Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

David Archuleta's new single about he and (some in?) his family leaving the Faith


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

if you don’t believe you have/have accepted or embraced any socially-constructed sexual-identity yourself, what DOES it specifically look like/mean when someone accepts/embraces having a socially-constructed sexual identity—either straight, gay, or bi?

Conversely, what specifically does it look like/mean to reject accepting/embracing any of these allegedly “socially constructed sexual identities”? From what I understand, you don’t self-identify with any sexual identity, even though you’re happily married to your wife. Is that right?

Much better put than I did. Thanks for asking as well. I am very curious about this. 

Labels are great for shorthand if everyone is on the same page, but the more this discussion goes on the less it appears to me we are talking about the same thing and the nuances can make a big difference. 
 

added:  for political and casual discussion, labels are okay, but for what the Church intends and those supporting the Church in this area intend**** we should actually talk about behaviour, especially since sexual identity isn’t just one thing, but a massive collection of many behaviours and tendencies, both conscious and unconscious.

**** I consider I am though with my own personal way of saying things which I believe matches actual teachings and doctrine even though I understand some others don’

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you..." (Lev. 18:22,24)

I've got another one for you:  "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9). 

The Jewish people have kept very good records over the years.  How many Jewish children do you think have been put to death over the years for cursing their father or mother?  Hundreds?  Thousands? 

Zero. 

Is this because zero Jewish children have cursed their father or mother?  Of course not.  Were their father and mother breaking the law by NOT having their rebellious children killed?  No.  They were actually following the law, in this case the higher law.

Now you are probably wondering, where in the Bible is this higher law written?  It's not written in the Bible!  But, the Bible does tell us where it is written:

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33)

God writes the higher law in our hearts.  It is not in a book.  And it supersedes all lower and/or man-made laws.

You see, the Bible is not actually "the Word of God" regardless of how correctly it is translated.  There are a few parts of the Bible which qualify as such, but most of the Bible is the word of whoever wrote that part.  One of the parts of the Bible which IS "the Word of God" is this:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)

People have come up with ways to wiggle around what Christ is telling us to do, so let me paraphrase:

"Love and treat your neighbor as if they are literally YOU on another timeline."  If that gay person is actually YOU on another timeline, how would you treat them?  Suddenly "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on a deeper meaning.

Let's keep going.  In the 25th chapter of Matthew Jesus tells the parable of the King who goes among his people in disguise, and then reveals himself to them with these words:  "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (verse 40)

Combining these concepts we come up with:  "Love and treat your neighbor as if they are the Christ in disguise."  This is how Christ taught us to treat one another, including those we would normally look down upon as being "the least" by whatever yardstick we're inclined to use. 

And for the record, this is not an original idea.  King Benjamin taught it well over two thousand years ago:  "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."  (Mosiah 2:17)

Love and treat your neighbor as if they are the Christ in disguise.

In my opinion.  Because maybe they are.

Edited by manol
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, manol said:

I've got another one for you:  "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9). 

The Jewish people have kept very good records over the years.  How many Jewish children do you think have been out to death over the years for cursing their father or mother?  Hundreds?  Thousands? 

Zero. 

Is this because zero Jewish children have cursed their father or mother?  Of course not.  Were their father and mother breaking the law by NOT having their rebellious children killed?  No.  They were actually following the law, in this case the higher law.

Now you are probably wondering, where in the Bible is this higher law written?  It's not written in the Bible!  But, the Bible does tell us where it is written:

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

God writes the higher law in our hearts.  It is not in a book.  And it supersedes all lower and/or man-made laws.

You see, the Bible is not actually "the Word of God" regardless of how correctly it is translated.  There are a few parts of the Bible which qualify as such, but most of the Bible is the word of whoever wrote that part.  One of the parts of the Bible which IS "the Word of God" is this:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)

People have come up with ways to wiggle around what Christ is telling us to do, so let me paraphrase:

"Love and treat your neighbor as if they are literally YOU on another timeline."  If that gay person is actually YOU on another timeline, how would you treat them?  Suddenly "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on a deeper meaning.

Let's keep going.  In the 25th chapter of Matthew Jesus tells the parable of a King who goes among his people in disguise, and then reveals himself to them with these words:  "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 

Combining these concepts we come up with:  "Love and treat your neighbor as if they are the Christ in disguise."  This is how Christ taught us to treat one another, including those we would normally look down upon as being "the least" by whatever yardstick we're inclined to use. 

And just for the record, this is not an original idea.  King Benjamin taught it well over two thousand years ago:  "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."  (Mosiah 2:17)

We are to love and treat our neighbor as if they are the Christ in disguise.

In my opinion.

Loving you neighbor and condoning sexual immorality are not mutually inclusive.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, manol said:


Loving your neighbor and not judging them are mutually inclusive. 

Judgment is not your job.  It's not our job.  It's okay to let it go.  You can set that heavy burden down and walk away from it.  It's okay.   (I'm not being facetious; I'm totally serious.)

IMG_3602.thumb.jpeg.ec256ada0de34ce251d2fad7b3c3dfb0.jpeg

Link to comment

We can determine for ourselves that an action is outside the bounds if the Lords laws for the purpose of creating our own behavior rules- but those who try to emulate the prophets on the walls end up alienating more than inspiring IMO.  

Jesus was far more influential and continues to be. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yes, correcting skewed sexual morals was a good fruit of the spread of the Abrahamic regions. Although the intensity of some in stamping it out was not Christlike, but they will have to answer to God for any cruelty.

Can you elaborate on this line of thinking? 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's "programming." 

Now I am more awake, predisposition or proclivity might be more accurate than programming.  Programming has the nuance of being very regimented, rigid in response where what gets labeled sexual identity is more likely about a range of behaviours to choose from and depending on other variables, what choice happens at a particular time could be quite different even in very similar circumstances. 

I need to get back into the technical readings not only because I am likely out of date in some of my concepts (I appreciate anyone pointing this out for me, btw, I am not wed to any concept if the science doesn’t back it), but I am losing the more precise language to discuss stuff.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Until and unless the innovation that is "sexual identity" is set aside or subordinated.  Then the dilemma is resolved or mitigated.

What construct that you insist should be set aside seemingly is your own construct and based on the  comments be another poster here.  Why are you or he the authority on this?  You really are creating a false dilemma here that you then use as an authoritative stick to verbally beat anyone who rejects it.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not quite.  Even newly-minted "social construct{s}" can exert significant influence over an individual.

I am saying that it is possible to set aside the notion of "sexual identity," or else subordinate it.  

Can you please clarify something for me?  What is your position on homosexuality and heterosexuality. Do you view it as a choice?  Or is it something we are born with.  I understand, at least based on what I have read, that there is a spectrum that humans can land on in regards to sexual desires. Hence some may be bisexual, or lean towards one side or the other, so to speak.  But it seems to me that based on at least our best current understanding, sexual preferences are not a choice for most of us. I have 0 desire romantically or sexually towards a man.  It just is something  that is not within me. And that is how I think I have always been.  I could not choose to marry a man.  Marrying a man would not chance my sexual identity. I would not be happy. It would not work.  I can be close emotionally to another man, in a deep friendship sort of way.  But that is it.  It seems to me you are arguing that sexual preferences are a choice.  Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Can you please clarify something for me?  What is your position on homosexuality and heterosexuality. Do you view it as a choice?  Or is it something we are born with.  I understand, at least based on what I have read, that there is a spectrum that humans can land on in regards to sexual desires. Hence some may be bisexual, or lean towards one side or the other, so to speak.  But it seems to me that based on at least our best current understanding, sexual preferences are not a choice for most of us. I have 0 desire romantically or sexually towards a man.  It just is something  that is not within me. And that is how I think I have always been.  I could not choose to marry a man.  Marrying a man would not chance my sexual identity. I would not be happy. It would not work.  I can be close emotionally to another man, in a deep friendship sort of way.  But that is it.  It seems to me you are arguing that sexual preferences are a choice.  Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Exactly, I always ask those that think it's a choice how they might feel if they were told that homosexuality is the norm and being heterosexual is wrong and condemned, how would that sit? Hopefully it would help them empathize a bit more.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that your worldview is steeped in the late 19th-century Western social construct that is commonly called "sexual identity."  My worldview, however, is substantially different.

YOU have yet to actually demonstrate your argument above other than from one poster on this board. Why is he and what he said the authority in this.  Perhaps you have other sources to substantiate your position? 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you please clarify something for me?  What is your position on homosexuality and heterosexuality. Do you view it as a choice?  Or is it something we are born with.  I understand, at least based on what I have read, that there is a spectrum that humans can land on in regards to sexual desires. Hence some may be bisexual, or lean towards one side or the other, so to speak.  But it seems to me that based on at least our best current understanding, sexual preferences are not a choice for most of us. I have 0 desire romantically or sexually towards a man.  It just is something  that is not within me. And that is how I think I have always been.  I could not choose to marry a man.  Marrying a man would not chance my sexual identity. I would not be happy. It would not work.  I can be close emotionally to another man, in a deep friendship sort of way.  But that is it.  It seems to me you are arguing that sexual preferences are a choice.  Please correct me if I misunderstand.

 Alternatively, if I woke up and suddenly I was homosexual, it would change my identity tremendously.   

Link to comment
23 hours ago, manol said:

Let me know when you decide to start your own church. At least I know the financials will be transparent!

Um, I think you're right up there manol! 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
20 hours ago, smac97 said:

"All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct." 

I think more and more people are coming around and recognizing this.

CFR for this the claim in quites and the comment that more are coming around and recognizing this.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, manol said:

I've got another one for you:  "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9). 

The Jewish people have kept very good records over the years.  How many Jewish children do you think have been put to death over the years for cursing their father or mother?  Hundreds?  Thousands? 

Zero. 

Is this because zero Jewish children have cursed their father or mother?  Of course not.  Were their father and mother breaking the law by NOT having their rebellious children killed?  No.  They were actually following the law, in this case the higher law.

Now you are probably wondering, where in the Bible is this higher law written?  It's not written in the Bible!  But, the Bible does tell us where it is written:

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:33)

God writes the higher law in our hearts.  It is not in a book.  And it supersedes all lower and/or man-made laws.

You see, the Bible is not actually "the Word of God" regardless of how correctly it is translated.  There are a few parts of the Bible which qualify as such, but most of the Bible is the word of whoever wrote that part.  One of the parts of the Bible which IS "the Word of God" is this:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)

People have come up with ways to wiggle around what Christ is telling us to do, so let me paraphrase:

"Love and treat your neighbor as if they are literally YOU on another timeline."  If that gay person is actually YOU on another timeline, how would you treat them?  Suddenly "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on a deeper meaning.

Let's keep going.  In the 25th chapter of Matthew Jesus tells the parable of the King who goes among his people in disguise, and then reveals himself to them with these words:  "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (verse 40)

Combining these concepts we come up with:  "Love and treat your neighbor as if they are the Christ in disguise."  This is how Christ taught us to treat one another, including those we would normally look down upon as being "the least" by whatever yardstick we're inclined to use. 

And for the record, this is not an original idea.  King Benjamin taught it well over two thousand years ago:  "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."  (Mosiah 2:17)

Love and treat your neighbor as if they are the Christ in disguise.

In my opinion.  Because maybe they are.

This could be a sermon/talk on Sunday!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Can you elaborate on this line of thinking? 

Although there were excesses (which the Lord will judge (Isaiah 47:6-9)) the spread of Christianity was good for the world in bringing nations out of cultural practices that lead to national ruin and divine punishment.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Although there were excesses (which the Lord will judge (Isaiah 47:6-9)) the spread of Christianity was good for the world in bringing nations out of cultural practices that lead to national ruin and divine punishment.

I am working on this single:

D&C 100: 98 ...and with the voice together csing this new song, saying:

99The Lord hath brought again Zion;The Lord hath aredeemed his people, bIsrael,According to the celection of dgrace,Which was brought to pass by the faithAnd ecovenant of their fathers.

100The Lord hath redeemed his people;And Satan is abound and btime is no longer.The Lord hath gathered all things in cone.The Lord hath brought down dZion from above.The Lord hath ebrought up Zion from beneath.

101The aearth hath travailed and bbrought forth her strength;And truth is established in her bowels;And the heavens have smiled upon her;And she is clothed with the cglory of her God;For he dstands in the midst of his epeople.

102Glory, and honor, and power, and might,Be ascribed to our God; for he is full of amercy,Justice, grace and truth, and bpeace,Forever and ever, Amen.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Although there were excesses (which the Lord will judge (Isaiah 47:6-9)) the spread of Christianity was good for the world in bringing nations out of cultural practices that lead to national ruin and divine punishment.

Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. So do you think the “excesses” were worth the end result because I think that is a disgusting stance to take. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. So do you think the “excesses” were worth the end result because I think that is a disgusting stance to take. 

I think the excesses were horrible (which is why God will judge those who committed atrocities) and I wish they hadn't happened because it casts a shadow on the good things that Christianity has brought to the entire world.

My late wife's 3rd great-grandfather:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Tiger

Edited by ZealouslyStriving
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This could be a sermon/talk on Sunday!

Ha!  Maybe if you're lookin' to get a good talkin'-to from your bishop!

Seriously, thank you.  I tend to go off-script and color outside the lines, and for the most part somehow get away with it here. 

Link to comment

Patrick Risk, a gay member of the church, published this  post on social media:

Quote

 

David Archuleta is releasing a new song titled “Hell Together.” I guess it’s about his, and his mothers, experience leaving the Church since he came out as gay. While I honor his journey, I mourn that he felt he had to leave.

As I have become more open in sharing my experience as a Latter-day Saint who has same-sex attraction (or is gay), I have uncovered a vast world of people who are hurting. My heart aches for all those who have reached out to me after feeling outcast and alone for so long. As they’ve struggled to reconcile their faith with their sexual identity, many have tragically experienced exile by those who should have loved them most. In the sharing of their stories, I have come to better understand what we, as a Church community, can do to more actively participate in Christ’s echoing invitation for ALL people to “come unto Him.” Here are three simple things I believe every member can do…

(1) Stop pretending you know what it’s like. You don’t, and that’s okay! Listening does not require an answer, and it certainly does not necessitate a need to respond with a recommendation. Miracles happen when we decide to listen with only the intention to learn and to love. And please don’t equate same-sex attraction to another “trial” in life…like an alcoholic who needs to overcome “temptation.” That is an unfair comparison, and individual experiences need not fit within collective comparisons.

(2) Quit thinking that being “gay” is whatever stereotype you have in your mind. That may describe the few, but it absolutely does not define the many. Often, we use our “worst” experiences with a group of people to project future opinions on others we encounter who also wear that same “label.” This is not fair to them, and it limits our opportunity to truly get to know and love those whose character we long ago determined without even giving them a chance. Each person we encounter in this life deserves the opportunity to be known in the light of a “first-time” encounter without the overhanging shadow of past bias.

(3) Start believing that every person is worthy of God’s love. The fact is, God’s love could NEVER be earned by any of us...it just IS, because we just ARE. EVERYONE is worthy and deserving of LOVE! True discipleship does not mean we welcome only those who live our standards…it means we unequivocally love those who don’t.

Now, in the strongest wording I can muster, let me unequivocally say…you can be gay AND be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are not mutually exclusive. So to any of you out there who have felt that this is not possible or like you don’t belong, let me be among those who extend a welcoming hand! Your voice, your perspective, and your light are needed! You are not alone, so stop thinking that you are. This is largely an uncharted path, but often the ones least paved take you to the most beautiful destinations. Together, one day at a time, let’s find a way forward, as we remain true to ourselves and to God.

 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...