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

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I actually enjoy Nehor's posts at times (he doesn't seem filled with intense bitterness that pour forth in every post) ... there are two other participants I have in mind.

We have heard Nehor's arguments ad nauseum also. You don't get to be annoyed by one and not the other, just because you agree with one side. I chided them on their exhaustive exchanges a couple of weeks ago.

Blame the one who keeps starting the threads knowing EXACTLY what is going to happen.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, longview said:

It seems Nehor frequently engages in savage character assassinations against people who do not comply with his favored narratives. A recent example is Riley Gaines.

Sharing biographical data and things someone has said is now “savage character assassination”?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I actually enjoy Nehor's posts at times (he doesn't seem filled with intense bitterness that pour forth in every post) ... there are two other participants I have in mind.

We have heard Nehor's arguments ad nauseum also. You don't get to be annoyed by one and not the other, just because you agree with one side. I chided them on their exhaustive exchanges a couple of weeks ago.

Blame the one who keeps starting the threads knowing EXACTLY what is going to happen.

"Blame" for . . . starting conversations about important topics.  That's kinda weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Blame" for . . . starting conversations about important topics.  That's kinda weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

Respectfully, many of the threads you start seem to be about the same thing - gay people “setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity” to that of being a child of God. We get it, and maybe it is something you are trying to wrap your head around, but I’m not sure any more threads going over the same point are needed. We get it. 

[The Nehor]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

"{E}very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

Scary stuff, this.

I find it scarier that there are people who think most people can only be held back from indiscriminate rape and murder and adultery by a divine command.

Even in my days of sin and vice I found cheating repulsive.

On 6/5/2024 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

It is understandable that adherents of Korihor-style philosophies will generally refrain from saying the quiet part out loud.  Overt hedonism/licentiousness just does not hold up well.  So incrementalism is the order of the day.

Is it though? Or is that just what you want to believe so you can imagine your opponents are more evil than they are?

Viewing most of humanity as giving lip service to principles they don’t believe in so they can eventually unleash their true design and usher in the hedonistic reign of the antichrist is not a healthy way of approaching the world.

I really wonder if this kind of paranoia is just people telling on themselves.

On 6/5/2024 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

I also note that broad disputations about obeying God frequently arise with or pertain to discussions about constraints on sexual behavior.  Again, we see this in the narrative about Korihor.  His "hey, toss out any commandments you don't like" worldview culminated in his "leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms."  I don't think this is a coincidence.  I think sexual desires are potent, so we are eager to look for justifications to act on them without regard to external constraints, with the ultimate externality being God.

And those who try to do this quickly find out it doesn’t work and that it isn’t that fun. Oddly the people who should be the most “do whatever” like polyamorous people are death on cheaters and liars. Those who try to form poly relationships ignoring those safeguards just ruin their own lives. The problem is mostly self-correcting and experienced people know this.

So all this sexual license isn’t unrestricted or, if it is, it dies quickly.

On 6/5/2024 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

Ah.  So there are parameters to prescribe and proscribe behaviors.  It's just a matter of who authors those parameters.

Now you are getting it.

On 6/5/2024 at 1:34 PM, smac97 said:

Judeo-Christian Ethic are what allows you to come to this board and denigrate our beliefs with absolute impunity, fabricate vague and infinitely malleable and ad hoc moral claims, and so on.  You live and breathe and act in reliance on the very precepts you disparage above.

Those are Enlightenment values. They came from rationalism and empiricism and a belief in natural laws and liberties, and quickly grabbed the separation of church and state banner. If they were rooted deeply in Christianity and Judaism then why did it take so long for them to catch on?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

There is one poster in particular that regularly issues personal insults

Can you quote the most egregious such personal insult in this thread? Asking for a friend 😜

[Rain]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Ding, ding, ding, ding... 🔔

So the haters here need to quit saying that we taught as doctrine the opinions put forth by individual apostles about the Priesthood ban.

There is no, no has there ever been, disunity about the Law of Chastity as it concerns anything other than heterosexual marriage unions- so the matterr IS decided.

How do you know that? Most of the disunity I have heard about there I've not heard about till years or decades later. 

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Blame" for . . . starting conversations about important topics.  That's kinda weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am saying if you want to chide two combatants for fighting the same fight over and over again put more blame on the one who keeps bringing up the topic of dispute.

I am obviously okay with doing this over and over again. If I wasn’t I wouldn’t be here.

If you want to call it “starting conversations about important topics” go for it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If each of the legs of the stool were only sightly better than a coin flip at discerning the "right" side of an issue (say 55%), then the chance that ALL FOUR of them are wrong about a given issue is only 4.1%.  And I think the odds are way better than a coin flip for each of these four legs.  And once they hit 70% reliability, then the chance of all of them leading me wrongly is less than 1%, and at 80% that chance is just over one-tenth of one percent.  

Even though the tools in the toolbelt are less than perfect, using them all together compounds our ability to get things right

Two problems here. First, the legs aren’t independent so treating them as such for probability sake is problematic. For example your reasoning is likely largely influenced by your religious views. Not saying this is only a problem for the religious. Everyone’s reasoning influenced by their world view. 

The second is more on point for me though. The question is not what to do when all four legs agree, but what to do when they disagree. Back when I was member, I looked at Gay rights. Latter-day scriptures are silent on homosexuality behavior period. Old Testament has scriptures condemning certain same sex acts, but it also condemns mixed fibers in clothing. Paul goes off on certain behaviors too, but Latter-day Saints generally ignore a lot of Paul. So as far as I could tell the scriptures spoke out against the practice sporadically, but no where against the modern conception of homosexuality. Additionally modern scripture written for our day ignored it. Modern prophets? They loudly condemned. My own reason and what I interpreted as the spirit loudly proclaimed God had no issue with it. What does one do with the four legged stool in situations like these?
 

Edited June 6, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Ding, ding, ding, ding... 🔔

So the haters here need to quit saying that we taught as doctrine the opinions put forth by individual apostles about the Priesthood ban.

There is no, no has there ever been, disunity about the Law of Chastity as it concerns anything other than heterosexual marriage unions- so the matterr IS decided.

There was never any disunity about the racial Priesthood ban either until there was.

I have said more than once if the apostles would just say outright that they had prayed and received revelation that only hetero marriage is acceptable to God I would respect them more. Instead it seems they hedge with declarations that it has always been this way and that the law is unchanged and yada yada.

That is an appeal to the past. The exact same kind of appeal used to uphold the priesthood ban which was not a bunch of opinions. It was what was taught directly and repeatedly from church leaders. It is in their talks, their letters, etc. This is one of those areas where the apostles should be able to stand on their own and declare the word of the Lord without relying on past precedent. It comes across as really weaselly. It seems to reserve the right to change it.

It is in that reserved space that people are coming up with theological justifications for gay marriage and other forms of relationships. They could destroy that space with a revelation. Maybe they don’t have one. Maybe God will not speak on this matter. If so…….I would like to know that too. The cynic in me sees this as the leadership trying to hang onto people on the fence about this with that ambiguity. The devout part of me just wants the information one way or the other.

Edited June 6, 2024 by The Nehor

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

each of the legs of the stool were only sightly better than a coin flip at discerning the "right" side of an issue (say 55%), then the chance that ALL FOUR of them are wrong about a given issue is only 4.1%.  And I think the odds are way better than a coin flip for each of these four legs.  And once they hit 70% reliability, then the chance of all of them leading me wrongly is less than 1%, and at 80% that chance is just over one-tenth of one percent.  

 

But it is not unusual imo for the legs of the stool to be supporting different things…

[smac97]

On 6/6/2024 at 4:16 PM, Peacefully said:

Respectfully, many of the threads you start seem to be about the same thing - gay people “setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity” to that of being a child of God.

Here are the topics I have started in the last year:

1. Two Missionaries Killed in North Dakota (Car Crash)
2. Ensign Peak Investing in Northrop Grumman
3. Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"
4. Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban
5. Missionary Arrested for Rape in Utah County
6. Korihor's Philosophy, "Limiting Principles" and the Law of Chastity
7. New Allegations Re: Church's Stock Portfolio
8. The Family Proclamation and the NHS
9. Church meetinghouses host thousands of Muslims for Ramadan (Ghana, Italy)
10. Gallup Poll Re: The Church has highest rate of attendance
11. Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief
12. Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.
13. Lawsuit Against Kingston Group / Individuals / Businesses
14. Deseret News: "‘Make keeping covenants cool again’: Exploring the stories of ex-ex-Latter-day Saints"
15. John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona
16. Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified
17. Third "Tithing" Lawsuit Under Way
18. PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law
19. Elder Kearon on Addressing Sexual Abuse
20. New Docuseries from Book of Mormon Central: "A Marvelous Work"
21. Church to Lease (and Share) Historic NYC Protestant Dutch Church Building
22. Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues
23. Trib Article Re: Movement to "Save" the Provo Temple
24. "The Oath" Movie
25. Move to "Dis-Establish" the Church of England
26. MormonStories in Financial Trouble
27. Mormon Soda?
28. Church purchasing land in Nebraska
29. News Item Re: Church's Efforts on Water Conservation
30. Recent Stories Re: Church's Humanitarian Efforts
31. Pres. Nelson "Back to Work"
32. Update Re: Accusation that Church Disclosed Tithing Donors to OUR
33. Church Assistance in Gaza
34. Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members
35. Deseret News: Jonathan Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man" comments on dangers arising from weakened Christianity
36. Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"
37. Deseret News Opinion Piece: Perspective: I teach tax law. This is what I wish reporters understood about church finances
38. Vice Article on Tim Ballard
39. Daily Kos Articles Re: Indians and Latter-day Saints
40. BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules
41. Sam Brunson on "Racial Diversity, the Supreme Court, and BYU"
42. MSN Weighs in on "Surprising Mormon Beliefs You Didn’t Know Were Real"
43. California's New Abbey, St. Michael's Abbey
44. Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court
45. Another Update on DezNat
46. Sis. Patricia Holland (wife of Elder Holland) has passed away.
47. BoM Witness Document Up for Sale on eBay - $1 Million Asking Price
48. Church Files Lawsuit Against Cody, Wyoming (Zoning/Planning Bd)
49. How does God's omniscience negate an individual's agency / free will?
50. Angel Studios (VidAngel) Scores Big Box Office Win: "Sound of Freedom"
51. Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt speaks at Braver Angels National Convention
52. New Church Policy Re: Background Checks in U.K.
53. Increases in Baptisms, Missionary Applications, Numbers
54. Changes to Missionaries' "Preach My Gospel" Manual
55. Article Re: Mental Health of Latter-day Saints
56. Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries
57. Local author to share his story of finding belonging as an openly gay Latter-day Saint
58. Study: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet
59. Discovery of Photograph of Joseph Smith? Part II
60. Thoughts on Biblical Interpretation

Of these 60 "threads {I have} start{ed}," only five of them (or 8.3%) have as their topic matters pertaining to the Law of Chastity and/or Same-Sex Attraction.  And of these, I think only one of them (the second on the list) (that is, 1.6%) involves me raising the idea of “setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity.”  

I don't think 1.6% is fairly characterized as "many of the threads you start seem to be about the same thing - gay people 'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' to that of being a child of God."

On 6/6/2024 at 4:16 PM, Peacefully said:

We get it,

I'm glad of that.  

On 6/6/2024 at 4:16 PM, Peacefully said:

and maybe it is something you are trying to wrap your head around,

It is.  I think it is a potentially important point.  I also think evaluating it in different threads and contexts, with different participants, has done a lot to suss out whether it's a workable idea.

On 6/6/2024 at 4:16 PM, Peacefully said:

but I’m not sure any more threads going over the same point are needed. We get it. 

And yet I think I'll continue to raise it if doing so suits me.  Nobody is obligated to read or respond to my posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2025 by smac97

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here are the topics I have started in the last year:Two Missionaries Killed in North Dakota (Car Crash)

1. Ensign Peak Investing in Northrop Grumman
2. Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"
3. Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban
4. Missionary Arrested for Rape in Utah County
5. Korihor's Philosophy, "Limiting Principles" and the Law of Chastity
6. New Allegations Re: Church's Stock Portfolio
7. The Family Proclamation and the NHS
8. Church meetinghouses host thousands of Muslims for Ramadan (Ghana, Italy)
9. Gallup Poll Re: The Church has highest rate of attendance
10. Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief
11. Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.
12. Lawsuit Against Kingston Group / Individuals / Businesses
13. Deseret News: "‘Make keeping covenants cool again’: Exploring the stories of ex-ex-Latter-day Saints"
14. John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona
15. Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified
16. Third "Tithing" Lawsuit Under Way
17. PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law
18. Elder Kearon on Addressing Sexual Abuse
19. New Docuseries from Book of Mormon Central: "A Marvelous Work"
20. Church to Lease (and Share) Historic NYC Protestant Dutch Church Building
21. Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues
22. Trib Article Re: Movement to "Save" the Provo Temple
23. "The Oath" Movie
24. Move to "Dis-Establish" the Church of England
25. MormonStories in Financial Trouble
26. Mormon Soda?
27. Church purchasing land in Nebraska
28. News Item Re: Church's Efforts on Water Conservation
29. Recent Stories Re: Church's Humanitarian Efforts
30. Pres. Nelson "Back to Work"
31. Update Re: Accusation that Church Disclosed Tithing Donors to OUR
32. Church Assistance in Gaza
33. Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members
34. Deseret News: Jonathan Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man" comments on dangers arising from weakened Christianity
35. Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"
36. Deseret News Opinion Piece: Perspective: I teach tax law. This is what I wish reporters understood about church finances
37. Vice Article on Tim Ballard
38. Daily Kos Articles Re: Indians and Latter-day Saints
39. BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules
40. Sam Brunson on "Racial Diversity, the Supreme Court, and BYU"
41. MSN Weighs in on "Surprising Mormon Beliefs You Didn’t Know Were Real"
42. California's New Abbey, St. Michael's Abbey
43. Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court
44. Another Update on DezNat
45. Sis. Patricia Holland (wife of Elder Holland) has passed away.
46. BoM Witness Document Up for Sale on eBay - $1 Million Asking Price
47. Church Files Lawsuit Against Cody, Wyoming (Zoning/Planning Bd)
48. How does God's omniscience negate an individual's agency / free will?
49. Angel Studios (VidAngel) Scores Big Box Office Win: "Sound of Freedom"
50. Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt speaks at Braver Angels National Convention
51. New Church Policy Re: Background Checks in U.K.
52. Increases in Baptisms, Missionary Applications, Numbers
53. Changes to Missionaries' "Preach My Gospel" Manual
54. Article Re: Mental Health of Latter-day Saints
55. Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries
56. Local author to share his story of finding belonging as an openly gay Latter-day Saint
57. Study: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet
58. Discovery of Photograph of Joseph Smith? Part II
59. Thoughts on Biblical Interpretation

I would add in 7, 14, and maybe 34.

[Peacefully]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would add in 7, 14, and maybe 34.

I also thought he created the David Archuleta thread but I was mistaken. He just posted in it with the same line of thought. 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here are the topics I have started in the last year:Two Missionaries Killed in North Dakota (Car Crash)

1. Ensign Peak Investing in Northrop Grumman
2. Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"
3. Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban
4. Missionary Arrested for Rape in Utah County
5. Korihor's Philosophy, "Limiting Principles" and the Law of Chastity
6. New Allegations Re: Church's Stock Portfolio
7. The Family Proclamation and the NHS
8. Church meetinghouses host thousands of Muslims for Ramadan (Ghana, Italy)
9. Gallup Poll Re: The Church has highest rate of attendance
10. Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief
11. Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.
12. Lawsuit Against Kingston Group / Individuals / Businesses
13. Deseret News: "‘Make keeping covenants cool again’: Exploring the stories of ex-ex-Latter-day Saints"
14. John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona
15. Opinions of "Self-Identified" Latter- day Saints, Quantified
16. Third "Tithing" Lawsuit Under Way
17. PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law
18. Elder Kearon on Addressing Sexual Abuse
19. New Docuseries from Book of Mormon Central: "A Marvelous Work"
20. Church to Lease (and Share) Historic NYC Protestant Dutch Church Building
21. Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues
22. Trib Article Re: Movement to "Save" the Provo Temple
23. "The Oath" Movie
24. Move to "Dis-Establish" the Church of England
25. MormonStories in Financial Trouble
26. Mormon Soda?
27. Church purchasing land in Nebraska
28. News Item Re: Church's Efforts on Water Conservation
29. Recent Stories Re: Church's Humanitarian Efforts
30. Pres. Nelson "Back to Work"
31. Update Re: Accusation that Church Disclosed Tithing Donors to OUR
32. Church Assistance in Gaza
33. Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members
34. Deseret News: Jonathan Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man" comments on dangers arising from weakened Christianity
35. Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"
36. Deseret News Opinion Piece: Perspective: I teach tax law. This is what I wish reporters understood about church finances
37. Vice Article on Tim Ballard
38. Daily Kos Articles Re: Indians and Latter-day Saints
39. BYU’s newly updated Honor Code is at odds with LDS Church’s LGBTQ rules
40. Sam Brunson on "Racial Diversity, the Supreme Court, and BYU"
41. MSN Weighs in on "Surprising Mormon Beliefs You Didn’t Know Were Real"
42. California's New Abbey, St. Michael's Abbey
43. Update on Huntsman Lawsuit: Ninth Circuit Reverses Trial Court
44. Another Update on DezNat
45. Sis. Patricia Holland (wife of Elder Holland) has passed away.
46. BoM Witness Document Up for Sale on eBay - $1 Million Asking Price
47. Church Files Lawsuit Against Cody, Wyoming (Zoning/Planning Bd)
48. How does God's omniscience negate an individual's agency / free will?
49. Angel Studios (VidAngel) Scores Big Box Office Win: "Sound of Freedom"
50. Elder Ahmad S. Corbitt speaks at Braver Angels National Convention
51. New Church Policy Re: Background Checks in U.K.
52. Increases in Baptisms, Missionary Applications, Numbers
53. Changes to Missionaries' "Preach My Gospel" Manual
54. Article Re: Mental Health of Latter-day Saints
55. Hugh Grant to Star in Horror Movie Re: Sister Missionaries
56. Local author to share his story of finding belonging as an openly gay Latter-day Saint
57. Study: Religion can help LGBTQ Mormons’ mental health, especially if they’re out of the closet
58. Discovery of Photograph of Joseph Smith? Part II
59. Thoughts on Biblical Interpretation

Of these 60 "threads {I have} start{ed}," only five of them (or 8.3%) have as their topic matters pertaining to the Law of Chastity and/or Same-Sex Attraction.  And of these, I think only one of them (the second on the list) (that is, 1.6%) involves me raising the idea of “setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity.”  

I don't think 1.6% is fairly characterized as "many of the threads you start seem to be about the same thing - gay people 'setting aside or subordinating one's sexual orientation/identity' to that of being a child of God."

I'm glad of that.  

It is.  I think it is a potentially important point.  I also think evaluating it in different threads and contexts, with different participants, has done a lot to suss out whether it's a workable idea.

And yet I think I'll continue to raise it if doing so suits me.  Nobody is obligated to read or respond to my posts.

Thanks,

-Smac

You got me there. It seemed like a lot more. Maybe it is your verbosity, lol. 
 

Has it become a workable idea in your mind? 
 

I’m not sure if you saw the post where I outlined my marriage and sealing history but I’m curious if you see any kind of double-standard there. 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Peacefully

[longview]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sharing biographical data and things someone has said is now “savage character assassination”?

You did NOT make a meaningful inquiry into the life of Riley Gaines. You went to the extremes to smear her by implying that she was some kind of "nazi" that deserved to be punched by campus hooligans. That she was a hateful person for wanting to preserve the rights of women to have genuine and fair sporting opportunities for actual biological females. That her deepest objective was to destroy transgenderism. THAT was your invention.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You did NOT make a meaningful inquiry into the life of Riley Gaines. You went to the extremes to smear her by implying that she was some kind of "nazi" that deserved to be punched by campus hooligans. That she was a hateful person for wanting to preserve the rights of women to have genuine and fair sporting opportunities for actual biological females. That her deepest objective was to destroy transgenderism. THAT was your invention.

+100

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

You did NOT make a meaningful inquiry into the life of Riley Gaines. You went to the extremes to smear her by implying that she was some kind of "nazi" that deserved to be punched by campus hooligans. That she was a hateful person for wanting to preserve the rights of women to have genuine and fair sporting opportunities for actual biological females. That her deepest objective was to destroy transgenderism. THAT was your invention.

Nope, I said she was deliberately fishing for such a response. I didn’t say she deserved it. I wish she hadn’t got it. The leadership of the school that invited her definitely wanted that response. She was invited to be the commencement speaker at the college because she *checks notes* once tied for fifth in a swimming competition against a trans woman. That is it. She had no ties to the school. She wasn’t a top athlete or a brilliant scholar. The only reason anyone knew about her was that she complained that that competition wasn’t fair. That might be something you could hold a debate about but commencement speakers aren’t usually chosen in order to be controversial. She was chosen to provoke. It is obvious.

So she was asked to speak at commencement at this school. This was a deliberate provocation and everyone involved knew it. The leadership that invited her knew it. She knew. The students that protested knew it. I wish the students had stuck to regular humiliation and disparagement and hadn’t been that militant. She knew what she was walking into and what she wanted and she got what she wanted. It pushed her into the spotlight even more and she was all over the news and getting all kinds of attention beyond her earlier 15 minutes of fame. She wasn’t a victim. She had a goal and accomplished her mission. SHE WON! Saying she is a victim is analogous to saying Rosa Parks was a victim when she deliberately courted arrest. Rosa Parks succeeded. So did Riley Gaines. She got the publicity she sought. Acting like she is a sad little victim is ridiculous.

I did also say she lost the plot a bit when insisting that trans women shouldn’t compete in *checks notes* chess while implying that the real problem is some unfair advantage or a desperate desire to perv in locker rooms (one would think she wouldn’t go speak at a rally for a political candidate that has openly confessed to perving around in young women’s changing rooms but ideological consistency is not a thing with a lot of people). I doubt chess team locker rooms are a thing in any case. I pointed out that her problem clearly isn’t with some perceived advantage or disadvantage. She wants trans women removed from all competitions whether such an advantage exists or not so it is clearly really just transphobia. If your goals don’t align with your rationalizations your rationalizations for said goal are more than a little suspect

If she wants to oppose trans women in all women’s competitions go for it. If you do though don’t whine about inherent disadvantages. You clearly just want them out whether it would be unfair or not. Just say that. Be honest about your bigotry.

See, that is what a savage character assassination would look like. Also an accurate and fair one.

 

The whole transphobia thing reminds me of good old Gamergate where the accusers insisted that the whole thing was about “ethics in video game journalism” when the whole thing was just about hating women. Why the smokescreen?

 

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

You got me there. It seemed like a lot more. Maybe it is your verbosity, lol. 

Has it become a workable idea in your mind? 

Yes.  It's not a panacea, but it sure helps resolve some of the tension and confusion I see in discussions of the Church relative to the Law of Chastity, sexual attraction, etc.

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I’m not sure if you saw the post where I outlined my marriage and sealing history

This one?

13 hours ago, Peacefully said:

but I’m curious if you see any kind of double-standard there. 

In your other post, you said:

Quote

So the church seems to be able to make concessions for heterosexual couples in various circumstances but somehow a monogamous, same-sex couple, married for years or decades is outside of the scope. It makes no logical or spiritual sense to me. 

What "concessions" are you referencing here?

When you reference "couples," are you referencing marriage?  Or just any type of relationship between two people?

The Church's approach to matters of marriage, sex, the Law of Chastity, etc. presuppose some things.  These presuppositions are rooted in defined terms.  If these terms are re-defined, and if those new definitions are then imposed on the Church's doctrines, then the meaning and purpose of those doctrines can become opaque or confusing.  Conversely, if we resist these new definitions, and the imposition of them onto the Church, then the doctrines make quite a bit of sense, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 7, 2024 by smac97

[longview]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If she wants to oppose trans women in all women’s competitions go for it.

You pulled THAT out of thin air. Strictly your invention.

CFR please.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It's not a panacea, but it sure helps resolve some of the tension and confusion I see in discussions of the Church relative to the Law of Chastity, sexual attraction, etc.

This one?

In your other post, you said:

What "concessions" are you referencing here?

When you reference "couples," are you referencing marriage?  Or just any type of relationship between two people?

The Church's approach to matters of marriage, sex, the Law of Chastity, etc. presuppose some things.  These presuppositions are rooted in defined terms.  If these terms are re-defined, and if those new definitions are then imposed on the Church's doctrines, then the meaning and purpose of those doctrines can become opaque or confusing.  Conversely, if we resist these new definitions, and the imposition of them onto the Church, then the doctrines make quite a bit of sense, IMO.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your response. I feel like my story really highlights different scenarios the church accepts when it comes to allowing people married to members of the opposite sex to access temple blessings. But a monogamous, many years married gay couple cannot have the same access. I just don’t think that double-standard comes from Heavenly Father. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Thank you for your response. I feel like my story really highlights different scenarios the church accepts when it comes to allowing people married to members of the opposite sex to access temple blessings. But a monogamous, many years married gay couple cannot have the same access. I just don’t think that double-standard comes from Heavenly Father. 

I submit that there is no double-standard until and unless you re-define marriage, both as to meaning and purpose.  

A "double standard" is, after all, "a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups," or "the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same."

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, do you see any reasonable, principled distinction between "marriage" as a union of a man and a woman versus a man and a man or a woman and a woman?  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Peacefully]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I submit that there is no double-standard until and unless you re-define marriage, both as to meaning and purpose.  

A "double standard" is, after all, "a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups," or "the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same."

Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, do you see any reasonable, principled distinction between "marriage" as a union of a man and a woman versus a man and a man or a woman and a woman?  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think I get where you are coming from. The paradigm you are working with is the current policies of the church and you need to make your thoughts align with them by using the subordinating identity idea. Apologies if I’ve misconstrued your words. Whereas, I believe the current paradigm is flawed and will be remedied at some point  so that a monogamous, married gay couple or any gay person who dates someone of the same sex but keeps their covenants, would be welcomed into full fellowship. I think you have said before that you don’t see this happening but if it happened by revelation through our prophet then you would support it. Again, I apologize if I’ve misconstrued your words. I am going off of memory. Anyhoo, I also sustain our prophet even if I have doubts and questions so maybe we aren’t so far apart. 

Edited June 7, 2024 by Peacefully

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think I get where you are coming from. The paradigm you are working with is the current policies of the church and you need to make your thoughts align with them by using the subordinating identity idea.

I'm more focused on the doctrines than the policies, as the latter are, or should be, downstream from the former.

I generally do not privilege my personal opinions on sociopolitical issues when doing so contravenes the Restored Gospel.

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Apologies if I’ve misconstrued your words. Whereas, I believe the current paradigm is flawed and will be remedied at some point  so that a monogamous, married gay couple or any gay person who dates someone of the same sex but keeps their covenants, would be welcomed into full fellowship.

Okay.  I think this perspective is incorrect.  I have previously commented on this here:

Quote

Quote

I stand by my belief that the LDS Faith will eventually recognize, allow, and authorize martial sealings of committed same-gender couples in its temples after newer leadership replaces many/most of the current quorum.

I stand by my belief that the Church will not do this, that there has never been any indication that such a change will happen, that there have been ample statements that the doctrines on this point are set, that same-sex relationships and behavior simply do not jibe with either the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation, and that notions to the contrary are purely wishful thinking.

This could make an interesting discussion all on its own.  How would such relationships work relative to eternal progression and increase?  

I can certainly appreciate and respect the strongly-held desires of folks like you, Daniel.  But I can't help but view your hope/expectation as a radical eisegesis of the Restored Gospel.  That is, you are reading into the Church, its scriptures, its doctrines, etc., things that you want to see, rather than what the scriptures and doctrines actually say.

I fully affirm the 9th Article of Faith: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  

And 2 Nephi 28:30 - "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have."

I cannot get on board with the notion that I can justify a marked and calculated disobedience to revealed doctrines now because I hope or believe something will happen in the future to allow my current behavior. 

And here:

Quote

Quote

What would you and others do if one day this doctrine changed as well?

What doctrine?  The Law of Chastity?

I think this hypothetical is extraordinarily unlikely.  However, AoF 1:9 states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  I think God fundamentally altering the Law of Chastity to allow for same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage will never happen.  It's about as pristine an example of "wishful thinking" that we are ever likely to see.  However, in a de minimis sense, I am open to the possibility.  I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

If and when we received new light and knowledge conforming to your anticipated paradigmatic change, I will happily eat crow.  

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think you have said before that you don’t see this happening but if it happened by revelation through our prophet then you would support it.

Yes.

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Again, I apologize if I’ve misconstrued your words.

No apology needed.  I think you have correctly captured and restated my perspective.

10 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I am going off of memory. Anyhoo, I also sustain our prophet even if I have doubts and questions so maybe we aren’t so far apart. 

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

You pulled THAT out of thin air. Strictly your invention.

CFR please.

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