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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I can't live without having sex

It’s always telling when people want to boil this down to sex. 

[Emily]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you considered the same conditions in the next life probably exists for those who are attracted to the opposite sex?

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise, are kind of beside the point. 

"Marriage" in eternity is between a man and woman. We know this much.

We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage.

We don't know anything beyond that.

Is sexual "compatibility" necessary? I don't know. You would get blinks of incomprehension if you brought that up in many cultures today, much less a couple of hundred years ago. Is romantic love necessary? Again, a pretty modern concept. As is sexual "orientation" and gender fluidity. Other ages had their own list of things they considered important about sex, hence phallic symbols and goddess statues that lacked any distinct feature beyond a pregnant belly.  

I recently read an article that presented pretty good evidence that a millimeter or so difference in spacing between the clitoris and vagina determines whether or not a woman is capable of "simultaneous orgasm" with ANY partner. A few more findings of that nature and maybe the whole myth of "sexual compatibility" being something you can achieve by switching partners will finally be given the burial it deserves. The same may be true of other concepts about sex and intimacy that are popularly accepted today.

In short, I think giving too much headspace for "what will sex be like in eternity?" is probably a waste of time. We've got too many cultural preconceptions and expectations to even begin to see anything through that glass, even "darkly."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Emily said:

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise, are kind of beside the point. 

"Marriage" in eternity is between a man and woman. We know this much.

We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage.

We don't know anything beyond that.

Is sexual "compatibility" necessary? I don't know. You would get blinks of incomprehension if you brought that up in many cultures today, much less a couple of hundred years ago. Is romantic love necessary? Again, a pretty modern concept. As is sexual "orientation" and gender fluidity. Other ages had their own list of things they considered important about sex, hence phallic symbols and goddess statues that lacked any distinct feature beyond a pregnant belly.  

I recently read an article that presented pretty good evidence that a millimeter or so difference in spacing between the clitoris and vagina determines whether or not a woman is capable of "simultaneous orgasm" with ANY partner. A few more findings of that nature and maybe the whole myth of "sexual compatibility" being something you can achieve by switching partners will finally be given the burial it deserves. The same may be true of other concepts about sex and intimacy that are popularly accepted today.

In short, I think giving too much headspace for "what will sex be like in eternity?" is probably a waste of time. We've got too many cultural preconceptions and expectations to even begin to see anything through that glass, even "darkly."

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know that eternity is for only a man/woman relationship, but feel strong that males/females/they/thems whether married or not, are eternal. I hearken to the scripture with Jesus saying there is no marriage in heaven, despite many on here saying otherwise, or have a rebuttal. 

Matthew 22:30: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

I especially love the idea of being angels, and helping those on earth.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Besides Esau wasn't really going to starve to death, his freshly desires overcame his reason.

Thinking "I can't live without having sex!" is equally irrational. Of course you can. So you can choose the birthright (celibacy) or the pottage (sex according to YOUR desires).

You're right that you can live without sex, but I would hate to live without my husband even if we didn't have sex. Sex is a big part of marriage (ask President Kimball), but there is so much more. My husband is my best friend, my confidant, the one I lie next to at night and share my dreams with, the one I walk with holding hands, the one I laugh with, the one I love. I cannot imagine asking a gay couple to give up what I hold so dearly and none of it has to do with sex, but it sure started with attraction!

Edited March 11, 2024 by Rain

[Rain]

19 minutes ago, Emily said:

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise, are kind of beside the point. 

"Marriage" in eternity is between a man and woman. We know this much.

We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage.

Is there actually anywhere that says this or have most of us assumed it? Jesus was a God who created the earth before he had a body. So you feel he was married before being born?

19 minutes ago, Emily said:

We don't know anything beyond that.

Is sexual "compatibility" necessary? I don't know. You would get blinks of incomprehension if you brought that up in many cultures today, much less a couple of hundred years ago. Is romantic love necessary? Again, a pretty modern concept. As is sexual "orientation" and gender fluidity. Other ages had their own list of things they considered important about sex, hence phallic symbols and goddess statues that lacked any distinct feature beyond a pregnant belly.  

I recently read an article that presented pretty good evidence that a millimeter or so difference in spacing between the clitoris and vagina determines whether or not a woman is capable of "simultaneous orgasm" with ANY partner. A few more findings of that nature and maybe the whole myth of "sexual compatibility" being something you can achieve by switching partners will finally be given the burial it deserves. The same may be true of other concepts about sex and intimacy that are popularly accepted today.

In short, I think giving too much headspace for "what will sex be like in eternity?" is probably a waste of time. We've got too many cultural preconceptions and expectations to even begin to see anything through that glass, even "darkly."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[teddyaware]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I will just point out further, that it’s a hateful Father that would expect someone to starve to death to keep some vague, non tangible, non verifiable “birth right” in the first place. 

As if the God who preserved the lives of multitudes with mana and quails in the wilderness, and sustained the life of an impoverished widow with a cruse of oil and a barrel of meal that never failed her, would have allowed Esau to starve to death if he had remained faithful and true to his covenants. The following account provides another example of how the Lord is able to preserve the lives of his followers as long as they keep their covenants and thereby obtain temporal and spiritual salvation.

21 Now it came to pass that I, Nephi, having been afflicted with my brethren because of the loss of my bow, and their bows having lost their springs, it began to be exceedingly difficult, yea, insomuch that we could obtain no food.

22 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did speak much unto my brethren, because they had hardened their hearts again, even unto complaining against the Lord their God.

23 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did make out of wood a bow, and out of a straight stick, an arrow; wherefore, I did arm myself with a bow and an arrow, with a sling and with stones. And I said unto my father: Whither shall I go to obtain food?…

30 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, did go forth up into the top of the mountain, according to the directions which were given upon the ball.

31 And it came to pass that I did slay wild beasts, insomuch that I did obtain food for our families.

32 And it came to pass that I did return to our tents, bearing the beasts which I had slain; and now when they beheld that I had obtained food, how great was their joy! And it came to pass that they did humble themselves before the Lord, and did give thanks unto him. (1 Nephi 16)

 

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, Emily said:

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise, are kind of beside the point. 

"Marriage" in eternity is between a man and woman. We know this much.

We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage.

We don't know anything beyond that.

Is sexual "compatibility" necessary? I don't know. You would get blinks of incomprehension if you brought that up in many cultures today, much less a couple of hundred years ago. Is romantic love necessary? Again, a pretty modern concept. As is sexual "orientation" and gender fluidity. Other ages had their own list of things they considered important about sex, hence phallic symbols and goddess statues that lacked any distinct feature beyond a pregnant belly.  

I recently read an article that presented pretty good evidence that a millimeter or so difference in spacing between the clitoris and vagina determines whether or not a woman is capable of "simultaneous orgasm" with ANY partner. A few more findings of that nature and maybe the whole myth of "sexual compatibility" being something you can achieve by switching partners will finally be given the burial it deserves. The same may be true of other concepts about sex and intimacy that are popularly accepted today.

In short, I think giving too much headspace for "what will sex be like in eternity?" is probably a waste of time. We've got too many cultural preconceptions and expectations to even begin to see anything through that glass, even "darkly."

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you “know” eternal marriage is between a man and a woman. But you have no idea what someone’s sexual organs bring to the creative process. Got it. 
 

History is littered with ideas that people once knew that have been discarded. There was a lively thread here in the last couple of weeks about how the church has now disavowed the idea that God changes people’s skin color. That was doctrine that was “known” when I grew up in the church. 
 

I must say I am often left with whiplash. When past prophetic mistakes are brought up, critics are taken to task for their expectations being the wrong place. People like @Kevin Christensen come out of the wood work and post about biblical signs of a prophet and Kuhn. People talk about the only real doctrine is Christ Jesus dying for sins. 
 

You would expect, then a little bit of epistemological humility from people when it comes to today’s teachings. But nope! Whiplash. WE KNOW. God and Russell Nelson’s take on god are interchangeable. This in a church that claims many great things will yet be revealed to us. This in a church whose founder once said “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.” 

 

All I can do is shake my head. This thread should be instructive to those that wonder why the church is known for its “hate” of gay people though. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Is there actually anywhere that says this or have most of us assumed it? Jesus was a God who created the earth before he had a body. So you feel he was married before being born?

 

Mosiah Hancock had an interesting vision of the pre-mortal life where it seemed to him spirits were created in pairs as "mates":

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2007/12/mosiah-hancock-vision-of-preexistence.html

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, Emily said:

Well to begin with, "gay" started as a derogatory term and back when I was growing up, using the term, even to refer to an individual with homosexual preferences, was pretty rude.

If someone chooses to call themselves that, I'm happy to comply in any situation when sexual preferences are an important component of the conversation. (Quite frankly, it doesn't come up much.) I had a work colleague who liked the term and made it part of his email address. Another colleague, who happened to be older and in a committed homosexual relationship, found it really offensive. He also didn't like "laddie, nancy boy, fag" and other terms that have been applied to homosexuals on occasion. I know this because he suggested the colleague use one of those terms (and a few others even ruder) instead... In a pretty nasty tone of voice.

Many individuals who are attracted to the same sex don't like being called "gay." It's a little cheeky for you to insist that everyone likes it. They don't. It's more acceptable now, particularly with younger people. But it's still considered derogatory by others.

 

Please show everyone exactly where I stated “everyone likes it”.  I did no such thing. I simply asked why you put quote marks around a word.
 

This is a CFR and board rules require that you respond to a CFR. 

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

Everything (instruction, handbook all implemented at local level) gets translated down to the local level with the local leadership, which is who members have the most engagement with.  I see the social/cultural side being more highly influenced at this level.

However, I wonder how much impact local level understanding of doctrine has, how seriously do members include interpretations by bishops and counselors and stake presidents, etc in their own understanding versus what they hear at conference.  I wonder if doctrinal understanding of members is impacted more at the General Authority level even though we hear less from them personally over the year (though we get a lot second and third hand through interpretations of their talks, including quotes).

It can range a ton from what I've seen. Some seem to be a little too dependent on what their local leaders advise them to do. They tend to go to them way too much for things they probably should talk to God about first. Others place very little emphasis on it and show more dynamic capacities to take in or dismiss local leaders. I've seen just how having a shift in leadership can shift the expectations in a ward or stake. Sometimes fairly drastically. And I've seen how local cultural trends influence how messages are taught and received in the local body. 

I think we also seriously underestimate just how much family dynamics acts as the first line of interpretation and doctrinal understanding/application. I once had a client where it became quite clear that their father was their main model for all things church and God. Needless to say, it came with some unhealthy expectations. 

21 hours ago, Calm said:

I think the vaccine/masks controversy showed just how much impact the social/cultural side has on the doctrinal as there was some pretty quick movement away from following higher leadership there.  OTOH, doctrinal changes can seem to take eons at time to actually impact at the local level in terms making changes, for example with racism based on previous scripture interpretations that haven’t been taught in conference for a very long time.

Completely agree. I find the phenomenon around cultural realignment so interesting. Especially the covid round. It was really interesting to watch people who were used to having the church not confront and even validate their worldview have to toggle with suddenly having their worldview openly conflict with general church leaders. Personally, I think it's partially why it usually goes so slow... there's not another means to really move a body of millions but at a snails pace. 

 

With luv,

 BD 

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  All the time.

Out of curiosity, to you think that "listening to" and "agreeing with" (or "acquiescing to") are synonyms?

No. But if someone says, for example, that the church doesn’t work for them (or does work for them) and that is the reason they left (or stayed) I’d believe them. We each have the right to decide for ourselves whether or not a religion works for us or not. If I listen to why somebody left, I’m going to tend to agree that they left for the reasons stated. 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

First and foremost, "sexual identity" as a concept/construct is, historically speaking, about five minutes old.  Hamba has noted, and documented, this many times.  A summary:

I don't think you have ever addressed this issue.

That is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Here and now, some people self identify as LGBTQ. Those who do are far more likely to leave the church than those who don’t. That is the data. The history of LGBTQ as something someone can identify as doesn’t change the data we are discussing.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, foisting this concept/construct on the Church is an ongoing attempt to pound a round peg into a square hole.  It just does not fit.  From the same link as above:

I’m not foistering anything on the Church. I’m merely suggesting that if we want to understand why self-identified LGBTQ people are much more likely to leave the church than those who don’t self-identify that way, we should ask them.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, the ongoing "If you are gay, it {the Church} probably doesn’t work for you" narrative is perpetually missing the point:

No, the point is that people who leave the Church say that is why they left. 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, in 2021 Hamba responded to a comment from California Boy, which comment was similar to the one you provide above.  I'll just quote it:

As it is, I don't really expect you to stop the presumption of speaking for the Latter-day Saints…

You’re right, I can’t stop speaking for the Latter-day Saints because I stopped doing that when I finished my mission in the 90’s. Now all I do is listen to why self-described LGBTQ people say they leave, I try to have empathy, and I believe them. In contrast, you either don’t listen to them or you think they are lying about why they left.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

"When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies."

This is rich. I totally agree with this and for the same reasons, I believe that if you are trying to understand why someone leaves a religion you should ask the people who leave and not the ones who demonize the people who leave.

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

This one speaks favorably of the Church ("Why Would A Gay Man Become a Mormon?"), and in the description states: "Dennis Schleicher found the love and acceptance he was looking for in the very last place he thought he would- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

If it works for him that’s great. But that doesn’t mean it works for everyone. 

Edited March 11, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Emily said:

This doesn't mean the "pottage" isn't desirable and isn't important, just that it's not as important as a birthright.

Actually I think pottage was intentionally used in the story because it wasn’t important or that desirable, it was an example of immaturity, of someone unable to delay gratification even in a minor way.  He wasn’t really starving.  Pottage was common and easily had whenever. It was something ready made, no waiting and no effort, minuscule in value as it would sustain him for at most for a day or so.

Quote

In the biblical story, the dish of lentils for which the hungry Esau sold his birthright to his younger brother Jacob (Genesis 25); the expression is proverbial for a ridiculously small amount offered or taken for something of real value.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100152601

Quote

Esau decided his birthright wouldn't be important to him if he died of starvation. 

Except the guy was dramatizing as it appears he was a healthy young man who had plenty of access to food being the son of a wealthy man with plenty of servants as well as a hunter himself, so waiting another half an hour or hour or whatever it took to get up and go get food elsewhere was likely no big deal and it was only his impatience and likely immorality that it was an empty promise by him anyway, one he didn’t really mean it, that caused him to take the pottage, not any real need.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Emily said:

Many individuals who are attracted to the same sex don't like being called "gay." It's a little cheeky for you to insist that everyone likes it. They don't. It's more acceptable now, particularly with younger people. But it's still considered derogatory by others.

 

I still struggle using “gay” and “queer” (quotes are because I am quoting speech and not scare quotes) because as a teen and young adult they were so often used in a derogatory manner in my environment (high school and places I worked in summer), most of the time not that intense, but there were occasions they were uttered with real maliciousness and those are emotional memories that are deeply embedded (having high social anxiety as a child and youth, I tended to be very aware and very affected by that kind of negativity, especially since I felt helpless facing it because I never had the nerve back then to speak up about much of anything).  It’s hard to not still hear the tone of those voices when I see or say the words myself.

I also still hear in my head my boss and a friend who were lesbians and who very forcefully rejected the label “gay” as for men, not for them, so gay is not equivalent to/interchangeable with homosexual or same sex attraction in my brain.

My daughter prefers “queer”, so I use it and it is easier, smoother to do so as time goes on, but time is not removing the momentary shock I give myself when I speak it.  Interestingly I don’t feel shocked when she says it, probably because there is obviously no emotional negativity or even baggage attached to it for her, it is just a useful label in her expression and so that is what I hear.

Early  programming is remarkably persistent over the years.  I can’t use “stupid” because my mother saw it as inappropriate to call anyone that.  That is so embedded as wrong in me that I start to cry every time I remember Mom calling one of her helpers “stupid” when she had dementia.  It was one of the things that made me feel Mom wasn’t there any more, just someone else occupying her body until it was finally willing to give up.

Words have remarkable power and manipulate us as much as we manipulate them…or so it often feels that way to me.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

 

Quote

 

I'm pretty sure we take ourselves with us when we go. But our sexual desires, lack thereof, unsatisfied or otherwise…

Meaning what?  We will be homosexual and heterosexual in your view in the next life or not?

My view…

Quote

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint.”

If homosexual feelings are part of the natural man, then surely heterosexual (meaning generalized attraction, not just attraction to one person who happens to be of the opposite sex) feelings are the same as they appear to operate in the same way.

5 hours ago, Emily said:

We also know that a marital partnership is needed for creation to take place. And that seems to extend to all eternal creative powers, not just that of producing children. You can't be a god without marriage.

 

And it won’t be that long before women will be able to produce children without men, longer for men only because science will need to create a womb along with being able to recombine genetic material for them, so if it’s ability to create that is the issue, then what is to stop a homosexual marriage from producing children when those involved will be highly advanced beings not limited to the only process that was available to mankind when they lived closer to how animals live instinctively, before technology came into play?

And where are the wives when it came to creating worlds and star systems in the scriptures and temple presentations?  I only see men creating there.  It is not his wife standing next to God the Father, but his Son and it is not couples that Christ directs to organize the earth, etc. but a group of men.  If creation is consistent across all categories as you suggest, we have been taught that it is possible with only men involved.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

As if the God who preserved the lives of multitudes with mana and quails in the wilderness, and sustained the life of an impoverished widow with a cruse of oil and a barrel of meal that never failed her, would have allowed Esau to starve to death if he had remained faithful and true to his covenants.

So no one who is righteous and faithful to their covenants have ever starved to death in your view?

What do you believe happened with the over 200 who died in the Willie and Martin Handcart company?

[Ragerunner]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Mosiah Hancock had an interesting vision of the pre-mortal life where it seemed to him spirits were created in pairs as "mates":

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2007/12/mosiah-hancock-vision-of-preexistence.html

Mosiah Hancock’s visions mean nothing. It’s not doctrine in anyway. It wouldn’t even make the last page of the Friend magazine.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Mosiah Hancock’s visions mean nothing. It’s not doctrine in anyway. It wouldn’t even make the last page of the Friend magazine.

Wow... You came in a little hot in that one. 🤕

I was merely referencing something from Church history that could suggest an answer to the question about being "married" before this life. I wasn't saying whether it's true or not.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Emily said:

Well to begin with, "gay" started as a derogatory term and back when I was growing up, using the term, even to refer to an individual with homosexual preferences, was pretty rude.

If someone chooses to call themselves that, I'm happy to comply in any situation when sexual preferences are an important component of the conversation. (Quite frankly, it doesn't come up much.) I had a work colleague who liked the term and made it part of his email address. Another colleague, who happened to be older and in a committed homosexual relationship, found it really offensive. He also didn't like "laddie, nancy boy, fag" and other terms that have been applied to homosexuals on occasion. I know this because he suggested the colleague use one of those terms (and a few others even ruder) instead... In a pretty nasty tone of voice.

Many individuals who are attracted to the same sex don't like being called "gay." It's a little cheeky for you to insist that everyone likes it. They don't. It's more acceptable now, particularly with younger people. But it's still considered derogatory by others.

 

Kinda like calling a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Mormon.  

I don't get what the issue is.  

Edited March 11, 2024 by california boy

[MustardSeed]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Kinda like calling a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Mormon.  

I don't get what the issue is.  

Back in the day, “retarded” meant “slowed”.  It still does but now it connotes something bad. 
as a musician it still feels wrong to yell “RITARD” to my speedy guitar player.  Not sure I’ll ever get comfortable. 

IMO Emily is not bad for choosing not to say gay.  Her choice. 

[Raingirl]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Back in the day, “retarded” meant “slowed”.  It still does but now it connotes something bad. 
as a musician it still feels wrong to yell “RITARD” to my speedy guitar player.  Not sure I’ll ever get comfortable. 

IMO Emily is not bad for choosing not to say gay.  Her choice. 

She’s attempting to gatekeep a word that doesn’t even pertain to her personally.  What business is it of her’s to tell someone they can’t identify as gay? Should I tell my brother he can no longer describe himself as gay because Emily forbids it?

[LoudmouthMormon]

 

Quote

80,000 physical postcards to randomly selected households in the Mormon Corridor — and supplemented it with targeted Facebook ads to a Utah audience. Both methods led respondents to take an online survey that was then weighted to be representative of the Latter-day Saint population. After they removed late and invalid responses, they had a sample of 2,625 current and 1,183 former Latter-day Saints.

Quote

In the survey, only 4% of current members identified as LGBTQ

4% of LDS members are LGBTQ?  I find that statistic pretty noteworthy.   They tell me roughly 7.2% of Americans identify as somewhere in the acronym (2023, Gallup poll and Pew Research).  For a whopping 4 out of every 100 members, in the "Mormon Corridor" no less, to identify as LGBT, doesn't that tell us something?

I'm glad my gay LDS family member is getting a little recognition as someone who exists.  The narrative I often hear (as represented by a bunch of comments in this post) is there's something incompatible with a not-straight existence and membership in the Lord's church.  Doesn't this article pose sort of a fatal problem for that narrative?

Lol.  "only 4% of current members identified as LGBTQ".  Interesting bias in that word "only".  Especially in an article that tries really hard to not have any bias. 

With roughly 6.8 million LDS members in America, most of whom live in the corridor, that equals roughly 270,000 LGBTQ folks.  Each one of 'em more righteous than the last.  Each one of 'em finding something in this church, something noteworthy enough to stand up and be counted in the postcard/facebook reasearch.  I mean, such polls always have a margin of error, but unless you're willing to argue some sort of fatal flaw in the methodology, there are certainly a crapton of gay Mormons who seem happy being a Mormon.

Am I wrong?

Edited March 11, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[teddyaware]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

So no one who is righteous and faithful to their covenants have ever starved to death in your view?

What do you believe happened with the over 200 who died in the Willie and Martin Handcart company?

Interestingly, before posting my comment I considered changing “would have allowed Esau to starve to death” to “would have been likely to allow Esau to starve to death,” but decided to post my comment as you found it. Of course, it goes without saying that multitudes of the faithful have died unjustly as martyrs, or suffered and died due to unfortunate circumstances, accidents or acts of nature. Only a fool would assert that within the economy of God that bad things are never supposed to happen to good people.

The divine requirement of the atoning sacrifice and death of Jesus Christ is proof enough that God’s wisdom allows for bad things to happen to good people so that greater good can come forth as a consequence. Even so, if the price Esau had to pay in order to maintain his birthright and obtain exaltation was to suffer a painful death, in similitude of the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, that wouldn’t by any means prove that God’s ultimate motivation in all things is love in its purest, most fervent and unadulterated form. The most difficult hurdle of faith any of us will have to cross is will be the humble acceptance of the fact that the road to exaltation is paved with suffering and death... Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. (Romans)

 

Edited March 11, 2024 by teddyaware

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO Emily is not bad for choosing not to say gay.  Her choice. 

As long as it’s just her she is making the choice for and not telling others how to use it—which she hasn’t—seems like it should be okay with most people….especially since no one here that I remember has come out and requested her not to put gay in quotes or say things a specific way. 
 

Now if someone were to say to her something to the effect of “I am not telling you to use gay instead of homosexual or some other word you don’t experience as an insult because I understand for you the word has negative connotations, but when you do choose to use gay, could you please not put it in quotes because that does bother me because I have seen too many people use scare quotes around gay as a way to dismiss or insult my chosen identity or the identities of friends or family”, at that point if she insisted on using both the term gay and quotes around it, it would seem dismissive of the other’s feelings…:but again, haven’t seen anyone request her to change her behaviour. 

———

Since actual quotes around a word can mean both quoting or scare quotes, for those of us with the habit of putting quotes around a word when we are talking about the word itself (I will usually do this, it’s really bugging me not to do it here, lol) it can be difficult to figure out which way is going to convey what we mean best. 
 

I have often chosen to use partial quoting to hopefully remove the potential of interpreting it as scare quotes that are dismissive, etc to identify that I am talking about a word.  Iow, like this:  ‘gay’.

I have wondered if anyone sees that usage of a single quote on each side as scare quotes or if it is clear what my purpose is since it is not a standard usage. Some feedback here would be nice. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Raingirl said:

What business is it of her’s to tell someone they can’t identify as gay?

Where has she done this?  Serious question as if she has, I would agree that is gatekeeping. But I haven’t read her stuff as doing that, rather she is doing what I am naturally inclined to do, but haven’t because I am trying to train myself for my daughter’s sake who prefers ‘queer’ as a description. If Emily has friends who don’t like to be labeled gay, I don’t see any reason for her to try and train herself to use that word as it is best, imo, for her to make the way her offline friends prefer her habit as it’s easier to forget a preference when speaking than when writing. 
 

I realize I may be projecting the way I do things onto Emily and there is actually a difference, so I would like to see where there is concern over her use. However, I am wondering it it is possible that people have seen me do the same thing (put gay in quotes) but interpret what I do as quoting based on my posting history where since they are less familiar with Emily’s style, the other interpretation of quotes as scare quotes seems to fit her for them…but there is no real difference in the way either of us use quotes. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

My pleasure