordance with the LoC. I know a man near 90 who engaged in same sex activity as a young man, then went on a mission, married in the temple, had a bunch of kids, served as bishop, and then as a stake president. How people with SSA coped probably depended a lot on culture and what was and was not acceptable in it and what you could hide. This is a similar rational as used to argue that in the past mental conditions and emotional problems like depression were more rare and people just toughed it out and were fine. It is also likely many suffered, turned to alcohol, killed themselves, etc. I am not saying that people who coped well with things don’t exist and didn’t exist. Just that they are not necessarily a good role model for everyone. Speaking anecdotally I have one ongoing problem in my brain/personality/whatever that has destroyed a lot of people’s lives but I have a workaround and it is controlled and it is not a problem. So you don’t think I am bragging there are other conditions I have that are NOT as well controlled. I just got lucky/blessed/whatever with that one. Expecting others to cope with it just as well as I did is unfair projection. Also in old age dementia or whatever may make it a problem so I have that to look forward to.
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I can just see the adult deacon in an oldtime Congregational or Puritan Church meeting reaching out with his long stick to wake up sleeping parishioners or to strike misbehaving boys. So, handholding men would not be acceptable, but intentionally sitting close to each other would be? Would it be OK to eat a meal together, or to go see a film together? What fits in with your "romantic affection" category, and how stringent do we want to be? Is it lawful to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Depends on what is going on in the mind of the person. 1
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I can just see the adult deacon in an oldtime Congregational or Puritan Church meeting reaching out with his long stick to wake up sleeping parishioners or to strike misbehaving boys. So, handholding men would not be acceptable, but intentionally sitting close to each other would be? Would it be OK to eat a meal together, or to go see a film together? What fits in with your "romantic affection" category, and how stringent do we want to be? Are you missing the point? Or deliberately ignoring it cause you know it’s a good one? I’m just going to repost what I did above and maybe you will get it. It’s about your intentions with your actions. If I’m holding hands with a man because it’s culturally appropriate to do between friends, all is well. But if I am holding hands with a man, and I’m doing so to show romantic affection, that is where the sin lies. If you want some law of Moses like set rules of what you can and can’t do, your in the wrong church. 1
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 5 hours ago, The Nehor said: Is it lawful to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Depends on what is going on in the mind of the person. But that’s it, we aren’t asking “can I hold hands with this person of the same gender?”. The answer to that would be “of course you can, why couldn’t you?” What is being asked is “how much romantic affection am I allowed to show to this person of the same gender as me before I get in trouble?” To which I will repeat what I have said over and over. It’s not about getting in trouble, it’s about obeying God. Living a homosexual life where we are romantically pursuing a homosexual relationship is a sin. Choosing to hold hands with intention to show romantic affection is a sin.
CA Steve Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 43 minutes ago, Fether said: If you want some law of Moses like set rules of what you can and can’t do, your in the wrong church. It's not like we are in a church that defines the number of earrings one wears or distinguishes between hot and cold caffeine. 1
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 45 minutes ago, CA Steve said: It's not like we are in a church that defines the number of earrings one wears or distinguishes between hot and cold caffeine. The church has already made it clear that acting on homosexual desires is a wrong. We aren’t talking about right and wrong though. What is being asked is where do the punishments start. THAT is the issue with this conversation. Edited January 11, 2022 by Fether
Teancum Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 20 hours ago, Fether said: This really isn’t a question of can or can’t. The question being asked is “how close to gay sex can I get before I get disciplined?” The church doesn’t need to make any statement on this same as they don't need to make a statement on whether it is ok to punch someone you don’t like, or if it is against the word of wisdom to eat 2 boxes of pizza and 3 liters of mt dew every day. These things won’t get you disciplined by a church counsel, but it still isn’t ok in the eyes of God. Well if the rule is the LOC for both heterosexuals and homesexuals then it would seem gay dating would be fine as would other forms of affection that don't cross the line. That would seem to include holding hands, hugging and kissing. Otherwise there is a different standard for gay people. 4
Tacenda Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Teancum said: Well if the rule is the LOC for both heterosexuals and homesexuals then it would seem gay dating would be fine as would other forms of affection that don't cross the line. That would seem to include holding hands, hugging and kissing. Otherwise there is a different standard for gay people. That's a good way to put it. Add onto that, it's even better if they get married and this will be better because they won't live an unsafe lifestyle. Rather than the old way that made LGBTQ feel like they're worthless and then live in harmful ways because of self hate. The old way of denying them equal rights as far as marrying those they love just led to unhealthy relationships. But not always, before the legality of SSM, I'll bet or hope there were safe monogamous relations. Edited January 11, 2022 by Tacenda
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 16 minutes ago, Teancum said: Well if the rule is the LOC for both heterosexuals and homesexuals then it would seem gay dating would be fine as would other forms of affection that don't cross the line. That would seem to include holding hands, hugging and kissing. Otherwise there is a different standard for gay people. -NCMO- Heterosexual couple: lust Homosexual couple: lust and homosexual behavior -Romance driven hand holding- heterosexual couple: innocent Homosexual couple: homosexual behavior its that added “homosexual behavior” sin that separates the acts
Teancum Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 6 minutes ago, Fether said: -NCMO- Heterosexual couple: lust Homosexual couple: lust and homosexual behavior -Romance driven hand holding- heterosexual couple: innocent Homosexual couple: homosexual behavior its that added “homosexual behavior” sin that separates the acts Well the only guidance from the top is the LoC applies same to all. So if heterosexuals can date, hold hands, hug and kiss without offending the LoC why cannot gay people do that if they limit it to that? 2
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, Teancum said: Well the only guidance from the top is the LoC applies same to all. So if heterosexuals can date, hold hands, hug and kiss without offending the LoC why cannot gay people do that if they limit it to that? Because part of the LOC is “acting of homosexual feelings is a sin” “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction].’” - M Russell Ballard https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction 1
BlueDreams Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 22 hours ago, rongo said: Pretty thought-provoking article: https://luxchase.com/queer-latter-day-saints-experience-ambiguity-regarding-policies-on-dating-intimacy/ I know what I think/believe (I come down on the conservative side of theology and praxis), but I think this is something that everyone could use concrete guidance from the Brethren on. Especially given the proliferation of self-identified gay Mormons who express a desire in remaining active and worthy. The only thing I am aware of from any of the Brethren is Elder Johnson's belated response to the gay dating fiasco in 2020 (gay dating is not encouraged or supported, because it cannot lead people to where they need to be in the eyes of the Church). This, of course, was directed at the Honor Code office and BYU specifically. I'm unaware of general Church-wide guidance. As the article points out, there is probably a wide range of leader roulette that gives a wide range of responses/policies/guidance on this, so a uniform policy (and better yet, uniform explanation of the policy) would be a very good thing, in my view. Thoughts? I don’t agree with how we teach and set parameters around straight sexual interactions pre-marriage. It gives me way too many clients. So I’m not really game expanding and having a strict code for gay people as well. I prefer basic principles, one that are fairly equivalent pre-marriage until we sort out where exactly gay marriage fits into our church (even if still excluding it from temple rites I think there’s wiggle space for a more compassionate policy for the here and now). And then hopefully a basic principle post marriage. we really love regulating acts and behaviors too much. It gives people unnecessary guilt and discomfort with their bodies. There’s better ways while still following the basic principles of the law of chastity that empowers people to value their sexuality while guiding it. me thoughts… with luv, be 4
CV75 Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 13 hours ago, Calm said: Hummmm….that doesn’t really click with my view of eternal progression unless our original form was very, very simple and can’t really be defined as having strengths or weaknesses. Alma 11: 43 The spirit and the body shall be areunited again in its bperfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, cknowing even as we know now, and have a bright drecollection of all our eguilt. We take Adam and Eve to have been perfect in form and frame, and I take that to include the brain and gender. They are the template for all of us. This is what I am saying is not changed. This has nothing to do with sexuality (sexuality is not gender, and the covenant of marriage is based on gender) or romance (romance is neither friendship nor charity, and the other covenants are gender-neutral building to the one that is). What can change, in the spirit world prior to resurrection, are our choices over how we want to use that perfect form and frame in relation to the covenants. While gender is an eternal characteristic, we lack the imperfect form and frame in the spirit world, which is how we process romance and sexuality in mortality.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Fether said: The church has already made it clear that acting on homosexual desires is a wrong. We aren’t talking about right and wrong though. What is being asked is where do the punishments start. THAT is the issue with this conversation. I think that before punishments are discussed "right and wrong" should be clearly explained. And if it's a church policy defining right and wrong, the church needs to justify the policy and the punishments since the church is acting in the name of God.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 29 minutes ago, Fether said: Because part of the LOC is “acting of homosexual feelings is a sin” “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction].’” - M Russell Ballard https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction Could you provide scripture that defines the LoC regarding hmosxual relations? You won't be able to. All you'll be able to find is statements from leaders who are retrofitting the LoC to meet their cultural expectations. The law of chastity is defined in scripture as no sxual relations outside of marriage. That's also how the temple defines it. There have been many additions made to kind of add a buffer/safety zone to help prevent people from breaking the scriptural version of the LoC BTW- I'm open to being proven wrong about what the scriptural/official version of the LoC is if you can provide it. Think of it this way- there is a scriptural, canonical way of viewing the Word of Wisdom. Many additional requirements have been added and/or taken away as a matter of policy. The church can change it's policy if it wants but it should acknowledge that it is a policy unless they provide updated scripture.
LoudmouthMormon Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, kimpearson said: Many married and had children and were miserable their whole lives. Many lived two lives, one as an outward heterosexual and a secret gay life with homosexual relationships. Many drank themselves to death. Others likely committed suicide. Others were put in institutions. I think I'm becoming a fan of @Hamba Tuhan "Attempting to force information into compliance with dominant paradigms is precisely what we do, and subjunctive language like could and might certainly helps that process." Can we add the word "many" to that list? From where I'm standing, kim's response is fairly meaningless unless we know how many is "many", and how rates of this stuff compares to rates of similar things with folks with no same-sex leanings. In other words, when we look at straight marriages, "many" straight folks married and had children and were miserable their whole lives. "Many" straight folk lived two lives, one as an outward [faithful monogamous person and a secretly promiscuous life with lots of opposite sex relationships]. "Many" straight folks drank themselves to death. "Other" straight folk likely committed suicide. "Other" straight folk were put in institutions. So when folks in possession of same-sex inclinations got married to someone of the opposite sex, did they end up less happy than the average person without those inclinations? Edited January 11, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon 2
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think that before punishments are discussed "right and wrong" should be clearly explained. And if it's a church policy defining right and wrong, the church needs to justify the policy and the punishments since the church is acting in the name of God. The church HAS defined right and wrong on this topic. “The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” - M Russell Ballard quotes Latter-day Saint Newsroom Where does this idea that the church needs to have policies in place to punish all wrong doings come from? Edited January 11, 2022 by Fether
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Could you provide scripture that defines the LoC regarding hmosxual relations? You won't be able to. All you'll be able to find is statements from leaders who are retrofitting the LoC to meet their cultural expectations. The law of chastity is defined in scripture as no sxual relations outside of marriage. That's also how the temple defines it. There have been many additions made to kind of add a buffer/safety zone to help prevent people from breaking the scriptural version of the LoC BTW- I'm open to being proven wrong about what the scriptural/official version of the LoC is if you can provide it. Think of it this way- there is a scriptural, canonical way of viewing the Word of Wisdom. Many additional requirements have been added and/or taken away as a matter of policy. The church can change it's policy if it wants but it should acknowledge that it is a policy unless they provide updated scripture. This is a completely different conversation on which is where our disagreement is likely centered. Our church isn’t built on canonized scripture, it is built on the Christ who now directs his church through living prophets today. The canonized scriptures and directives from living Prophets hold equal weight.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 1 minute ago, Fether said: The church HAS defined right and wrong on this topic. “The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” - M Russell Ballard quotes Latter-day Saint Newsroom Where does this idea that the church needs to punish all wrong doings? Even IF I agreed that the "church" has clearly defined right and wrong on this topic, I still have no reason to believe that God has. "God" and the "church" are not the same thing even though they are often treated as if they were. Great deference is given to the church based on the assumption that everything they do and say is God's will, yet mistakes and corrections are still made. I'm assuming you don't have any scriptural references to support your claim since you didn't include any in your response. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Fether said: This is a completely different conversation on which is where our disagreement is likely centered. Our church isn’t built on canonized scripture, it is built on the Christ who now directs his church through living prophets today. The canonized scriptures and directives from living Prophets hold equal weight. But there is a major difference between canonized scripture and comments made by leaders. Canonized scripture is accepted as scripture by the voice of the people. The comments of leaders vary widely, often contradicting other leaders, and is not necessarily accepted as scripture by the voice of the people. If it were, it would be canonized. In any case, I recognize that my perspective is very different from the traditional church member. I know that my perspective within the church is the minority so I don't expect anything to change. But I do like voicing the difference in opinion, if for no other reason than to remind people that there is a different POV and the church is not a monolith of belief. 4
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But there is a major difference between canonized scripture and comments made by leaders. Canonized scripture is accepted as scripture by the voice of the people. The comments of leaders vary widely, often contradicting other leaders, and is not necessarily accepted as scripture by the voice of the people. If it were, it would be canonized. In any case, I recognize that my perspective is very different from the traditional church member. I know that my perspective within the church is the minority so I don't expect anything to change. But I do like voicing the difference in opinion, if for no other reason than to remind people that there is a different POV and the church is not a monolith of belief. I think what is important to note is what the church claims to be. And it’s current stance on how to treat situations like what we are talking about are completely in Line with what they claim to be.
Recommended Posts