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

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I did not invite prurient scrutiny of my sex life

Huh?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

For most of human history, human beings simply did not "identify" themselves by their sexual preferences/behaviors

CFR please. While I agree and have always agreed the identification of homosexual or heterosexual are relatively new social constructs, I don’t believe that necessarily applies to every other form of sexual identity. There are more sexual preferences and behaviors than the binary homo and heterosexual terms. Simply because these terms weren’t used to describe sexual preferences doesn’t mean other labels weren’t used (I am not suggesting they meant homosexuality or heterosexuality under another label, I am saying they expressed different sexual preferences).

There are cultures with more than two genders and at times the additional genders had specific sexual behaviors associated with this identity, though at the moment my brain is spacing on labels as it has been too long since I studied this stuff.

While I am not certain what I am thinking of qualifies as the same sense of identity, I am thinking if you use nationality, sexual biology, familial roles, and religious beliefs as aspects as identity, my guess is such communities of individuals also qualify similar to how homosexuality and heterosexual are used as identities today. 
 

Quote

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." 

Not sure what your point is here because public expression of identity is not required to possess such an identity.  Me never calling myself an American would not negate me having the identity of American. 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

40 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Read this from the church website. 

OK? Now what?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

You’re all a bunch of noobs 😉

If the vintage of an identity defines its value, we might as well give up identifying as Saints and start lining up for Catholic baptism.

If the vintage of a concept about human relationships determines its value, if newer ideas are essentially meaningless or reasonably dismissed as valueless, then we should be throwing out laws protecting women from being raped by their husbands as those are very recent developments in the concepts involving sexual behavior. 

Oftentimes newer identities are based on expanded understanding of how humans function as well as choices in how we form communities, whether by arbitrary geographical boundaries, visual attributes, religious faiths, political or social standards, educational background or family lineage or whatever new community variation pops up due to a reconfiguration of borders, technology, etc. 

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I did not invite prurient scrutiny of my sex life.

No, you just like to opine on how others describe their sexuality and tell them they are doing it wrong. Kind of prurient don’t you think?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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."

Do you think queer people do go around introducing themselves like that? No wonder you think we are all prurient.

[The Nehor]

4 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).

It had to do with excluding people based on lineage that no one could actually conclusively know. It was all nonsense.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It had to do with excluding people based on lineage that no one could actually conclusively know. It was all nonsense.

That's not the issue I was addressing. The claim was that it was based on skin color- I was addressing that claim specifically. There were men excluded from the Priesthood who were about as white looking as me (Welsh/Irish/German) who were excluded because their parentage was known.

The "known" seems to be African ancestry specifically.

Edited May 2, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The "known" seems to be African ancestry specifically.

Assumed African ancestry…

[ZealouslyStriving]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Assumed African ancestry…

How so? 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How so? 

Did they have DNA testing back then?

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did they have DNA testing back then?

To see if any whites had a drop of African blood? No.

But again, I was addressing the claim that it was about skin color- which it wasn't. If someone had known African lineage, they were precluded. They weren't precluded because they were dark-skinned.

DNA would've made things very interesting, I wholeheartedly agree. 😄

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Where?

Thanks,

-Smac

All over this thread and other. 

[Doctor Steuss]

[Duplicate... funky internet... sorry]

Edited May 2, 2024 by Doctor Steuss

[Doctor Steuss]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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!!!!!

For those who don't like reading stuffy Socratic dialogues, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, "Origin of Love" is based partly on this satirical creation myth, with some fun illustrations.  Not sure if the song would pass as PG(?) (the musical in its entirety certainly wouldn't), so proceed with caution... my Mormon kosher radar seems to be skewed at times.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Doctor Steuss

[Daniel2]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

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....

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.

And once again, based on your way of framing the issue, I actually don't "identify" myself to others based on my sexual orientation/preference, either.  I don't go around saying, "Hello, my name is Darin Burton-Adams, and I am sexually attracted to the following category/categories."  What an absurd thing to think people actually do.  It certainly makes me wonder how often you've interacted with LGBT individuals on a regular day-to-day basis.  Even most of the ones who do define themselves as LGBT that I've met rarely introduce themselves by saying, "Hello, my name is XXXXX, and I am sexually attracted to the following categories..."  Seems like a really unaware characterization of what most LGBT individuals are like in reality.

Conversely, I share several (though not all) of your same self-identifiers: I'm also an adult biological male, an American citizen, a husband, a father, and (unlike you, so far), a grandfather, a great grandfather, and a culturally-Mormon Unitarian Universalist."  I do go around saying, "Hello, I'm Darin... this is my husband, and these are our kids and grandkids."  My sexual orientation never comes up. 

Based on how you've redefined what it means to have/not have a "sexual identity," I'm not really "gay/homosexual," either.

[Daniel2]

19 hours 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.

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.

I asked very similar questions 12 pages ago, but Smac seems to simply ignore questions he doesn't wish to answer... Per my unanswered post back on page 10, dated 03/31/2024 @ 7:36 a.m.:

Quote

Interesting. 

This post (and the rest of yours in this and other threads) indicate to me that you definitely spend a LOT more time and energy centered around  “sexual identities” than I do. 

The more I read your words and how you frame things, the more I’m convinced that by your definitions, I’m actually NOT gay or homosexual, because those you describe as having chosen to identify as having “a sexual identity” don’t resonate with me or describe my life at all. 

According to how you see and define yourself and your wife, I’m just a non-sexually-identity-self-identifying guy that simply happens to be happily married to my husband.

Two genuine questions:

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?

Seems like twelve pages later, we're back to the same/very similar unanswered questions to where we were, back then.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I did not invite prurient scrutiny of my sex life.

Funny. I don't recall ever inviting prurient scrutiny of my sex life either... but a lot of religious conservatives seem obsessed with what I and other men-married-to men like me do.

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, you just like to opine on how others describe their sexuality and tell them they are doing it wrong. Kind of prurient don’t you think?

Do you think queer people do go around introducing themselves like that? No wonder you think we are all prurient.

Shoot! You beat me to it and much more succinctly, Nehor... 👏  Well said.

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

And once again, based on your way of framing the issue, I actually don't "identify" myself to others based on my sexual orientation/preference, either.  I don't go around saying, "Hello, my name is Darin Burton-Adams, and I am sexually attracted to the following category/categories."  What an absurd thing to think people actually do.  It certainly makes me wonder how often you've interacted with LGBT individuals on a regular day-to-day basis.  Even most of the ones who do define themselves as LGBT that I've met rarely introduce themselves by saying, "Hello, my name is XXXXX, and I am sexually attracted to the following categories..."  Seems like a really unaware characterization of what most LGBT individuals are like in reality.

Conversely, I share several (though not all) of your same self-identifiers: I'm also an adult biological male, an American citizen, a husband, a father, and (unlike you, so far), a grandfather, a great grandfather, and a culturally-Mormon Unitarian Universalist."  I do go around saying, "Hello, I'm Darin... this is my husband, and these are our kids and grandkids."  My sexual orientation never comes up. 

Based on how you've redefined what it means to have/not have a "sexual identity," I'm not really "gay/homosexual," either.

🤣

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How so? 

In most cases where they were saying yea or nay to priesthood, they didn’t have even semiaccurate genealogical records to show African ancestry or any DNA tests, so there was an assumption of genetic heritage.  In some places and times a lack of info meant they were given the Priesthood, other times not iirc.  I can’t remember a specific case, but I am pretty sure there was at least one case where someone was insisting he was white but without records to prove there was no African heritage he was not given permission to receive it (reality is there is always African heritage in every human, so I am obviously referring to the understanding of heritage at the time).  Assuming my vaguest of memories is correct, I hope it was the more unusual choice, but my guess is not a lot of presumed to be Black or darker skinned men in the US at least attempted to argue they were white or Polynesian, etc and therefore should get the Priesthood when people hesitated.  More likely when most in that situation found out Black men were refused the Priesthood and all Blacks were forbidden the temple, they went elsewhere for their religion.  As I understand it, the situation in Brazil was quite different with there being much less stigma attaching to an African heritage.  Iirc, it was a don’t ask, don’t tell situation, but may be messing up details.  I probably should check.

Iow, African lineage was often simply assumed based on appearance.  They weren’t demanding genealogy records when a Black man showed up to get baptized in deciding whether or not to give him the Priesthood.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

They weren't precluded because they were dark-skinned.

Yeah, I have my doubts about this.  If they were dark skinned, but living in Polynesia, etc., my guess is documentation they didn’t have African ancestry wasn’t required, but if they lived in the US and their family heritage was not already known (as would often be the case for investigators/converts) and they were dark skinned, do you really believe if they were of Polynesian heritage but could not prove it that no one would have been precluded from the Priesthood because the common assumption in the US that dark skin=African heritage?

The reasoning (African heritage) was not based on skin color, but the practical application of determining African heritage usually involved skin color.  If their heritage wasn’t known, they weren’t in areas with immigrants from Polynesia, etc and they had dark enough skin, my guess is African heritage would have been presumed based solely on skin color.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

asked very similar questions 12 pages ago

I am pretty sure I have as well whether in this thread or another.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

🤣

 

And the point?

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

And the point?

To add levity. The stereotype followed by the unhinged reaction of the clueless caller.

Has everyone lost their sense of humor in the last 6 years?

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To add levity. The stereotype followed by the unhinged reaction of the clueless caller.

Has everyone lost their sense of humor in the last 6 years?

I don’t do videos unless there is a good reason (thus me asking the point), so I have no clue if I would have found it to be funny or not.

Edited May 2, 2024 by Calm