Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Paul Reeve’s work in this area is exemplary. The one nagging issue he doesn’t touch - and I doubt he could today - is what a member living during the ban should have done if they had the same beliefs Reeves is able to espouse today. 

That is a really important question.  To go a little deeper, one might ask would/should that answer be different based on the color of one's skin and how the ban directly affects a person?  Some early black Mormon converts picked up their entire lives and followed the Saints to Utah, only to have their hopes dashed with the ban and legalization of slavery in Utah (on the same day).  One black man (I wish I could remember his name) was a fairly prominent abolitionist activist who could have been a great leader in our church, but left the church broken hearted after the ban.   Should he have made a different choice?  Other black members chose to stay - famously, Elijah Abel, who once enjoyed all the same rights and privileges that the priesthood offers, experienced a devastating contraction of those rights and privileges due to the ban and despite being endowed with the priesthood was denied entrance to the temple.   Despite all of this, he chose to stay.  Should he have made a different choice?  I don't think there is a one universal "should" for every individual.  We shouldn't judge either of them for their choices, but I think it is right to mourn both of their cases. 

It is much easier to stay silent when the issue doesn't affect you or a person you love directly.  That is why I ask, should our answer be different based on the color of our skin, or in the scenario today - the orientation of our sexuality?  It is a spiritual and ethical dilemma that I wrestle with honestly.  I am not gay; I don't know anyone super close to me who is gay.  That makes it easier for me to stay, to stay silent at church, etc.  But I have asked myself, what if I come to find out that my son or daughter is gay?  Would that change things for me?  Should it change things?  That would exponentially make things more difficult for me.  I don't know if I would/could in good conscience raise my child in this church if I could know in advance that they are gay, honestly.  Knowing that, I question my integrity if I choose to stay simply because they are not gay. Why should it make a difference?  I don't judge others for doing or thinking differently, but that is my personal dilemma. 

I think that the decision to speak up about concerns is a deeply personal one, and if pursued needs to be done with care and compassion for those who may believe or see things differently.  I don't think we can or should judge others for staying silent of speaking up, but I hate to think of what the condition of our church might be today if others chose not to speak up about their concerns, including Lester Bush who leveraged his doubt despite the push back from church leaders and made a difference.  I am thinking of the coincidental(?) timing of women being allowed to pray in conference after the voices of concern from women within the church.   I think of the reversal of certain policies.  I think of how there were first voices of concern before the church became involved politically with LGBTQ issues.  I am so grateful for the bravery of those who chose to speak their truth no matter what.  Some may try to brush all of this change and evolution in the church off as coincidental timing, but I think not.  Things can't change if the full extent of the weight of the problem is not first realized by leadership.  They can't know to change without us speaking our truth.

Again, I don't believe there is one right "should" for everybody and I am struggling to find my "should" right now.   

14 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I believe that is the fundamental tension we face and which will only grow.

So true.

14 hours ago, Buckeye said:

For me personally, I do not think it right to speak publicly against church doctrine even though I think it wrong and harmful. I do share my views with family members at appropriate times. I do provide my view within church settings if directly asked (which is very rare). And I do speak privately with local leaders about my inability to put in force a church doctrine I think wrong (eg, I won’t sit on a membership council for SS activity). 

Good on you, brother.  

I agree that we should not necessarily speak out actively or angrily against church doctrine in church, but I personally don't see anything wrong with making known our personal struggles/concerns with doctrines/policies and how they might be directly and personally/spiritually affecting us/others.   I think it is ok to be open and honestly express the moral/spiritual dilemma and anxiety we feel over these issues.  I think it is ok to talk about our spiritual struggles within the "safety" and spiritual hospital of the church.  It should be a respite for the troubled soul.  Even if some disagree with what should be done about these issues, we can all be compassionate towards those suffering over them.  What better place to show and experience that healing compassion than at church?

Before anyone accuses me of being excessive and hijacking the current structure and culture of the church, I believe in balance, and I think the diversity of perspective within the church can help balance out the tone and how often these things are talked about.  It shouldn't be one extreme or the other, but I personally feel like we need to start opening the door to other possibilities and voices/perspectives in the church - because we (all of us - like it or not) are the church.

Edited January 5, 2024 by pogi

[Teancum]

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about.

Must be Utah culture yet again.

I think you absolutely know what I am talking about.  For example, no temple marriage, no exaltation, not being with a spouse, children and so on.  Don't do what the church says, no temple recommend.  If you are gay and practice it you can be excommunicated. 

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

My religion says to ask God to verify within myself, what is right or not, and that even if I choose to NOT accept its doctrines, that I will have all of eternity, at even the very worst, in a place of learning that is so much better than earth life that people would commit suicide just to get there.

Yes your religion teaches that though I am not sure if the suicide to get there reference is attributable to any authoritative source.  So yea disobey and get he scraps from the table.  But even dogs like table scraps right?😏

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

It's called the Telestial Kingdom, a Kingdom of glory.

A word Joseph Smith made up.

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

The custom of other Faiths is to stay together only until death AT BEST, so typically no one else even conceives that something else is a possibility.

Not really.  Most Christians think they will be with loved ones that are believers and qualify for heaven.  They may think the relationships are not like marriages but they do believe they will be together.

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

 

 

And that is even if they all make it to "heaven", which is only possible if they know spiritually that a man named "Jesus" is the Son of God.

And the only difference is Mormonism provides for other rewards that are less than best.  You can't progress in Mormonism unless you accept Jesus and enter onto a covenant relationship with Him.

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

Nope.

Alma 32 says that the truth should be "sweet" to me.

One can use Alam 32 for any spiritual religious teaching they hope is really factually true.

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

I don't find the idea that I will burn forever in hell for simply not knowing the Doctrine of an individual who lived 2000 years ago half way across the world, "sweet".

Neither do I. And many might not like the version of the afterlife that you believe in.  Some reject it outright as heresy that will send you to burn in hell.  THey don't just feel good about it.  THey just don't think it is sweet to the taste. They believe it. Literally.  What to do with that? 🙄

 

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

I can't imagine, after years IN the church and the studying you have done, and what you have felt, you could say what you did.

Why?

On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 AM, mfbukowski said:

That's not even close to anything I have ever heard or seen.  Where do you get this stuff?

Form the doctrine of Mormonism.  Where do you get your mystical metaphysical we really don't know any truth so believe what works for you and all is well. Not from Mormonism.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Teancum

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

PLUS:

 " To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations.

     Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

This is a nice quote.  How it helps you with your testimony of Mormonism I am not sure.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

This reminds me of a show I'm watching on Netflix that I am really enjoying and would recommend, "The Last Kingdom." The show is historical fiction, something like "The Work and the Glory." Its title alludes to the seven Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the island of Great Britain in the late 9th century and how six of the seven kingdoms fell to the Danish invaders (i.e. the vikings), and how King Alfred the Great, king of the Wessex, tried to not only defend Wessex from the vikings but to also win back the other six kingdoms and unite them into a single Christian kingdom he wanted to call "England."

It's fascinating how extremely religious the Anglo-Saxon political leaders are, and how superlatively confident they are in their belief about the will of God (e.g. "God would never bless our army with victory if we allow a pagan to fight for Wessex!")

I enjoyed this show very much so.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This is a nice quote.  How it helps you with your testimony of Mormonism I am not sure.

Apparently our discussions over the years have proven worthless.

Your fundamentalist and positivist  literal beliefs in your version of "science" is as strong for you as my paradigm is for me.

Best wishes for you and yours,and the joy you feel for finding the perfect, unprovable beliefs you have created, just as I have.

It seems you liked the idea that-

"Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not" 

- but you still find your systematic descriptions somehow to still be "out there" and provable by "evidence" somehow found only in your beliefs, but apparently don't see the circulartity of the argument.

You beliefs appear to me to be just like mine- only provable by what "seems right", but " unprovable" using logic which does not beg the question.

But we have been there "100 times," probably not far from being literally the case.

All my best, yet again. ☺️

 

[Buckeye]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Good on you, brother.  

I agree that we should not necessarily speak out actively or angrily against church doctrine in church, but I personally don't see anything wrong with making known our personal struggles/concerns with doctrines/policies and how they might be directly and personally/spiritually affecting us/others.   I think it is ok to be open and honestly express the moral/spiritual dilemma and anxiety we feel over these issues.  I think it is ok to talk about our spiritual struggles within the "safety" and spiritual hospital of the church.  It should be a respite for the troubled soul.  Even if some disagree with what should be done about these issues, we can all be compassionate towards those suffering over them.  What better place to show and experience that healing compassion than at church?

Before anyone accuses me of being excessive and hijacking the current structure and culture of the church, I believe in balance, and I think the diversity of perspective within the church can help balance out the tone and how often these things are talked about.  It shouldn't be one extreme or the other, but I personally feel like we need to start opening the door to other possibilities and voices/perspectives in the church - because we (all of us - like it or not) are the church.

Anger and contention drive people away. The scriptures are clear on that point and my own experience has shown it true. No lasting good comes from bashing church doctrine or leaders. Even if someone doesn’t think it wrong, it’s still ineffectual. 

What does foster change and invite the spirit is sharing personal testimony that undercuts the factual claims made in support of an erroneous doctrine. For example, if someone in Sunday school claims that families with gay parents are inherently inferior to traditional families, I may respectfully comment that “ I have a sister sealed to her husband and adopted children. That family is just as eternal and blessed as mine even though my sister has never given birth.  I also have a cousin civilly married to her wife with whom they share two adopted daughters. That couple is just as complementary and fulfills the divine roles taught in the POtF, even though there are no men in the home. I know the Lord smiles on them and I feel the spirit when I’m with them.” 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Apparently our discussions over the years have proven worthless.

No they haven't.  I consider a lot of what you say, best as I understand it, and I ponder it as well.  I might be closer to your ideal than you think.  It is just the truth that something speaks to me (a god, some higher power, my higher inner being???) is very different than yours.  Mine currently excludes much of Mormonism, much of Christianity and much of theism and the dogma of most religions.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Your fundamentalist and positivist  literal beliefs in your version of "science" is as strong for you as my paradigm is for me.

Well that should be fine with you if I understand you correctly.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Best wishes for you and yours,and the joy you feel for finding the perfect, unprovable beliefs you have created, just as I have.

I have never claimed to be be able to prove my prior beliefs in the doctrine of Mormonism nor my current beliefs. 

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It seems you liked the idea that-

"Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not" 

- but you still find your systematic descriptions somehow to still be "out there" and provable by "evidence" somehow found only in your beliefs, but apparently don't see the circulartity of the argument.

You beliefs appear to me to be just like mine- only provable by what "seems right", but " unprovable" using logic which does not beg the question.

But we have been there "100 times," probably not far from being literally the case.

All my best, yet again. ☺️

 

More on the above tomorrow.  I have to run now.

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Nope, you are being realistic about many peoples’ realities.  And science backs you on the fact that bisexuality (or pansexuality) is more common than most people assume and that sexuality is fluid generally speaking.

I have to be careful not to carry this too far. It is easy to project my own worldview onto others. It is almost a cliche for bisexual people to speculate that “everyone is at least a little bisexual” which can be demeaning to monosexual people. The same thing happens the other way. Monosexual people can’t imagine being attracted to multiple genders so they try to fit us into a worldview they understand. Sometimes they assume we are in a period of confusion before we “pick a lane” or that it is a switch that goes back and forth, or that we are just desperate and will take anyone or “anything that moves”. That last sentiment was so prevalent decades ago that one of the first bisexual focused magazines ironically called themselves “Anything that Moves”.

I am sympathetic to the problem. I don’t understand straight and gay people. The gender line seems like such an arbitrary distinction to me. I don’t get why it is such a big deal. I believe it is to most of humanity but it is still baffling to me as to why. Then I realize how odd I must seem. So at least in that sense at least there is symmetry.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

. I believe it is to most of humanity

I wonder how much that is culture though. Have you looked at the science much?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how much that is culture though. Have you looked at the science much?

Of course I would wonder how there could be a difference, and here I am, bringing it up.

Culture IS central to every thought we have.

[Meadowchik]

On 1/2/2024 at 11:04 PM, filovirus said:

Honestly, this is a much-needed advance for the CoJCoLDS. I am guessing that many members don't know where to go when a loved one comes to them with serious questions about the church. And before this, there wasn't a lot of guidance. The fact that it will be easy to find, and addresses several concerns that have popped up with the advent of the internet, will make this invaluable.

After 10+ years of not addressing the questions, I am seeing the church going from a purely defense mode to actively promoting an offensive strategy. All the podcasts that follow along with the "Come Follow Me" lessons are starting to tackle the hard questions as they come up. Within the last 3 years pro-faith YouTube channels are emerging to fight back. Websites with a little more nuance than FAIR are gaining more and more popularity, such as mormonr.

I like that the church is more open. No more arguments that the Church is trying to hide things. And to top it all off stating that faith in Jesus Christ and His gospel as outlined in scripture comes forefront to all these secondary questions is how it should be.

And yet people can grow up in the church, raise their children in it, and then leave conscientiously and still be good people, even while no longer believing in any messiah. 

 

On 1/3/2024 at 4:39 PM, bluebell said:

No we aren't saying people shouldn't publish books.  I was talking about while in church; they can do whatever they want in their own time and with their own resources. 

But the church is an organization with a specific mission and specific goals and with a lot of resources invested in that mission.  People gather on Sundays or at other times to take part in that specific mission. Like any organization that exists to bring about specific purposes, all who attend meetings should respect those in attendance enough not to hijack them for their own purposes.

If someone is sharing their views and doubts at church because they hope to undermine the doctrines and authority of the church, then they are being subversive and should just own it and accept the antithetical nature of their goals verses the church's.  They either need to be quiet while attending or should move on.

If they aren't trying to undermine anything or to champion their beliefs over the doctrines of the church then I hope they do stay and speak up and we can all reason and be edified together.

 

Wouldn't be great if the church missions were more aligned with coexistence? Not just civility or secularism, but actively and purposefully building community without belief in the church as a divider?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I would wonder how there could be a difference, and here I am, bringing it up.

Culture IS central to every thought we have.

I think there is good evidence that the potential for sexual fluidity is much greater in a culture that is open to the idea or even embraces and encourages it (I am not making a moral judgment, just a conclusion based on recent research done by Lisa Diamond and others as well as social observations) in even just looking at the way teens are now identifying in much greater numbers in non traditional ways. I highly doubt human biology has changed that quickly or there are nasty toxins in the environment turning everyone gay or whatever, so what has most likely changed that has had such a significant impact is culture.  

I am not suggesting everyone at their core is potentially bisexual/pansexual.  I am not even sure how we could establish that as there is still great social benefits to being monosexual in pretty much everywhere, I suspect.  Even with subcultures that might be more supportive of pansexuality, the greater culture that it is embedded in probably isn’t as much and all the members of that culture would therefore be exposed to pressures to avoid pansexual behaviour. 

Even if one believes that last 20 years has been a culture very open to pansexuality (choose your country/city), the majority of people alive today probably grew up in an environment that was either clueless about it or rather negative. Even if more accepting as adults, childhood programming would decrease likelihood of feeling comfortable exploring the possibility of not being monosexual after all.  Now in 40 years, it will be interesting to see if much has changed from the numbers we get today assuming the trend to being more accepting continues and there is not a backlash for some reason, or at least not one big enough to derail the trend towards tolerance of non traditional sexual identities and behaviour. 

Edited January 6, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Wouldn't be great if the church missions were more aligned with coexistence? Not just civility or secularism, but actively and purposefully building community without belief in the church as a divider?

I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain more?  

The church actively does build communities without belief in the church being necessary to benefit from their service and/or friendship.  

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain more?  

The church actively does build communities without belief in the church being necessary to benefit from their service and/or friendship.  

You were referring to regarding someone as a member of the church community based on them not championing their own views or views against the church. And yet the church mission is about doing just that in the broader world. It is an intentional disruptor and subverter of other beliefs and traditions sacred to others.

If only the mission of treating others with respect for their beliefs took priority over conversion. If only loving others as oneself was more important in the broad church mission than portraying itself as the one true church and spiritual authority over all mankind.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You were referring to regarding someone as a member of the church community based on them not championing their own views or views against the church. And yet the church mission is about doing just that in the broader world. It is an intentional disruptor and subverter of other beliefs and traditions sacred to others.

If only the mission of treating others with respect for their beliefs took priority over conversion. If only loving others as oneself was more important in the broad church mission than portraying itself as the one true church and spiritual authority over all mankind.

We'll have to agree to disagree because I do believe that mission includes treating others with respect for their beliefs, and that that does take priority over conversion.  I think that's clear in the church's humanitarian missions.

I lived in a place for a time where the local lds congregation offered the use of it's church buildings to the Jewish population to worship when their building wasn't adequate.  I've known of the same thing happening in other locations for the Muslim community.  Clearly, that contradicts the narrative that the church is an "intentional disruptor and subverter of other beliefs and traditions sacred to others".

And to make sure you understand what I was saying beforehand (because this post makes me think that you haven't), I'm speaking about them not championing their own views or views against the church, while in church.  Just like I don't believe church members should be going to the sacred sites or meetings of other faith traditions and speaking against their doctrines and beliefs in that space.

If it's not ok for a Christian to speak up in a Jewish synagogue during their worship services and voice their views against judaism, for example, then it's equally not ok for someone who does not believe in the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ to speak up in a latter-day saint worship service and voice views in opposition to them either. 

Vocal disagreement is not the problem, it's where it occurs that makes it acceptable or not in my opinion.  

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there is good evidence that the potential for sexual fluidity is much greater in a culture that is open to the idea or even embraces and encourages it (I am not making a moral judgment, just a conclusion based on recent research done by Lisa Diamond and others as well as social observations) in even just looking at the way teens are now identifying in much greater numbers in non traditional ways. I highly doubt human biology has changed that quickly or there are nasty toxins in the environment turning everyone gay or whatever, so what has most likely changed that has had such a significant impact is culture.  

I am not suggesting everyone at their core is potentially bisexual/pansexual.  I am not even sure how we could establish that as there is still great social benefits to being monosexual in pretty much everywhere, I suspect.  Even with subcultures that might be more supportive of pansexuality, the greater culture that it is embedded in probably isn’t as much and all the members of that culture would therefore be exposed to pressures to avoid pansexual behaviour. 

Even if one believes that last 20 years has been a culture very open to pansexuality (choose your country/city), the majority of people alive today probably grew up in an environment that was either clueless about it or rather negative. Even if more accepting as adults, childhood programming would decrease likelihood of feeling comfortable exploring the possibility of not being monosexual after all.  Now in 40 years, it will be interesting to see if much has changed from the numbers we get today assuming the trend to being more accepting continues and there is not a backlash for some reason, or at least not one big enough to derail the trend towards tolerance of non traditional sexual identities and behaviour. 

I think a LOT of the kind of identification Lisa Diamond makes is how being gay, straight or bisexual is defined.  Not everyone has the same definitions.  For example, some believe that if a man has sex with a woman, then they must be straight.  I was married to a woman for over 20 years and have 5 children. Was my orientation during that time straight simply because I was in that relationship? Absolutely not.  I never considered myself straight or even bisexual during that whole time.  I would describe my relationship with my wife as a friendship that was forced into a marriage by pressure from the Church.  Lisa Diamond and many others, including men in the same situation would probably label me as bisexual.  But there was nothing bisexual about me.  I have never been attracted to women.   I really only connected with other men in any meaningful way.  I am clearly 100% gay.  I knew that I was gay at 12 years old long before I had sex with anyone. and hated that I was different.Could I have a relationship with a woman?  Yes.  Would that change my orientation?  Nope.  

What I am saying applies to all sexual orientations.  This notion that who you have sex with defines your orientation in my opinion is not true.  It has much more to do with who you can connect with in a number of ways, not just who you have sex with.  There is an old saying, "Just because you are in the garage, doesn't make you a car."

I know you find Lisa Diamond's research to be very compelling, but there is a lot of assumptions she makes so that she can even propose her idea of sexual fluidity.  In her study from the very beginning HER definition of sexuality is this.

Quote

Sexual fluidity is defined as a capacity for situation- dependent flexibility in sexual responsiveness, which allows individuals to experience changes in same-sex or other-sex desire, over both short-term and long-term time periods. 

Is that definition really a definition that everyone agrees with?  Absolutely not.  And from a personal experience, does not match how I view my own sexuality.  Though according to HER definition, I am fluid.  The only thing  that would possible be true is that while I have no real desire to have sex with a woman, I am clearly able to.  I think THIS is how most people would identify their orientation.   I'm not going to derail this thread by going into depth on her study, but I wish you would not continually take her research as being the gospel truth about human sexuality.  It is just the validation of one definition that she supports.  I would agree that her study supports that definition.  I strongly disagree that her definition of sexuality is accurate.

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It seems you liked the idea that-

"Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not" 

Yes I like this idea.  However, I do believe there are truths about the natural world that are out there, whether we know about them, understand them correctly, etc. that are factually true regardless of whether we understand them, or not.  Anything apart from the natural world-institutions, language, nations, cities, corporations, religions, laws, they would all fall into the category of the sentence above.

 

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

- but you still find your systematic descriptions somehow to still be "out there" and provable by "evidence" somehow found only in your beliefs, but apparently don't see the circulartity of the argument.

No that is not correct.  My personal beliefs about anything beyond the natural world and not provable

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You beliefs appear to me to be just like mine- only provable by what "seems right", but " unprovable" using logic which does not beg the question.

But we have been there "100 times," probably not far from being literally the case.

All my best, yet again. ☺️

I agree that how we are coming to our beliefs are similar.  But I view mine as not literal and unkowable.  I am not sure that is how you view yours.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes I like this idea.  However, I do believe there are truths about the natural world that are out there, whether we know about them, understand them correctly, etc. that are factually true regardless of whether we understand them, or not.  Anything apart from the natural world-institutions, language, nations, cities, corporations, religions, laws, they would all fall into the category of the sentence above.

 

No that is not correct.  My personal beliefs about anything beyond the natural world and not provable

I agree that how we are coming to our beliefs are similar.  But I view mine is not literal and unkowableTruth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. .  I am not sure that is how you view yours.

Is that supposed to be "is" or "as"?

For the want of a nail....

Please just explain that idea a little ...

Edited January 6, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

On 1/4/2024 at 1:44 PM, smac97 said:

First, I don't think you can speak for all "LGBT people." 

Second, they do have answers.  The issue, really, is whether they accept the answers provided."

Third, none of us is claiming to have all the answers, but CO2's point is quite astute: All the answers given to non-LGBT folks are the same answers for LGBT folks.  We are all commanded to obey the same laws and commandments.

Fourth, CO2 provides an "answer," and you immediately assert that "LGBT people have no answers."  What are we supposed to do with that?

See @mfbukowskithis is an example (as is all of what @smac97posts here, of how myths and stories, none of which we can objectively prove, when taken literal, are and can be harmful to many. Essential Smac's point is suck it up LBGT people.  The rules are the rules.  Live by them or suffer the consequences of not living by them.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is that supposed to be "is" or "as"?

For the want of a nail....

Please just explain that idea a little ...

Yes sorry. "as' not is....

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

Though according to HER definition, I am fluid.  

Did your sexual desire change?  If not, you are not fluid by her definition, correct?

Quote

which allows individuals to experience changes in same-sex or other-sex desire

——

Personally I think the world would be a lot better off if everyone cared less about labels and focused more on actual behaviour instead, since definitions of internal states are often not agreed upon or people bring different assumptions to what is seen.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 1/3/2024 at 4:28 AM, MrShorty said:

So, like children, dissenters should be "seen and not heard?"

Exactly!  

Not really... In my opinion, dissenters should not be using public meetings to interject their serious doubts, doctrinal quibbles, and raising their hands in opposition. But if one must be a Karen, and demand to see the manager, do so privately. It's not that hard to contribute to gospel discussions without bringing one's outrageous opinions into it. And one would know which ones are outrageous, so...

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

See @mfbukowskithis is an example (as is all of what @smac97posts here, of how myths and stories, none of which we can objectively prove, when taken literal, are and can be harmful to many. Essential Smac's point is suck it up LBGT people.  The rules are the rules.  Live by them or suffer the consequences of not living by them.

I accept no "rules" unless I understand them, think they are a good idea, and have essentially accepted/reconstructed them as I see them.

Again: personal testimony or fergitaboutit

I don't know or care how others see them.  I did well on that pre-law SAT-thingy test, but decided against going that way

Edited January 6, 2024 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Did your sexual desire change?  If not, you are not fluid by her definition, correct?

No, my sexual desire never changed one bit.  Sex was more a duty rather than some romantic connection.  And initially I was trying desperately to have happen what Church leaders had promised me.  I remember that first year of marriage especially, thinking that maybe I wasn't trying enough and if I just had more sex, maybe what they promised would happen.  When I suggested to my then wife, she didn't think it was possible to have more sex then we already were having.  By then, we had a child and I felt like I owed it to my child to stay in the marriage.  Maybe that was a bad idea.  Maybe I should have just realized that the promise of becoming straight was never going to happen  and ended my marriage then.  But I did like having children and I still held out some hope that some kind of change would happen.  In the end, I decided to stay in the marriage until the last child left home.  Even in hindsight, I still am not sure what the right decision should have been.  No matter what I decided to do, that decision wasn't going to just effect my life.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

——

Personally I think the world would be a lot better off if everyone cared less about labels and focused more on actual behaviour instead, since definitions of internal states are often not agreed upon or people bring different assumptions to what is seen.

Maybe so.  But I also think that Lisa Diamond has no right or authority to define what sexual orientation is either.  And that is kinda my problem of you referencing her as if her definition is agreed upon truth.   You seem to assume that her definition of sexual orientation is universally accepted.  I think people that feel their sexual orientation is fluid self identify as bisexual, which for me, means they are both attracted to romantically as well as emotionally with both sexes. Their partners of both sexes complete them equally.  While a gay person will feel like the romantic and emotional connection is not really working.  If they stay in that relationship, it is because of other reasons like duty, guilt or trying to please someone else.  It is more a forced relationship.  

I don't think most people have any real sense how having that burden lifted feels so freeing and more truthful. That is the message that I get from people who have struggled with this issue.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there is good evidence that the potential for sexual fluidity is much greater in a culture that is open to the idea or even embraces and encourages it (I am not making a moral judgment, just a conclusion based on recent research done by Lisa Diamond and others as well as social observations) in even just looking at the way teens are now identifying in much greater numbers in non traditional ways. I highly doubt human biology has changed that quickly or there are nasty toxins in the environment turning everyone gay or whatever, so what has most likely changed that has had such a significant impact is culture.  

I am not suggesting everyone at their core is potentially bisexual/pansexual.  I am not even sure how we could establish that as there is still great social benefits to being monosexual in pretty much everywhere, I suspect.  Even with subcultures that might be more supportive of pansexuality, the greater culture that it is embedded in probably isn’t as much and all the members of that culture would therefore be exposed to pressures to avoid pansexual behaviour. 

Even if one believes that last 20 years has been a culture very open to pansexuality (choose your country/city), the majority of people alive today probably grew up in an environment that was either clueless about it or rather negative. Even if more accepting as adults, childhood programming would decrease likelihood of feeling comfortable exploring the possibility of not being monosexual after all.  Now in 40 years, it will be interesting to see if much has changed from the numbers we get today assuming the trend to being more accepting continues and there is not a backlash for some reason, or at least not one big enough to derail the trend towards tolerance of non traditional sexual identities and behaviour. 

There is something to this. In recent years in cultures where it is acceptable we have a lot of people in heterosexual marriages finally feeling they can say they are bisexual (or pansexual or one of the other terms included in bisexuality). Particularly if you lean more towards heterosexual relationships it was much easier to get into a heterosexual relationship for all kinds of reasons. This does mess with you. Being closeted isn’t pleasant even if from an external viewpoint it would appear meaningless. It isn’t helped by people who assume that a bisexual person in a relationship chose a gender and is now straight or gay. Then there are people who say you can’t know if you are bisexual until you have sex with both genders. Then you point out that means all people are asexual until they prove otherwise and that is silly. So you end up with the only people treated seriously as bisexual are either poly and thus labeled as greedy deviants or are single and it is assumed they will pick a lane eventually.