Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

According to Smac’s argument, because queer identity didn’t become a thing until 150 years ago, the church is on good footing in its policies and doctrines in regards to queer relationships.

The Church is not obligated to acquiesce to the concept of "sexual identity," and that this novelty is not the governing principle relative to the doctrines of the Church.  Per Hamba, this concept "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," and has moved "from merely ascendant to genuinely hegemonic."  Meanwhile, "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."  This posture puts the Church "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."

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Something similar could be said about the LDS church.

I don't think so.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It has only existed for less than 200 years, so historically it’s only 5 minutes old.

The doctrines of Christ have been around for a long time.  Moreover, the Church claims to have restored priesthood authority and revelation.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Perhaps all of those people that identify as members of the church are mistaken and that’s not a valid religious identity. 

I see substantial differences in "religious identity" and "sexual identity."

I encourage a review of what Hamba has posted on this subject.

For example: "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."  In contrast, disciples of Christ have been around for a very long time.

The labels and concepts of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" deserve some evaluation.  See, e.g., this BBC article:

Quote

Something remarkably similar happened with heterosexuals, who, at the end of the 19th Century, went from merely being there to being known. “Prior to 1868, there were no heterosexuals,” writes Blank. Neither were there homosexuals. It hadn’t yet occurred to humans that they might be “differentiated from one another by the kinds of love or sexual desire they experienced.” Sexual behaviours, of course, were identified and catalogued, and often times, forbidden. But the emphasis was always on the act, not the agent.

So what changed? Language.
...
Ideas and words are often products of their time. That is certainly true of heterosexuality, which was borne out of a time when American life was becoming more regularised. As Blank argues, the invention of heterosexuality corresponds with the rise of the middle class.

The article's explanation of how this came to be is too long to quote here, but is definitely worth a read.

Quote

And those categories have lingered to this day. “No one knows exactly why heterosexuals and homosexuals ought to be different,” wrote Wendell Ricketts, author of the 1984 study Biological Research on Homosexuality. The best answer we’ve got is something of a tautology: “heterosexuals and homosexuals are considered different because they can be divided into two groups on the basis of the belief that they can be divided into two groups.”

Though the hetero/homo divide seems like an eternal, indestructible fact of nature, it simply isn’t. It’s merely one recent grammar humans have invented to talk about what sex means to us.

"Though the hetero/homo divide seems like an eternal, indestructible fact of nature, it simply isn’t.  It’s merely one recent grammar humans have invented to talk about what sex means to us."

A linguistic novelty is a strange basis for an "identity."  In contrast, the "religious identity" of the Latter-day Saint is tied up in beliefs, behaviors, community, commitments, and so on.  

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.

If "{h}eterosexuality" is "a construction" that "pretends it isn't," then the same can be said for homosexuality.

If these concepts "didn't exist in the past," then they "{don't} need to exist in the future."

Quote

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.” It’s my opinion that sexual desires, like all our desires, shift and re-orient throughout our lives, and that as they do, they often suggest to us new identities. If this is true, then Ward’s suggestion that we can cultivate sexual preferences seems fitting. (For more of the scientific evidence behind this argument, read BBC Future’s ‘I am gay – but I wasn’t born this way’.)

That is an interesting question.  Can people "cultivate their own sexual desires, in the same way we might cultivate a taste for food"?  Would it make sense to create and base an "identity" centering on cultivated food tastes?  If not, then why do that with cultivated sexual desires?

Ward also has an interesting article on her blog: No One is Born Gay (or Straight): Here are 5 Reasons Why

Her five reasons:

• 1.  Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true.
• 2. The science is wrong (Part 1)
• 3.  The science is wrong (Part II)
• 4.  Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual
• 5.  Secretly, you already know that people's sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context

Back to the BBC article:

Quote

Once upon a time, heterosexuality was necessary because modern humans needed to prove who they were and why they were, and they needed to defend their right to be where they were. As time wears on, though, that label seems to actually limit the myriad ways we humans understand our desires and loves and fears. Perhaps that is one reason a recent UK poll found that fewer than half of those aged 18-24 identify as “100% heterosexual.” That isn’t to suggest a majority of those young respondents regularly practise bisexuality or homosexuality; rather it shows that they don’t seem to have the same need for the word “heterosexual” as their 20th-Century forebears.

An "identity" that it endlessly fluid and fungible is not much of an identity at all, particularly when it is based on behaviors (which, as noted above, can be "cultivate{d}" and "shaped by their social and cultural context").

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Smac, I realize you’re basing your argument on what you consider eternal truth,

My position is informed by considerably more than the doctrines of the Church.  But ultimately, yes.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

but you are arguing against the lived experience of other people.

I'm not sure what this means.

If someone critiques and finds flaws with my "religious identity," can (or ought) I shut them down by telling them that they are "arguing against" my "lived experience"?  I think not.  

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Just like they can’t take away your belief and conviction

There are all sorts of people hoping to persuade Latter-day Saints to abandon their faith, or to shame and ridicule them into doing so.  I have no interest in "shame and ridicule."  I do think there is value in re-evaluating concepts of "sexual identity," and in attempting to use reasoned argument and evidence to ascertain whether such a thing is worthwhile.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

and you would not accept rhetoric that did,

I don't know what this means.  I listen to critics of my faith all the time.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

your position against queer identity is similarly reality-shattering to the queer individuals that hear/read it.

Not really.  Listening to people with viewpoints different from mine has affected, but not "shattered" my "reality" as a Latter-day Saint.  

Pres. J. Reuben Clark once observed: “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”  If applied to something as fundamental as one's "identity," what is the result?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

You absolutely do pedal them. If you down vote this post like you usually do, that proves my point  !!!

CFR where I promote my positions as God's will.  I know you understand the point.  You are simply being obtuse.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Emily said:

I'm starting to think that you don't know how to agree to disagree, because you just keep saying you disagree as if that is making a point. 

So you disagree. I'll continue to believe you are wrong. That's how it works. 😀

Good by me.

[smac97]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

You didn't answer the question.  

And you didn't answer mine, you puppy torturer.  

14 hours ago, california boy said:

You made up your own questions and answered them.  

The proper response to a loaded question:

Quote

Here are some ways to respond to a loaded question:

• Reject the assumption: Disagree with the premise of the question. For example, "I don't agree with the premise that the new policy prevents such surgeries".

I did this.

Quote

• Point out the faulty reasoning: Call out the faulty assumption of the question.

I did this, too.

Quote

• Refuse to answer: Ignore answering loaded or leading questions.

And this.

Quote

• Attack the unfair assumption: A witty rejoinder can be the ideal response.

I did this one also, you puppy torturer.  

14 hours ago, california boy said:

If you want to try answering the question I asked, then please do.  

If you want to try asking a non-loaded question, then please do.

14 hours ago, california boy said:

 The question was a what if question meant to help you understand the way the Church treats LGBT members in a way that I hoped you would relate to. Here is the question again.  Try answering it honestly or ignore it.  I really don't care.

Again, I reject the premise.  The constraints on sexual behavior as set forth in the Law of Chastity are wholly reasoned and reasonable.  They are not, as you want to infer, arbitrary or irrational (that is, comparable to constraints based on the first letter of a last name).

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  Try answering it honestly or ignore it. I really don't care.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I understand.  But again, there are presuppositions, biases, etc. that are labeled as "critical thinking skills."

Sure.  For you and for me.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect that this is the point in the discussion where you will presume to tell me what I think and feel.

And there it is!

"Empathy" is a somewhat nebulous term.  This summary from Wikipedia is pretty good:

An observation is not telling you what you think and feel. I can only observe your words that you write here.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you conflate "empathy" with "agreement."

I think you are wrong.  

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also think you equivocate, using "empathy" as a "broad term" when you really mean it in a more narrowly-tailored one.

I think you are wrong.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also think you try to grant declarations "empathy" as a reward for people who agree with you, and withhold it as a punishment for those who do not.

I think you are wrong.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Merely stating a conclusion ("just don't hold up") doesn't tell us much.  

Back attchya.

You know I only referenced critical thinking skills as it related to ME. TO ME, and my search and analysis of things LDS then for other religions.  You are the one that took your typical offense and twisted it to make it seem like I was inferring that anyone who stays LDS does not have critical thinking skills. You, sir, read that into it and then went into one of your typical lengthy and overly defensive responses.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The claims of the Restored Gospel hold up very well for me.

Good for you. They don't for me.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your comment here reminds me of Davis Bitton's I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church.  Some excerpts:

I have read Bitton's piece. More than once. I disagree with it, I find it a weak, specious and desperate apologetic that attempt to downplay the historical  factual claims for the founding of Mormonism.  The church stands or falls based on the claims made by Joseph Smith and others. But I understand why apologists want to run away from history. All this primary and secondary stuff we here now.  It downplays the issues that are really hard to defend and they are numerous.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Acceptance or rejection of the Restored Gospel is going to turn on a variety of factors. 

I agree.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

So we can dispose of the notion that "critical thinking skills" lead people out of the Church?

No. We can't.  Dude, I did not say such skills ultimately lead EVERYONE out of the church. It led me out and has prohibited me from affiliating with any other religious sect up to this point.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I entirely agree.  People also reject beliefs of all sorts for a variety of reasons.

Yep.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Like it or not, broad stereotypes about an inverse relationship between education and religious observance don't really work well, particularly in a Latter-day Saint context.  See, e.g., here:

"{H}ighly educated Christians are more likely than less-educated Christians to say they are weekly churchgoers."

Huh.

Once again you are making and defending an argument I never made. 

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Restored Gospel does quite well when you "dig" into it. 

I don't.  I find it a fantastical story that is easily picked apart when one examines it thoroughly and I think the slow growth rate, and maybe even negative in some areas since people have easy access to information that they did not in previous generations. Very few people that don't have a vested interest in Mormonism join these days.  You can take that for what you will. Does not matter to me.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think the interplay between this and other factors are what leads people to stay in the Church or leave it.

Agreed.  Nor does smart people disbelieving something make it false.  Not at all.

Great.  We agree on that then.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Next month will be my 20th anniversary on this board.  I have spent all sorts of time taking apart my beliefs.  Examining and re-examining what I believe and why.  Listening to people who disagree, and even dislike, my beliefs, and who are free with sharing their reasoning, sentiments, conclusions, etc.  And I have come away with a stronger faith, with more and better convictions regarding the reality and truth of the Restored Gospel.

If that is what you want I am happy for you.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ironically, in the very process of listening to voices that contravene my beliefs, I am told that I do not listen, that I do not have empathy, etc.  In some quarters, to "listen" apparently means to agree.  To "empathize" means to subordinate my views for someone else's.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No I do not think that and I still think you lack empathy in many areas that are discussed on this board. I see you pay lip service of understanding to some topics that people struggle with at times, right before you vigorously pick apart the issue you claim to understand.  Simply my observations. I could be wrong.

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I fully believe that, I recognized my wife the moment I met her in this life.

While I'll leave open the possibility that there may be exceptions, in general I agree with Pres. Kimball.

"‘Soul mates’ are fiction and an illusion; … it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage." —President Spencer W. Kimball (source)

The universality of soul mates continues to be one of those heresies popularized by the misguided book and musical Saturday's Warriors and other media.

[MustardSeed]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you conflate "empathy" with "agreement."

It almost looks like you are claiming to have empathy for LGBT issues at hand.  Can you share more about that? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church is not obligated to acquiesce to the concept of "sexual identity,"

This is why it’s offensive when you and others in the church use the words same sex attraction vs when scientific literature or say the Australian article you listed do it. 

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, Nofear said:

While I'll leave open the possibility that there may be exceptions, in general I agree with Pres. Kimball.

"‘Soul mates’ are fiction and an illusion; … it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage." —President Spencer W. Kimball (source)

The universality of soul mates continues to be one of those heresies popularized by the misguided book and musical Saturday's Warriors and other media.

Quote on my wall at work: 

Soulmates are made, not found. 
 

That said, I don’t begrudge anyone else believing that fate gets credit. 
 

**That said, there is no doctrine that supports the concept of soulmates. Only movies and anecdotes. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Should I start referring to my neighbors as people who suffer from Latter-day Saint tendencies?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

You know I only referenced critical thinking skills as it related to ME. TO ME, and my search and analysis of things LDS then for other religions. 

You: "In my experience, and in my interactions with members who have left, when they apply the same critical thinking skills that led them out of Mormonism to other religions or sects, those fall apart as well."

You: "I did not say that those who stay don't have critical thinking skills, now did I?  But once one uses them and deconstructs Mormonism, they tend to use the same skills when approaching other religions. And they also may be cautious because they have already been burned by one religious organization."

You: "Like it or not, often those who are high end critical thinkers have a tough time using the same skills when digging into supernatural beliefs that they think are real."

Also you: "You know I only referenced critical thinking skills as it related to ME."

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I have read Bitton's piece. More than once. I disagree with it, I find it a weak, specious and desperate apologetic that attempt to downplay the historical  factual claims for the founding of Mormonism. 

Wow.  I see nothing like that in Bitton's article.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

During that euphoric time, Leonard and I attended autograph parties, we were interviewed, and we gave quite a few talks. In one interview we were asked to describe the relationship between faith and history. Here is Leonard Arrington’s answer:

I have never felt any conflict between maintaining my faith and writing historical truth. If one sticks to historical truth, that shouldn’t damage his faith in any way. The Lord doesn’t require us to believe anything that’s untrue. My long interest in Mormon history (I’ve been working in it for 33 years) has only served to build my testimony of the gospel and I find the same thing happening to other Latter-day Saint historians as well.³

My own answer went like this:

What’s potentially damaging or challenging to faith depends entirely, I think, on one’s expectations, and not necessarily history. Any kind of experience can be shattering to faith if the expectation is such that one is not prepared for the experience. … A person can be converted to the Church in a distant part of the globe and have great pictures of Salt Lake City, the temple looming large in the center of the city. Here we have our home teaching in nice little blocks and we all go to church on Sunday, they believe. It won’t take very many hours or days before the reality of experiencing Salt Lake City can be devastating to a person with those expectations. The problem is not the religion; the problem is the incongruity between the expectation and the reality.

[Page 289]History is similar. One moves into the land of history, so to speak, and finds shattering incongruities which can be devastating to faith. But the problem is with the expectation, not with the history. One of the jobs of the historians and of educators in the Church, who teach people growing up in the Church and people coming into the Church, is to try to see to it that expectations are realistic. The Lord does not expect us to believe lies. We believe in being honest and true, as well as chaste and benevolent. My experience, like that of Leonard, has not been one of having my faith destroyed. I think my faith has changed and deepened and become richer and more consistent with the complexities of human experience.

We are examples of people who know a fair amount about Latter-day Saint history and still have strong testimonies of the gospel.⁴

We must have realistic expectations. That is true at many points in life — in choosing a profession, in entering a marriage, in joining an athletic team, in moving to a new location.

He is speaking here not of "history," but of our expectations when we examine history.  This jibes with my previous comment: "I think there are presuppositions, biases, etc. that are labeled as 'critical thinking skills.'"

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

The church stands or falls based on the claims made by Joseph Smith and others.

And an individual's acceptance or rejection of those claims often stands or falls on the "expectations" (Bitton) or "presuppositions" (Smac) that one brings to an evaluation of those claims.

Your comment here seems to validate Bitton's observation here: 

Quote

The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their conscientious study of Church history and — shock and dismay! — they came across this, whatever this is, that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they can no longer believe in the Church and, out of love for you, they now want to help you see the light of day.

This fits you to a tee.

I think the reality is more complex, hence the value of Bitton's essay and its invitation to re-examine our individual expectations.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

But I understand why apologists want to run away from history.

Right.  That's why I quoted Bitton, a historian, to support my position, and why you are rejecting Bitton out-of-hand.

Bitton has it right:

Quote

A number of years ago, I was asked to speak to a combined priesthood group in the Federal Heights Ward. At the conclusion of my remarks, someone asked the following question: “What effect has your extensive study of Church history had on your testimony?” I wasn’t really prepared for the [Page 291]question. The first words out of my mouth were: “I never had a testimony of Church history. My testimony is in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Let me anticipate a question that is bound to occur to some. Are there not some historical events that are essential to the Restoration? How, in other words, can I be indifferent to the following claims?

• Joseph Smith had a vision in the Sacred Grove.
• Metal plates were found, kept in his possession for a period of time, shown to witnesses, and translated.
• Heavenly beings restored keys and priesthood authority.
• Many spiritual manifestations occurred at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.

The list could be lengthened, but let us stop with those. These are “historical” events, if you will; events that occurred in historical time. But not a single one of them is subject to proof or disproof by historians. If I have a testimony of these events, it is not because of my advanced historical training or many years of delving in the primary documents of Church history.

My friend and colleague at the University of Utah who taught Utah history for many years was David E. Miller. He taught a course in Utah history that was popular among all kinds of students. After summarizing the First Vision, he said, “Now you can’t prove things like this by historical evidence. You also can’t disprove them.” Bearing no testimony but also using no ridicule, Professor Miller quoted what Joseph Smith said and then moved on to follow the history of the people who accepted the Prophet’s leadership.

Short of being present during these transcendent manifestations — and, let us say, recording them with a camcorder — all we can do is quote what people said about them. If any of us have a testimony of their historicity, it is not because of the kind of evidence that would stand up in a courtroom. It is because we believe other witnesses. It is because we have our own spiritual confirmation. I am not required to let historians determine for me what I will believe.

When I say I don’t have a testimony of Church history, I mean that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not subject to scrutiny by the feeble tools of the historian. The creation, the fall, the redemption, the “merciful plan of the great Creator” — all these are simply not subject to proof or disproof by looking over old documents.

I like the candor with which Bitton presents his expectations.  

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

All this primary and secondary stuff we here now.  It downplays the issues that are really hard to defend and they are numerous.

Some of "the issues" are "hard to defend" because they are not defensible.  In surveying the lives of past Latter-day Saints (particularly the leaders), I don't have an expectation of perfection and infallibility.  So flaws and mistakes known to us, even serious ones, are not dealbreakers for me.

In terms of the doctrines of the Church, the only one that is a real outlier for me is polygamy.  It's a toughie, to be sure, but rejection of it based on emotion, based on it being uncomfortable, would be problematic for me.  There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

Having qualms about polygamy is understandable from a sociological/cultural perspective is understandable.  My parents returned from a mission in Zimbabwe and reported that the Church's historical polygamy, long a part of their culture, creates little unease amongst those folks.  The discomfort is, in the end, personal and subject and cultural.  That's not, I think, a flaw in the doctrine.  Rejecting the doctrine outright, however, is rather hard to reconcile with D&C 132 (and Jacob 2).

Apart from my personal struggles with polygamy, though, I think the doctrines of the Church are facially wonderful.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think the Restored Gospel does quite well when you "dig" into it. 

I don't.  I find it a fantastical story that is easily picked apart when one examines it thoroughly

We had this discussion back in 2022:

Quote

Quote

It is about examining the fantastical claims.  That is it. 

"Fantastical" seems to be an eye-of-the-beholder kind of thing.  And, as used here, it comes across as pejorative.

I am reminded here of Arthur C. Clarke's "three laws": 

 

Quote

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."  If we can say that about advanced technology, perhaps we can also say it about advanced forms of life as well.  That is, "Any sufficiently advanced {form of life} is indistinguishable from magic."  Or put another way, "Any sufficiently advanced form of life is going to be appear 'fantastical' to someone not quite ready or willing to accept it."

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

and I think the slow growth rate, and maybe even negative in some areas since people have easy access to information that they did not in previous generations.  Very few people that don't have a vested interest in Mormonism join these days. 

You do seem prone to rely on the argumentum ad populum argument, which is a fallacious form of reasoning.  A principle is not proven because it is popular, nor is it disproven because it is unpopular.  

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

You can take that for what you will. Does not matter to me.

I take it is an appeal to fallacious reasoning.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

Smart people believing something does not make it true. Not at all. 

Agreed.  Nor does smart people disbelieving something make it false.  Not at all.

Great.  We agree on that then.

We do?  Then why are you presenting argumentum ad populum reasoning?

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Next month will be my 20th anniversary on this board.  I have spent all sorts of time taking apart my beliefs.  Examining and re-examining what I believe and why.  Listening to people who disagree, and even dislike, my beliefs, and who are free with sharing their reasoning, sentiments, conclusions, etc.  And I have come away with a stronger faith, with more and better convictions regarding the reality and truth of the Restored Gospel.

If that is what you want I am happy for you.

I want to pursue the truth, and I think I have found much of it in the Restored Gospel.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Ironically, in the very process of listening to voices that contravene my beliefs, I am told that I do not listen, that I do not have empathy, etc.  In some quarters, to "listen" apparently means to agree.  To "empathize" means to subordinate my views for someone else's.  

No I do not think that

Well, since you are fond of attributing thoughts and sentiments to me, I thought turnabout was fair play.  And even then, I said "in some quarters..."

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

and I still think you lack empathy in many areas that are discussed on this board.

And I still think that in some quarters to "listen" apparently means to agree, and to "empathize" means to subordinate one's views to someone else's.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I see you pay lip service of understanding to some topics that people struggle with at times, right before you vigorously pick apart the issue you claim to understand. 

And if I can pick it apart, that may be evidence that I understand the issue, but do not agree with others about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

I think you conflate "empathy" with "agreement."

It almost looks like you are claiming to have empathy for LGBT issues at hand.  Can you share more about that? 

See here (regarding "empathy" about how others feel about polygamy) (from 2021) :

Quote

By way of example, I have a good friend who has had a very rough life.  She was in an abusive marriage, divorced, nearly destitute with two children, stabilized herself but then stumbled into a very bad and short-term marriage, and had some physical and mental health issues.  Fortunately, she ended up in a nice neighborhood and a nice ward (in Utah Valley) where she lived for several years and finished raising her children.

Last fall we spoke a few times and she told me that she was planning to sell her home and move to a secret location.  She said she was doing this because she felt threatened by some of her neighbors, who were Trump supporters (she was voting Biden).  I was quite surprised, as much of her angst centered on leaving her ward, which she very much loved.  I asked her if someone had threatened her, she said no.  I asked her if she had witnessed any violence or threats of violence against her or anyone else in the vicinity, she said no.  I asked her if anyone had said anything unkind or untoward to her, she said no.  I asked her why she was afraid of being targeted for violence and she pointed to things happening "in the country."  I asked her how she would be avoiding this prospective violence in the new place to which she was moving, and she said she did not know, and that there might be violence there, too.  All she knew was that she had to leave before the election. 

As she had raised the issue with me, and as I had known her for quite a while, and as I felt she might come to regret moving out of a ward/neighborhood she loved, I told her that we would support her in whatever course of action she chose, but then I asked if she had considered the possibility that she was overreacting, that she was making an important life decision rashly, and out of fear and speculation.  She got a little tense and agitated, and reiterated her fear that her neighbors might hurt her, and that she was all alone with nobody to look out for her.  I reminded her of how often she had mentioned how wonderful her ward was, and also that nobody had actually threatened her.  She then pointed to some neighbors who had posted their support for Trump on Facebook, and also mentioned the riots and protests that they were afraid might happen if Trump were to be re-elected, and that she took this as an indication that she was under threat, and that she needed to move and go into hiding before the election.  I wished her well, as did my wife.

Well, she moved out.  She went into hiding for a few months, then ended up buying a house somewhere else.  She substantially upended her life, moved away from a neighborhood and ward and friends, solely based on fear and speculation.  Virtually no reasoning or rationally-adduced facts were part of the decision-making process.

I empathized with my friend, but I also loved her enough to at least attempt to help her see that her course of action seemed to be extreme, rash and unnecessary.  Also, her daughter stopped by to visit a few weeks ago, and is sounds like she - my friend - is kinda sorta regretting having moved out of her neighborhood since her new one is sort of clannish and stand-offish.  

We each of us can express empathy in different ways at different times.

And here (same link) :

Quote

Quote

 

I think you are confusing sympathy with empathy.  Earlier in the thread you stated:

Quote

I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it.  

You aren't describing empathy in that statement, you are describing sympathy.  In order to empathize with someone you do have to "join in".  The definition of empathize is to understand and share the feelings of another person.  That is why it can be so hard to empathize with someone if you've never experienced something similar, and why it is really hard (practically impossible sometimes) to empathize with them if you think their feelings are irrational.  

I think I understand the distinction (from Mirriam-Webster's) :

Quote

Sympathy, constructed from the Greek sym, meaning "together," and pathos, referring to feelings or emotion, is used when one person shares the feelings of another, as when one experiences sadness when someone close is experiencing grief or loss. Empathy is a newer word also related to "pathos." It differs from sympathy in carrying an implication of greater emotional distance. With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself.

I acknowledge that there seems to be varying approaches to the divergent meanings of these two terms (see, e.g., here).  My usage of the term, however, is congruent with what is noted above: "With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself."  

If someone has a reasoned and legitimate concern or fear, and if I share it, then I would be happy to sympathize with them.  As it is, however, much of what we are discussing here is not reasoned or based on revelation and faith, and is instead based predominantly on fear, ignorance and speculation.  Thus I can honestly say that I empathize, but I don't sympathize.  I see and understand - and even to some extent respect - those fears.  But I do not share them.  

Last night I was speaking with a good friend who told me he does not want to get the vaccine, as he does not trust the government.  He said he thinks the vaccine was developed in 2013 or so, and that Dr. Fauci was predicting a pandemic for years prior to 2020.  He mentioned a few other things, including that he is a conspiracy theorist.  I asked him how he felt about Pres. Nelson encouraging us to get vaccinated, and he had no answer.  Overall, he seemed to be alluding to a huge conspiracy, with the vaccines playing some sort of nefarious - but ill-defined - role.

Do you think I should sympathize or empathize with my friend?  

Quote

You aren't describing empathy in that statement, you are describing sympathy. 

Actually, I think I'm describing empathy.  See above.  My "I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it" statement seems pretty congruent with Mirriam-Webster's "With empathy, you can imagine or understand how someone might feel, without necessarily having those feelings yourself" explanation.

Quote

In order to empathize with someone you do have to "join in". The definition of empathize is to understand and share the feelings of another person.  That is why it can be so hard to empathize with someone if you've never experienced something similar, and why it is really hard (practically impossible sometimes) to empathize with them if you think their feelings are irrational.  

That depends, I suppose, on how the term is defined and used.  See above.

I was able to empathize with my friend who went into hiding prior to last year's elections, even though I felt she was not being altogether rational about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The Church is not obligated to acquiesce to the concept of "sexual identity,"

This is why it’s offensive when you and others in the church use the words same sex attraction vs when scientific literature or say the Australian article you listed do it. 

Again, SSA is a clinical term.  I find it useful, and so use it on occasion, as to various decidedly not-intending-to-offend groups and organizations.

You are offended when Latter-day Saints use "same-sex attraction" because you dislike Latter-day Saints.  I am deploying it for its clinical and descriptive utility, not for any subjectively pejorative connotation you choose to read into it.

So with respect, I decline to acquiesce to your censorious proclivities by abstaining from the use of the term. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, SSA is a clinical term.  I find it useful, and so use it on occasion, as to various decidedly not-intending-to-offend groups and organizations.

You are offended when Latter-day Saints use "same-sex attraction" because you dislike Latter-day Saints.  I am deploying it for its clinical and descriptive utility, not for any subjectively pejorative connotation you choose to read into it.

So with respect, I decline to acquiesce to your censorious proclivities by abstaining from the use of the term. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I never said you couldn’t be offensive. I’m just explaining to you why your usage is offensive and leads to people concluding that the church hates gay people. And by the way I don’t dislike people who struggle with Latter-day Sainthood. 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should I start referring to my neighbors as people who suffer from Latter-day Saint tendencies?

The boundless energy of faultfinders determined to make the Latter-day Saints offenders for a word (in this case, literally so) never ceases to impress.

Elder Andersen: "Another friend served an outstanding mission, followed by rigorous academic training. He hoped to have a family. His trial of faith: feelings of same-sex attraction."

Elder Andersen: "Of special concern to us should be those who struggle with same-sex attraction. It is a whirlwind of enormous velocity."

Sis. Oscarson: "We avoid declaring that our Heavenly Father defines marriage as being between a man and woman because we don’t want to offend those who experience same-sex attraction."

Elder Christofferson: "'In the Church, there are widowed, divorced, and single members; those with family members who have fallen away from the gospel; people with chronic illnesses or financial struggles; members who experience same-sex attraction...'"

At some point maybe you will be able to appreciate that people have a variety of perspectives on same-sex attraction.  Some, like you, have no problem with either the attraction or associated behaviors.  Others, however, have adopted a set of sexual ethics that differs from yours.  For them, there are constraints on sexual behavior that you neither agree with nor can even bring yourself to respect or deem meritorious.  I hope that changes some day.

If God doesn't exist, then all of this argument doesn't really matter much.  If He does exist, then it may just be that He created us, that we are His children, that He has a plan for us, that this plan involves constraints on behaviors - including sexual behaviors -, and that these constraints are not going to be popular in some quarters.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, SSA is a clinical term.  I find it useful, and so use it on occasion, as to various decidedly not-intending-to-offend groups and organizations.

You are offended when Latter-day Saints use "same-sex attraction" because you dislike Latter-day Saints.  I am deploying it for its clinical and descriptive utility, not for any subjectively pejorative connotation you choose to read into it.

So with respect, I decline to acquiesce to your censorious proclivities by abstaining from the use of the term. 

Thanks,

-Smac

No, virtually all queer people would find it confusing and/or offensive no matter who said it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

nor can even bring yourself to respect or deem meritorious.

Bigotry is never worthy of respect or merit. 

[Nofear]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m just explaining to you why your usage is offensive and leads to people concluding that the church hates gay people.

I'm pretty sure it's the theology and that it wouldn't really matter what language was used. The language distaste is a post-hoc "icing on the cake" idea. If the Church came out and said, "Same-sex couple relationships for those with same-sex attraction can now be solemnized in temples" I really don't see the LGBTQ and alliy community responding with outcries of "Stop staying same-sex attraction, it's rude!"

Edited March 12, 2024 by Nofear

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I never said you couldn’t be offensive.

I never said you said that:

Quote

 

Again, SSA is a clinical term.  I find it useful, and so use it on occasion, as to various decidedly not-intending-to-offend groups and organizations.

You are offended when Latter-day Saints use "same-sex attraction" because you dislike Latter-day Saints.  I am deploying it for its clinical and descriptive utility, not for any subjectively pejorative connotation you choose to read into it.

 

I think that Latter-day Saint beliefs offend some people, as do efforts to defend those beliefs.  C'est la vie.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m just explaining to you why your usage is offensive

And I am rejecting your explanation.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

and leads to people concluding that the church hates gay people.

And the National Library of Medicine, Scientific American, The Economist, Frontiers in Psychology, Planned Parenthood, and the American Psychological Association also "hate gay people" by using that term.

Right?  

Or is this one of those "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" / "'That's different because shut up,' he explained" kind of things?

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And by the way I don’t dislike people who struggle with Latter-day Sainthood. 

Unintentionally ironic, this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Unintentionally ironic,

I think you mean intentionally ironic? I LOVE all the people in my life that struggle with feelings of Christianity. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the National Library of Medicine, Scientific American, The Economist, Frontiers in Psychology, Planned Parenthood, and the American Psychological Association also "hate gay people" by using that term.

See you when you split up the post you miss the meaning. Are you intentionally obtuse? Do these organizations also refuse to  “acquiesce to the concept of "sexual identity," or just you and yours?

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Should I start referring to my neighbors as people who suffer from Latter-day Saint tendencies?

The clinical term is “Reformed-Egyptian text attracted”

Edited March 12, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I'm pretty sure it's the theology and that it wouldn't really matter what language was used. The language distaste is a post-hoc "icing on the cake" idea. If the Church came out and said, "Same-sex couple relationships for those with same-sex attraction can now be solemnized in temples" I really don't see the LGBTQ and alliy community responding with outcries of "Stop staying same-sex attraction, it's rude!"

I agree. Most people recognize bigotry. As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig… it’s not necessarily the words used, but the intent behind them. As SMAC so eloquently put it, the church refuses to acknowledge a gay identity. That’s a problem.

Edited March 12, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is not obligated to acquiesce to the concept of "sexual identity," and that this novelty is not the governing principle relative to the doctrines of the Church.  Per Hamba, this concept "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," and has moved "from merely ascendant to genuinely hegemonic."  Meanwhile, "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."  This posture puts the Church "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."

I don't think so.

The doctrines of Christ have been around for a long time.  Moreover, the Church claims to have restored priesthood authority and revelation.

I see substantial differences in "religious identity" and "sexual identity."

I encourage a review of what Hamba has posted on this subject.

For example: "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."  In contrast, disciples of Christ have been around for a very long time.

The labels and concepts of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" deserve some evaluation.  See, e.g., this BBC article:

The article's explanation of how this came to be is too long to quote here, but is definitely worth a read.

"Though the hetero/homo divide seems like an eternal, indestructible fact of nature, it simply isn’t.  It’s merely one recent grammar humans have invented to talk about what sex means to us."

A linguistic novelty is a strange basis for an "identity."  In contrast, the "religious identity" of the Latter-day Saint is tied up in beliefs, behaviors, community, commitments, and so on.  

If "{h}eterosexuality" is "a construction" that "pretends it isn't," then the same can be said for homosexuality.

If these concepts "didn't exist in the past," then they "{don't} need to exist in the future."

That is an interesting question.  Can people "cultivate their own sexual desires, in the same way we might cultivate a taste for food"?  Would it make sense to create and base an "identity" centering on cultivated food tastes?  If not, then why do that with cultivated sexual desires?

Ward also has an interesting article on her blog: No One is Born Gay (or Straight): Here are 5 Reasons Why

Her five reasons:

• 1.  Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true.
• 2. The science is wrong (Part 1)
• 3.  The science is wrong (Part II)
• 4.  Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual
• 5.  Secretly, you already know that people's sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context

Back to the BBC article:

An "identity" that it endlessly fluid and fungible is not much of an identity at all, particularly when it is based on behaviors (which, as noted above, can be "cultivate{d}" and "shaped by their social and cultural context").

My position is informed by considerably more than the doctrines of the Church.  But ultimately, yes.

I'm not sure what this means.

If someone critiques and finds flaws with my "religious identity," can (or ought) I shut them down by telling them that they are "arguing against" my "lived experience"?  I think not.  

There are all sorts of people hoping to persuade Latter-day Saints to abandon their faith, or to shame and ridicule them into doing so.  I have no interest in "shame and ridicule."  I do think there is value in re-evaluating concepts of "sexual identity," and in attempting to use reasoned argument and evidence to ascertain whether such a thing is worthwhile.

I don't know what this means.  I listen to critics of my faith all the time.

Not really.  Listening to people with viewpoints different from mine has affected, but not "shattered" my "reality" as a Latter-day Saint.  

Pres. J. Reuben Clark once observed: “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”  If applied to something as fundamental as one's "identity," what is the result?

Thanks,

-Smac

So you are going off anthropological studies of the history of queer identities, make a ton of assumptions about them, and then generalize.

The idea that sexuality is fluid is true but you take the hypothetical question of could that development be guided and use it to backdoor reintroduce the idea that being gay is a choice even though we have no idea how those desires are formed, how to induce change or if we even could (or should) shift them, and 

You use your “lived experience” as a rebuttal all the time. You just don’t use those words. You regularly talk about how you have lived in the church for your whole life and you have never seen X or have routinely seen Y which shows that critics that say Z don’t know what they are talking about. That is “lived experience”. You claim it all the time as a kind of authority but deny it to others. You are a situational believer in the value of “lived experience”.

Allow me to assure there is value in sexual identity. I spent a large portion of my youth and early adulthood assuming I was straight and all straight people felt the way I do. When I found out that all the other straight guys weren’t experiencing attraction to men like I was and were just pretending it didn’t exist like I was it was a shock. The whole “gay as a choice” bit made no sense anymore. If straight people weren’t consciously choosing then I wasn’t straight but many women are attractive so what the hell am I? I realized that I had a secret and letting it out would be the end of everything. I wasn’t certain of anyone’s love anymore. Even that of my parents. If the secret got out how would they react? Everything was conditional. I was taught God despised me. I became hyperreligious to try to secure a divine cure.

My story isn’t unique. I am involved in a few online forums and sites where people who are questioning come. Some are able to pretty securely come out. Some think they are secure and find out they aren’t. Others are just scared. This morning I was trying to help a teenage girl who was convinced God hated her and that she was damned. I hope she finds someone in her life who she can confide in.

You haven’t lived this life. You have no idea what it is like. Your comparisons and analogies are facile. You have no idea how far off the mark you are. I am not just speaking for me. While all queer people have their own stories your understanding of what we experience is utterly and completely WRONG! You can say we are all horrible sinners but don’t try to tell us what we experience is like poverty or an urge to steal or whatever. IT IS NOT! You are trying to project your own experiences on to us. Instead, try listening. Read our stories. Learn what we experience. Then you might be able to help someone. Or just continue spewing nonsense. Just don’t expect anyone who have experienced it or the people who try to understand us to take you seriously. I really hope none of your children are queer.

[Nofear]

18 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

...the church refuses to acknowledge a gay identity...

Indeed, the Church would much rather individuals identify as children of loving Heavenly Parents and not just on the biological machinations of our bodies.