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

[manol]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Your words seem familiar...

"O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come. Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers." - Korihor

Teancum is a very good man. He follows his conscience and lives his code far better than I live my religion (well I don't have a formal religion but you know what I mean). There is a real purity to his morality; it never obligates him to go along with something that doesn't feel right just for the sake of being a team player. And he is quicker to take responsibility for a mistake and apologize than pretty much anyone else here. His communication style is different from mine, but Teancum the man sets a good example for me. I hope you can see past the differences between your belief system and his. I think many people on this board can and do.

Edited March 30, 2024 by manol

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wait... So those that are against the Church who constantly hurl such things at others are OK- but if I compare scripture to what they are saying I am somehow out of line?

Hurl what at others?  Did I call you a blinded cultist and unthinking follower of Joseph Smith or anything like that?  Nope.  But you did call me a Korihor did you not?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, Teancum, you're the anti-Christ. And here I thought it was Bill Gates and nanobot vaccines...

That is me!  Bill and me.  We are in it together.  🤪

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I did find it interesting in verse 25 that Korihor states that the Nephites believe in original sin. Were the Nephites wrong and Korihor correct (from the current LDS view)?

I always found that verse contradictory to what I believed and was taught when I was a believing Latter-day Saint.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The purpose of the comparison matters.  Even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

I am happy to let the mods decide.

Ah I am ok with @ZealouslyStriving.  I think he means well and probably has a good heart.

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, manol said:

Teancum is a very good man. He follows his conscience and lives his code far better than I live my religion (well I don't have a formal religion but you know what I mean). There is a real purity to his morality; it never obligates him to go along with something that doesn't feel right just for the sake of being a team player. And he is quicker to take responsibility for a mistake and apologize than pretty much anyone else here. His communication style is different from mine, but Teancum the man sets a good example for me. I hope you can see past the differences between your belief system and his. I think many people on this board can and do.

Why thank you. You are far to kind.

[manol]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Why thank you. You are far to kind.

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

[Peacefully]

58 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's interesting- of all the posts I've made, my quoting scripture has got the most blowback.

Because you are quoting scripture to insult another poster. Not cool. 

[smac97]

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

Quote

The angst and pain here arises from the perceived dilemma wherein he must choose one "identity" at the expense of another.

Which is shorthand for choosing one set of behaviours or another…a very real dilemma.

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

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

Quote

The "identity" paradigm also works well in the Latter-day Saint paradigm because it creates a potent alternative view of sexuality relative to the Law of Chastity.  There is often tension between an individual's sexual desires and external constraints on those desires (such as, for example, the Law of Chastity).  The individual can choose to release that tension by elevating those sexual desires to an "identity," and then letting that identity replace the Law of Chastity as the arbiter of sexual boundaries.

If all it is was actually sexual behaviour and desires, I might agree with you.  But it isn’t.  You are, imo, treating the requirement of the Church for homosexual individuals to live without a relationship that includes romance, sex,

This is not so.  The Church prohibits same-sex behavior for all members of the Church.  Nobody is permitted to engage in this behavior.

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

but even more important for many a type of companionship where they work at becoming one in whatever way they define it

The Church coheres around its commonly-taught-and-accepted doctrines.  Without them, the community weakens or even disappears.  

The Church is trying hard to respect individual choice and autonomy, but what you present above is a recipe for anarchy.  Marriage and sexual behavior are extremely important components of the Restored Gospel, so much so that the Church has promulgated the Law of Chastity.  It is that law which defines the parameters of sexual behavior.  So Latter-day Saints are not at liberty to exceed those boundaries and set new ones - as you put it - "in whatever way they define it."

This 2012 pamphlet from the Church sums up the position I hold:

Quote

As part of the test of mortality, our bodies have desires, appetites, and passions which we must learn to discipline and control. When these desires are kept within the bounds the Lord has set, they enhance and enrich life. If they are undisciplined, they can destroy both our bodies and spirits. Consequently, the Lord has given us very specific instructions about modesty and chastity.

I acknowledge that these boundaries have disparate impacts on each of us according to our circumstances and choices.  In the end, though, the Lord still holds everyone to the same standard.

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

as if someone is required to give up the experience of eating sugar

This is also incorrect.  Your comparison makes light of the challenge ("as if someone is required to give up the experience of eating sugar"), and it's yours, not mine.  I acknowledge that complying with the Law of Chastity can be very difficult.

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/long lasting couplehood just as there is no substitute for the parent/child relationship.

I don't know what you mean by "long lasting couplehood" in the context of the Restored Gospel.  In any event, I respectfully disagree that "{t}here is no substitute" for it.  The substitute is . . . marriage.

I agree that marriage is a wonderful thing, but not everyone will have the opportunity to participate in that institution.  Some never marry, and others are divorced or widowed.

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

There are many other deeply meaningful relationships we can have, but they are not equivalent.

I agree.  Hence my lack of clarity by what you mean by "long lasting couplehood."

On 3/29/2024 at 3:28 PM, Calm said:

It is not a fabricated dilemma or over exaggerated.

I think you misunderstood or misconstrued my comment.  Here it is again:

Quote

It is, for me, sad and unfortunate that David has chosen the "sexual identity" paradigm in ways that, for him, require the exclusion and rejection of the paradigm of the Restored Gospel.  I think this sort of dilemma is fabricated and illusory and unnecessary.  Hamba is quite right: "The Church's position puts it at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society -- and with those {} who have uncritically embraced the new discourse of sexual identity."  Once sexual orientation/attraction is set aside as an "identity" or, at least, is subordinated to the "identity" each of us has as a child of God, than much of the angst and confusion and conflict is resolved or substantially reduced.  

I hope David has a change of heart, but meanwhile, I wish him well.

I was speaking of a context between conflicting "identities."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 30, 2024 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, I googled Korihor and read Alma chapter 30. I guess @ZealouslyStriving's comments got at least one person to read in the Book of Mormon  

My ramblings weren't pointless than 🤗

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, Teancum, you're the anti-Christ. And here I thought it was Bill Gates and nanobot vaccines...

I did find it interesting in verse 25 that Korihor states that the Nephites believe in original sin. Were the Nephites wrong and Korihor correct (from the current LDS view)?

I believe Korihor was throwing his own worst interpretation on what was being taught. Kind of like what happens nowadays with the doctrines of the Restored Church. Like implying we believe gays/queers go to hell.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't know what you mean by "long lasting couplehood" in the context of the Restored Gospel.  In any event, I respectfully disagree that "{t}here is no substitute" for it.  The substitute is . . . marriage.

That would be…marriage!  So the substitute for marriage for those who can’t marry is in your view is marriage. 

[Calm]

On 3/30/2024 at 4:48 PM, smac97 said:

think you misunderstood or misconstrued my comment.

I am beginning to wonder if you understand what a social construct is. 
 

Edited May 1, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is not so.  The Church prohibits same-sex behavior for all members of the Church.  Nobody is permitted to engage int his behavior.

Sometimes the best antimormon work is done from within. Keep repeating this and see where it gets you!

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Set aside sexual attraction/orientation as an "identity."

Smac, as far as I can tell you seem to see it as possible to set aside the sense of sexual identity because it is a social construct.

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.  

7 hours ago, Calm said:

And that is what makes the choice between living with that identity if it conflicts with the Law of Chastity and living with the identity of Saint a fabricated dilemma.

The novelty of the identity speaks to society's ability to do without it.  If society can do it, so can individuals.

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Is this a correct assessment of your position?  If not, could you explain how you see the concept of social construct affecting behavior, etc here to explain how you came to your conclusions please.

See above.

In recent years Morgan Freeman and Raven Symoné have both rejected the label/identity of "African American" (in fact, Raven rejects both "gay" and "African American" identies/labels).  Oprah even warned Raven that she's "gonna get a lot of flak for saying you're not African American, you know that, right?"

I think both Freeman and Symoné can choose to "identify" as "American."  There seems to be a lot of social pressure for them to align with the "social construct" of a hyphenated identity.  They don't.  Good for them.  As I see it, this is a "fabricated dilemma."

Similarly, a Latter-day Saint can choose to set aside or subordinate an "identity" based on sexual orientation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's interesting- of all the posts I've made, my quoting scripture has got the most blowback.

Maybe we need to ask for a more clear rule about using sacred scripture as a brickbat to throw at people. But, this is what you are actually doing while hiding behind "scripture."

 

BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:
• Spamming or advertising products, publications, or websites
• Profanity and vulgarity including offensive avatars or signatures
• Insulting language, or statements meant to do nothing more than provoke others
• Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
• Mocking the beliefs of others
• Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)
• Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary
• Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole
• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
• Spreading malicious gossip
• Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards content here or vice versa
• Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given
• Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing
• Pretending to be someone you aren't, or faking membership in a religion to fool others
• Posting personal or identifying information about others
• Altering members quotes on the board
• Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission
• Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own
• Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning
• Contacting anyone who doesn't want to be contacted

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

Quote

Maybe it is you and how are you putting it lately, you and yours or those of your ilk, that need the change of heart.

Could you elaborate?

 

It is a fairly straightforward comment.

It is also a fairly vague comment.

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am sure you understand.

I don't.  Hence my request that you elaborate.

I have my flaws, but feigning misunderstanding or obtusity is not one of them.

Nevertheless, you have no obligation here.  If you don't want to explain yourself, I won't press the point and just ignore your statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

This is not so.  The Church prohibits same-sex behavior for all members of the Church.  Nobody is permitted to engage int his behavior.

Sometimes the best antimormon work is done from within. Keep repeating this and see where it gets you!

There are some who are inveterately entrenched in their hostility towards the Church.  Others, however, are willing to re-examine their presuppositions, biases, paradigms, etc.  I am speaking more to those people.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 30, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/long lasting couplehood just as there is no substitute for the parent/child relationship.

don't know what you mean by "long lasting couplehood" in the context of the Restored Gospel.  In any event, I respectfully disagree that "{t}here is no substitute" for it.  The substitute is . . . marriage.

That would be…marriage!  

Your statement began with "There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/long lasting couplehood."

So you meant to repeat yourself?  "There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/{marriage}"?

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

So the substitute for marriage for those who can’t marry is in your view is marriage. 

What?  No.  You seemed to be differentiating "long lasting couplehood" from "marriage" by citing both of them.  I then said I don't know what you mean by "long lasting couplehood" in the context of the Restored Gospel.  I assumed you were not repeating yourself, but you apparently were.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

think you misunderstood or misconstrued my comment.

I am being to wonder if you understand what a social construct is. 

I think I do.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

A social construct is any category or thing that is made real by convention or collective agreement. Socially constructed realities are contrasted with natural kinds, which exist independently of human behavior or beliefs.

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

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

-Smac

It would be interesting to see if you could actually set aside your "sexual identity" for just 6 months.  I am not asking for you to do that for the rest of your life like the Church asks.  Just 6 months.  Could you put all your photos of your wife and kids in a drawer for 6 months since they are manifestations of your "sexual identity"?  Could you not mention to anyone anything that you did on the weekend with your wife and kids since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  Could you never hold hands, kiss or hug your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  Could you not go on any dates with your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  Could you never be see in public with your wife and family for six months since this is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  

This is just a start of the list of things that you would have to give up in order to set aside the notion of "sexual identity".  And I haven't even gotten to the no sex for 6 months.  

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

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

It would be interesting to see if you could actually set aside your "sexual identity" for just 6 months.  

I have never thought of myself as having a "sexual identity."

I am a child of God.  That is an identity, and the most important one.

I am a husband and father.  These are identities, and very important to me.

I am a brother and son.  These are important identities.

I am a friend and neighbor, and a citizen of the United States.  These are important identities.

I am a lawyer, and a resident of the State of Utah.  This are important identities, but not as much as the ones above.

"I am a heterosexual, sexually attracted to women"?  Nope.  I've never really thought of this as an "identity."  It's part of my relationship with my wife, but not an "identity."  

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not asking for you to do that for the rest of your life like the Church asks.  Just 6 months.  

I've already done it.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Could you put all your photos of your wife and kids in a drawer for 6 months since they are manifestations of your "sexual identity"?  

I reject the premise.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Could you not mention to anyone anything that you did on the weekend with your wife and kids since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  

I reject the premise.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Could you never hold hands, kiss or hug your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  

I reject the premise.

That said, I strive to constrain my thoughts and behaviors to the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  I am married, and so do not view women other than my wife in sexual terms.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Could you not go on any dates with your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  

I reject the premise.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Could you never be see in public with your wife and family for six months since this is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  

I reject the premise.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is just a start of the list of things that you would have to give up in order to set aside the notion of "sexual identity".  

I reject the premise of this "list."

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

And I haven't even gotten to the no sex for 6 months.  

Plenty of Latter-day Saints are never-married, widowed, divorced, or otherwise situated whereby they do not engage in sexual activity.

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.

FWIW, I also acknowledge that some folks repose much emphasis and importance in their racial identity.  I do not.  I've never really thought of myself in racial terms.  I grew up in a multi-racial family, had many family members who had served missions all over the world, and so on, so differences in skin color didn't really register.  It wasn't until I went into the Army that I began to consciously perceive these differences.  These days, I still don't harbor for myself any notions of race- or skin-color-based "identity."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 31, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, 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

Do you understand the variation among social constructs?  That just because something is a social construct it is not always consciously chosen or even a choice at all?

Do you realize marriage and chastity are social constructs?  Language?

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you meant to repeat yourself?  "There is no substitute for the companionship of marriage/{marriage}"?

No.  But you said in the second post you were speaking in the context of the Restored Gospel.  My original statement was including communities and cultures outside the Restored Gospel as well as the Restored Gospel.

Not every human has lived when the Restored Gospel was available or even the ceremony/ritual of marriage, but apparently as far as can be learned from the dirt, longterm couplehood has always existed…though there have been cultures that are set up so that some couples can’t actually live that way, such as requiring women to live separately or not really interact with her husband except for sex and taking care of the kids to a certain age.

Edited March 31, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

It would be interesting to see if you could actually set aside your "sexual identity" for just 6 months.  I am not asking for you to do that for the rest of your life like the Church asks.  Just 6 months.  Could you put all your photos of your wife and kids in a drawer for 6 months since they are manifestations of your "sexual identity"?  Could you not mention to anyone anything that you did on the weekend with your wife and kids since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  Could you never hold hands, kiss or hug your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  Could you not go on any dates with your wife for 6 months since that is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  Could you never be see in public with your wife and family for six months since this is also an expression of your "sexual identity"?  

This is just a start of the list of things that you would have to give up in order to set aside the notion of "sexual identity".  And I haven't even gotten to the no sex for 6 months.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The novelty of the identity speaks to society's ability to do without it.  If society can do it, so can individuals.

But can an individual manage when it is the air of their society to the point it is almost impossible to understand all the influences a strong social construct has on a community?

Could you do without language while everyone around you kept using it?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ah I am ok with @ZealouslyStriving.  I think he means well and probably has a good heart.

I already reported unfortunately. I will try and remember in the future.