Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are all sorts of things about which we don't know, all sorts of important doctrines.  As for when and if such things are revealed to us and to the world, I'm not sure we can confidently speak as to the economies of God.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 

I can't say how common it is, but, anecdotally, this seems to be somewhat common as a "shelf item" that those who lose belief eventually can no longer accept. I don't know enough of Bart Ehrman's story to say how much this figured into his loss of faith, but he did speak to this issue in the recent podcast episode I listened to about Job. At some level, you might be right that God's moral calculus is incomprehensible to humans. I think we had better be certain that it is incomprehensible before invoking this idea to justify genocide or slavery or racial segregation (or many other issues). Again, if God's moral calculus is beyond my comprehension to the extent that God can justify some of these "evil" commands, then I expect to lose trust in God as a source of moral comprehension.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or there is Door #3: Mormon 9:31.

What about this door? The "don't condemn" historical persons for their mistakes or the "learn to be more wise" then them? The vast majority of the time I see us invoke Mormon 9:31, it's to stop us from condemning historical figures. I don't see a lot of "learning to be more wise" than them. As the B H Roberts foundation survey data shows, we can't even identify the mistakes that our forebears made regarding race and priesthood and temple ordinances. It seems to me that we spend so much time and effort trying to not to do anything that might give the slightest hint at condemning historical figures that we end up coming up with all kinds of excuses why God might have actually told them to do what they did (including invoking the above idea that God's ways are incomprehensible) that we never actually identify their mistakes and, therefore, cannot learn from them.

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reasoning predicated on finding fault with God will never work for me. 

I'm inclined to agree, which is why I find myself trying to understand the mistakes that historical people made in failing to seek or recognize revelation.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

My premise is based on applying broad population statistics to members of our First Presidencies

Do you work with statistics?  Serious question…

Broad population stats apply to broad populations.  In my psych research/stat classes we were taught to take into account why you can’t assume certain populations are “average” or randomly selected.  Looking at the FPs, I would say they are a prime example of a very non random process of selection.  Iow, not a broad population first in numbers (50 out of millions is not enough to assume a similar sexual profile even if chosen at random iirc because at a min percentage of 1.2 to a max percentage of about 7%, there is too high of a probability not to have a representation at least 1 queer individual in 50 and even if you have 1-3 individuals, if one or more are atypical, that would skew the results) and then the few in number, the 50 men, are the end result of decades long of selection winnowing out a lot of variation in external behaviour and therefore it likely winnows out quite a lot of internal variation as well. 
 

I think it’s less likely that lack of variation in sexuality will invalidate your assumptions though that likely contributes to my concerns with applying broad stats to a small, relatively unique population set.  Personally in wondering whether any FP member would go to God with such questions over same sex sealings I am more focused on the likely limited variation in perceptions of the Church, God, etc.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

At some level, you might be right that God's moral calculus is incomprehensible to humans. I think we had better be certain that it is incomprehensible before invoking this idea to justify genocide or slavery or racial segregation (or many other issues).

I quite agree.  Fortunately, the Church has been doing a good job for many years in not justifying genocide or slavery or racial segregation.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Again, if God's moral calculus is beyond my comprehension to the extent that God can justify some of these "evil" commands, then I expect to lose trust in God as a source of moral comprehension.

In the end, we each must calibrate our own moral barometers to standards and influences that seem correct.  

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

Perhaps it is just one of my biases, but I prefer to throw people under the bus for not seeking revelation rather than throw God under the bus for not granting revelation.

Or there is Door #3: Mormon 9:31.

What about this door?

You spoke of two options:

Option #1: "throw people under the bus for not seeking revelation"

Option #2: "throw God under the bus for not granting revelation"

There are more options than these, including the one I referenced.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The "don't condemn" historical persons for their mistakes or the "learn to be more wise" then them? The vast majority of the time I see us invoke Mormon 9:31, it's to stop us from condemning historical figures.

Well, they're dead, and their actions are in the past.  So there's no chance of influencing them to turn from their misconduct.

And we weren't there, so presentism is a big factor skewing our perspective and ability to competently adjudicate the actions of people we never met, in environments we never experienced, coping with challenges we have not faced.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't see a lot of "learning to be more wise" than them.

I have quoted this provision dozens of times on this board.

It has also been quoted nine times in General Conference since 2000, and several times before that.

It has also been quoted at least 20 times in Church magazines.

And it has been in The Book of Mormon since 1830.

32 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Reasoning predicated on finding fault with God will never work for me. 

I'm inclined to agree, which is why I find myself trying to understand the mistakes that historical people made in failing to seek or recognize revelation.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Acknowledging that the Lord often does not give reasons for His commandments is not, in my view, "finding fault" with Him.

How is setting aside the conclusion that the Lord rarely gives reason because any fault finding conclusion/interpretation over issues with God is “per se incorrect and can be safely set aside” “finding fault” with God?  There is no criticism of God in the assumption that fallible humans are “per se incorrect”, only with humans.

This is simple logic imo because if humanity is always wrong in our negative conclusions about God because of our limitations as “finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners”, how can we be correct in any other conclusion about God even if positive or neutral?

Is this not a reason for any of God’s commandments?

Quote

For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.

2 Cor 4:5

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside.
...
Pres. Oaks' point is that "{i}t's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons."

Which point we can safely be set aside per above apparently. 

No. Acknowledging that the Lord often does not give reasons for His commandments is not, in my view, "finding fault" with Him.

How is setting aside the conclusion that the Lord rarely gives reason because any fault finding conclusion/interpretation over issues with God is “is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside” “finding fault” with God?  

My initial comment was this: "That being the case, any interpretation of this or that issue that involves us ... finding fault with God is per se incorrect and can be safely set aside."

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is no criticism of God in the assumption that fallible humans are “per se incorrect”, only with humans.

But there is criticism of God in "finding fault with God."  That was my point.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is simple logic imo because if humanity is always wrong in our negative conclusions about God because of our limitations as “finite, ignorant, blinkered sinners”, how can we be correct in any other conclusion about God even if positive or neutral?

I'm not seeing the logic.

In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, God is perfect in every respect.  An argument predicated on God being arbitrary, flawed, evil, etc. is incompatible with the belief that he is perfect, just, benevolent, etc.  

We can, of course, choose to characterize God as some sort of superpowered, arbitrary, malevolent jerk like Zeus.  But at that point you are no long speaking in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this not a reason for any of God’s commandments?

2 Cor 4:5

I don't follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But there is criticism of God in "finding fault with God."  That was my point.

But not mine as I am examining your argument and not addressing any finding of fault in God.

Is the issue in your argument with finding fault with God because it’s wrong to find fault with God or because we are fallible, etc humans?  If the first, why would it matter what humans are?  If the second, why wouldn’t it apply to all conclusions about God?

I read your argument as based on the second point because I saw you explaining why our faulting would be wrong, but if you are basing it on the first, then no reason why we are wrong needs to be given.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the end, we each must calibrate our own moral barometers to standards and influences that seem correct.  

Agreed. The troubling thing for me as I navigate this faith crisis/deconstruction/reconstruction is that I find it troubling that I can seriously consider that the church and its leaders may not always be included among those moral barometers and standards and influences.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you work with statistics?  Serious question…

Broad population stats apply to broad populations.  In my psych research/stat classes we were taught to take into account why you can’t assume certain populations are “average” or randomly selected.  Looking at the FPs, I would say they are a prime example of a very non random process of selection.  Iow, not a broad population first in numbers (50 out of millions is not enough to assume a similar sexual profile even if chosen at random iirc because at a min percentage of 1.2 to a max percentage of about 7%, there is too high of a probability not to have a representation at least 1 queer individual in 50 and even if you have 1-3 individuals, if one or more are atypical, that would skew the results) and then the few in number, the 50 men, are the end result of decades long of selection winnowing out a lot of variation in external behaviour and therefore it likely winnows out quite a lot of internal variation as well. 
 

I think it’s less likely that lack of variation in sexuality will invalidate your assumptions though that likely contributes to my concerns with applying broad stats to a small, relatively unique population set.  Personally in wondering whether any FP member would go to God with such questions over same sex sealings I am more focused on the likely limited variation in perceptions of the Church, God, etc.

I have a passing facility with statistics and work with experts who use them constantly.

Your view is why I referred to the FP as a “cohort.” But still… the cohort I presented works for others using additional, acceptable statistical and social principles. Plus, my premise was described by one poster as a tangent, which is a statistical function! 😊 This is what @mfbukowski keeps trying to explain: the reality of the situation is in our heads. Views differ along the lines of personal experience, personality types, moral foundations, use of agency, etc.

The premise isn’t as important as the recognition that other valid premises are “out there,” independent of our personal mental states, which helps grease the wheels in the social aspect of discussion and discovery. Together we discover the most important things to which any premise leads, whether by adoption, retention, modification or replacement.

Whether we believe one premise or the other (or others) concerning the personal makeup of members of the FP, the published revelations are the same. Our model of revelation brings us to Christ, His ordinances and covenants, the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and the resulting sanctification, justification, perfection, exaltation back to the Father, etc. The premise isn’t important except to the one who holds it. It can help them understand and work with the model, depending on how they manage it. It can also be used detrimentally on the same basis. This is one application of agency.

How can someone who doesn't believe manage that premise so that they do believe? (Alma 32).

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I have a passing facility with statistics and work with experts who use them constantly.

Your view is why I referred to the FP as a “cohort.” But still… the cohort I presented works for others using additional, acceptable statistical and social principles. Plus, my premise was described by one poster as a tangent, which is a statistical function! 😊 This is what @mfbukowski keeps trying to explain: the reality of the situation is in our heads. Views differ along the lines of personal experience, personality types, moral foundations, use of agency, etc.

The premise isn’t as important as the recognition that other valid premises are “out there,” independent of our personal mental states, which helps grease the wheels in the social aspect of discussion and discovery. Together we discover the most important things to which any premise leads, whether by adoption, retention, modification or replacement.

Whether we believe one premise or the other (or others) concerning the personal makeup of members of the FP, the published revelations are the same. Our model of revelation brings us to Christ, His ordinances and covenants, the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and the resulting sanctification, justification, perfection, exaltation back to the Father, etc. The premise isn’t important except to the one who holds it. It can help them understand and work with the model, depending on how they manage it. It can also be used detrimentally on the same basis. This is one application of agency.

How can someone who doesn't believe manage that premise so that they do believe? (Alma 32).

Oh my gosh, mi amigo, this is enough for me to perhaps actually stay on the board.

The concept is so simple, and it seems No ONE understands it- that what we personally value is in our personal "heads".   Our religion,our politics, our gender orientation, our companions, what activities we enjoy, vanilla vs chocolate ice cream - ALL of everything we find "important" to our "SELVES" is "IN OUR HEADS".  The way we see what we call "reality" is in our heads.

Imagine visiting another ward in another state- you are staying in a hotel nearby- and it's Sunday.   Church or no church?   You decide to go to the ward you saw down the street.  Decision 1.   It was "in your head".

You sit in the back row, probably displacing some family's "usual row".     Your presence has already affected someone in that ward.    You have changed their lives a very little bit, just by being you

THEY are wondering - "Who ARE these people?"  They are either friendly or not according to what is "in their heads".

YOU check out the folks there for the meeting.   How do they compare to MY WARD?   More people or less?  Mixed race or pretty much one ethnic group?  Richer or poorer?

Too many kids making noise?   "They should take those kids outa here- what's the matter with these people?"   OR "How sweet!  We don't have sweet little babies in OUR ward".

The judgement begins about how they do things "right" or "wrong" or some "new way" to pass the sacrament which might be "better" than how it's done in YOUR ward...

And so the reality is in your head, comparing with what you are used to, or makes you comfortable.   Everyone does it!

But why can't we step back a step and see this as a lesson in HOW OUR REALITIES are "in our heads"?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, and apply it to the rest of our lives.   

Yet, Republican or Democrat, we KNOW we have the CORRECT VIEWS without thinking about it a whole lot.    No politics intended.

>" Why these people cannot see the truth is beyond me "--<---{{-     What's wrong with this question?   Yes, irony intended

Thanks CV- this was just a good opportunity to blow off steam.   

 

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Plus, my premise was described by one poster as a tangent, which is a statistical function! 😊

Big points for this, lol

I don’t have a problem presenting the idea of a queer apostle as a thought exercise or speculation for exploring the idea of revelation.  It’s presenting it as if evidence for a claim that bothers me, which is what you appeared to be doing it which awoke my inner nitpicker.    Much prefer your latest post.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh, mi amigo, this is enough for me to perhaps actually stay on the board.

The concept is so simple, and it seems No ONE understands it- that what we personally value is in our personal "heads".   Our religion,our politics, our gender orientation, our companions, what activities we enjoy, vanilla vs chocolate ice cream - ALL of everything we find "important" to our "SELVES" is "IN OUR HEADS".  The way we see what we call "reality" is in our heads.

Imagine visiting another ward in another state- you are staying in a hotel nearby- and it's Sunday.   Church or no church?   You decide to go to the ward you saw down the street.  Decision 1.   It was "in your head".

You sit in the back row, probably displacing some family's "usual row".     Your presence has already affected someone in that ward.    You have changed their lives a very little bit, just by being you

THEY are wondering - "Who ARE these people?"  They are either friendly or not according to what is "in their heads".

YOU check out the folks there for the meeting.   How do they compare to MY WARD?   More people or less?  Mixed race or pretty much one ethnic group?  Richer or poorer?

Too many kids making noise?   "They should take those kids outa here- what's the matter with these people?"   OR "How sweet!  We don't have sweet little babies in OUR ward".

The judgement begins about how they do things "right" or "wrong" or some "new way" to pass the sacrament which might be "better" than how it's done in YOUR ward...

And so the reality is in your head, comparing with what you are used to, or makes you comfortable.   Everyone does it!

But why can't we step back a step and see this as a lesson in HOW OUR REALITIES are "in our heads"?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, and apply it to the rest of our lives.   

Yet, Republican or Democrat, we KNOW we have the CORRECT VIEWS without thinking about it a whole lot.    No politics intended.

>" Why these people cannot see the truth is beyond me "--<---{{-     What's wrong with this question?   Yes, irony intended

Thanks CV- this was just a good opportunity to blow off steam.   

 

 

 

Who doesn’t get this concept? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Big points for this, lol

I don’t have a problem presenting the idea of a queer apostle as a thought exercise or speculation for exploring the idea of revelation.  It’s presenting it as if evidence for a claim that bothers me, which is what you appeared to be doing it which awoke my inner nitpicker.    Much prefer your latest post.

Thank you, but as our friend Mark keeps reminding us, evidence is... My premise is based on evidence and reasoning which may not be acceptable to some but acceptable to others. All depends what is in your head! 

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 12:27 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For two gay people in a committed relationship can you describe in detail the harm done? Is it all in the next life in your opinion? Or is there real tangible harm done to them in this life?

You did not ask me but I will answer. There is no harm.  Smac likes to repeat the words "THE LAW OF CHASITY" as if it is some universally accepted law. It is not. It is the product of religion seeking to control human sexuality and behavior. By controlling human sexual behavior and organization has great power of the individual.   And Mormonism puts this so called "law" on hyper steroids.  What I think is harmful is they way Mormonism teaches about this and the guilt and shame it heaps on members over normative human behavior and development. That is more harmful than anything I see with two gay people in a committed relationship, and I think @smac97s clear obsession with this so called "law"  (just review how many topics he starts in human sexual behavior) is a fine example of the harm it causes to people.

Edited June 27, 2024 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

On 6/19/2024 at 5:46 PM, CV75 said:

Thank you, but as our friend Mark keeps reminding us, evidence is... My premise is based on evidence and reasoning which may not be acceptable to some but acceptable to others. All depends what is in your head! 

It is a chain of hypotheticals. That is not evidence.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

You did not ask me but I will answer. There is no harm.  Smac likes to repeat the words "THE LAW OF CHASITY" as if it is some universally accepted law.

I do not.  I present it in the context of the Restored Gospel.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is not.

I concur.  But whether a law comes from God is not dependent on whether it is "universally excepted."

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is the product of religion seeking to control human sexuality and behavior.

Or it is from God.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

By controlling human sexual behavior and organization has great power of the individual.

Every society, both secular and sectarian, imposes constraints on sexual behavior.  The differences arise in the parameters of those constraints.

Meanwhile, the Church as a bilaterally voluntary association, with either side (the group and the individual) able to sever the relationship at any time for any reason or no reason at all.  For its part, the Church seldom severs the relationship over violations of the Law of Chastity, even though such violations are quite serious.  Many individuals sever the relationship for many different reasons, and the Church's can't do squat about it.  This does not, to me, sound like the Church "has great power over the individual."

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

And Mormonism puts this so called "law" on hyper steroids. 

It does not.  The parameters of the Law of Chastity are quite reasonable, and far from extreme.  These parameters can only be characterized as extreme ("on hyper steroids") in a comparative sense, with the other comparative parameters tending toward being lax, untethered to marriage, etc.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

What I think is harmful is they way Mormonism teaches about this and the guilt and shame it heaps on members over normative human behavior and development.

Sexual impulses are powerful.  They need constraints.  The issue arises in the parameters of those constraints.  Some prefer a licentious, anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-consensual-between-the-participants sort of approach when crafting these parameters.  Others believe that God exists, that He cares for our well-being, that He therefore constrains sexual behaviors, and that we are better off in staying within these parameters.

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

That is more harmful than anything I see with two gay people in a committed relationship, and I think @smac97s clear obsession with this so called "law"  (just review how many topics he starts in human sexual behavior) is a fine example of the harm it causes to people.

The topics I start pertain to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and often arise from news articles or other media content which addresses intersections between the Church and sexual issues.  It stands to reason, then, that sociopolitically popular trends and stories about those parts of our society which define themselves by their sexual interests/behaviors, and which interests/behaviors intersect with the Church (such as through media content about its members reconciling matters of faith and sexuality) come up more often than perhaps they should. 

And even then, as a percentage of my overall topics about the Church, topics about sexuality are fairly rare.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

You did not ask me but I will answer.

You’ll note that he said there was real tangible harm in this life but declined to say what it was. 🤷‍♂️

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sexual impulses are powerful.  They need constraints.  The issue arises in the parameters of those constraints.  Some prefer a licentious, anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-consensual-between-the-participants sort of approach when crafting these parameters.  Others believe that God exists, that He cares for our well-being, that He therefore constrains sexual behaviors, and that we are better off in staying within these parameters.

I wonder if for you this applies to married folks as well assuming total fidelity to each other. 

[MrShorty]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sexual impulses are powerful.  They need constraints.  The issue arises in the parameters of those constraints.  Some prefer a licentious, anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-consensual-between-the-participants sort of approach when crafting these parameters.  Others believe that God exists, that He cares for our well-being, that He therefore constrains sexual behaviors, and that we are better off in staying within these parameters.

Years ago, I recall reading the ELCA's (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) statement on sexuality after they decided to allow for same sex relationships. The thing I recall most from their statement was their choice to focus on "promiscuity" rather than the genders of the people involved. They decided to separate "homosexual" behaviors from "licentious" behaviors and ended up discerning the law of chastity differently.

I'm also reminded of Pres. Kimball's brief proscription against oral sex for temple attending couples. It would appear that, in Pres. Kimball's (and his counselors of the day) opinion, that God viewed oral sex as "licentious."

At the end of the day, the challenge isn't whether or not sexual behavior needs to be constrained. It is discerning how God decides what is and is not licentious. The church has decided that same sex sexual (and romantic??) behavior is considered by God to be licentious. When asked to justify that claim, I see references to a few ancient scriptures (and the conservative Christian interpretation of those scriptures -- similar to the way we justified racial segregation based on traditional Christian interpretation of a few ancient scriptures) and early to mid-20th century beliefs about the "pathology" of homosexuality. Considering that these are two ways that lead us to make incorrect judgements about what is and is not revelation, I have yet to encounter someone who can justify our claims to revelation while accounting for these two sources of error. I'm not sure that any of us "lay" people can really answer those kinds of questions. Such an explanation would need to come from those whom we sustain as prophets and apostles who are claiming such revelation. Somewhere I've said that the best thing I think the church could do would be to publish some details about how the revelations around LGBTQ+ issues have been received and how those claiming revelation have accounted for possible errors in the revelatory process. Until such explanations come forth, I think we are going to keep going round in circles around this issue. Discernment is key, and no one seems willing to explain exactly how we have discerned God's will on these issues.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not.  I present it in the context of the Restored Gospel.

Since you think the "restored gospel" has God's divine sanction then yes you do present and argue as if it is a universal law applicable to all humans.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I concur.  But whether a law comes from God is not dependent on whether it is "universally excepted."

And because a religion claims it is from God does not mean it does.  And I should better say universally applicable rather than accepted.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or it is from God.

Which can only be take on faith.  The crutch that religion constantly has to rely on because that is mostly all it has when it comes to enforcing its rules.  In my view humanity would be well served if we learned to move beyond taking things on faith.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Every society, both secular and sectarian, imposes constraints on sexual behavior.  The differences arise in the parameters of those constraints.

Yes this is true.  The level of control and constraints and what is actually proper is what I am focusing on. As noted, the LDS Law of Chastity is sexual control on steroids.  Other religions are similar.  Islam is way over the top.  Frankly, a person's sexual life is not anyone's business. Now I will qualify that I am mot for outright licentious behavior. But activity between consenting adults is not anyone's business.  Not yours. Not the business of a clergy leader, etc.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the Church as a bilaterally voluntary association, with either side (the group and the individual) able to sever the relationship at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

I never said otherwise.  Never the less for someone brought up as a Latter-day Saint, and who would be indoctrinated from inception with Mormonism's over the top focus in sexual behavior, will not find it easy to simply sever the relationship.  Thus the conundrum for persons with non hetorosexual make up.  It is clear from the article you posted and countless other stories that this is extremely difficult to wrangel with for LBGTQ people.  A person with that orientation who is brought up in a secular home, or even in a religion that does not focus on controlling sexual behavior at least in the 21st century, will have a much easier time in navigating their sexuality.  I am quite happy western society has and is becoming more accepting and understanding of the variety of sexual orientations humans may have.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 For its part, the Church seldom severs the relationship over violations of the Law of Chastity, even though such violations are quite serious. 

Yes currently. But you know as well as I do this was not alway the case and really is more a development over the past few decades.  I have witnessed discipline  of teens and young adults for premarital sex, even excommunication.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Many individuals sever the relationship for many different reasons, and the Church's can't do squat about it.  This does not, to me, sound like the Church "has great power over the individual."

Wow. Really?  You think it is easy after years of indoctrination to simply flip a switch and walk away?  If you do you are simply delusional. Yes the Church has extreme sway over its members and their behavior. Walking away has huge consequences and can be emotionally devastating. I never wanted the Church to not be true. But it is not. And it took me literally years to work through this and to find my way as my faith in Mormonism. Any believing active member devotes a huge portion of their time, money, thought, emotions and so on to the church. They even covenant everything to the church if they have been through the temple.  But you know all this.  Your comment is simply astounding.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It does not. 

Yes it does.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The parameters of the Law of Chastity are quite reasonable, and far from extreme. 

Yes they are extreme.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

These parameters can only be characterized as extreme ("on hyper steroids") in a comparative sense, with the other comparative parameters tending toward being lax, untethered to marriage, etc.

Well let's see-sin next to murder, probing youth interviews about sexual activity including  masterbation, temple recommend interviews, constant attacks on pornography use, young women that dress immodestly being like walking pornography, any faithful LDS parent would rather see their child in a coffin than break the law of chastity.  Really the list is endless. 

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sexual impulses are powerful. 

Yes they are.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

They need constraints.

Within reason.  Yours are not reasonable.  Nor are the restraints of Mormonism and they ways they are taught.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  The issue arises in the parameters of those constraints.  Some prefer a licentious, anything-goes-as-long-as-it's-consensual-between-the-participants sort of approach when crafting these parameters. 

Yes some do.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Others believe that God exists, that He cares for our well-being, that He therefore constrains sexual behaviors, and that we are better off in staying within these parameters.

Obviously.  Yet there are reasonable approaches somewhere in between. It is not an either or and it boils down to consent.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The topics I start pertain to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and often arise from news articles or other media content which addresses intersections between the Church and sexual issues.  It stands to reason, then, that sociopolitically popular trends and stories about those parts of our society which define themselves by their sexual interests/behaviors, and which interests/behaviors intersect with the Church (such as through media content about its members reconciling matters of faith and sexuality) come up more often than perhaps they should. 

And even then, as a percentage of my overall topics about the Church, topics about sexuality are fairly rare.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not the only poster here who has noted your seeming frequent topics started on sexual issues.  So no, I do not agree that they are "fairly rare."

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 5:24 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just wanted to remind folks that there's decent reason to believe there are somewhere around a quarter of a million gay LDS folks living in the mormon corridor.  Unstudied, unseen, and apparently happy with just quietly being LDS. 

I know at least two of them personally.

So what? If they are happy good for them. But where does the quarter of a million come from?  How can you know if they are happy? They may be living in quiet misery for all you know.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is a chain of hypotheticals. That is not evidence.

I guess you missed the evidence parts.

[LoudmouthMormon]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But where does the quarter of a million come from? 

Sure.   According to this article, Josh Coates and Stephen Cranney did a thing:

Quote

80,000 physical postcards to randomly selected households in the Mormon Corridor — and supplemented it with targeted Facebook ads to a Utah audience. Both methods led respondents to take an online survey that was then weighted to be representative of the Latter-day Saint population. After they removed late and invalid responses, they had a sample of 2,625 current and 1,183 former Latter-day Saints.
...
In the survey, only 4% of current members identified as LGBTQ

I get to "quarter of a million" by doing math.

- The church has roughly 6.8 million members in the US, most of them living in "the Mormon corridor".
- 4 percent of 6.8 million = 272,000.

I mean, nobody has any idea.  Could be more, could be fewer.  The point is, until this survey, we were all arguing endlessly over the stories and statements of specific identified nonstraight LDS folks.  This survey allows us to take a small hesitant step away from arguing anecdotes, to arguing data and groups.

Quote

How can you know if they are happy? They may be living in quiet misery for all you know.

Fair question, and of course nobody knows if they're all happy.  And we do know that some are living in misery - because we've heard some of their stories, and we're all about accepting people's lived experiences, right?  Plus, any given group of people will have a percentage of unhappy people in that group, so of course not all of them will be happy.  But we also know there are at least some who are happy.  Because 4% is not a small number, and it does not include those who have already left.  We know also, because I know two personally.  I've heard their stories, and we're all about accepting people's lived experiences, right?  It stands to reason that many, perhaps even most, of that quarter million estimate, are not just current members, they're content being current members.   

Out of the two I know, I know one of them quite closely.  We spent a period of time sharing the depths of our souls with each other, and I know him more closely than I know my closest friends.  This guy has a solid testimony of the reality of Jesus Christ, and the truth claims of the Book of Mormon and the church.  He's passionately grateful for the atonement.  Last I checked he had an active temple recommend, and a calling.  I was his best man at his 2nd marriage, held in his LDS meetinghouse, the ceremony performed by his bishop.  I was there as he decided to date, there as he had his share of the common problems finding a good LDS girl to date.  There as he wondered if he had found the one.  There with him through his doubts and anxieties - he had many.  On a scale of 1-10, he had several concerns that ranked 8, but his orientation only bothered him to about a 2.  Akin to "I've always had a bad temper.  I used to lose my cool as a kid.  I still have a bad temper, but it never gets out of control.  What if I start losing my temper it again and it ruins this new marriage?"

I'm thrilled about that 4% survey number, because it basically proves that I don't know the only happy LGBTQ saint.  That number destroys several popular arguments that were never destroyed before.  I don't have links, these are not specific quotes from specific indviduals, but I've heard variations on these from critics for decades: 

"You can't be LGBT and LDS and happy." 
"Church teachings on marriage and the family are completely at odds with fully accepting your identity as LGBT.   The more you accept yourself, the less you can remain in the church."
"The only LGBT LDS folks are people who haven't yet left. Eventually, they all age out of their parent's influence and leave.  Or they end their lives."

4% of current members self-identify as LGBTQ?  That means I don't know the only two happy ones.  That means there are many, oodles even, in the church.  We can argue about how happy or closeted or self-betraying/self-hating they are, but now it's plausible that I don't just happen to know the only two content ones that exist.  

Am I wrong?

Edited June 27, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not the only poster here who has noted your seeming frequent topics started on sexual issues.  So no, I do not agree that they are "fairly rare."

Smac has posted a list of his topics and sexual issues are not in a majority iirc.  What is different about them and why they seem more numerous imo is more people post on them and they tend to be faster paced and longer over all, so they take up more brain space so to speak for most who pay attention to them, I am guessing.

Smac also posts on a lot of news first (sometimes when I am in a certain mood I envision a race to post the new topic between myself and him) so it’s natural if such are a new news controversy, that he is the person who posts it…especially since while I pay attention to other topics, I don’t this one as much in the sense of public discussion (privately these rate close to the top).

Edited June 27, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm thrilled about that 4% survey number, because it basically proves that I don't know the only happy LGBTQ saint.  That number destroys several popular arguments that were never destroyed before.  I don't have links, these are not specific quotes from specific individuals, but I've heard variations on these from critics for decades: 

"You can't be LGBT and LDS and happy." 
"Church teachings on marriage and the family are completely at odds with fully accepting your identity as LGBT.   The more you accept yourself, the less you can remain in the church."
"The only LGBT LDS folks are people who haven't yet left. Eventually, they all age out of their parent's influence and leave.  Or they end their lives."

4% of current members self-identify as LGBTQ?  That means I don't know the only two happy ones.  That means there are many, oodles even, in the church.  We can argue about how happy or closeted or self-betraying/self-hating they are, but now it's plausible that I don't just happen to know the only two content ones that exist.  

Am I wrong?

Well one thing I hope I have been fairly consistent on is I believe in live and let live. I have no doubt that there are happy LGBT persons living the way the Church expects them to live. How they arrived there, what emotional ups and downs they faces I do not know. I honesty am puzzled how someone who is gay makes it work for them. I am aware of stories where it does work, and as you note, many where it does not and has not. We have a few such posters here for the latter. I would say my opinion is it would be a very hard life to live and in spite of Smac's position about identity I think they would be denying a significant part of who they are and their happiness in relationships in this life.  But that is just my opinion.  If they are happy then hooray. I am happy for them and would never tell them they cannot be happy. I cannot live their experience any more than they can mine. So sure, you don't know the only two. In the 250,000 or so there, I am sure, a range of LGBT person who range from happy to miserable and anywhere in between.   So no,  you are not wrong.

[Teancum]

On 6/3/2024 at 6:32 PM, smac97 said:

I will also listen to people who speak of successfully navigating "conflicting identities," some of whom seem to do so by setting aside or subordinating their "sexual identity" in favor of a more important one.

Who decides what a more important one is?