Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Maybe I am a little more sensitive this conference, but I am getting annoyed at how often everyone has to mention how awesome and inspired the prophet is. Honestly, I’m not really enjoying this conference at all. Seems like a big commercial and collective pat on the back for the welfare program they started. Not even watching this afternoon’s session right now. Maybe i will read it later. Specifically, president Monson’s talk encouraging people to sacrifice all that they have, even years of labor away from their family, to get to the temple really bothered me. I also sat and wondered with all the welfare talk how many hungry people we could have fed with those 115 temples he bragged about building.
That sounds like when the prophet stands up in conference and challenges everyone to have family home evening or get out of debt. And yet those are not on the TR interview. They “voted” on the Wow? Is that kind of like how we vote on church leaders by raising our hands even though we have no real input? It makes it sound so democratic, even though voting against is so taboo that nobody would dare. Unfortunately our religion teaches that temple marriage is REQUIRED for salvation. So pushing for marriage is just as important as the rush for baptism in the standard mormon’s eyes. You arent saved until youve found someone, anyone to take to the temple. I really don’t see how a single adult could ever find comfort in the LDS faith. As I said several times, I am only arguing against the nature logic and not stating my own opinion on any gay issues. cwald wrote:Brown wrote:I still can’t buy “nature” as an argument in favor of homosexuality. Just because animals do something does not make it acceptable for us. …
Okay, that is true, we are expected to be more civil than the common animal. We do not accept rape and murder, like what happens in the animal kingdom. That is true.
So, do we just ignore the fact that other species in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexual behavior, and tell our gay friends that their sexual orientation is a choice and that if they act on their inclinations, they are little more than “animals” and only following thier animal urges at the expense of their humanity?
Do you see the problem with that? What the biologists are saying, is that sexual attraction is not black and white – male attracted to females, and females attracted to males. Sometimes, in the animal kingdom it doesnt’ work that way, so it’s only logical and reasonable to conclude that its doesn’t always work that way in the human animal as well. The chemistry doesn’t always work the same way in everyone.
I do think we ignore the animal kingdom and decide what we want as a society of humans. I don’t think we tell our gay friends to act or not act based on what apes or turtles do. We wouldn’t tell that to a person prone to violence or any other animal trait, and we shouldn’t for someone based on sexual desires, either.
The nature thing is easy to take the other way, too. Homosexuality is far from the norm in the animal kingdom. Should we change our laws, customs, and societal structure based on something a small percentage of animals do? I would say the animal kingdom in large is showing us that heterosexuality is the natural method and same-sex attraction is an aberration.
Again, I am not saying how I feel about it one way or the other, just saying I don’t think nature makes a good case.
So say we agree that sexual orientation is primarily a function of nature. What then? Does it change anything about the debate? The problem becomes when the congregation of the church takes the prophet’s political opinion as god’s will. I still can’t buy “nature” as an argument in favor of homosexuality. Just because animals do something does not make it acceptable for us. Animals have been known to kill, abandon, mate with or even eat their young! Does that make it even remotely excusable for humans to neglect or abuse their children? Promiscuity, violence and rape are also commonplace in the animal kingdom. I think we all know those are not desirable behavior for humans, even if many humans to give into their impulses for those kinds of actions. I am not trying to argue for or against homosexuality here, but saying it is OK because animals do it, is a poor line of argument. Most of what makes us humans is the ability to reason and overcome natural tendencies and impulses when it is our best interest.
To me, faith is hoping things are true and acting as if they are. I do think a lot of it is just deciding that the evidence for the church (or whatever) is good enough, and you are going to not worry about the rest. It would be the same if you were going to propose marriage to a woman. You don’t know for sure that she will say yes, but you have enough evidence to take the leap. Of course she could say no, and the BoM might be a fairy tale, but you have to take that leap at times. It’s the old risk vs reward axiom.
I thought we believed that EVERYONE could receive spiritual and temporal knowledge simply through prayer. I don’t see why you can’t take a vacation from church. We know the importance of rest and vacation in all other aspects of our lives, but taking a break from church is made out to be a sin. Take a break and don’t feel guilty about it. Tom Haws wrote:Brown wrote:Yet everyone’s favorite Book of Mormon hero was ordered to murder Laban because the alternative was worse. This says to me that God….
Even the Book of Mormon itself says it has errors of men that we aren’t to ascribe to God. I can’t think of a greater error in the Book of Mormon than the idea that there was cosmic good in Laban’s murder. Instead, it was a classic case of Nephi’s winning the battle, but losing the war. God wouldn’t be so short-sighted.
I think it is short-sighted to assume that death is always a bad thing.
Quote:I think that letting go of short-term outcomes and having faith in our highest ideals can lead us to the kind of love and honesty we really want to experience. I like “translation”. I like “disclosure”. And I like honoring people’s agency. There is always a more excellent way, even when we can’t see it. One idea a friend of mine shared is to make a goal of being totally honest, then when a potential need for translation arises, say something like. “Do you want the short and sweet answer or the long and tangy answer?” “I have more to say about that question than you may have intended to ask for. Are you looking for a complete and open answer or a short and sweet answer?”
People are never going to ask for a lie if you give them the choice. I can just imagine telling my wife, “do you want the truth or the answer you want to hear?” I’ve already revealed the hurtful truth just by asking. Last time I told my wife I didn’t really believe in a lot of the teaching of the church and wanted to take a break, she cried herself to sleep for two days straight. I’d rather fake it and have my wife happy than be totally true to myself and make my wife cry.
Quote:Letting go. When I first decided that honesty in the temple recommend interview would be more blessed than holding a temple recommend, it freed me to go in and say, “Before we start this interview, I simply want to let you know a little about my faith journey.
OK. Now that you understand where my head and heart are, let’s do the short and sweet interview.” And what do you know? I walked out with a recommend (and with a heart full of love and compassion for my ecclesiastical leaders) every time (not that it really mattered to me). I am glad it worked out for you that way, but it could have just as easily resulted in disciplinary actions from the church. I don’t have faith in men to always do what is right an noble. We’ve all had spiritual leaders that lead more by the letter than by the spirit of the law.
