Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

"Mormon No More"


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not sure what you are saying here.  A CES director didn’t write it, it was a crowdsource effort led by someone intent on proving the Church wrong (he had moved past the doubting stage already according to what he was posting on Reddit).  As I understand it, it was the grandfather? (father) relaying the offer of the CES director to respond.  My guess is there was some miscommunication about what the CES director was saying he would respond to.

As far as responding to it, lots of people are interested because of the impact it has had.  FAIR has taken different approaches over time, now a Sister in Norway is taking it bit by bit.  I haven’t looked at her stuff, but have read some responses to it that were positive, so perhaps others here would be interested.

She is up to part 63..

https://www.facebook.com/FAIRNorway/posts/pfbid02tofazEwgUnkpTQwVUPNK1N79BuDRXE7crA59Q3p6MvL6TEcHJb9wj9fnByeQZBFAl

Other efforts are linked here:

https://debunking-cesletter.com

c/p'd below of the part I was responding to especially the bold part and indicating Carbon Dioxide isn't the CES Directer and that the CES Director might take it a little more seriously, I've yet to read your links though so maybe you had more to say. 

"The whole back story of that letter as I understand it is a joke.  Why would anyone really think that anyone would respond to such a thing.  If a friend of mine sent me a list of a 100 or 200 things they had a problems with the Church, I would toss it in the garbage. I don't have time for that.  I would say to them give me 5 or maybe 10 things.   Serious people don't write up things like that and expect any kind of response."

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was responding to especially the bold part and indicating Carbon Dioxide isn't the CES Directer and that the CES Director might take it a little more seriously

Runnells claims he never heard from the CES Director, so it would appear the director didn’t see it as appropriate to respond, but like I said above, iirc according to the original Reddit conversation Runnells started asking for help I read years ago it was Runnell’s grandfather that made the offer when Runnells told him of his disbelief and whether or not the CES director actually did is unknown.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Finished the series, hmm, looks like Sally's LDS parents are no longer all in, like I thought. I'm torn in how I see all this come to play. I hope Sally and Lena stick it out, I know Sally was having a bit of cold feet and anxiety. But the whole of that is from worrying that they won't make it stick forever, maybe she's worrying about her family, children to be specific, and what they'd go through if it didn't last. 

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this is a part of why so many more teen girls are now identifying as "gay" or "bisexual."  In the past, a girl could form strong emotional bonds with a friend.  This was a very normal thing.  But in these days of massively increased exposure to sexuality and sexualization, young girls are starting to add an overlay of sexuality (a "sexual aspect," as you call it) to such friendships.

We are seeing indications that "'{r}apid-onset gender dysphoria' among teens and young adults may be a social contagion linked with having friends who identify as LGBT, an identity politics peer culture, and an increase in internet use, finds a study out this month from a Brown University professor."  I wonder if a comparable effect is happening as to "identifying" as gay/bisexual.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Lots of secular girls are "lesbian for college" just to get out of the hook up cultural so common in most universities. 

One bisexual friend told me that she just liked sex in college and was open to whomever was interesting.  Afterwards she had a live in boyfriend with whom she bought a house.   I asked if she missed being with women and she said no.   She did say that one time her boyfriend talked her into a threesome and she wasn't that interested in the other woman really and it was mostly so the boyfriend could say he had done it, but both of them, after a bit, just ignored the extra girl. 

ROGD and social contagion are very real.  The activists want to discount them, but if anyone listens to detransitioners they can hear story after story of girls who felt pressured by a peer group and the excessive affirmation by "professionals" that pushed them along the path to taking hormones and surgery, only for them to wake up a few years later miserable and realizing it was a huge mistake. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, SkyRock said:

Lots of secular girls are "lesbian for college" just to get out of the hook up cultural so common in most universities. 

One bisexual friend told me that she just liked sex in college and was open to whomever was interesting.  Afterwards she had a live in boyfriend with whom she bought a house.   I asked if she missed being with women and she said no.   She did say that one time her boyfriend talked her into a threesome and she wasn't that interested in the other woman really and it was mostly so the boyfriend could say he had done it, but both of them, after a bit, just ignored the extra girl. 

ROGD and social contagion are very real.  The activists want to discount them, but if anyone listens to detransitioners they can hear story after story of girls who felt pressured by a peer group and the excessive affirmation by "professionals" that pushed them along the path to taking hormones and surgery, only for them to wake up a few years later miserable and realizing it was a huge mistake. 

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this is a part of why so many more teen girls are now identifying as "gay" or "bisexual."  In the past, a girl could form strong emotional bonds with a friend.  This was a very normal thing.  But in these days of massively increased exposure to sexuality and sexualization, young girls are starting to add an overlay of sexuality (a "sexual aspect," as you call it) to such friendships.

We are seeing indications that "'{r}apid-onset gender dysphoria' among teens and young adults may be a social contagion linked with having friends who identify as LGBT, an identity politics peer culture, and an increase in internet use, finds a study out this month from a Brown University professor."  I wonder if a comparable effect is happening as to "identifying" as gay/bisexual.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Thanks,

-Smac

That reminds me of how a decade ago, there were girls that were merely telling people they were lesbian/bisexual to increase male interest. And that actual lesbians were a little rarer than you think as (unlike their male counterparts) they normally didn't start out as homosexuals before several failed relationships with men under their belts.

I don't keep up with these things, and times and demographics change. It has seemed lately that Cisgendered folk are misidentifying themselves, inadvertently signalling to others their politics, or rather just signalling they are a friend and ally.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

That reminds me of how a decade ago, there were girls that were merely telling people they were lesbian/bisexual to increase male interest. And that actual lesbians were a little rarer than you think as (unlike their male counterparts) they normally didn't start out as homosexuals before several failed relationships with men under their belts.

I don't keep up with these things, and times and demographics change. It has seemed lately that Cisgendered folk are misidentifying themselves, inadvertently signalling to others their politics, or rather just signalling they are a friend and ally.

Bisexuality is probably the sexuality most on the rise but that is probably more due to the fact that many of them “camouflage”. Lots of people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s in heterosexual marriages coming out as bi. Often it doesn’t impact them much beyond admitting it assuming their spouse is supportive. Despite the stereotype bisexuality doesn’t require you to try “one of each” and many continue in monogamy and nothing changes except maybe going to a pride parade or two and wearing pride colors or pins or whatever.

1 hour ago, SkyRock said:

Lots of secular girls are "lesbian for college" just to get out of the hook up cultural so common in most universities. 

One bisexual friend told me that she just liked sex in college and was open to whomever was interesting.  Afterwards she had a live in boyfriend with whom she bought a house.   I asked if she missed being with women and she said no.   She did say that one time her boyfriend talked her into a threesome and she wasn't that interested in the other woman really and it was mostly so the boyfriend could say he had done it, but both of them, after a bit, just ignored the extra girl. 

ROGD and social contagion are very real.  The activists want to discount them, but if anyone listens to detransitioners they can hear story after story of girls who felt pressured by a peer group and the excessive affirmation by "professionals" that pushed them along the path to taking hormones and surgery, only for them to wake up a few years later miserable and realizing it was a huge mistake. 

Generally the “lesbian for college” thing was driven more by a desire to be more overtly feminist. I don’t doubt some wanted to avoid hook up culture but from what I have read that was not the main reason.

Poor girl, threesomes are already usually awkward enough without being ignored. That might have been the bi-cycle. A lot of bisexuals bounce between attractions with one or the other fading to nothing. Also a lot in permanent relationships tend to have other attractions muted like anyone else and you might think someone is cute or hot but there isn’t the same raging desire anymore. Sometimes the cycle is long. I know people who have it change back and forth only every few years.

I worry a lot more about transgender operations than I do someone labeling their sexuality wrong. Also, in general the desire for gender transition isn’t tied to sexuality at all. It is not who you want to be with. It is who you are convinced you are. The data is a bit of a mess and regret does happen but there are also positive mental and emotional outcomes so I don’t know what to think. I am not sure why we are discussing transgender issues though in a thread about a show involving lesbians.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The thing I find interesting about the CES letter is why it became a big deal in the first place.  I got bored with it after about 10 minutes as there was nothing in it that was unique or breaking news.  All of it was just rehashed arguments found in dozens of other anti mormon books.  Perhaps it was the packaging but the substance itself is old news. 

It is a rehash of issues and arguments, but now the information is contained in one book.  Sure, it doesn't really do a deep dive into any of the issues, but the references are there.  I think it is a good starting point for someone who is interested in researching their faith.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

It is a rehash of issues and arguments, but now the information is contained in one book.  Sure, it doesn't really do a deep dive into any of the issues, but the references are there.  I think it is a good starting point for someone who is interested in researching their faith.  

Pretty much everything in it has been contained in books before.   Not only does it not dive deep into any issue, it barely goes below the surface on anything.  I don't even think it serves as a good starting point. Generally it covers an issue in less than 50 words and moves on to the next thing.  But I suppose it is ideal for the society we live in today.  People want superficial stuff and that is good enough for them.

Link to comment
On 6/23/2022 at 9:15 AM, Vanguard said:

My 19-yr-old daughter (soon to be heading to Argentina Bahia Blanca!) brought it to my attention just yesterday. I have a niece who has recently left the faith for pursuit of a potential same-sex relationship. She posts regularly about her journey and put on Instagram this upcoming documentary. We watched the trailer.

Ah... Good ol' Bahia Blanca... 

That was my mission back in the early 90's.  If she visits the barrio of Viall Nocito, she'll meet some really great people (I haven't kept in touch; not sure if those I knew are still around or not).

Buena suerta, Hermana Vanguard! 

Link to comment
On 6/23/2022 at 3:35 PM, The Nehor said:

Lesbian bed death is (mostly) a popular myth that has caught on. Most of the studies pointing to it are 20 years old or older and left vague what kind of “sex” counts. They do tend to have less “sex” but unless you define what that means it is hard to interpret. More recent studies suggest satisfaction in relationships is roughly on par with with women in heterosexual relationships.

Well said; I was going to remark as much in a separate post, but glad to see you already have. Thank you for a great post!

Link to comment
On 6/25/2022 at 6:24 PM, Tacenda said:

Finished the series, hmm, looks like Sally's LDS parents are no longer all in, like I thought. I'm torn in how I see all this come to play. I hope Sally and Lena stick it out, I know Sally was having a bit of cold feet and anxiety. But the whole of that is from worrying that they won't make it stick forever, maybe she's worrying about her family, children to be specific, and what they'd go through if it didn't last. 

 

Umm... Spoiler Alert!!! 😳

Dang.  I'll try to pretend I didn't read that as my hubby and I sit down to watch this later tonight... LOL

Link to comment

I finished the series and thought it did an excellent job of showing how as LDS we treat LGBTQ.  Like the abortion issue, I really don't feel like there is common ground here. As long as we are going to label their behavior as sinful, refuse to acknowledge the right of the individual to identify their gender outside our own rigid labels, call it "SSA' as if it is some sort of disease, or work to legislate their freedoms, it will continue to create an untenable situation for many LDS LGBTQ. It reminds me of a story I heard about a black LDS female who was sitting in the temple after a session and an older white lady next to her leaned over and said (I am paraphrasing) "I can't imagine what you will look like when you are white in the celestial kingdom", as if being black was some kind of curse to be corrected. I do not believe that being LGBTQ is something that needs correcting.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Umm... Spoiler Alert!!! 😳

Dang.  I'll try to pretend I didn't read that as my hubby and I sit down to watch this later tonight... LOL

Pretend I didn't say that, sorry Daniel2, I'm a dingbat.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

This post demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what sexual orientation is, IMO.

According to the American Psychological Association (and commonly agreed upon by most medical and mental health professional organizations today):

My husband and I, both previously married to women, have been together for almost 14 years, and our relationship is multi-faceted, as I imagine most peoples' relationships are, regardless of gender configuration.  Sexual intimacy is, for us, an important aspect of our relationship, but it's only one aspect of how his and my traits compliment, enrich, and dovetail together to form a holistic and healthy emotional, mental, physical, financial, social, spiritual, and intimate partnership.  We often remark and express appreciation for how different, harmonious, fulfilling, and, in many ways, 'easier' our current homosexual relationship (where our individual homosexual orientations are aligned and work together) is vs. the mixed-orientation relationships we had with our wives (in which our sexual orientations clashed).  We communicate better together than our former spouses, our values are more congruent, our likes and dislikes complement and contrast in different ways than those with our ex-wives.  We also find more joy in giving and caring for and supporting one another. 

I imagine the same would be true for women who were formerly in mixed-orientation marriages but (hopefully) have found new purpose, meaning, and fulfilment in relationships with and between opposite-gender spouses who are both heterosexual.

It's demeaning to the inherent beauty of marriage to suggest that the sole reason they exist is for personal sexual gratification.  Many couples of divergent gender-combinations and sexual orientations experience health challenges that limit sexual intimacy yet still find joy in togetherness, because when the configurations are congruent with their sexual orientation, their relationships are much more than any individual part, or even the sum of their parts.

I'm grateful my husband, our children, and our extended, loving, supportive, but non-'traditional' family is to and for us, as well as the means in which we are able to bless and enrich the lives of our children, extended families, friends, coworkers, and communities. 

You said this so well. Thank you!

Link to comment
On 6/24/2022 at 7:49 PM, carbon dioxide said:

It is always interesting to see people trade 30 or maybe 50 years of their existence for something like this for a hundred trillion earth years of time of regret.

I think it is an interesting question, too, but I probably see it differently than you or @Daniel2 . In the sexuality (mostly married heterosexual focus) groups I frequent where we are nearly constantly talking about sexless marriages (and other sexual incompatibilities amongst other things), one question/topic that comes up with some regularity is whether or not it is morally acceptable or appropriate to divorce and remarry in the quest for sexual fulfillment, or whether God expects someone to stay married in a sexually unfulfilling relationship. It is, indeed, interesting the tradeoffs and regrets and so on that come up in these discussions. What I find is a decided lack of clarity on the place and role of our sexuality in our mortal experience. Somewhere in that "seeing through a glass darkly," I don't understand why it is wrong to seek sexual fulfillment, or why the answer would be different for heterosexuals versus LGBT people.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think it is an interesting question, too, but I probably see it differently than you or @Daniel2 . In the sexuality (mostly married heterosexual focus) groups I frequent where we are nearly constantly talking about sexless marriages (and other sexual incompatibilities amongst other things), one question/topic that comes up with some regularity is whether or not it is morally acceptable or appropriate to divorce and remarry in the quest for sexual fulfillment, or whether God expects someone to stay married in a sexually unfulfilling relationship. It is, indeed, interesting the tradeoffs and regrets and so on that come up in these discussions. What I find is a decided lack of clarity on the place and role of our sexuality in our mortal experience. Somewhere in that "seeing through a glass darkly," I don't understand why it is wrong to seek sexual fulfillment, or why the answer would be different for heterosexuals versus LGBT people.

The “dead bedroom” stories are very sad. I almost made a joke about it while talking about lesbian bed death but thought it might be in poor taste. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't understand why it is wrong to seek sexual fulfillment

Does the quest for sexual fulfillment take precedence over seeking to keep the covenants we have made with God?  Sexual fulfillment is one facet of marriage, but is it the most important one?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Does the quest for sexual fulfillment take precedence over seeking to keep the covenants we have made with God?  Sexual fulfillment is one facet of marriage, but is it the most important one?

Probably not but it is also hard to keep your covenants and strengthen and build an eternal marriage when you resent your spouse and/or the marriage itself.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Does the quest for sexual fulfillment take precedence over seeking to keep the covenants we have made with God?

In some ways this feels like a "gotcha" question. The short, obvious answer is, "no." I find that the real hard part of this question, though, is trying to pin down exactly what covenants I (or any individual) have made with God. When I married, did I covenant to be sexually available to my spouse? Speaking to @Daniel2 and others in the LGBT community, do their covenants include a "thou shalt not marry a member of thine own sex?" Who decides what is included in our covenants to God? The Church? Ourselves? A mix of the two? Who arbitrates differences of opinion between individuals and the Church? Yes, indeed, the answer seems so obvious, and yet I find so many confusing undercurrents underneath the question that I find I cannot tell someone they should not divorce and remarry or they should not marry someone of their same sex in their quest for sexual fulfillment.

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Sexual fulfillment is one facet of marriage, but is it the most important one?

Another question that seems so simple on the surface, but so complex when you get into the undercurrents. I expect that almost everyone would say that sex is not THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of marriage. At the same time, I see almost no one arguing that sex is an inconsequential or discardable aspect of marriage. There's also the commonly cited (but I don't know that there is any hard data behind it) 80:20 rule that essentially says that, when the marriage is good, sex contributes 20% towards the relationship satisfaction, but when things are bad, sex contributes 80% towards the relationship dissatisfaction. How does one truly measure the importance of different aspects of marriage? What aspects are unimportant enough that they can be discarded? Which aspects are important enough that they cannot be discarded?

I don't know how you, @ksfisher or others on this site, would answer those questions, but I have not found good, universal, reliable answers to them.

Link to comment
On 6/25/2022 at 12:48 PM, Tacenda said:

Well, you're not a CES director. 

If I was a CES director, would it matter?  Why would anyone who holds that position respond to it?   Some unknown guy asking him to take massive amounts of time out of his schedule responding to all that?  I think anyone demanding answers to a hundred different things show that that the person really is not serious.   They just want to make a statement.  They are throwing spaghetti against the wall and whatever sticks is all they care about.  Can you imagine if you were in that position and were getting hundreds of letters like that a day? 

Sure the Church should do a better job addressing issues but personally responding to stuff like that is absurd waste of time.  I call things like that the cluster bomb fallacy.  Bombard your opponent with massive amounts of data or issues.  It is unrealistic to expect a response to most of it and then claim victory.  If Jeremy was actually a serious person, he would have sent questions on two or three issues.   That is more likely to get a response.  But he was not really serious at getting answers.

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
On 6/25/2022 at 6:47 PM, SkyRock said:

Lots of secular girls are "lesbian for college" just to get out of the hook up cultural so common in most universities. 

One bisexual friend told me that she just liked sex in college and was open to whomever was interesting.  Afterwards she had a live in boyfriend with whom she bought a house.   I asked if she missed being with women and she said no.   She did say that one time her boyfriend talked her into a threesome and she wasn't that interested in the other woman really and it was mostly so the boyfriend could say he had done it, but both of them, after a bit, just ignored the extra girl. 

ROGD and social contagion are very real.  The activists want to discount them, but if anyone listens to detransitioners they can hear story after story of girls who felt pressured by a peer group and the excessive affirmation by "professionals" that pushed them along the path to taking hormones and surgery, only for them to wake up a few years later miserable and realizing it was a huge mistake. 

I have been watching Bill Maher on real time a lot recently has he really has ramped up his criticism of the transgender thing.  The whole gender thing is more trendy than a real thing.   He notes how many parents in the hollywood culture seem to have a transgender kid but hardly any parents in the real world don't.  Personally I am getting tired of all of it.  I have heard more in the media about LBGT in the last 6 months than I heard in my first 45 years of life.    Yes LGBT people exist but I have had my fill of the topic for the next 30 years.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I have been watching Bill Maher on real time a lot recently has he really has ramped up his criticism of the transgender thing.  The whole gender thing is more trendy than a real thing.   He notes how many parents in the hollywood culture seem to have a transgender kid but hardly any parents in the real world don't.  Personally I am getting tired of all of it.  I have heard more in the media about LBGT in the last 6 months than I heard in my first 45 years of life.    Yes LGBT people exist but I have had my fill of the topic for the next 30 years.

Who is putting them in the news all the time?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If I was a CES director, would it matter?  Why would anyone who holds that position respond to it?   Some unknown guy asking him to take massive amounts of time out of his schedule responding to all that?  I think anyone demanding answers to a hundred different things show that that the person really is not serious.   They just want to make a statement.  They are throwing spaghetti against the wall and whatever sticks is all they care about.  Can you imagine if you were in that position and were getting hundreds of letters like that a day? 

Sure the Church should do a better job addressing issues but personally responding to stuff like that is absurd waste of time.  I call things like that the cluster bomb fallacy.  Bombard your opponent with massive amounts of data or issues.  It is unrealistic to expect a response to most of it and then claim victory.  If Jeremy was actually a serious person, he would have sent questions on two or three issues.   That is more likely to get a response.  But he was not really serious at getting answers.

All bolds are mine.

Quoting Calm's response to me on page one:

"As I understand it, it was the grandfather? (father) relaying the offer of the CES director to respond.  My guess is there was some miscommunication about what the CES director was saying he would respond to."

So the CES director wanted to respond. That's why I said, "Well, you're not the CES director".

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...