Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/15/2022 at 5:43 AM, Ragerunner said:

Or the article is pointing out recent new laws being passed in Florida that precipitated the church responding to these concerns.

There is a lot more to these laws than just the laws themselves. There is additional ‘directives’ from appointed State agencies (that these laws give power too) that make it even more clear that LGBTQ rights are under attack.

The church has taken a stand on other/similar laws recently in other states on LGBTQ rights.

The church is not making these statements randomly. They are responding to many of these new laws.

 

On 9/15/2022 at 8:07 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that the Church has taken a position, formal or informal, on Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act. 
 

And CFR that the Parental Rights in Education Act — which prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through the third grade —relates in any meaningful way to the issues on which the Church HAS taken a stand, namely access to employment, fair housing, public accommodation and freedom of religion. 

Two days since I posted these CFRs and there has been no response. 
 

Sometimes, to show I am in earnest, I’ll follow up on a CFR. From the lack of response by Ragerunner, I’ll assume that he cannot provide a reference to the effect that the Church of Jesus Christ has taken a position opposing Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act or that the act pertains in any material way to the issues on which the Church HAS taken a stand. 

[Calm]

Ragerunner is not a frequent poster, two days may not be long enough for a reasonable amount of time for him to respond. 

[Ragerunner]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Two days since I posted these CFRs and there has been no response. 
 

Sometimes, to show I am in earnest, I’ll follow up on a CFR. From the lack of response by Ragerunner, I’ll assume that he cannot provide a reference to the effect that the Church of Jesus Christ has taken a position opposing Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act or that the act pertains in any material way to the issues on which the Church HAS taken a stand. 

I just saw this post.

What laws have been passed by Florida’s Governor and legislators over the last year related to Gay rights that the church would feel the need to make such a statement? Clearly something has changed recently causing the church to defend gay rights in the State of Florida.

If nothing had changed then the church would feel no need to respond.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I just saw this post.

What laws have been passed by Florida’s Governor and legislators over the last year related to Gay rights that the church would feel the need to make such a statement? Clearly something has changed recently causing the church to defend gay rights in the State of Florida.

If nothing had changed then the church would feel no need to respond.

There’s no indication that the coalition letter, of which Church leaders are signatories, is in reaction to ANY laws passed in Florida, much less the Parental Rights in Education Act. That’s your own baseless assumption. 
 

At this point it is obvious you can’t answer the CFRs, and you must rescind the implication you have made. It’s a board rule. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s no indication that the coalition letter, of which Church leaders are signatories, is in reaction to ANY laws passed in Florida, much less the Parental Rights in Education Act. That’s your own baseless assumption. 
 

At this point it is obvious you can’t answer the CFRs, and you must rescind the implication you have made. It’s a board rule. 

Your CFR is weasel worded to be about something Ragerunner implied. It was implied because it is incredibly obvious to everyone who has a five year old’s understanding of cause and effect that recent events in Florida led to the statement being published. The church and the other signatories did not release this statement in a vacuum and it did not coincidentally come out at the same time Florida is going batdung crazy. They knew what implications would be drawn from it. You can put your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen but your CFR is silly.

At this point it is obvious you can’t issue rational CFRs and you should rescind them as affronts to basic reason. It is the moral thing to do.

Edited September 18, 2022 by The Nehor

[Ragerunner]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s no indication that the coalition letter, of which Church leaders are signatories, is in reaction to ANY laws passed in Florida, much less the Parental Rights in Education Act. That’s your own baseless assumption. 
 

At this point it is obvious you can’t answer the CFRs, and you must rescind the implication you have made. It’s a board rule. 

So if nothing transpired in Florida that has created concern why would the church take the time to make this statement? At the very least I can point to cause and effect.

You have nothing to support you view that this was just a general, benign statement by the church because it has nothing else to do for the day. 

I am also aware you think Deseret News shouldn’t have made a similar connect. I am sure they don’t care what you think about that as well.

Your mental gymnastics that this has nothing to do with any current events/laws in Florida is quiet amazing. 

Moving on.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/18/2022 at 7:22 AM, Ragerunner said:

So if nothing transpired in Florida that has created concern why would the church take the time to make this statement? At the very least I can point to cause and effect.

You have nothing to support you view that this was just a general, benign statement by the church because it has nothing else to do for the day. 

I am also aware you think Deseret News shouldn’t have made a similar connect. I am sure they don’t care what you think about that as well.

Your mental gymnastics that this has nothing to do with any current events/laws in Florida is quiet amazing. 

Moving on.

Your contention seems to be that the coalition letter was drafted in reaction to recent laws that have been passed in the state of Florida, a claim you appear unable to substantiate or document. 
 

In reality this recent move in Florida is part of a pattern that, as the Deseret News article makes clear, the Church has carried forth for quite a while now in several states and on a federal level, beginning in Utah with the “fairness for all” initiative which was crafted through a collaboration of Church and LGBTQ interests as a means of balancing their civil rights with religious liberty. See this link:

https://www.fairnessforallinitiative.com/legislation

This movement is not necessarily in reaction to laws that have been passed, but rather, practices and potential practices in society that the initiative is designed to prevent.
 

And by the way, your arguments illustrate rather nicely what I feared would be the consequence of the gratuitous mention in the Deseret News piece of the Parental Rights in Education Act, namely that low-information readers would be confused into jumping to the false conclusion that the Church opposes the Florida education act. 
 

I suppose I should thank you for illustrating my point so well. 

Edited September 24, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And by the way, your arguments illustrate rather nicely what I feared would be the consequence of the gratuitous mention in the Deseret News piece of the Parental Rights in Education Act, namely that low-information readers would be confused into jumping to the false conclusion that the Church opposes the Florida education act. 

CFR

Edited September 18, 2022 by The Nehor

[california boy]

On 9/15/2022 at 8:06 AM, Stormin' Mormon said:

Is the Church not allowed to take a stand against unfair discrimination in employment and housing unless it also gives material aid to LGBTQ groups operating on Church properties?  Can we not allow for institutions and individuals to have nuanced views on topics as complex as this?  There's a lot of daylight between knee-jerk homophobia and unconditional support of the gay community.  There really shouldn't be a question of authenticity or pretense if someone stakes a position somewhere in that nuanced middle. 

 

 

On 9/16/2022 at 6:31 AM, Nofear said:

/sigh
As one well knows, there are positive meanings associated with the Pride flag. There are also negative meanings with the Pride flag. The Church does not have control over those meanings and does not wish to convey messages that would be misconstrued. But, already well know that. Not sure what game your are trying to play. Maybe,your game is the very same kind of intolerant incivility that the Church is opposing with its support of the Florida bill.

 

On 9/16/2022 at 6:47 AM, Amulek said:

I think the university recognizes - rightly, I might add - that displaying a rainbow doesn't only "acknowledg[e] that they are part of BYU/the Church."

The rainbow flag has been a symbol of gay pride and LGBT social movements for decades now. The Church is on board with some, but certainly not all, of the changes sought by LGBT activists, so the Church doesn't want to give the impression that they support more than they actually do (as is their right).

 

Sorry it has taken me a little time to get back to you.  I have been traveling and away from my computer.  I did however want to respond.

I totally agree that the Church can and does define how it treats the LGBT community.  And yes, I agree that the LGBT flag does represent a community that the Church does not support EVERYTHING that community might be engaged in.  I don't support everything either. But I do recognize that the LGBT flag represents the community.  It represents not being ashamed for being different.  It represents a struggle to have the same constitutional rights that all Americans have.  It represents numerous charity and humanitarian efforts the community participates in.  It represents tolerance for those that have a different point of view.  It represents the God given agency that has been given to all of us to live our lives the way we each believe is how we should live our lives.  It represents family and friends.  It represents being able to love my partner and have a quality of life with him.  

Just like the American flag represents this country, which not all can I agree with, when someone burns an American flag, it probably doesn't mean that they hate EVERYTHING about America, but for those that are looking on, the message they get is one of hatred towards America and all that it stands for.

But by not allowing colored flashlights to light up the Y one night a year during gay pride, that also sends a message to the world, to members, to BYU students, and to the LGBT community.  Most people reacted to that message like the burning of an American flag.  It is a message of being one of zero tolerance for the LGBT community.  It reinforced in a big way the Churches often hostile relationship with the LGBT community. And it reinforces a message of intolerance within the Church membership whether intentional or not.  I certainly did not read a single article praising BYU for it's tolerance by not allowing the Y lighting.  In fact every article I read brought up all of the hostile actions BYU and the Church have taken against the LGBT community.  So whether that was the intent or not, that was the message received.  And if that IS the message BYU wanted to send, then yes, they were successful.  By sending that kind of message, and so many that have come before, it defines the Church's relationship with the LGBT community much more than writing a letter supporting fair housing and employment.  Is that really so hard to understand?

 

[Nofear]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

By sending that kind of message, and so many that have come before, it defines the Church's relationship with the LGBT community much more than writing a letter supporting fair housing and employment.  Is that really so hard to understand?

What I am understanding you to be saying is the assertion that the symbolic gesture by the Church that would be misinterpreted is more important than substantive action (such as the Florida bill and other actions the Church has taken). Symbolism is important, I grant that. And voice and action aren't mutually exclusive behaviors. Moreover, not speaking is a form of speaking. What is unfortunate is that the Church's absent voice (e.g. lack of rainbow splashing) is being declared as something different than its actions (e.g. support for legislation) communicate. Perhaps you can lend your voice among the various communities your interact with to denounce the misinterpretations that are attributed to the Church's silent voice (e.g. lack of rainbow splashing). It's a small thing, but every little bit helps.

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry it has taken me a little time to get back to you.  I have been traveling and away from my computer.  I did however want to respond.

I totally agree that the Church can and does define how it treats the LGBT community.  And yes, I agree that the LGBT flag does represent a community that the Church does not support EVERYTHING that community might be engaged in.  I don't support everything either. But I do recognize that the LGBT flag represents the community.  It represents not being ashamed for being different.  It represents a struggle to have the same constitutional rights that all Americans have.  It represents numerous charity and humanitarian efforts the community participates in.  It represents tolerance for those that have a different point of view.  It represents the God given agency that has been given to all of us to live our lives the way we each believe is how we should live our lives.  It represents family and friends.  It represents being able to love my partner and have a quality of life with him.  

Just like the American flag represents this country, which not all can I agree with, when someone burns an American flag, it probably doesn't mean that they hate EVERYTHING about America, but for those that are looking on, the message they get is one of hatred towards America and all that it stands for.

So far, so good.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

But by not allowing colored flashlights to light up the Y one night a year during gay pride,

By doing this the Church did nothing like burning the American flag.

I think a better comparison would be to compare the Pride Flag to the Confederate Flag.  Both are "symbolic," but can mean very different things to different people.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

that also sends a message to the world, to members, to BYU students, and to the LGBT community.  

With respect, I disagree.

If BYU prohibited a "Go Trump!" sign on its property, that does not "send a message" condemning Trump or his supporters.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most people reacted to that message like the burning of an American flag.  

Baloney.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is a message of being one of zero tolerance for the LGBT community.  

Again, baloney.  BYU has every right to control its own property.  

Years ago Ute fans painted a giant "U" on the Y.  BYU had it painted over hours later.  That's not a "message" of "zero tolerance" for the University of Utah or its fans. 

You are validating my prior observations:

Quote

Quote

Why does the church sign these letters?  

Because the Church is acting in good faith.

Because in publicly stating its position on some issues, the reasoned and compassionate efforts of the Church are made manifest.

Because the Church would prefer to speak for itself rather than give its more virulently hostile critics free rein to disparage us, to presume to tell the world what we believe, to cast us and our beliefs and actions in the worst possible light, and so on.

Quote

I seriously want to know.  

The Church wants to speak for itself, to define itself.  

Quote

Honestly it seems so fake, like they are trying to pretend about the LGBT community two weeks after taking all the LGBT pamphlets out of the BYU newspaper.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

The Church speaks for itself because there is no small number of people out there who are really focused on crafting an ugly and denigrating narrative about the Church.  And a big part of that effort involves critics presuming to speak on behalf of the Church, to intercede and explain to third parties what the Church teaches, believes, practices, etc.  

...

Quote

As far as I can tell their excuse came down to an objection of a drag name in a small ad on the very back of a resource piece for LGBT students 

As far as I can tell" being the operative phrase.

You are demonstrating my point.  The Church wants to have a voice in public discussions about it.  The Church wants to speak for itself, to explain its own beliefs, practices, actions, and so on.  And this really gets in the way of those who, as you here, are trying to crafting a narrative that casts the Church is the worst possible light.

"The Church speaks for itself because there is no small number of people out there who are really focused on crafting an ugly and denigrating narrative about the Church.  And a big part of that effort involves critics presuming to speak on behalf of the Church, to intercede and explain to third parties what the Church teaches, believes, practices, etc."

Look at what you are doing.  You are presuming to speak for the Church.  You are telling third parties what the Church's "message" is to them.  You are imputing motives onto the Church.  

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

It reinforced in a big way the Churches often hostile relationship with the LGBT community.  And it reinforces a message of intolerance within the Church membership whether intentional or not.  I certainly did not read a single article praising BYU for it's tolerance by not allowing the Y lighting.  In fact every article I read brought up all of the hostile actions BYU and the Church have taken against the LGBT community.  So whether that was the intent or not, that was the message received.  

If people with whom you disagree politically trespassed on your property to convey a message of their choosing and without regard to your consent, I do not think you would let them.  I do not think you would take seriously their complaint that you not letting them share their message while on your property is

• A) akin to burning an American flag and expressing "hatred towards" you; 
• B) a "message" that you have "zero tolerance" for them and their message;
• C) a "message" of "intolerance" for those people; and
• D) an expression of you "hostility" toward those people.

I would not take their complaint seriously, either.  Their complaint would be self-serving, unserious, dishonest and unfair.  You should be able to speak for yourself, particularly when voiced to counter those who presume to impute onto you ugly and mean-spirited motives and "messages," to place you in the worst possible light, to encourage others to assume the worst about you.

You know, like what you are doing.  Right now.  To us.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

And if that IS the message BYU wanted to send, then yes, they were successful.  By sending that kind of message, and so many that have come before, it defines the Church's relationship with the LGBT community much more than writing a letter supporting fair housing and employment.  Is that really so hard to understand?

The Church didn't send "that kind of message."  How utterly unserious you are being here.  This is the message you "want to send."  And to an extent, you and yours have been successful.

Again, the Church is increasingly speaking on its own behalf because it sees that there are many people out there who, like you, presume to tell the world what we believe, to cast us and our beliefs and actions in the worst possible light, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 20, 2022 by smac97

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

What I am understanding you to be saying is the assertion that the symbolic gesture by the Church that would be misinterpreted is more important than substantive action (such as the Florida bill and other actions the Church has taken). Symbolism is important, I grant that. And voice and action aren't mutually exclusive behaviors. Moreover, not speaking is a form of speaking. What is unfortunate is that the Church's absent voice (e.g. lack of rainbow splashing) is being declared as something different than its actions (e.g. support for legislation) communicate.

Yea, exactly.  I think most will agree that because of their heavy handed reaction to the Y lighting,  the Church got painted as continuing its intolerance and adversary relationship with the LGBT community.  It perpetuated that image whether that was the intent or not.  And maybe that was their intention.  To draw the line deeper in the sand.  If that was the intent, then mission accomplished.  

If however their intent was to improve the relationship with the LGBT community, they could have used it as an opportunity to allow the Y lighting. That would have shown to the LGBT students and the LGBT community that there is room in the Church and at BYU for them.  They could have even issued a press release clarifying their position.  Something like "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

Do you see that if that was their intent, that would have been a much more positive message, while still being clear about maintaining Church teachings?  

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Perhaps you can lend your voice among the various communities your interact with to denounce the misinterpretations that are attributed to the Church's silent voice (e.g. lack of rainbow splashing). It's a small thing, but every little bit helps.

It is an up hill battle TBH.  It is interesting, this subject came up a few days ago with a good straight friend that knew I used to be a member.  He started in about how horrible the Church is to the gay community and that I must have hated being a part of it.  I told him that yes, there are parts about the Church that I think are unhealthy if you are gay, but there are parts that I also really liked about the Church.  I told him about how positive my mission experience was and how much I learned from it.  I also told him that some of my kids are still active in the Church and for them, it works.  They are straight and have young kids.  It is giving their family a strong foundation of right and wrong.  In the next couple of years as those kids get a little older, they will have to wrestle with what the Church teaches and what they know from personal experience with their grandfather and my partner who they love.  My friend then told me about an employee he had who was Mormon and how good of worker he was and never said anything negative about gays.  But I had to agree with him that if he had an LGBT child, the Mormon Church is probably not the place to raise that LGBT child.  Sorry, that is how I feel.  I don't think I am alone.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

So far, so good.

By doing this the Church did nothing like burning the American flag.

I think a better comparison would be to compare the Pride Flag to the Confederate Flag.  Both are "symbolic," but can mean very different things to different people.

With respect, I disagree.

If BYU prohibited a "Go Trump!" sign on its property, that does not "send a message" condemning Trump or his supporters.

Baloney.

Again, baloney.  BYU has every right to control its own property.  

Years ago Ute fans painted a giant "U" on the Y.  BYU had it painted over hours later.  That's not a "message" of "zero tolerance" for the University of Utah or its fans. 

You are validating my prior observations:

"The Church speaks for itself because there is no small number of people out there who are really focused on crafting an ugly and denigrating narrative about the Church.  And a big part of that effort involves critics presuming to speak on behalf of the Church, to intercede and explain to third parties what the Church teaches, believes, practices, etc."

Look at what you are doing.  You are presuming to speak for the Church.  You are telling third parties what the Church's "message" is to them.  You are imputing motives onto the Church.  

If people with whom you disagree politically trespassed on your property to convey a message of their choosing and without regard to your consent, I do not think you would let them.  I do not think you would take seriously their complaint that you not letting them share their message while on your property is

• A) akin to burning an American flag and expressing "hatred towards" you; 
• B) a "message" that you have "zero tolerance" for them and their message;
• C) a "message" of "intolerance" for those people; and
• D) an expression of you "hostility" toward those people.

I would not take their complaint seriously, either.  Their complaint would be self-serving, unserious, dishonest and unfair.  You should be able to speak for yourself, particularly when voiced to counter those who presume to impute onto you ugly and mean-spirited motives and "messages," to place you in the worst possible light, to encourage others to assume the worst about you.

You know, like what you are doing.  Right now.  To us.

The Church didn't send "that kind of message."  How utterly unserious you are being here.  This is the message you "want to send."  And to an extent, you and yours have been successful.

Again, the Church is increasingly speaking on its own behalf because it sees that there are many people out there who, like you, presume to tell the world what we believe, to cast us and our beliefs and actions in the worst possible light, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Always the attacker that fails to try and understand what I was really trying to say.  You go guy.

[Nofear]

"While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

Huh. I've never heard the Church say that before. Alas. Perhaps a rainbow would have helped me see the light.

 

Edit: My apologies. Physical fatigue has impaired my social filter (never strong to begin with) and the sarcasm spewed forth. You, of course, are welcome to advocate the Church use that messaging. I think I understand your position. I think you understand why the Church doesn't. The Brethren disagree with that position. They aren't always right. I happen to agree with them on this. We'll live and let live.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Always the attacker

This from the guy that presumes to speak for the Church, to tell us what its motives and "messages" are, always casting such things in the worst possible light.

The irony.  It burns.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

that fails to try and understand what I was really trying to say.  

I won't apologize for responding to what you did say in lieu of discerning some sort of subtext about what you were "trying" to say.

My point is pretty straightforward.  Here it is again:

Quote

The Church speaks for itself because there is no small number of people out there who are really focused on crafting an ugly and denigrating narrative about the Church.  And a big part of that effort involves critics presuming to speak on behalf of the Church, to intercede and explain to third parties what the Church teaches, believes, practices, etc.  
...
You are demonstrating my point.  The Church wants to have a voice in public discussions about it.  The Church wants to speak for itself, to explain its own beliefs, practices, actions, and so on.  And this really gets in the way of those who, as you here, are trying to crafting a narrative that casts the Church is the worst possible light.

It's not like we haven't had this conversation before.  From 2018 (discussing the policy changes at the time) :

Quote

Quote

I am really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen.  

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

Here you are, nearly five years later, beating the exact same drum.

"{G}rossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks"?  Yep.  You are accusing BYU of "messaging" morally equivalent to burning the flag.  You are presuming to tell us what the Church's "message" is, and that it is "one of zero tolerance for the LGBT community," and "hostile," and "reinforces a message of intolerance within the Church membership."

"{V}itriolic and over-the-top rhetoric"?  Check.  Comparisons to burning the American flag fit the bill.

"Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children"?  Exactamundo.  "{O}ne of zero tolerance for the LGBT community," and "hostile," and "reinforces a message of intolerance within the Church membership."

"Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings"?  No question.  "Zero tolerance."  "Hostile."  "Message of intolerance."  Your words.  Imputed onto us.

"Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church"?  Clearly.  You are doing nothing but putting these words into our mouths.

"Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church"?  Right on the money. 

"Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits"?  Nope!  Can't have that, it seems.  We can't be allowed to speak for ourselves.  We need people like California Boy to control the narrative.

You were doing all this stuff prior to 2018, in 2018, and are still at it five years later.  Nothing has changed.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You go guy.

Right back atcha.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

"While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

Huh. I've never heard the Church say that before. Alas. Perhaps a rainbow would have helped me see the light.

 

Edit: My apologies. Physical fatigue has impaired my social filter (never strong to begin with) and the sarcasm spewed forth. You, of course, are welcome to advocate the Church use that messaging. I think I understand your position. I think you understand why the Church doesn't. The Brethren disagree with that position. They aren't always right. I happen to agree with them on this. We'll live and let live.

So what do you think the message should be to the LGBT community? What message does the Church want to convey to the world about the LGBT community?  Or is the message they are currently sending exactly how the Church wants to be viewed and is not misunderstood at all.  Social reaction is exactly the reaction they were hoping to achieve.

Edited September 21, 2022 by california boy

[Nofear]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

So what do you think the message should be to the LGBT community? What message does the Church want to convey to the world about the LGBT community?  Or is the message they are currently sending exactly how the Church wants to be viewed and is not misunderstood at all.  Social reaction is exactly the reaction they were hoping to achieve.

I think this message is good, "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

What reaction from the world do we want? Well, it would be nice if everyone acknowledged and embraced our sincere attempts to follow the Savior. Alas, such is not the case. Jesus warned that those efforts wouldn't always result in positive feedback. "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."   $@$% the Mormons!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Quote

So what do you think the message should be to the LGBT community? What message does the Church want to convey to the world about the LGBT community?  Or is the message they are currently sending exactly how the Church wants to be viewed and is not misunderstood at all.  Social reaction is exactly the reaction they were hoping to achieve.

I think this message is good, "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

I would say "including members of the LGBT community."

I think an impediment here, though, is that "the LGBT community" largely defines itself by sexual orientation and behaviors, and then proceeds to establish an identity based on them.  For some, that identity then becomes paramount, with all others subordinate to it.

The Church, meanwhile, teaches that our predominant identity is, or should be, based on our familial relationship with Heavenly Father.  Hence the Primary song, "I am a Child of God..."  I think that identity has to predominate over all others.  It is from that identity that the individual can then proceed to examine his life and ascertain what he should do to strengthen that relationship.  First, of course, comes "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."  (AoF 1:4.) I think there are plenty of LGBT folks who have such faith.

Next comes "repentance."  This is where, I think, some folks run into difficulty.  Faith may start out as an "in the heart and mind" sort of thing, but faith-based repentance is where the rubber hits the road.  And I think some LGBT folks, having elevated their sexual orientation identity (and associated behaviors), cannot bring themselves to subordinate that to the one espoused by the Church, that of being a child of God. 

This situation, the melding of predominating "identity" with behaviors, seems like a rather unique circumstance in terms of membership in the Church.  A person who likes coffee and tea may struggle with joining the Church because doing so requires compliance with the Word of Wisdom.  But I think very few people imbue coffee-and-tea-drinking with an "identity."  Drinking coffee is not something that person is, it is something they do (and enjoy).  Similarly, a (heterosexual) person outside the Church may have had sexual relations outside of marriage.  But this too is a "behavior," not an "identity."  And even if this behavior is construed as an expression of an "identity" (being a heterosexual), the individual does not face the same sort of dilemma as some in the LGBT community because the giving up the behavior (sex outside of marriage) as a condition for baptism does not require the subordination of the "identity," but rather requires a willingness to constrain sexual behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  He can join the Church and still "be" heterosexual because that state of being is either A) not construed as an "identity," or else B) is retained as an identity, but then subordinated to the predominant one (being a "child of God").

I wonder if Black folks are perhaps best situated to experience a genuine conundrum.  Upon surveying some of the Church's past teachings about race, it is understandable to be resistant to the idea of joining a Church that previously harbored sentiments that tied an "identity" (race / skin color / ancestry) to their relationship with Heavenly Father.  From FAIR:

Quote

In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase (1 Nephi 19:23).

This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.

The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.

For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way everyone understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12; Ezekiel 7:2), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror (Job 37:18), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it (Psalms 93:1; Psalms 19:4-6).

The same principle holds true when examining the beliefs of earlier prophets about people of different races. Most nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints were raised in a world where all Black people were either slaves or illiterate poor. At the time there was much debate among American Christians in general as to how Blacks fit into God's overall plan as described in the Bible. Many theories abounded, with virtually all of them justifying, in one way or another, slavery or relegation of Blacks to the role of second-class citizens. There was even debate as to whether or not Blacks were human beings with souls that could receive salvation. (In contrast to this general Christian view, Joseph Smith declared rather progressively that yes, Blacks did have souls and could be saved.^[3]

 

This continued into the twentieth century. Some LDS leaders were wary of the civil rights movement that started in the 1950s, and publicly stated their concerns. But there were differences of opinion among the brethren on this. At one end was Elder Ezra Taft Benson, who believed that the American civil rights movement was a front for communism; at the other was President Hugh B. Brown, who felt that the Church should publicly support the civil rights movement.^[4]

From our perspective as "enlightened" people of the early twenty-first century, virtually everyone in America up until the last few decades — prophets and other LDS leaders included — held beliefs that we could now consider racist. But that was the culture of the times, and we, like the rest of society, have progressed (line upon line, precept upon precept, see 2 Nephi 28:30) to become better people in this respect, more tolerant, more accepting. Fifty years from now, people will probably look back at our time and say, "How could they have been so bigoted?" Or, "How could they have missed issue X, which seems so clear to us now, in retrospect?"

The key point here is that the Lord works with the people who are available. He does not make them into radicals; he gives them just enough light and understanding to lift the Saints a little and make them more fit for the kingdom. In his mercy, God works with people where they are, and does not wait for them to be perfect before he will deign to speak to them.

Non-LDS Biblical commentators have noted this same tendency is present with Biblical prophets:

Though purified and ennobled by the influence of His Holy Spirit; men each with his own peculiarities of manner and disposition—each with his own education or want of education—each with his own way of looking at things—each influenced differently from another by the different experiences and disciplines of his life. Their inspiration did not involve a suspension of their natural faculties; it did not even make them free from earthly passion; it did not make them into machines—it left them men. Therefore we find their knowledge sometimes no higher than that of their contemporaries.^[5]

I think the Church has, for the past many years, corrected its course as regarding our Black brothers and sisters.  We ought to have seen this from the outset.  From the preamble to Official Declaration - 2: 

Quote

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

But even Black folks are situated differently from LGBT folks because for them (Black folks) there is no melding of "identity" with behaviors.  

The Church acknowledges same-sex attraction, but then requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  The Church likewise acknowledges opposite-sex attraction, and also requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  "{The Lord} doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness..." (2 Nephi 26:33.)  This is a genuinely universal declaration, and necessarily applies to our brothers and sisters who identify as LGBT.

So that brings us back to "identity."  Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time:

Here:

Quote

Quote

But seriously, what on earth does Elder Bednar mean when he says, "There are no homosexuals in the Church"?

I think this has been explained several times already in this thread, but since it would appear that you still haven't grasped it, let me try to break it down for you from my perspective as both a professional historian and faithful Latter-day Saint:

1. Sexual identity is a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century. Before that, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities. Same-sex behaviour, of course, has been ubiquitous. In addition to all the quotes from queer and queer-friendly historians that I have provided on this forum in the past, let me add a few more here:

• 'Modern sexuality moved from a situation where same-sex activity was merely excessive sex (sexual acts) to a regime where sexuality was linked to self (sexual identities). It was a shift that also saw the division into heterosexual and homosexual, a split that has been assumed in modern sexual paradigms' (Barry Reay, 'Writing the modern histories of homosexual England', Historical Journal, 52:1 [2009], 213.)
• 'Many historians of sexuality have argued that a hetero/homosexual binarism emerged only after 1869 following the coinage of "homosexuality", which, according to Foucault, introduced the homosexual as a new "species" of being. Some interpretations of Foucault's work had emphasized the precise moment when the "homosexual" created a radical rupture in western understandings of sexual deviancy. According to this view, the social and cultural identities based on an exclusive same sex-erotic attraction were virtually impossible before the nineteenth century' (Robert Beachy, 'The German invention of homosexuality', Journal of Modern History, 82:4 [2010], 802-03).
• 'Other gay historians have supported Foucault's periodization but questioned his exclusive emphasis on medicalization ... Dan Healey's work on Moscow and St. Petersburg documents a shift in same-sex relations around 1900 from an earlier model of adult men patronizing both younger male and female prostitutes to a subculture of men who desired exclusively other men' (ibid., 803).
• 'A central -- if not perhaps the most central -- element that has characterized modern homosexuality is the understanding of erotic same-sex attraction as a fundamental element of the individual's biological or psychological makeup. Homosexuality has thus been defined and constructed around the debate over the innate character of sexual identity, whether governed by nature or nurture, biology or culture, genetics or environment' (ibid., 803-04).
• 'This idea of (homo)sexual personhood has a very recent history. The homosexual "species" emerged and took root in Germany after the mid-nineteenth century through the collaboration of Berlin's medical scientists and sexual minorities. This confluence of biological determinism and subjective expressions of sexual personhood was largely a German phenomenon, moreover, and it clearly underpins modern conceptions of sexual orientation' (ibid., 804).

2. This new social construct spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility. In many ways, one can read the wholesale invention of 'gay marriage' and the current legal and social attempts to silence all dissent to it as the clearest indication that the discourse has gone from merely ascendant to genuinely hegemonic.

3. In their quest for normalisation and domestication, all ascendant discourses attempt to mask their genealogies by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed. These enabling narratives become essential to propping up a hegemonic discourse and inevitably result in historical revisionism, wherein the new discourse is projected backward onto histories that predate it (a point perfectly expressed in Orwell's 1984: 'The past was alterable ... Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia'):

• 'But the conceptual quandary is deeper (and relates to the distinction between sexual acts and identities referred to in the opening sentence of this article). The difficulty starts, quite literally, with the titles of these two historical surveys. The lesbian of the 'lesbian' history does not appear until chapter 7. The gay in the 'gay' history (as indeed its authors point out) is not applicable until the book's closing pages ... The danger of writing general homosexual histories is that the very nature of the exercise, the act of naming in the book's title -- "A gay history", "A lesbian history" -- imposes modern meanings and interpretations' (Reay, 'Writing the modern histories', 215).

4. Under the direction of the prophets, the Church has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities. Consequently, whilst the Church recognises the reality of same-sex behaviour (and even same-sex attraction, though one could reasonably argue that this is itself a modern construct, arising from the suggestive influence of the normalisation of homosexuality as an identity), the Church has maintained the sharp distinction between behaviour and identity.

5. The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those, like you, who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity -- but it is a position far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination. It also is in harmony with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic.

6. Fortuitously, the Church's position also happens to be a defence of revealed truth relating to these issues. 

Here:

Quote

We need to teach the truth. I know I've posted links before to very accessible digests of what we know academically, but it's clear you've never actually read or processed any of them, so let me do it again with some snippets and then beg you to read the rest for yourself.

From a book review published by OutHistory:

Quote

Before that point [the late 1860s], Western culture did not include the concept we now call “sexual orientation” or “sexual identity.” Sexual desires were things anyone could experience, whether they were appropriate or inappropriate, sinful or virtuous. Those who indulged their desires had an obligation to conduct their sex lives properly and morally, but one could fail at this, as well as succeed, even if one’s sex partner were of a different biological sex. Same-sex sexual acts were often prejudicially punished, but there was not a general sense that those who engaged in them were of a particular “type” or shared a particular “identity.” Anyone could have sex that was sinful, immoral, or illegal ...

This invisibility, where assumptions about heterosexuality are concerned, becomes glaring when we look critically at biomedical science’s attempts to uncover biological origins for sexual orientation. Scientists have looked for a physical origin for homosexuality for over a hundred years, but found none. But no such origin has ever been sought where heterosexuality is concerned. Scientifically speaking, this is indefensible – if one sexual orientation demands a biological basis, so do any others -- a fact that sheds enormous light on the extent to which our presumptions about sexual orientation bias our thinking.

And here's the introduction to the BBC's 'The Invention of "Heterosexuality"':

Quote

The 1901 Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defined heterosexuality as an “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” More than two decades later, in 1923, Merriam Webster’s dictionary similarly defined it as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex.” It wasn’t until 1934 that heterosexuality was graced with the meaning we’re familiar with today: “manifestation of sexual passion for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality.”

Whenever I tell this to people, they respond with dramatic incredulity. That can’t be right! Well, it certainly doesn’t feel right. It feels as if heterosexuality has always “just been there.”

A few years ago, there began circulating a “man on the street” video, in which the creator asked people if they thought homosexuals were born with their sexual orientations. Responses were varied, with most saying something like, “It’s a combination of nature and nurture.” The interviewer then asked a follow-up question, which was crucial to the experiment: “When did you choose to be straight?” Most were taken back, confessing, rather sheepishly, never to have thought about it. Feeling that their prejudices had been exposed, they ended up swiftly conceding the videographer’s obvious point: gay people were born gay just like straight people were born straight.

The video’s takeaway seemed to suggest that all of our sexualities are “just there”; that we don’t need an explanation for homosexuality just as we don’t need one for heterosexuality. It seems not to have occurred to those who made the video, or the millions who shared it, that we actually need an explanation for both.

There’s been a lot of good work, both scholarly and popular, on the social construction of homosexual desire and identity. As a result, few would bat an eye when there’s talk of “the rise of the homosexual” – indeed, most of us have learned that homosexual identity did come into existence at a specific point in human history. What we’re not taught, though, is that a similar phenomenon brought heterosexuality into its existence.

There are many reasons for this educational omission, including religious bias and other types of homophobia. But the biggest reason we don’t interrogate heterosexuality’s origins is probably because it seems so, well, natural. Normal. No need to question something that’s “just there.”

But heterosexuality has not always “just been there.” And there’s no reason to imagine it will always be.

Significantly, the breakdown of historically novel (fixed, gendered) sexual identities is happening everywhere in large part because they are so unnatural that they can't be sustained. From the same analysis above comes the following: 'a recent UK poll found that fewer than half of those aged 18-24 identify as “100% heterosexual"'. And to build on something I tried to indicate earlier regarding the false assumptions present in the very title of this thread: 'That isn’t to suggest a majority of those young respondents regularly practise bisexuality or homosexuality'. This is simply a return to something more normative historically.

And I know what I'm talking about. I completed my PhD in history at a university whose postgraduate history program at the time was ranked fifth globally. After completing, I was offered a position at the university in the same college I had belonged to as a student, comprised of historians, anthropologists, and linguists. What is expressed in this book review and this analysis is everyday stuff for every single academic I ever studied with or worked alongside. It's not controversial; it's consensus.

Significantly, our doctrines align perfectly with the academic consensus of historians, anthropologists and linguists -- as do prophetic statements such as when Elder Bednar said, somewhat infamously, 'There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior'.

By the way, if this statement is true, then that means that there are also no heterosexual members of the Church, and that is definitely something that we can start teaching far, far better!

I have previously mentioned on this forum that I was repeatedly told in the MTC that if I didn't look on women with lust, then I wasn't a 'real man' (always followed up by the statement that if I looked twice, then I wasn't a real Saint). This is solid BS, and I knew it at the time, but I worried then and still worry now how many young men have been totally screwed up by messages like that, which aren't supported in any way by our doctrines.

A few years ago, we had a missionary in our ward who, during a service project, 'confessed' to me that he wasn't attracted to women. He was worried, of course, that this meant he was gay. I actually laughed out loud, assured him that he was completely normal, explained to him that, for example, my father had never been attracted to women either, and reminded him that someday he might find himself attracted in some way to a woman but that he didn't need to fret if that didn't or until that did happen. He has been happily married for the past two years or so. Without hearing the truth, who knows where he would have ended up!

I also have a good mate and former housemate, Church member, who was so sexualised growing up that he has repeatedly run afoul of the law of chastity with the opposite sex. He has likewise benefited from hearing the truth and has repeatedly thanked me for telling it to him because it is the only thing that has allowed him to productively work backwards through his life and understand how he got here, and that gives him the tools to make changes that would otherwise be outside his reach.

Remember that heterosexuality was originally understood as an 'abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex'. As the rest of the Western world normalised this concept and developed an intricate cultural and institutional web for inculcating it, far too many in the Church followed along, but it needs to stop. Until that happens, we are essentially tossing every young person who doesn't find him- or herself consumed with lust for the opposite sex as a class into a hole that is very difficult to climb out of.

Here:

Quote

From the BBC article that I linked to above:

Quote

Heterosexuality, argues Katz, “is invented within discourse as that which is outside discourse. It’s manufactured in a particular discourse as that which is universal… as that which is outside time.” That is, it’s a construction, but it pretends it isn’t. As any French philosopher or child with a Lego set will tell you, anything that’s been constructed can be deconstructed, as well. If heterosexuality didn’t exist in the past, then it doesn’t need to exist in the future.

I was recently caught off guard by Jane Ward, author of Not Gay, who, during an interview for a piece I wrote on sexual orientation, asked me to think about the future of sexuality. “What would it mean to think about people’s capacity to cultivate their own sexual desires, in the same way we might cultivate a taste for food?” Though some might be wary of allowing for the possibility of sexual fluidity, it’s important to realise that various Born This Way arguments aren’t accepted by the most recent science. Researchers aren’t sure what “causes” homosexuality, and they certainly reject any theories that posit a simple origin, such as a “gay gene” ...

Beyond Ward’s question is a subtle challenge: If we’re uncomfortable with considering whether and how much power we have over our sexualities, why might that be? Similarly, why might we be uncomfortable with challenging the belief that homosexuality, and by extension heterosexuality, are eternal truths of nature? ...

The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one. Men and women will continue to have different-genital sex with each other until the human species is no more. But heterosexuality – as a social marker, as a way of life, as an identity – may well die out long before then.

I could be wrong, but I believe that Church leaders are well positioned for these developments. I'm less confident that many Church members and our critics are.

Here: 

Quote

Quote

...this professor’s analysis of the Nationscape numbers for Gen Z Latter-day Saints outside the West found the percentage of those identifying as nonheterosexual to be a whopping 35% (which is, to say, very surprising and highly unlikely for a more conservative religion). Indeed, another analyst I spoke with pointed out that this same dataset shows that in 11 states the proportion of Latter-day Saints reporting to be nonheterosexual was 50% or more.

If these numbers are even close to accurate, I won't be surprised for two reasons: 1) This mirrors developments occurring throughout the Western world. 2) We shouldn't be surprised when those who are raised within a strong Latter-day Saint culture and belief system don't adopt worldly attitudes toward sex, including socially constructed sexual identities based on uncontrollable 'desire'.

Here:

Quote

1) I do not, nor have I ever, identified with any late 19th-century Western social construct of sexuality, hetero-, homo-, bi-, or otherwise.

2) One of my former housemates now lives in a city where several of his friends have 'come out' as non-heterosexual specifically because doing so makes unchastity more socially acceptable, apparently. My friend even said to me that he was thinking about it as well since then, when he breaks the Law of Chastity (as he has done on many occasions), people will look on him with pity and compassion instead of judgement.

3) Clearly we are dealing with a cultural phenomenon.

4) If we teach these youth and young adults the truth -- historically, anthropologically, and linguistically grounded -- they'll be fine since it meshes perfectly with our doctrines.

Here:

Quote

Quote

What are you saying? Homosexuality is a modern invention within the past 150 years? I must be misunderstanding you. Could you please clarify.

Nope, no misunderstanding. The notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge.

If you're genuinely interested, a more academic introduction can be found in 'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation':
...
I'm a historian by profession and work in a research school with other historians, anthropologists, and linguists. I'm not aware of a single one who would contest the reality that 'sexual orientation' is a recent construct with a knowable history or that it is a specifically Western construct that has spread into our part of the world only because of Western colonialism (including the entertainment industry's colonising of the imagination).

Here:

Quote

I'll try, though the three quotes I provided were just 'tastes', not some kind of coherent whole:

Quote

Accounts of sexual orientation that treat it as something that exists in and of itself (essentialist) or as something that has existed throughout history (transhistorical) do not hold up when we recognise it as a social construction. It is not just certain sexual orientations (such as homosexuality) that are socially constructed; the entire concept of sexual orientation is itself a social construction.

As defined by society, sexual orientation is (1) a sexual attraction, (2) defined by the gender of its object and (3) fixed in time and space. Considerable evidence exists to challenge the idea that sexual orientation is fixed and unchanging, but more importantly, neither sexuality nor gender exist as fundamental, biological categories of experience. The construction of sexual orientation has therefore created artificial categories that obscure the full range of human bonding practices known from human history.

Freudian theory and the rising importance of sexual discourse in Western culture contributed to the sexualisation of human attraction by insisting that emotional attachment (love) is necessarily linked with sexual desire.

 

Here:

Quote

You are right that a whole range of sexual behaviours has always existed. What is completely new is the entire notion that people have sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender. The complete novelty of this construction can be seen in part in the fact that the words homosexual and heterosexual were first coined less than 150 years ago, that they have no semantic equivalent in any historical languages, and that as the discourse of sexual orientation has colonised the world's cultures, people have found it necessary to adopt these very words because their languages lack any equivalent expressions. Children raised in cultures where the discourse of sexual orientation has become naturalised tend to find their identities shaped by that discourse because, well, that's precisely how dominant discourses work. The end result is the many participants on this board who insist they were born 'straight', that being so is a natural category of being, etc. In societies where Western culture has enjoyed less penetration, such statements make no cultural sense and leave people shaking their heads, like my former co-worker in Indonesia who was simultaneously pursuing a female marriage partner whilst enjoying the services of ubiquitous male prostitutes, because 'sex is sex', and the gender of the other participant simply has no impact on the physical sensation.

In short, when our Church leaders encourage us not to identify people as homosexual, they show themselves to be astutely historically aware.

Here:

Quote

Quote

What this discussion does point up, however, is the odd notion that sexuality should be placed front and center.  Is that really what exaltation is all about?

The absolute oddness is compounded when we consider that fixed, gendered sexual identity -- including, importantly, so-called 'heterosexuality'* -- has a known and relatively recent genealogy. Why would we assume that exaltation will consist of late 19th-century social constructs that temporarily gained ascendance in certain Western and Western-influenced cultures in the early 21st century?

Here:

Quote

Quote

I'd rather be gay in the deepest pit of hell than a gay turned straight man in heaven.

I see zero evidence in the sum total of scripture that Jesus the Christ was ever a 'straight man' as that term is generally understood. When He instructed us what manner of men to be, He set Himself as the model, not Hugh Hefner.

Regarding the first part of your assertion, however, the Plan of Salvation is designed to deliver to people their deepest desires, including -- and I absolutely love this part! -- allowing us to change our minds. 

Here:

Quote

Quote

How many gay people do you know dream of the day they can become heterosexual?  Perhaps there are some. And if they are, then they should go for it.  Quite honestly, I don't meet many gays that want to become straight.  

Speaking as one who was reared completely outside the social constructions of what has become dominant Western culture, I have zero desire to become heterosexual, homosexual or any other off-the-rack identity (sexual or otherwise). It all sounds like rather heavy chains to me. I'm quite happy to be a free agent instead, and in my case (because I've chosen it by covenant), that means the liberty to become whatever God in His eternal wisdom desires me to be.

Here:

Quote

Quote

It does make me wonder if the rate of being physiologically LGBTQ has increased or if the acceptance and ability to identify it has increased.

About 20 years ago, I read a scholarly analysis of how the politically motivated decision to ground the gay rights movement on a 'physiological' argument contained within it the seeds of its own inevitable deconstruction. We may be seeing the early stages of that development.
...
The researcher who wrote the piece that I read was very pro-equality and worried that the movement had traded away sustainable, long-term progress for the exciting rush of early legal success.

Here:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Did you know that cells did not exist on the earth until Robert Hooke first proposed the idea in the 17th century.  Or that the earth did not start spinning around the sun until Copernicus first proposed the idea in 1543?

I think this is a good point. It's merely the creation of a socially constructed identity that is new. The reality is that the behavior and orientation has always existed.

 

Actually, the comparison is nonsense. Cells and planets exist in and of themselves. Yes, sexual behaviour of all kinds has always existed. Sexual orientation is a social construct with a completely knowable genealogy, the spread of which has displaced other knowable and equally culturally bound constructions of human sexuality. To believe otherwise may be comfortably familiar and useful to one's cause, as pointed out in the Salon interview, but it is demonstrably ahistorical.

Here:

Quote

You capture here an important aspect of this discussion: where we are is a historical moment. What you describe, quite accurately, as 'our society' is just one out of literally an infinite number of iterations of culture and practice. Those who exist within the assumptions of early 21st-century Western society struggle to see it, but their current understandings of things like attraction and sex (and so much more!) are not universal, either across space or time. Most of the world's people have lived and died without having ever been exposed to Western social constructs, and even today, the Western colonisation of the human imagination is far from complete.

It will be interesting to see what the next few decades bring. I'm already starting to see the early stirrings of academic push-back, with a number of studies from just the past few years pointing out how Western- (and often US-) centric nearly all social science research is, including psychology -- with categories of being that simply don't match reality on the ground elsewhere. Will Western conceptions of attraction and sex, being and identity -- which are themselves such recent constructions that we have no trouble tracing their genealogy -- really take the leap from discursive ascendancy to universal reality, or has the tide already started turning, with the rest of the world (and many Western subaltern voices, such as those of the Saints) ready to say, 'Stop telling me who I am and how I have to be!'

Here:

Quote

Quote

As best we can tell, there have always been same-sex and opposite-sex attractions.

Actually, gendered attraction is an inherent part of the social construction and is as historically novel as the rest.

Here:

Quote

Ascendant social discourses always obscure their genealogies, seeking to appear that they 'always already' existed. In this way, real and significant changes in behaviour are (re-)interpreted as merely increased access to data. One common example: things have always been like this, but people just hid it better. There is a pretty extensive academic literature deconstructing such arguments. The Sexual Revolution didn't just reveal what was going on: it changed behaviour and then presented those changes as 'normal'. (Which then further assisted in changing behaviour.)

Here:

Quote

Quote

I don't agree with all of it myself. I mean, I think it is factual.

Exactly! That's exactly how dominant discourses work. They make it very difficult to even form thoughts outside of the bounds they set for us, and those bounds feel so natural and therefore universal.

For example, regarding the question directed to me above about gendered attraction, the concept of sexual attraction itself is a recent social construct. And even when we can identify reasonable analogues across time (history) and space (anthropology), the reality is that gender is not a necessary element. Attractions have, in fact, been socially constructed around age, status, and even 'race'.

The end result is that many people -- again, across both time and space -- would have no clue what we mean by the phrase 'sexual attraction', and even if we could explain it to their satisfaction, they may well not understand what role gender plays in it (beyond, of course, the biological necessity of procreation requiring opposing genitals).

Previously I've given many examples of how sexuality was constructed in many Melanesian societies right up to the 1980s, with initiated males as 'givers of seed' and post-pubescent females as well as uninitiated males as 'receivers of seed'. Western anthropologists and Christian missionaries certainly tried to force these societies into some kind of familiar paradigm, but the reality is that these men simply had no concept of 'sexual attraction' that they could have gendered, and their behaviour clearly wasn't gendered either. And for what it's worth, the emotional bonds that developed between a boy and his older 'mentors' were lifelong, even after he was initiated and obtained a wife or wives.

In the nation where I live, it was quite common in some traditional societies for parents to marry off their daughters to adult men before the girls had reached puberty. Intercourse was, however, forbidden until a wife reached menarche, so it was the responsibility of an older brother or male cousin to assume her role as the husband's sexual partner until that time. Again, these people had no category of 'sexual attraction', and clearly gender was an issue only in the sense of procreation potential.

I could go on and on.

Imagine for a moment if Melanesian seafarers had colonised the world instead of Europeans. We would have an entire sociological/psychological literature shoring up the obviously natural categories of 'giver of seed' and 'receiver of seed', and Melanesian anthropologists would be showing up to try to figure out why some of us have such hangups about the gender of our sexual partners.

Here:

Quote

Quote

Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

I'm not certain, but I think you're asking if the Church should stop teaching basic Christian sexual mores, and my answer to that question (if I'm correct) is no. But as a member of the Church who has never married anyone of any sex, I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive. Please stop pretending you get to speak for me.

I get that some folks (presumably including California Boy) disagree with Hamba's statements (and cited materials), but they are not really engaging or responding to them.  Instead, our communications / debates proceed based on a fundamental presupposition that Hamba is refuting.  He is stating (and, through citation and reasoning, demonstrating) that 

• the idea of "people hav{ing} sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender" is "completely new" and a "complete novelty,"
• that "{t}he notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge,"
• that this concept is "a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century,"
• that previous to this "neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities,"
• that this construct "spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility,"
• that this advocates of this construct have "masked" its origins "by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed,"
• that these fabricated narratives amount to "historical revisionism," and that overall the current trends regarding sexual "identities" are "clearly" a "cultural phenomenon."

Contemporaneously, Hamba is also proposing that the Church 

• "has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities," and
• that this has put it (the Church) "at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society," but
• that the Church's position is "far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination ... {and} with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic," and
• that "when our Church leaders encourage us not to identify people as homosexual, they show themselves to be astutely historically aware." 

In sum, I think we on this board need to seriously re-examine this construct of "identity," as it is clearly getting in the way of a lot of folks.

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

What reaction from the world do we want? Well, it would be nice if everyone acknowledged and embraced our sincere attempts to follow the Savior. Alas, such is not the case. 

As noted above, we are ""at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Yea, exactly.  I think most will agree that because of their heavy handed reaction to the Y lighting,  

I reject this characterization.  If a bunch of Trump supporters had spelled out a giant red "MAGA" on the Y using flashlights, I think you wouldn't bat an eye at the Church shutting that down.  Not because the Church is "intolerant" or "hostile" to all Trump supporters, but rather

• because the Y is the property of BYU,
• because it is reasonable for BYU - like any private property owner - to exercise control over the behaviors on its property (including "messaging"),
• because NoFear is quite correct when he states that there are both "positive" and "negative" meanings "associated with the Pride flag,"
• because it is unreasonable for Party A to act in such a way as to foist a message onto Party B, to do so without Party B's consent, and then excoriate Party B as "intolerant" and "hostile" for not submitting to Party A's coercive and manipulative behavior,
• because there is a substantial measure of hypocrisy in demanding that BYU endorse "messaging" foisted upon it without its consent where those criticizing BYU would not hold themselves to that standard,

and so on.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

the Church got painted as continuing its intolerance and adversary relationship with the LGBT community.  

Thanks to people like you, who go out of their way to "paint" the Church in this way.  Use of the passive voice doesn't work to obscure that.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

If however their intent was to improve the relationship with the LGBT community, they could have used it as an opportunity to allow the Y lighting.

If Latter-day Saint missionaries set up a kiosk on your front lawn espousing the Church, and particularly the importance of the Law of Chastity, and if they did this without your consent, would you have let them proceed, using it "as an opportunity" to "improve the relationship with the" Church?

Asking for a friend.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

That would have shown to the LGBT students and the LGBT community that there is room in the Church and at BYU for them.  

Quoth Hamba (emphases added) :

Quote

Quote

Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

I'm not certain, but I think you're asking if the Church should stop teaching basic Christian sexual mores, and my answer to that question (if I'm correct) is no. But as a member of the Church who has never married anyone of any sex, I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive. Please stop pretending you get to speak for me.

Yep.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

Perhaps you can lend your voice among the various communities your interact with to denounce the misinterpretations that are attributed to the Church's silent voice (e.g. lack of rainbow splashing). It's a small thing, but every little bit helps. 

It is an up hill battle TBH.  

Oh, please.  Are you seriously suggesting that you are situated to "denounce the misinterpretations that are attributed to the Church's silent voice?"  For pete's sake, you are one of the primary sources of such "misinterpretations."  This is your MO.  This comprises a significant portion of your messaging on this board.

19 hours ago, california boy said:

It is interesting, this subject came up a few days ago with a good straight friend that knew I used to be a member.  He started in about how horrible the Church is to the gay community and that I must have hated being a part of it.  I told him that yes, there are parts about the Church that I think are unhealthy if you are gay, but there are parts that I also really liked about the Church.  I told him about how positive my mission experience was and how much I learned from it.  I also told him that some of my kids are still active in the Church and for them, it works.  They are straight and have young kids.  It is giving their family a strong foundation of right and wrong.  In the next couple of years as those kids get a little older, they will have to wrestle with what the Church teaches and what they know from personal experience with their grandfather and my partner who they love.  My friend then told me about an employee he had who was Mormon and how good of worker he was and never said anything negative about gays.  But I had to agree with him that if he had an LGBT child, the Mormon Church is probably not the place to raise that LGBT child.  Sorry, that is how I feel.  I don't think I am alone.

I don't think you're alone, either.  Hence the need to re-examine the presuppositions surrounding the concept of an "LGBT child."  This construct needs to be deconstructed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 21, 2022 by smac97

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

I think this message is good, "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

What reaction from the world do we want? Well, it would be nice if everyone acknowledged and embraced our sincere attempts to follow the Savior. Alas, such is not the case. Jesus warned that those efforts wouldn't always result in positive feedback. "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."   $@$% the Mormons!

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.  And I agree with everything you stated.  But I also think that the Church brings on a lot of that misunderstanding upon itself by the way it reacts and deals with LGBT issues.  The way it handled the lighting of the Y is a good example. Handled differently, it could have been an opportunity to clarify its position to clear up some of that misunderstanding.  But often Church leadership perpetuates the very things that are causing the negative feelings against the Church.  As long as the Church continues to handle those issues as they have in the past, I don't see that perception of the Church changing.  And maybe that is ok with the leadership that wants to continue on that path.  If so, then I expect, and they should expect similar results.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I would say "including members of the LGBT community."

I think an impediment here, though, is that "the LGBT community" largely defines itself by sexual orientation and behaviors, and then proceeds to establish an identity based on them.  For some, that identity then becomes paramount, with all others subordinate to it.

The Church, meanwhile, teaches that our predominant identity is, or should be, based on our familial relationship with Heavenly Father.  Hence the Primary song, "I am a Child of God..."  I think that identity has to predominate over all others.  It is from that identity that the individual can then proceed to examine his life and ascertain what he should do to strengthen that relationship.  First, of course, comes "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."  (AoF 1:4.) I think there are plenty of LGBT folks who have such faith.

Next comes "repentance."  This is where, I think, some folks run into difficulty.  Faith may start out as an "in the heart and mind" sort of thing, but faith-based repentance is where the rubber hits the road.  And I think some LGBT folks, having elevated their sexual orientation identity (and associated behaviors), cannot bring themselves to subordinate that to the one espoused by the Church, that of being a child of God. 

This situation, the melding of predominating "identity" with behaviors, seems like a rather unique circumstance in terms of membership in the Church.  A person who likes coffee and tea may struggle with joining the Church because doing so requires compliance with the Word of Wisdom.  But I think very few people imbue coffee-and-tea-drinking with an "identity."  Drinking coffee is not something that person is, it is something they do (and enjoy).  Similarly, a (heterosexual) person outside the Church may have had sexual relations outside of marriage.  But this too is a "behavior," not an "identity."  And even if this behavior is construed as an expression of an "identity" (being a heterosexual), the individual does not face the same sort of dilemma as some in the LGBT community because the giving up the behavior (sex outside of marriage) as a condition for baptism does not require the subordination of the "identity," but rather requires a willingness to constrain sexual behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  He can join the Church and still "be" heterosexual because that state of being is either A) not construed as an "identity," or else B) is retained as an identity, but then subordinated to the predominant one (being a "child of God").

I wonder if Black folks are perhaps best situated to experience a genuine conundrum.  Upon surveying some of the Church's past teachings about race, it is understandable to be resistant to the idea of joining a Church that previously harbored sentiments that tied an "identity" (race / skin color / ancestry) to their relationship with Heavenly Father.  From FAIR:

I think the Church has, for the past many years, corrected its course as regarding our Black brothers and sisters.  We ought to have seen this from the outset.  From the preamble to Official Declaration - 2: 

But even Black folks are situated differently from LGBT folks because for them (Black folks) there is no melding of "identity" with behaviors.  

The Church acknowledges same-sex attraction, but then requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  The Church likewise acknowledges opposite-sex attraction, and also requires adherence to the Law of Chastity.  "{The Lord} doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness..." (2 Nephi 26:33.)  This is a genuinely universal declaration, and necessarily applies to our brothers and sisters who identify as LGBT.

So that brings us back to "identity."  Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here: 

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

I get that some folks (presumably including California Boy) disagree with Hamba's statements (and cited materials), but they are not really engaging or responding to them.  Instead, our communications / debates proceed based on a fundamental presupposition that Hamba is refuting.  He is stating (and, through citation and reasoning, demonstrating) that 

• the idea of "people hav{ing} sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender" is "completely new" and a "complete novelty,"
• that "{t}he notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge,"
• that this concept is "a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century,"
• that previous to this "neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities,"
• that this construct "spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility,"
• that this advocates of this construct have "masked" its origins "by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed,"
• that these fabricated narratives amount to "historical revisionism," and that overall the current trends regarding sexual "identities" are "clearly" a "cultural phenomenon."

Contemporaneously, Hamba is also proposing that the Church 

• "has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities," and
• that this has put it (the Church) "at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society," but
• that the Church's position is "far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination ... {and} with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic," and
• that "when our Church leaders encourage us not to identify people as homosexual, they show themselves to be astutely historically aware." 

In sum, I think we on this board need to seriously re-examine this construct of "identity," as it is clearly getting in the way of a lot of folks.

As noted above, we are ""at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society."  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure how to write this in a way that won't offend you, because, well everything I write seems to offend you.  But I don't really care what your or Hamba's, or the Church's or anyone else that has a theorie on why gay people really aren't gay, it is just all made up.  This is like me writing paragraph after paragraph, post after post, about how you really don't love your wife and that the only reason you got married is because some social construct made you think you should get married. 

You can write as long of post that you want telling me and all those other gay couples that have found someone to be in their life that they love, cherish and want to spend their whole lives with why you think they should not be together. I love my partner.  He is every bit a part of EVERYTHING that I hold dear to in this life.  He is kind, loves everyone and is loved by my family and everyone that I know.  We have a relationship that is far deeper and more meaningful than I ever thought possible.  We have been together for 13 years, and it still seems like a honeymoon.  Time passes quickly and I know I will be with him for the rest of my life.  If being in love with him and sharing this world experience with him means that we are both going to whatever doom you think God will send us to, then I am perfectly fine and at peace with that.  NOTHING you could write or anyone else for that matter will shake my love and devotion to him.  NOTHING.

I wrestled with God for many years.  I believed in what Church leaders told me I should do.  Then I found out it was all made up.  Just their own prejudicial beliefs that they though should be imposed upon me.  I believe completely that God has lead me on this path.  I can't describe the feeling of peace I have with God.  I may not be where SMAC or Hamba thinks I should be, but I fully believe that I am on the path where God wants me to be.  And in the end, the only opinion that matters is God's.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Nofear said:

I think this message is good, "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

I'm curious about this statement in light of the baptism requirements.

D&C 20:37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve
Make sufficient changes in their lives to qualify as commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
Develop faith in Christ.
Repent of transgressions.
Live the principles of moral worthiness.
Live the Word of Wisdom.
Commit to pay tithing.
Receive all the missionary lessons.
Meet the bishop.
Attend several sacrament meetings.

I don't see how we can say there's room for all of God's children in the Church and have it include those who openly choose not to meet these requirements.
We're all sinners and all working on repentance.   Not judging who is a sinner.  But a willingness to work on repentance remains a requirement doesn't it?

Is there room for everyone if they aren't willing to meet the requirements?

[Vanguard]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm curious about this statement in light of the baptism requirements.

D&C 20:37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve
Make sufficient changes in their lives to qualify as commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
Develop faith in Christ.
Repent of transgressions.
Live the principles of moral worthiness.
Live the Word of Wisdom.
Commit to pay tithing.
Receive all the missionary lessons.
Meet the bishop.
Attend several sacrament meetings.

I don't see how we can say there's room for all of God's children in the Church and have it include those who openly choose not to meet these requirements.
We're all sinners and all working on repentance.   Not judging who is a sinner.  But a willingness to work on repentance remains a requirement doesn't it?

Is there room for everyone if they aren't willing to meet the requirements?

I guess to some extent the Church has room for all though full-fellowship requires certain standards be met. For many in the LGBT community, I would imagine the limitations to full-fellowship are not tolerable/acceptable and therefore they do not desire even minimal participation. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am not sure how to write this in a way that won't offend you, because, well everything I write seems to offend you.  

Again: "The Church speaks for itself because there is no small number of people out there who are really focused on crafting an ugly and denigrating narrative about the Church.  And a big part of that effort involves critics presuming to speak on behalf of the Church, to intercede and explain to third parties what the Church teaches, believes, practices, etc."

There are essentially two things you could do:

First, stop presuming to speak for the Church.  You can state what your position is, and refrain from trying to tell us what the Church's position is.  The Church (and those of us who defend it) will reciprocate those efforts.

Second, stop mischaracterizing us.  Again from Hamba: "I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive."

1 hour ago, california boy said:

But I don't really care what your or Hamba's, or the Church's or anyone else that has a theorie on why gay people really aren't gay, it is just all made up.  

That's not what Hamba (and the references he has provided) is saying.  He is saying that "gay" is a novel social construct.  A fabricated "identity" with essentially no historical precedent prior to the last 150 years, and even then only having traction in some western societies.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You can write as long of post that you want telling me and all those other gay couples that have found someone to be in their life that they love, cherish and want to spend their whole lives with why you think they should not be together.

I have nowhere said anything like gay couples "should not be together."

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I love my partner.  He is every bit a part of EVERYTHING that I hold dear to in this life.  He is kind, loves everyone and is loved by my family and everyone that I know.  We have a relationship that is far deeper and more meaningful than I ever thought possible.  We have been together for 13 years, and it still seems like a honeymoon.  Time passes quickly and I know I will be with him for the rest of my life.  If being in love with him and sharing this world experience with him means that we are both going to whatever doom you think God will send us to, then I am perfectly fine and at peace with that.  

Again, you are presuming to impute statements onto me that I have not made.  I have said nothing about you being "doomed."

1 hour ago, california boy said:

NOTHING you could write or anyone else for that matter will shake my love and devotion to him.  NOTHING.

I have said nothing attempting to "shake {your} love and devotion."

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I wrestled with God for many years.  I believed in what Church leaders told me I should do.  Then I found out it was all made up.  

Though I respect that conclusion, I disagree with it.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Just their own prejudicial beliefs that they though should be imposed upon me.  I believe completely that God has lead me on this path.  I can't describe the feeling of peace I have with God.  I may not be where SMAC or Hamba thinks I should be, but I fully believe that I am on the path where God wants me to be.  

I have said nothing about where you "should be" or "where God wants {you} to be."

Boy, you just can't help presuming to speak for others. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And in the end, the only opinion that matters is God's.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

I think this message is good, "While the Church is firmly committed to marriage between only one man and one woman, and that gender is eternal, there is still room for all of God's children in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even members of the LGBT community."

I'm curious about this statement in light of the baptism requirements.

D&C 20:37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve
Make sufficient changes in their lives to qualify as commanded in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
Develop faith in Christ.
Repent of transgressions.
Live the principles of moral worthiness.
Live the Word of Wisdom.
Commit to pay tithing.
Receive all the missionary lessons.
Meet the bishop.
Attend several sacrament meetings.

I don't see how we can say there's room for all of God's children in the Church and have it include those who openly choose not to meet these requirements.

I think we can say it.  Joining the Church is not compulsory.  Essentially anyone who wants to can join.  They know what the requirements are.  Whether they choose to meet those requirements or not is up to them, but it is incorrect to say that they have no choice,.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

We're all sinners and all working on repentance.   Not judging who is a sinner.  But a willingness to work on repentance remains a requirement doesn't it?

Is there room for everyone if they aren't willing to meet the requirements?

Yes, there is room for everyone.  The "if" opens up an endless array of alternatives to not joining the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac