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

[Raingirl]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

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. 

She is criticizing people for using the word gay. It’s very clear in her posts.  Sorry you can’t see it. You tend to over-analyze and project your way of thinking on to others. She wasn’t quoting anyone, so she wasn’t using quotation marks correctly. 

[Emily]

16 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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. 

My apologies, I was using "you" to mean "people in general", not "you" specifically. It was a poor writing choice and created unintended confusion.

I tend to post sporadically and may not get back to respond to a discussion if I get too busy to log back in, so I also apologize for the delay in responding.

I used quotes because I'm not going to assume that everyone who is sexually attracted to the same gender wants to be called "gay."  I know from personal associations that it is not a universally accepted term, so people in general should not assume they should be using it. Quotes, for me, indicate that I'm aware that the term shouldn't be applied universally. 

It's much like the term "Mormon" which I would also put into quotes if I were to use it to apply to members of my church. Being called a "Mormon" doesn't particularly bother me since I was raised in the generation of Mormonads, but it raises the hackles of members of the church of the previous generation, who had to put up with being confused with members of fundamentalist Mormon groups and will probably annoy members of the younger generation now that we are actively encouraged to stop using it. It's also an inaccurate term, as we are not disciples of Mormon, but of Christ.

"Gay" is a similarly ambiguous term. Rightly or wrongly, the word was a slur to older generations, a political movement or participant in hedonistic culture in my generation, and also a word with it's own functional meaning of "lighthearted and carefree". 

For me, "Same sex attraction" is more precise terminology, since it describes a person's sexual inclination without implying anything about what they do with that attraction. Homosexual would also be more accurate, but I'm aware that it's not the preferred term in every social circle.   I should probably just stick with, "attracted to the same sex" in any situation where I don't know the particular preference of the person/people I'm talking to -- but it's kind of like using the entire name of the church in a conversation. The official name gets to be a mouthful so I end up using "LDS" or "the church" or some other shorter nomenclature that isn't quite as accurate or accepted and yes, in certain circumstances when using those terms, I would use quotes.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2024 by Emily

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

She wasn’t quoting anyone, so she wasn’t using quotation marks correctly. 

Quote

The rules for using quotation marks around a single word for emphasis have changed since people began using word processors for their writing. If a word needs to be emphasized but is not being quoted, you should avoid putting the word in quotes and use italics instead. If you are writing by hand or using a typewriter, you can use quotation marks for emphasis to separate a certain word from the rest of the sentence—for example, when you are writing about words as words:

“They’re,” “their,” and “there” are easily confused because they’re homophones.

 

“Cool” can refer to temperature, or it can mean something is good; “sweet” is also a slang term for “good.”

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks-around-a-single-word/

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

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?

That's definitely a glass-half-full way of looking at it.

From my perspective, for most people deciding whether it “works for you” is a complicated question with multiple tradeoffs. Do you feel at home at Church? Does the message make sense? Does it bring you peace and happiness? Do you enjoy the meetings? Are all of your friends there? Are you sick of the same lessons over and over? Deep down do you really believe it? How would your family react if you left (or stayed)? etc.

Furthermore, just because somebody is currently giving it a good shot doesn’t mean they aren’t going to eventually take their life in a different path. I would suggest that in general, the Church is less attractive to LGBTQ than it is to straight people. Of course people like, say, David Archuleta and Tyler Glenn once claimed that no, the Church is great, even if you happen to be gay. But it wasn’t surprising that they eventually left.

There is a wikipedia page for LGBT Mormon people and organizations.” It lists living “Prominent LGBT Mormon people.” Eight of them are currently practicing, and 27 are former members.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Emily said:

It's probably best to just stick with, "attracted to the same sex" -- but it's kind of like using the entire name of the church in a conversation.

The problem with using same sex attraction or its variations interchangeably with gay or homosexual is that it has been used by enough people who were dismissive of LGBTQ + concerns and issues that those terms have acquired a negative connotation much like gay had for our earlier generation.  This is a more recent phenomenon and thus imo likely to be more present in people’s minds and therefore should probably be given a higher priority of concern when speaking with many people or with those one is not that familiar with.  In a smaller group, giving preference to avoiding the use of gay because you know someone there dislikes it makes sense.

Btw, in looking up a reference for using “ “ around a word when talking about a word (appears to be still valid, if not as common), I found a reference that said the current standard when using a computer is to italicize a word to emphasize it, in part due to the cultural shift that has led to quotes around a single word being most often scare quotes (see the link I gave above).  I am going to try and remember to shift to using italics at least on my iPad (it is quite a bit harder on my phone) and perhaps you might want to do the same to avoid being interpreted as being dismissive of the term.

As with many things that have gotten linked to strong emotional experiences, it can be difficult navigating precise language when one takes into account the tones that get attached to words.  Keeping up with current standards of usage takes effort, but I think it’s well worth it as anything that helps communication be clearer is useful imo.

[Nofear]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Our "species" (for lack of a better word) spans the cosmos and mortals and immortals alike inhabit countless worlds. How that propagation works isn't exactly public knowledge. Two tenets that I am quite confident of:

• exalted beings will have complete control and mastery over their bodies in both form and function
  • if one wants to change their hair color or go from bald to not-bald, they can do it
  • if one wants to have 6 fingers on one hand instead of 5, they can do it
  • if one wants to be a few inches taller or shorter, they can can do it
  • if one wants to change the pigmentation of their skin, they can do it
  • if one wants to photosynthesize, they can do it
  • if one wants to be anaerobic metabolically, they can do it
  • etc., etc.
• our spirit bodies are not created vivaparously
  • we have a distinct, and I believe intentional, lack of understanding how our Heavenly Parents organized our spirit bodies
  • I suspect it would rather offend our sensibilities and so that information is withheld from our mortally myopic eyes

The point here is that ultimately we don't know why our "species" organized and developed a society based on two genders. I think and believe that it is an intentional choice and that it could potentially have been otherwise, but it is not otherwise. I have some speculation of why that might be so but it is only that, speculation. I don't know. I don't know a lot of things. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. It is with epistemological humility that I take it on faith that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

[Raingirl]

33 minutes ago, Emily said:

My apologies, I was using "you" to mean "people in general", not "you" specifically. It was a poor writing choice and created unintended confusion.

I tend to post sporadically and may not get back to respond to a discussion if I get too busy to log back in, so I also apologize for the delay in responding.

I used quotes because I'm not going to assume that everyone who is sexually attracted to the same gender wants to be called "gay."  I know from personal associations that it is not a universally accepted term, so people in general should not assume they should be using it. Quotes, for me, indicate that I'm aware that the term shouldn't be applied universally. 

It's much like the term "Mormon" which I would also put into quotes if I were to use it to apply to members of my church. Being called a "Mormon" doesn't particularly bother me since I was raised in the generation of Mormonads, but it raises the hackles of members of the church of the previous generation, who had to put up with being confused with members of fundamentalist Mormon groups and will probably annoy members of the younger generation now that we are actively encouraged to stop using it. It's also an inaccurate term, as we are not disciples of Mormon, but of Christ.

"Gay" is a similarly ambiguous term. Rightly or wrongly, the word was a slur to older generations, a political movement or participant in hedonistic culture in my generation, and also a word with it's own functional meaning of "lighthearted and carefree". 

For me, "Same sex attraction" is more precise terminology, since it describes a person's sexual inclination without implying anything about what they do with that attraction. Homosexual would also be more accurate, but I'm aware that it's not the preferred term in every social circle.   I should probably just stick with, "attracted to the same sex" in any situation where I don't know the particular preference of the person/people I'm talking to -- but it's kind of like using the entire name of the church in a conversation. The official name gets to be a mouthful so I end up using "LDS" or "the church" or some other shorter nomenclature that isn't quite as accurate or accepted and yes, in certain circumstances when using those terms, I would use quotes.

 

 

There didn’t seem to be any confusion regarding who you were addressing when you called me cheeky. Way to avoid a CFR.
 

You don’t get to gatekeep anyone’s use of the word gay. As for same-sex attraction supposedly being the preferred terminology, that phrase has negative connotations for many. I’ve personally never seen it used outside of the church.  Many people see it as a way for the church and its members to marginalize the gay members of the church. So, how about you just stop telling other people what words they can identify with and use?

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

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?

I must have missed that, where does she say that? 

edit- never mind

Edited March 11, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I’ve personally never seen it used outside of the church.

I have seen it in academic writing and speech***, but casual conversation not much outside of religious discussion.

***https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C45&q=same+sex+attraction&oq=same+sex+attra

[Emily]

18 hours ago, Rain said:

Is there actually anywhere that says this or have most of us assumed it?

Yes. If you accept the scriptures and certain ordinances of the church as valid authorities on the subject, then marriage is essential to becoming a god.

Why it's necessary, and what form marriage will take in the eternities are not clear. But it's beyond equivocation that marriage is essential and only between individuals of opposite genders, at least so far as counting toward a state of full exaltation is concerned.

Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4

Doctrine & Covenants 132:14-17

Doctrine & Covenants 132:19-21

There does seem to be a possibility that some celestialized individuals will choose not to marry... "they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants...For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

Angels apparently have the ability to participate in creation under the direction of an individual who has full creative powers, as Christ and Adam participated in creation under the direction of Heavenly Father. But they can't create by their will alone.

Whether or not Christ was fully a god before his birth is a subject beyond the scope of the current topic and there are differing opinions on the subject. But I would argue that He was not. He needed a body before he could obtain a fully exalted state of being. And a wife. Certain extent writings, traditions and logic support the idea that He was married and likely also had children. But canonized scripture on the subject doesn't bring up the topic, so any discussion has to remain speculative. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Teancum]

23 hours ago, Emily said:

I can't speak for everyone, but I know a couple of "gay" members who have chosen to keep their covenants.  They participate in a larger LDS social community, both online and locally, of members who have made a similar commitment.

Sure there are a few such.  My guess is a very few.  My hope is that they are happy and fulfilled if that is their choice. For others that this does not work for I hope they move on from the church.

23 hours ago, Emily said:

Both choose to call themselves SSA as opposed to "gay" because there is a presupposition that if you are "gay" you are, or will be, dating or marrying someone of the same gender. It seems to be a common method of differentiation.

 

I am not sure I get the distinction.

[Emily]

17 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

There didn’t seem to be any confusion regarding who you were addressing when you called me cheeky

I would call any person who uses a label that is offensive to another person "cheeky" so that comment was intended for "people in general" as well.

My post was actually a general response to a couple of people in this discussion who were calling out other posters for avoiding the term "gay". It was not meant to be addressed to you in particular. It wasn't even addressed to the people specifically involved in quibbling over the avoidance of the term. It was addressed to anyone who questions a person's decision to avoid the use of the label of "gay." It is a triggering term for some people. I realize that is changing, but slinging the label around without being sensitive to the perspective of the person it's being applied to is wrong. If that's gatekeeping in your eyes, that's fine. I don't mind gatekeeping a label I know is actively hurtful to several people I'm close to, marginally acceptable to two and only fully embraced by one. 

I acknowledge that my wording made it sound like I was referring specifically to you and I apologized for that error. You can accept that (and in this case, I do mean just you) or not, as you wish. I'm aware of my intentions and don't really want to waste time explaining them further.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Emily said:

Yes. If you accept the scriptures and certain ordinances of the church as valid authorities on the subject, then marriage is essential to becoming a god.

Why it's necessary, and what form marriage will take in the eternities are not clear. But it's beyond equivocation that marriage is essential and only between individuals of opposite genders, at least so far as counting toward a state of full exaltation is concerned.

Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4

Thank you.

1 hour ago, Emily said:

Doctrine & Covenants 132:14-17

Doctrine & Covenants 132:19-21

There does seem to be a possibility that some celestialized individuals will choose not to marry... "they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants...For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever."

Angels apparently have the ability to participate in creation under the direction of an individual who has full creative powers, as Christ and Adam participated in creation under the direction of Heavenly Father. But they can't create by their will alone.

Whether or not Christ was fully a god before his birth is a subject beyond the scope of the current topic and there are differing opinions on the subject. But I would argue that He was not. He needed a body before he could obtain a fully exalted state of being. 

That is a tricky one. I remember when I realized Christ didn't have a body when he created, but the scriptures say "God" so obviously something is missing or something is wrong in the concept. 

1 hour ago, Emily said:

And a wife. Certain extent writings, traditions and logic support the idea that He was married and likely also had children. But canonized scripture on the subject doesn't bring up the topic, so any discussion has to remain speculative. 

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Emily said:

It's not hateful, it's a metaphor. Any time you decide to give up something highly desirable that you have been promised in the future for something you feel an immediate need for right now, you've chosen the pottage. This doesn't mean the "pottage" isn't desirable and isn't important, just that it's not as important as a birthright.

And perhaps it is the "covenants" that equates to the pottage.  Does that seem hateful to you?

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

People who do not know God's will come up with their own morality and supporting covenants. Of course, some say that "God's will" is just our own anyway, so the Church's commandments and covenants easily become irrelevant or malleable to them. Others may say that the Church's commandments and covenants are immoral and so have nothing to do with them.

Nobody knows God's will. You don't either.  You just think you do.  So yea what you call God's will is what you have been taught, what you believe, what you have faith in.  But someone else thinks God's will is different than what you think God's will is.  What a wonderful day it will be when humans realize "God's Will" is just made up and we can focus on Morality that does the least harm to each other.

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I know you don’t believe that. 

IMO God has plenty of Grace.  We need to catch up. 

God has as much grace as humans allow God to have.

[Teancum]

21 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

I am not sure when and where you grew up.  But when and where for me (SLC 1960s and 1970s) gay was NOT derogatory.  What was derogatory was faggot, or fag for men, an lezzie for women.  Gay came into my vernacular to replace those awful terms I mentioned.  I am so sad I ever used the other.

[Emily]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I've heard this as well, but only through social media. There's currently some pretty hard pushback (news articles) against transexual women who were born male calling themselves "lesbian" in the LGBTQ+ community, so terms are more nuanced than anyone outside the community can probably understand. I've only got a glimmer from friends, coworkers, a few  relatives (one child recently announced that she is a trans woman, so I've only had about 8 months to try to gain some understanding of the trans movement). 

At any rate, you are correct. I use quotes to indicate that a word isn't necessarily one that I would use... But it's a term or label that is commonly used and understood by other people. I also use quotes when I'm actually quoting, of course.

I have no idea what a "scare" quote is. What does that refer to?

 

Edited March 11, 2024 by Emily

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Emily said:

As I mentioned, this is a matter of belief and opinion. You don't think it's worth it. I do. We can agree to disagree.

I discount your position/belief on this substantially if you are a believing Latter-day Saint that is heterosexual.  In fact I discount it substantially.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to live lives of celibacy.  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

Out of curiosity, do you ever listen to what other people say in this forum? 

Yes.  All the time.

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

No.

Okay.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I don't think I disputed the reasons people state for leaving the Church.  My point was that many of the LGBT people who are saying "the church doesn't work for them are being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members hate them, which is distinguishable from other Latter-day Saints who are also called upon to obey the Law of Chastity.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Again, I don't think I have disputed the reasons people state for leaving the Church.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Quote

Mormonism works for some people, but it doesn’t work for others. If you are gay, it probably doesn’t work for you.

I think this is more aptly described as "facile" than "simple."

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

That is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

It is hugely relevant to this discussion.  "Sexual identity" is the central premise of your argument.  You differentiate Latter-day Saints using a concept that, historically speaking, is about five minutes old, and one that has cachet in some, but far from all, segments of societies in the world.  So I think there is a lot of value in re-examining the premises of the arguments under discussion.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here and now, some people self identify as LGBTQ. 

As Hamba put it: "The notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge."

This, in your words, is "totally irrelevant" to discussions about people who adopt these constructions.  I think we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Those who do are far more likely to leave the church than those who don’t.

The idea of "people hav{ing} sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender" is "completely new" and a "complete novelty."  This fabricated narratives amount to "historical revisionism," and overall the current trends regarding sexual "identities" are "clearly" a "cultural phenomenon."

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is the data. 

That is the narrative.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

The history of LGBTQ as something someone can identify as doesn’t change the data we are discussing.

It changes everything.  Sexual identity is a "cultural phenomenon" which has never been accepted by the Church, and which puts the Church "at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society."

If Hamba is right in stating that the Church's position is "far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination ... {and} with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic" (and I think he is right), then "when our Church leaders encourage us not to identify people as homosexual, they show themselves to be astutely historically aware."

I dispute your presupposition about sexual identities.  That you summarily and conclusorily dismiss my dispute as being "totally irrelevant" to a discussion about sexual identities tends to validate, in my view, Hamba's statement that your presupposition "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." 

I think you are unable and/or unwilling to examine the merits of your presupposition because it is too firmly engrained in your worldview, such that you've never been bothered to examine it, and perhaps you've never been challenged on it before.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’m not foistering anything on the Church.

Yes, you are.  You are foisting "sexual identity" onto a community that, per Hamba, has "{never} embraced this new discourse of sexual identities."  When General Authorities expound upon the Law of Chastity, they are not speaking about identities, but about behaviors.  You and yours view these teachings through the lens of "sexual identity."  The Church does not.  

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I have not suggested anything to the contrary.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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. 

You continue to miss the point.  Again from Hamba:

Quote

The Church has boundless room for sinners, including me and 'gay sinners'.

You are not addressing this point, and I suspect that is because it punctures your presupposition.  It is same-sex behavior that is prohibited.  Not an "identity."  

Quote

But the entire interplay of church and sinner in Christianity is about inviting the sinner to return and repent.

You are not addressing this point.  The "sin" is the behavior.  The Church has never acquiesced to the "identity," as evidenced by its use of "same-sex attraction."

Quote

At the point that a person decides to celebrate and cement her/his sinful nature by making it a legal category, that person has moved past sin (common to every single Saint) into apostasy -- in this case (and with this church in particular), having openly rejected everything the community of Saints holds dear and understands to be the very gift of Christ that God desires to bestow upon His children.

You are not addressing this point.  Sexual attractions/feelings are not the sin, but neither are they an "identity."  Cloaking behaviors in an "identity" does not work in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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.

Oh, brother.  You are constantly speaking for the Latter-day Saints.  You are constantly telling us what we believe.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I do listen, and I've never said "they are lying about why they left."

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"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.

I haven't demonized anyone.

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

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. 

Which brings us back to my original point.  A big part of why the Restored Gospel doesn't work for others is because they are inundated with messaging from opponents of the Church who, presuming to speak for the Church, tells them that the Church and its members "hate" them.  This is in contrast to other groups who likewise must constrain their behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity, but who aren't being targeted for such malignant messaging.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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

It is amazing that billions around the world are based on a myth where one brother cheats the other brother and also deceives his father in order to get a "birthright."  Why would a just god tolerate that? Why is their some sort of birthright anyway?  World religions, based on bronze age stories and myths. Ugh.

 

21 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

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).

Ummm no it is not just about sex. It is also about not being able to have an emotionally intimate, romantic, fulfilling relationship with someone one loves.  Just like others here you clearly don't get it.   By the way there is nothing wrong with sex.  

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure when and where you grew up.  But when and where for me (SLC 1960s and 1970s) gay was NOT derogatory.  What was derogatory was faggot, or fag for men, an lezzie for women.  Gay came into my vernacular to replace those awful terms I mentioned.  I am so sad I ever used the other.

San Francisco Bay Area and a suburb of Chicago in the 60’s and 70’s.  Gay was used as an insult by those who were politically antagonistic to the movement, much like woke is used these days.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Emily said:

 

I have no idea what a "scare" quote is. What does that refer to?

 

Quote

 

 

Possibly the most common reason authors use scare quotes is to show they are using a word ironically or that they otherwise want to distance themselves from the usage. For instance: The “fresh” fish had a suspicious smell. When used like this, they are also known as “shudder quotes” and “sneer quotes.”

https://knowadays.com/blog/proofreading-tips-what-to-do-with-scare-quotes/#:~:text=Possibly the most common reason,” and “sneer quotes.”
 

It is equivalent in most cases to using so-called.

Edited March 11, 2024 by Calm

[Emily]

32 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And perhaps it is the "covenants" that equates to the pottage.  Does that seem hateful to you?

No, that does not seem hateful to me. I would simply assume you are continuing the metaphor to express your perception of the importance of non-eternal marriage vs eternal marriage.

Your perception is the reverse of mine. That doesn't make it hateful, it makes it different.

I choose to believe that the Abrahamic birthright is extremely important, much more important than any purely mortal relationship, no matter how close, warm or intimate it might be. My scale doesn't match your scale. We agree to disagree. We don't have to throw around words like "hateful."

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Nobody knows God's will. You don't either.  You just think you do.  So yea what you call God's will is what you have been taught, what you believe, what you have faith in.  But someone else thinks God's will is different than what you think God's will is.  What a wonderful day it will be when humans realize "God's Will" is just made up and we can focus on Morality that does the least harm to each other.

Nobody knows that nobody knows God's will. You don't either. So yes whatever you say is whatever is in your head, and others think differently. What a wonderful day when you eventually realize you can share what is in your head without making it stink!