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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, because I wrote up the post while waiting for a hearing to start in a courthouse.  I only had a few minutes.

Second, because I intended to re-visit the article later today.

Third, because I figured there are plenty of people on this board who disagree with me, and so would also assess the article.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why not wait and do it right from the beginning?  It affects your credibility that you are willing to settle for and promote (since you are linking to it) poor journalism, imo. 
 

The whole if it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing right kind of thing?

Edited April 18, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

David sang his new song and told his story on American Idol tonight. Very moving. 

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

David sang his new song and told his story on American Idol tonight. Very moving. 

We must be in a different time zone, I'm watching right now with Emmy Russell's performance. Looking forward to David's performance. I don't often buy CD's, but did get his first one out a long time ago. 

[Tacenda]

Just saw David, he did very well. They asked what motivated (?) him to write the song and he told it like it was, that he came out of the closet and his mother telling him that if he was going to hell for it, they were all going there with him. He mentioned how she had left the faith as well and he hadn't known. 

[Tacenda]

This is David on American Idol, his performance and speaking about his journey that led to the song. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6Fg3etJvC5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[Damien the Leper]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  The Proclamation states that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  That speaks to notions of "gender identity" (that is, male or female) whereas "sexual identity" pertains to same-sex attraction / orientation / proclivities.  

Thanks,

-Smac

This makes me glad that you don't identify as heterosexual, straight, or any other adjective of similarity.

[Damien the Leper]

On 3/29/2024 at 4:38 PM, ttribe said:

So do many exmos, but probably for very different reasons.

I'm so far out of the loop where church leadership is concerned. What are you suggesting about Mr. Bednar? I'm genuinely curious. Also, I don't think I could name more than half of the apostles any more.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Not quite.  If the individual is not ready to set aside the concept of sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity," then subordinate it to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God.  

Setting aside the concepts outlined in The Family Proclamation seems rather heretical, from an LDS viewpoint, to me.  Maybe my wandering in the desert of disbelief has scrambled my noggin though.

 

I'm not sure what you are referencing here.  The Proclamation states that "{g}ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  That speaks to notions of "gender identity" (that is, male or female) whereas "sexual identity" pertains to same-sex attraction / orientation / proclivities.  

This makes me glad that you don't identify as heterosexual, straight, or any other adjective of similarity.

Broadly speaking, no, I don't "identify" myself by my sexual orientation/preference.  As I have noted previously, the concept of having a "sexual identity" is a very recent thing.  And regardless of its innovative status, I concur with Douglas Murray's statement here:

Quote

Murray is gay, while stating that homosexuality "is an unstable component on which to base an individual identity and a hideously unstable way to try and base any form of group identity".

See also this excellent article, which touches on this topic from a Latter-day Saint perspective.  An excerpt (from the "Notes" at the end) :

Quote

4, Though he is likely no friend of conservative religions, gay legal scholar Edward Stein elaborated on the many difficulties in the construct of sexual orientation in his 1999 book The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. He writes:

In general, I shall attempt to convince you that much of what most people think about sexual orientations is probably wrong, or at least misguided. Many people think that a person’s sexual orientation is inborn in the sense that a person’s eye color is inborn. Most of the popular scientific theories concerning the origins of human sexual orientation—as well as our commonsense theories about them—accept this claim or one similar to it. Further, many people of various political stripes think that this claim and the scientific theories that relate to it are relevant to ethical and legal questions relating to sexual orientations. I am skeptical of each of these commonly held views… I will argue that much of what is widely believed about human sexual orientations is not [likely to be true]… contemporary theories of the nature and origin of sexual orientation, in effect, mismeasure desire. (Page 5, emphasis in original)

In the years since Stein’s book, even LGBTQ advocates have furthered this thesis. 

5. Conservative nonbeliever Douglas Murray, even though he himself is gay, writes in his book The Madness of Crowds that homosexuality “is an unstable component on which to base an individual identity and a hideously unstable way to try and base any form of group identity,” which foreshadows some of the fractures now appearing in LGBT+ activist circles. 

6. We also recommend the provocatively-titled account “The Day I Decided to Stop Being Gay” for the author’s description of a spontaneous shift in his attractions from homosexual to heterosexual (this shift was spontaneous; the “decided” in the clickbait headline refers to a decision to change behaviors and identity in response to the unchosen shift in attractions). 

I recognize that many (most?) of us, whether through deliberate thought processes or sociocultural osmosis (or both), have bought into the notion of "sexual identity."  In recent years I have been reconsidering this, and am instead trending toward the idea of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)."  I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, no, I don't "identify" myself by my sexual orientation/preference.  As I have noted previously, the concept of having a "sexual identity" is a very recent thing. 

Better said  YOU THINK and are of the opinion it is a recent thing. Nehor seems to have provided plenty of support disputing your position.

[Damien the Leper]

On 3/30/2024 at 4:43 PM, smac97 said:

I think I do.  See, e.g., here:

Our @Hamba Tuhan has stated: "All sexual identity is a late 19th-century Western social construct."  He has been emphasizing this point for some time.  And I think I have a pretty good understanding of what he means.

Thanks,

-Smac

This reminds me of when being a "white" person became a social construct and furthermore its effect on religion.

[Damien the Leper]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, no, I don't "identify" myself by my sexual orientation/preference.  As I have noted previously, the concept of having a "sexual identity" is a very recent thing.  And regardless of its innovative status, I concur with Douglas Murray's statement here:

See also this excellent article, which touches on this topic from a Latter-day Saint perspective.  An excerpt (from the "Notes" at the end) :

I recognize that many (most?) of us, whether through deliberate thought processes or sociocultural osmosis (or both), have bought into the notion of "sexual identity."  In recent years I have been reconsidering this, and am instead trending toward the idea of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)."  I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity."

Thanks,

-Smac

So, you just happen to be a man who engages in marital affairs with a woman with no regard to the fact that you are a male and she is a female. Sexual attraction has no place in your partnering from your perspective, either. You engage in intimacy without regard for physical attraction because that would imply a sexual identity. Fascinating.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Broadly speaking, no, I don't "identify" myself by my sexual orientation/preference.  As I have noted previously, the concept of having a "sexual identity" is a very recent thing. 

Then is it fair to say that you do not identify as white or Caucasian as those are also recent social constructs? If this is true, then Blacks (generally speaking) were not barred from holding priesthood because of the color of their skin. There had to be an obvious reason for the ban since black people weren't marginalized for being black.

Here is a great article to be read: The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence

Edited May 1, 2024 by Damien the Leper

[smac97]

On 5/1/2024 at 1:16 PM, Teancum said:

Quote

Broadly speaking, no, I don't "identify" myself by my sexual orientation/preference.  As I have noted previously, the concept of having a "sexual identity" is a very recent thing. 

Better said  YOU THINK and are of the opinion it is a recent thing.

Well, no.  Historians, including gay and gay-sympathetic historians, appear to all acknowledge the recent vintage (from a historical standpoint, anyway).

On 5/1/2024 at 1:16 PM, Teancum said:

Nehor seems to have provided plenty of support disputing your position.

Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Historian, including gay and gay-sympathetic historians, appear to all acknowledge the recent vintage

Recent vintage does not imply it is a faulty concept.  

In comparison to other religions (religion is a social construct), the religious identity of Latter-day Saint is a recent vintage and is a 19th century creation as well.

Edited May 1, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Historian, including gay and gay-sympathetic historians, appear to all acknowledge the recent vintage (from a historical standpoint, anyway).

They acknowledge that the terms WE USE are of recent vintage. You have taken that beyond all sense of reason and generalized it. You cling to this irrational take very fiercely.

That other cultures used other terms defining additional genders you just ignore.

As to sexual orientation in Plato’s Symposium he attributed a speech to Aristophanes making up an almost satirical creation myth where there were originally three types of humans and all were dual in nature. Some had two male halves, some two women halves, and some one of each. Then the gods cut them all in half and everyone is out searching for the other half they lost. An apt description of straight, gay, and lesbian people attributing to them a sexuality. Now the story is probably satire but it acknowledges that some people are drawn specifically to one gender only. Of course Plato is contributing to bi-erasure here. CURSE YOU PLATO!!!!!

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Where?

In this thread I wrote up a post about different understandings of gender in various other cultures throughout history. You didn’t respond to it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Recent vintage does not imply it is a faulty concept.  

Also the guy who kind of made much ado about sexual identity being a recent construct was Michael Foucault. He would not have agreed with smac’s characterization of what he was saying.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also the guy who kind of made much ado about sexual identity being a recent construct was Michael Foucault. He would not have agreed with smac’s characterization of what he was saying.

It is not as if there had never been before social constructs associated with male and female sexual behaviour, even when it was same sex behaviour.  One just needs to look at art and literature over the millenniums to see there was extensive awareness and discussion of same sex relationships and ongoing behaviour.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Broadly speaking, no, I don't "identify" myself by my sexual orientation/preference.  As I have noted previously, the concept of having a "sexual identity" is a very recent thing. 

Then is it fair to say that you do not identify as white or Caucasian as those are also recent social constructs?

Many (most?) identities are social constructs.  That said, I do not hold for myself a distinctive "identity" based on skin color.

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

If this is true, then Blacks (generally speaking) were not barred from holding priesthood because of the color of their skin.

I'm not sure what you mean.  That I choose to not abide by notions of skin-color-based "identity" does not mean everyone else does or has done the same.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

So, you just happen to be a man who engages in marital affairs with a woman

No.

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

with no regard to the fact that you are a male and she is a female.

No.

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Sexual attraction has no place in your partnering from your perspective, either.

No.

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

You engage in intimacy without regard for physical attraction because that would imply a sexual identity.

No.

3 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Fascinating.

You are not accurately characterizing my position.  Not even remotely.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No.

No.

No.

No.

You are not accurately characterizing my position.  Not even remotely.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you please explain your position in detail so we can better understand it because if the above is not an accurate portrayal at least in part, I am having a hard time seeing how you identify the interactions that occur in your marriage.

Perhaps starting by telling us if you see yourself having a sexual identity at all and if so, what is it and if not, what is your alternative way of identifying or if that is not the appropriate word in your view, than how do you describe yourself in terms of sexual behaviour and relationships.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Many (most?) identities are social constructs.  That said, I do not hold for myself a distinctive "identity" based on skin color.

I'm not sure what you mean.  That I choose to not abide by notions of skin-color-based "identity" does not mean everyone else does or has done the same.

And yet ethnic and racial minorities who try to do as you say you do find it virtually impossible. Why is that?

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Would you please explain your position in detail so we can better understand it because if the above is not an accurate portrayal at least in part, I am having a hard time seeing how you identify the interactions that occur in your marriage.

I did not invite prurient scrutiny of my sex life.

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps starting by telling us if you see yourself having a sexual identity at all

Not really.  I do not "identify" myself to others based on my sexual orientation/preference.

I have brown eyes, am right-handed, and wear size 13 shoes, but I don't have an "identity" borne of any of these characteristics.

I eat meat, but I don't "identify" as a carnivore.

I enjoy movies, but I don't "identify" as a movie buff.

I am an attorney by trade, but I don't carry it or treat it as an "identity."

Conversely, I am an adult biological male, an American citizen, a Latter-day Saint, a husband, a father, and I "identify" myself to others in these ways.

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

and if so, what is it and if not, what is your alternative way of identifying or if that is not the appropriate word in your view, than how do you describe yourself in terms of sexual behaviour and relationships.

Again, I do not "identify" myself to others based on my sexual orientation/preference.  I don't go around saying "Hello, my name is Spencer Macdonald, and I am sexually attracted to the following category/categories."  For most of human history, human beings simply did not "identify" themselves by their sexual preferences/behaviors, as evidenced by "homosexual" and "heterosexual" being relatively recently-created terms.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

If this is true, then Blacks (generally speaking) were not barred from holding priesthood because of the color of their skin.

Which they weren't.

Aborigines of Australia, Polynesians, and other groups who skin can be quite dark were not excluded from the Priesthood. It had to do with lineage, not color (colour for our British and Canadian brothers and sisters).

Edited May 2, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Recent vintage does not imply it is a faulty concept.  

In comparison to other religions (religion is a social construct), the religious identity of Latter-day Saint is a recent vintage and is a 19th century creation as well.

You’re all a bunch of noobs 😉

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which they weren't.

Aborigines of Australia, Polynesians, and other groups who skin can be quite dark were not excluded from the Priesthood. It had to do with lineage, not color (colour for our British and Canadian brothers and sisters).

Read this from the church website.