Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Fwiw, Chad Hardy was excommunicated for encouraging members (ex-missionaries, in fact) to break their temple covenants and for publicly sexualizing missionaries for profit. Personally, I believe both of those are pretty severe offenses – and the fact that he had no remorse whatsoever and didn’t mind being excommunicated made the decision pretty easy, imo.
Is a missionary breaking his or her covenants by being in a bathing suit? I am sure there are quite a few active LDS males and females who are models who pose in far less than the male missionaries did for that calendar. Also, I am not sure it was negative since I knew several non-member women tho joked about not sending missionaries away the next time they knocked on her door.
Quote:I could be completely off base, but my guess is that an LDS character doing something immoral is probably OK, provided that the book doesn’t condone it. Does the character receive a comeuppance or does it make immorality seem desirable? I think your friend would have to be ready to answer the loyalty question (although I personally dislike that on principle for artistic fields), and I think your friend would also have to have good will (intentions) toward the church, the character’s actions notwithstanding.
My friend’s book deals with the complex relationships that a young female psychopath is able to carry on. The Church is not made look bad, but he says he wanted someone so manipulative that even after killing nearly a dozen people she is able to carry on a double-life, seducing an LDS man, marrying him, secretly marrying her best friend (female) as well, and actually being popular with people in his ward AND become active in a pro-family organization as a lecturer.
I have been reading through this thread and find an underlying red thread — it seems many people feel sexuality is a fixed, black or white, condition. It really isn’t. I believe some people believe that if they are attracted to a member of the same sex emotionally or physically, or even entertain fantasies of intiate relations with a member of the same sex then they must be gay. However, in the case of women, if we say that a pure heterosexual woman must have never had relations with a woman, desired relations with a woman, entertained the idea of an emotional relationship with a woman or found the female body more appealing than the male then I believe that a great number of self-identified heterosexual women would have to reclassify themselves at least as bisexual. Now what about women who identify totally as lesbian? here is an interesting thing to ponder:
Quote:Bisexual lesbians
The study published in Explaining Diversity in the Development of Same-Sex Sexuality Among Young Women by Lisa M. Diamond and Ritch C. Savin-Williams involved interviewing 100 women over two years. The scientists found that two thirds of the 34 women who identified as lesbian reported periodic attractions to men.
One study is interesting but not terribly statistically significant; however, it’s not the only report to find that self-identified lesbians sometimes feel attraction to men. A separate paper published in 1994, for example, found that of the 4.4% of American women who reported experiencing same-sex attraction, 94% were also attracted to men.
So if lesbians are sometimes attracted to men, does it follow that straight women are sometimes attracted to other women? Yes. In fact possibly as many as 84% of heterosexual women experience same-sex attraction. However, as Lisa Diamond notes, “A reliable answer to this question is elusive, given the stigma that prevents heterosexual women from readily acknowledging same-sex attractions.”
But back up. What does this all mean? How can 66% of lesbians – let alone 95% – be attracted to men? That would make them bisexual for a start, not lesbian, surely? Well, no actually.
http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/community/why-do-lesbians-hate-bisexuals/ I think readers can see the implications for such findings in this article.
Bill Atkinson wrote:Hi Fiannan
Well it may be a bit Freudian but it also a bit quirky and it does seem to make the assumption that the “rechannelling” you are suggesting results in a “less satisfactory” sexual orientation. There is also an implicit, and you can correct me on this, underlying thought that if we as parents can manage the environment correctly we can avoid having kids who are gay. Both assumptions can lead to unneccessary guilt and self concept difficulties. I have no idea why we have gay kids but I think it is best to simply love them and try to build a support system that will allow them to have happy, productive lives. I really can’t undertstand the Chruch’s stand against gay marriages since such marriages would allow gays to have a normal, faithful family life and be an accepted part of a Ward.
Yeah, that is a drawback to Freudianism, yet Mr. Freud’s in many ways are just applying psychological terminology to Biblical concepts (he might have been an atheist but his Jewish upbringing must have had an influence on him). The thing is, however, that biology and the Bible intersect on this issue. The most positive outcome in raising a family is to have kids who will also raise families. So yes, homosexuality is counterproductive in that sense. If a society re-directs natural reproductive instincts away from their intended outcome then neurosis and compensatory behaviors may result.
Like I said, I hope the girl got a worthy LDS male that has a brain knows how to use it and the guy got himself some passive-agressive, rule-dominated, status-seeking (“My husband sure had better be a stake president in 15 years or else”) woman instead. Captain Curmudgeon wrote:Random thoughts on the topic, mostly from reading this forum.
So, a good place to start is with the recent Pew Research report (released 24 July and that was not a coincidence) which gives some idea of where the church is. Much more Utah-centric and less dynamic than I would have thought from my own observations. And it seems to me that both trends are likely to continue.
StayLDS is interesting to me because it seems to be bucking one of the other trends that I’ve seen in my lifetime: the tendency to get rid of faithful Mormons with slightly (and sometimes not quite that slight) different ideas on the gospel. I think of the academics not that long ago and some personal friends. When people who were born in the church are forced out instead of being somehow accommodated, the church shrinks (obviously) and become even less dynamic.
I expect the church to come to better terms with homosexuality fairly soon. I see two trends here. The first is that it’s easier for gay people to come out, even Mormons. The second is that general authorities are getting slightly younger and at some point they will be in close touch with grandchildren and children who are gay. Think about VP and Mrs Cheney. From where they stand on most issues, you’d expect them to be violently anti-gay, but they have a gay daughter and they know that she does not conform at all to the usual right-wing rhetoric about homosexuals so they do not go along with it.
Otherwise, I see the church becoming more and more like other Protestant churches. I left SLC and the church when I was 18 and came back when I was 40. Big shock! All the wonderful stuff that I loved (but didn’t believe) was now no longer “emphasized”. See that here as well. The really interesting, unique, and peculiar doctrines are sliding away from our collective attention.
There is a big battle in the offing when the existence of the “Internet Mormons” comes to the attention of the “Chapel Mormons.” Big gap there. Could be either an accommodation or the people who believe in a limited site for the Lamanites and that the Book of Mormon is inspired but not necessarily true are going to be hitting the road.
I have to agree with you. It seems the more essoteric and interesting aspects of the Church get far less attention nowadays. When I joined in the late 1970s there seemed to be a more intellectual approach to lessons and priesthood discussions were far more in depth. Now there seems to be a far greater attention to being in line with authority and not alienating people with deeper doctrine — yet that will only alienate the more intellectual people.
I think there are different types of Mormons and we all have to try to get along. I was active in a discussion forum that seemed to have people who were threatened the most by active LDS people who didn’t really conform to a certain lifestyle or interpretation of the Gospel. If these type of people become the dominant force in our religion then expect a mass exodus of people who like to question, or esplore, but are also devout. I am not really optomistic when I read articles like when Elder Bedner held up as an ideal a guy who broke up with his fiance because she had more than one ear ring in her ear. The only happy thing I got from that talk was that some poor girl was saved from a life with an intolerant dweeb. Hope she found someone who wasn’t so dogmatic.
swimordie wrote:Fiannan wrote:I asked one of the other readers, a very outspoken bisexual woman, what she thought about the comments I received and she said in her experiences that some really “homophobic” women tend to be quite easy to seduce. Seems old Freud knew what he was talking about — if someone goes ballistic on an issue they tend to be hiding something. Bet some of those nameless women you hear mentioned in church talks that are so “heartbroken” over finding porn on their husband’s computer accounts probably did a whole lot of investigation into the sites when they discovered them.
This idea could definitely be it’s own thread. I happen to agree completely.
I opened up a thread on huan sexuality that is somewhat related. But seriously, the young woman I talked to who is quite “active” in sexual matters with other women said that when a conservative woman has her first sexual experience with another woman, or even has a brief relationship, she will either go out with a bunch of guys to prove she really is heterosexual or, if she is also religious, will figure she might as well self-identify with her “new lifestyle” as a means to protect her ego from the condemnation of being a “sinner”. So the irony is that a conservative Christian woman who does fall into such a temptation may be far more likely to become lesbian since she doesn’t feel right about sleeping around with a lot of guys. My ultimate take on this? Maybe if people understood sexuality better they would not be so quick to label their desires or actions and acctually fall into far more complex problems.
Quote:I reviewed a book called Angel Falling Softly (or something like that) published by Zarahemla about a vampire in SLC, including some lesbian/vampire encounters. Honestly, the Mormons portrayed seemed weirder than both the vampires and the lesbian (okay, she was just an experimental U of U student, barely in the book). My conclusion was that this was a book without a target audience. No one inside the church would touch it (for several reasons) and no one outside the church would get it.
Don’t be too sure. Ever hear of “reaction formation”? As I stated above I have written a novel about a young serielkiller and there was really no way not to include a sex scene between the main character and her best (female) accomplice. I have had the draft reviewed by over a dozen young women (target audience) and it was the most religious/conservative members of the group that protested that the scene was not described in more detail (I had kept it at that 1950s style of leving it up to the reader’s imagination). When I defended myself they contended that the reader wants romantic details.
I asked one of the other readers, a very outspoken bisexual woman, what she thought about the comments I received and she said in her experiences that some really “homophobic” women tend to be quite easy to seduce. Seems old Freud knew what he was talking about — if someone goes ballistic on an issue they tend to be hiding something. Bet some of those nameless women you hear mentioned in church talks that are so “heartbroken” over finding porn on their husband’s computer accounts probably did a whole lot of investigation into the sites when they discovered them.
I recently completed a novel — been urged along by collegues for quite some time. have not actually set about trying to get it published though. The topic is basically a young gifted woman becomes a seriel murderer. I recently told someone I had not seen in years and she asked me to summarie the plot. She immediately asked if I was still active in the church. That is a problem — if you write a novel on just about any subject you have to be realistic. If that is the case you may have to dealve into the darkness of human nature. Then people are going to suspect you are flirting with the lifestyle you are dealing with.
It’s sad but if you are a photographer you will probably have to do some nudes on the way and people are going to wonder about your values. If you write anyhthing but children’s books you may have to actually present life, and if you teach you may have to deal with uncomfortable issues. Guess you just have to ignore those who go ito judgemental mode.
How do INTPs fare in the Church — my profile? Not sure my wife’s profile but she is not into finding hidden meanings behind things, and prefers to just do as the bretheren say. If she doesn’t like something she will do her own thing but she feels guilty for it. On the other hand I am always trying to find why this or that has been established and I really hate it when something is not explained in a manner I find adequate. So obviously my wife and I don’t talk about religion that much unless it is just the basics. Could one apprecate a great artist or composer if all they did ws read text about them? One needs to witness and experience what they have created to appreciate them and the same goes for God. I don’t think the issue has anything to do with discomfort or anything. I am not uncomfortable in the least around homosexuals but I feel that the Church has to stand by the Biblical standards that homosexuality is not in accordance with God’s word. That being said, I feel that sexuality is far more fluid than many people want to believe. Just for fun I shared the sexual orientation inventory test found at Robert Epstein’s site with several friends. One female friend scored a 4 with a range of on the scale and asked what it meant. I jokingly said that it meant she would not find a long-term relationship with a woman satisfying but she would like to have sex with women occasionally. Expecting her to jke back she instead said that the test was totally accurate then. Another woman I know took it and said that she has never had relations with a woman but could not rule out the possibility that she could fall in love with a woman and live life as a lesbian even though her life goal is to marry and have kids (in fact both these women are far more interested in a traditional husband and kids life than most women I know in their age group).
I think that the whole opening the door to experimentation and acceptance is going to be confusing to many people and more than a few will find themselves struggling with same sex attraction issues if we form a totally “It doesn’t matter the gender of the person we fall in love with” societal attitude. Freud was afraid of this and expressed why he did not want society to totally accpet homosexuality in a letter he wrote to Jung. That’s where I stand on this.
Would I deny a lesbian artificial insemination if she wanted to start a family with her partner? No I would not — I feel she is at least following the Biblical law to multiply and replenish the earth. However, I would be totally against teaching young children that two women “married” are the same as a man and woman married.
