Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Poppyseed, I may disagree with you, but I respect your faith and sincerity. One thing I’ve wondered about this, is why is it so hard to fathom two men married for eternity? It’s not the traditional thought, but we have no detailed knowledge or understanding of how we will supposedly create worlds and people in the afterlife. It’s commonly assumed that this abnormality will be “fixed” after the resurrection. Why does it need to be fixed? If two men feel the same level of personal satisfaction from their relationship as I do from mine, then why would they want that to change? Maybe they would still be able to “create” things in the next life. Maybe, as laws continue to change, these couples would be eternal families with the children they adopt here on earth. Of course there are lots of gay Mormons that badly want to change, but that is because they’ve been taught their entire lives that their feelings are unnatural, wrong, evil if acted upon, perverse. When they reveal their feelings publicly, they are shunned and ostracized by lots of people that just can’t stand or respect gays. They are often told they can change if they exercise enough faith–amen Elder Hafen–when there is no evidence that is true. Even though they can’t change their natural sexual attraction to the same sex, they try and try, because they have faith in their leaders. When they see no change, their depression and self-loathing often worsens. Suicide rates among gay Mormons are much higher than they are for the general population. Some of these gay Mormons force themselves into heterosexual relationships, getting married, having kids, and the whole time, they are miserable and unhappy.
An Anthropology professor at Utah State, Richard Crapo, has studied gay Mormon’s that are married for over two decades. In private interviews–he would never reveal names–he’s had plenty of married gay men, some Stake Presidents and Bishops, that go to public parks for gay sex and they live this double life just to save face. Of course I’m not condoning risky promiscuity or cheating on one’s wife, but it goes to show that SSA doesn’t change. BYU tried extensively in the 50’s and 60’s to change SSA with gay students. They would have these gay students watch heterosexual porn while using electrical shocks to try and get them to change. Of course it didn’t work–there are numerous first hand stories from students that participated in these studies–and it is just one more example of the unchanging nature of SSA. I could be subjected to every form of torture, therapy, etc. and I would never find myself attracted to other men. There is no reason, or evidence, for me to believe gays are any different.
The Church needs to accept the fact that SSA attraction isn’t “fixable” and realize that the “doctrines” that condemn sex relationships are wrong. They used to teach that birth control was an abomination; they used to believe interracial marriage was sinful, etc. There are numerous examples like this that I don’t need to list, but things that were considered set in stone doctrine have been changed, and they will continue to change. I see no reason why it won’t eventually happen with gay relationships as well. I really believe the Church could marry gay couples in Temples someday. I’m sure most people will disagree with me on that, but that’s my call. I also see no reason why these marriages wouldn’t be eternal. Maybe SSA is a result of the fall and it will go away after the resurrection, but even if this is the case, they do wedding ceremonies for time only in the Temple–they could do that for gay couples. 20 years from now, Elder Hafen’s talk will be right there with McConkie’s strong statements about blacks and the priesthood–imo.
Poppyseed wrote:Quote:People that are “born” gay can’t control their feelings, and they shouldn’t be expected to.
Really? REALLY?? Gay people can’t control their feelings? And Gay people shouldn’t be expected to? ……. Except when we give them the right to marry. THEN they can control themselves til marriage. Is that what you are saying? Not that the merits of Gay marriage are the purpose of this thread……
I am sorry I have to respectfully disagree with this. I get that biology could be a fixed variable in ones life. But I don’t see it as the only variable and I don’t think the church does either.
I should explain my statement a little bit better. By saying they shouldn’t have to control their feelings, I’m saying that they shouldn’t have to avoid intimate relationships with the people their attracted to their entire lives, just because Mormon theology thinks it’s wrong/bad/sinful. I’m not promoting promiscuity, but I’m also saying they shouldn’t expected to be celibate. Heterosexuals are provided an avenue–Marriage–that allows them to have “approved” sexual relationships. Why should gay people be denied an avenue for “approved” relationships? And if that avenue isn’t provided, then no, they shouldn’t be expected to never have the same kind of intimate relationships that married heterosexuals get.
If a gay couple gets married in Massachusetts, is the sexual relationship still bad? If so, why? If heterosexual sex is condoned once a couple is married, then what’s the difference? Plenty of couples either choose not to have kids, or can’t, so that can’t be the reason. So, why is it different and wrong, Poppyseed?
Poppyseed wrote:What about our spirits? What about SSA with regards to that? If gender was assigned before we got here, what about sexual feelings and righteous preferences? And if my understanding is correct and I am more than my biology, then doesn’t that mean I have some capcity to change? if not my biology, then my thinking? And doesn’t Christ help us heal biology sometimes? And when He doesn’t, isn’t that the times where he increases our capacities and strengths or makes it so we can’t feel the weight of certain burdens? He says he makes a way for us to obey.
I don’t want to deny the science. I don’t know how I feel about Hafen yet. But I do struggle against the idea that things can’t change and that the only solution is the changing of church doctrine — something that for me would make the question of staying Lds completely mute.
Poppyseed, I understand your confusion. In my opinion, this apparent contradiction is just one more reason I don’t believe we have spirits, or if we do, they aren’t anything like we are taught by LDS theology. Hermaphrodite/intersexual people have been around for a long time. How does that fit in with the Proclamation of the Family? I know I’m exercising no faith and relying on science and evidence, but hermaphrodites and SSA have biological explanations that make some sense–when the soul/spirit comes into play, it muddles the picture.
If these intersexual bodies have souls, which sex are they? If brain chemistry is driving sexual attraction, then what role would a soul/spirit play, even for heterosexual people? LDS theology teaches that animals have spirits too; what about animals that have sex with other animals of the same gender? They obviously don’t have “accountability” so their behavior isn’t considered perverse. It seems like that is a good example of how SSA works–that’s it’s biologically driven, and at the end of the day, humans are highly evolved animals, so turning to the animal kingdom for evidence isn’t a bad idea.
If we accept the accumulating evidence that SSA is biological, then why should we expect gay people to refrain from sexual relationships? Why is it bad? The Church expects heterosexual people to wait until marriage to have sex, but they are denying gay people this form of commitment. Why? Why deny gay people the most stabilizing form of commitment society has come up with for relationships? People that are “born” gay can’t control their feelings, and they shouldn’t be expected to. The gay community is considered promiscuous, but until we grant them opportunities to legally marry/unite, then how can we expect that to change much? On that note, the promiscuity of the gay community has improved significantly in areas of our country and around the world where they are given the option of marriage. I’m not sure that the gay community is more promiscuous than the unmarried heterosexual segment of society, but imagine how much more promiscuous our society would be if heterosexuals weren’t allowed to legally commit to each other? Marriage creates a level of commitment that really isn’t achievable any other way, and it is the most symbolically powerful statement a couple can make about their love for each other. We should allow gay people the same opportunity.
I’m a little bit late to the discussion, but I feel a lot like like Rix does about this issue. I find Bruce Hafen’s comments both ignorant and hurtful. I know a decent number of gay people–many for much of their lives. For most of them, they spent a good chunk of their early life racked with guilt, depressed, even suicidal, over the fact that they were attracted to the same sex. Many of them received numerous priesthood blessing promising them that their feelings would change–some were promised this would happen after they completed their missions, others were told it would happen immediately, and to this day, all of them are still gay. Most of them have come to accept who they are, and have chosen to embrace it and be happy with it, knowing it isn’t something that can or will change–it’s how they are. Their attractions for the same sex aren’t something they chose or can choose (I recognize that they can “choose” whether or not they act on it). Study after study indicates this is how most gay people are–they have always been attracted to the same sex the same way I have always been attracted to the opposite sex. You could try every kind of therapy, every kind of method, and I would never, ever be able to be attracted to men–it’s an impossibility; it’s the same way for much of the gay population.
There are certainly examples of people that claim they were gay and now they aren’t, but the percentages are enormously small within the gay community. I don’t know how many of you have read Michael Quinn’s book about same-sex dynamics, primarily from a Mormon perspective–anyway, it does a good job of documenting the way gay’s have been treated by the Church in the past vs. the way they are treated now. The Church has gone backwards, and it continues to go backwards with talks like Bruce Hafen’s and Prop 8.
I may end up wrong–I highly doubt it–but as science continues to progress, it will nail down with certainty the fact that for a majority of gay people, it is how they came out biologically, just like heterosexuals, and it isn’t changeable. Science will probably get to the point where it can determine whether someone is gay by doing certain genetic tests or brain scans–I don’t know exactly how, but it will happen. When people get to the point where they have to accept the fact that sexual attraction, even for gays, is as biological as skin color or eye color, they will have a difficult time not granting gays all of the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals have–including the Church. I doubt the Church will ever perform gay marriages in Temples, but I do believe they will eventually support gay marriage from a civil perspective. Anyway, hopefully people within the Church leadership can stop saying things as ignorant, incorrect, and hurtful and Bruce Hafen–it does no good and it is absolutely wrong.
The link between the Church and conservative politics seems pretty straight forward—the positions that the Republican Party takes on moral issues is more aligned with the gospel. It’s not just our Church, but most Christian denominations have a Republican bent because of the moral issues, and the Republican Party is very good using this to it’s advantage. In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran what many consider to be, the first “new conservative” campaign, i.e., a focus on moral issues. Rather than focusing on government issues like taxes, schools, defense, the new conservative movement focuses on emotional moral issues like abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools, etc.
If you can get past this initial layer of moral issues, then in a lot of ways, the Democratic platform is a lot more in line with a Christ-like world view than the Republican platform, imo.
Rix wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Why in the world is taking prescribed medication from a doctor a bad thing? Sorry, but I really don’t like that argument.
I had forgotten about this thread…wanted to reply to this. Of course, if the “process” of being honest with the doc, then taking the meds as prescribed, and for the right purpose…it is just fine. The problem is, there is MUCH deception in getting the “prescribed meds” by many people. Particularly in regards to opiate pain meds and benzos (valium, Xanax, etc.).
Many folks learn after being Rx’d these meds appropriately that they really like them, and they learn what to say to the doc to get more. We call that “doc shopping.” Many of these patients (here in Utah) are active LDS and probably answer “yes’ to the WoW questions. I think the point here is that certainly the spirit of the law is being broken in these cases…
Perfectly said Rix; lots and lots of people break the “spirit” of the law with prescription meds. If one pain pill will pretty much fix your headache, but you know 2 will completely kill it and get you high in the process, then taking 2 isn’t in compliance with the spirit of the law is it? If you start taking more pain pills for the buzz, that isn’t any different than drinking or smoking pot for the buzz, is it? The number of pain pill related deaths in Utah was over 300 last year–one of the highest in the country. I think part of the reason Utah has a higher level of pain pill abuse than most states is because of the WoW. It is visually sinful to drink or smoke, but swallowing a white pill that doctors prescribe seems harmless–there is much less of a stigma associated with this.
mormonheretic wrote:Wordsleuth,
How do you view the Bible? Can you please tell me the form of racism they used that is different from Joseph Smith’s time period? I guess I’m having a hard time understanding why you think Joseph’s racism is different than biblical racism.
Have you read Michael Quinn? Grant Palmer? Even Richard Bushman? The perceptions people had in Joseph’s time of Native American’s are identical to the way the Lamanites are portrayed in the BoM. Once again, I’m not saying Joseph or the BoM invented racism–there is certainly racism in the Bible–but the very specific racism directed toward the supposed progenitors of Native American’s is hard to overlook. General racism and specific descriptions of racism directed towards a particular race are the difference between the Bible and the BoM.
Mormonheretic, what do you think God was saying about skin color when he “cursed” Laman with dark skin? What was he saying about Laman’s posterity–they got the privilege of being born with a “curse? I know how Mormon Prophets and apostles viewed it–they taught that conversion and righteousness would give these “cursed” people white skin again. What were they saying about skin color? Once again, the descriptions of the Lamanites found in the BoM are very, very similar to the views of Native Americans held in Joseph’s time. We have no other historical record of ancient interaction between “Indians/Lamanites” and white people, so a comparison to the Bible doesn’t work. If God really did what the BoM claims, i.e., he “cursed” Laman and Lemuel by darkening their skin, then skin color has a relationship to righteousness; that’s what the Church taught for a long, long time. Or, I can determine that this is probably unlikely, and look at the obvious parallels to Joseph’s era and the views of Indians that were held. I choose the latter; I don’t believe that skin color matters; I don’t believe “God” would use skin color as a curse; I don’t think skin color has anything to do with pre-mortal behavior–all of which contradicts Church teachings for most of it’s existence.
Mormonheretic, you should really read some Michael Quinn–your views of this issue might change. If you’ve already read Quinn, read him again and focus on this element of his writing, or look at articles by Craig Criddle.
Ray, Mormonheretic, It’s not the inclusion of racism that makes me think it’s a modern work, it’s the type of racism. It’s a racism that matches Joseph’s day perfectly. My point about racism is this: as far as we know about North/South America, minus encounters with the Vikings and the Spanish, no permanent white settlements lasted until the pilgrims Plymouth and the gold seekers in Jamestown. According to the BoM, there were “white” people in the America’s before other recorded history says, and they were ALL white–according to the BoM. At this point, does racism exist in this all white society? Does Lehi’s clan have racist beliefs? According to the writers of the BoM, this group of white people splits: Good=white, Bad=dark. The dark, loathsome, wild view of Indians is very much a viewpoint that existed in Joseph’s time. The fact that God CURSED Laman and his descendants by making their skin dark says a lot about skin color. Considering that Prophets as recently as Benson and Kimball claimed that dark-skinned Indians would still become white either through baptism, or after the 2nd coming, also says a lot about skin color. Did these Prophets view skin color as significant? I would say they did. Why? Because–according to the BoM–it was a curse from God. If skin color is a curse from God, what does that say about those that get born into these lines of color? There needs to be a reason, right? It isn’t just random, not with a pre-existence. That’s where the fundamentalist, fence-sitting view comes in.
The description given the dark, loathsome, Lamanites fits the descriptions given of Indians in Joseph’s time to a T; where are your ancient historical examples that match so perfectly well? It’s a doubled edged sword to me–if God really did curse people by changing their skin color, then skin color must matter; or, if the description of the Lamanites matches the views of Indians perfectly to Joseph’s time, was it simply an author incorporating the racism surrounding him? The idea that Joseph incorporated ideas around him makes more sense to me.
You can try and get around this by saying the BoM covered a very small geographical area, or that flawed authors wrote it, or whatever you want to say–but for the first 140 years, the Church treated skin color like it was a curse. It wasn’t until the early 1980’s changes in the BoM before they edited it to stop saying baptized Lamanites would become white. Were those Prophets and apostles wrong for the first 140 years? For most of the Church’s history, they were teaching things that don’t jive with limited geography theories, or any of the other loop holes FARMS is trying to create.
To me, there either is, or isn’t, racism in the BoM. Either the fundamentalist viewpoint is right, or there is flat out racism in the BoM. The very fact that to curse sinful people, God “darkened” their skin color, and told the white people not to mingle with the “dark” people, either means skin color is important in determining one’s pre-mortal righteousness, and is a sign of inferiority, or it was written with the racial views of Joesph’s time. If it was written with the racial views of Joseph’s time, it means Joseph wrote the book, it is racist, and that racism permeated Church leader’s teachings about Lamanites and racism for over 100 years. If the BoM isn’t racist, then it’s views of race should be deemed accurate/correct, meaning dark skin is a sign of sinfulness/inferiority. If fundamentalists are right, “colored” people were less faithful in the pre-existence, and their skin color here is a consequence of their lack of faithfulness before this life. I’m not saying it’s impossible for this viewpoint to be correct, but if it isn’t, then the BoM is racist, plain and simple. According to the dictionary, the definition of racism is:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.Either the fundamentalists are right, and our views/definitions of racism are wrong, or by definition, the BoM is full of racist content. If the BoM is really the word of God, the word of God that God went to so much trouble to keep safe and have it translated for today’s generation, then it is difficult to reject anything it teaches. If it is truly God’s word, and the keystone of the Church, then how can any of it be considered incorrect? If God decided that the BoM was so important, that it needed to be brought for miraculously for today’s world, then wouldn’t it be full of truthful/correct things? Which brings me back to my original point: either the BoM was made up by Joseph, and it is racist, or it was written by ancient Prophets, the fundamentalist views of race and righteousness are right, and are current views/definitions of racism are wrong. To me, the obvious answer is that Joseph wrote the book, and he incorporated his era’s views of race into his writings–meaning the BoM contains plenty of racist material and it’s racist influence negatively impacted the Church’s policies towards non-caucasian’s until 1978.
Heber13 wrote:” … but what the day was meant to be given to man for…a blessing. God bless you, and enjoy your Sabbath tomorrow.
If that is the case, then the individual interpretation is all that really matters. The way you (heber), or Tom, choose to spend the sabbath is perfectly wonderful and acceptable; the way I choose to spend it is also perfectly okay and acceptable. I’m going to go get family pictures today, and after, we’ll go out to dinner–that is very “recharging” for me, and it is a great day spent with my family–so if there is a God, thank you for this day.
I don’t totally disagree with what you’ve just said Ray, but you miss my point. My point is that “recharging” one’s batteries by going out to eat, to a movie, boating, to a football/baseball game, isn’t sinful/bad. I’m not saying or implying that working on Sunday is ideal, but those that choose to or that have to aren’t being sinful. What is archaic is the orthodox Mormon day–spend it in meetings, and then spend the rest of the day avoiding interaction with the “world”. For those that find joy in the orthodox Mormon view of Sunday, great, but having “worldy” fun on Sunday isn’t bad, it is often one of the best ways to spend quality family time/recharge batteries/re-energize for the week. Tom Haws wrote:That’s probably wrong, but I’m just being honest about the real Tom here. What about the fellows working at the restaurant? No rest for them? I don’t buy it. It makes zero sense. Still. At my age.
Let’s say that–hypothetically–working on Sunday is bad/sinful/breaking the sabbath. First off, what is “work”? Are Church leaders that spend all Sunday away from their wife ‘and kids “working”? If it is okay for Church related work to be performed on the sabbath, that is the perfect loop hole. We can have Bishop’s and Stake Presidents work like pack mules, but it’s not actually work, so it’s cool (assuming most people believe Church related work isn’t “work”).
Secondly, what about Church owned companies that stay open on Sunday? KSL not only stays open on Sunday, but it broadcasts content that if watched causes one to “break” the sabbath. I know, Bonneville Corporation owns KSL, and it has a board of directors that make decisions, but if the President of the Church decided he didn’t want the Church to be hypocritical, he could let Bonneville know that KSL would no longer broadcast on Sunday. My point is that the Church has plenty of influence/interaction with business that takes place on Sunday; is that “breaking” the sabbath? The Church’s business with the “world” certainly causes some people to work on Sunday.
How do we determine what is okay and isn’t okay about working on Sunday? I think everyone would agree that we need police, firefighters, EMT’s, and hospitals to still function on Sunday; what criteria make a job an okay Sunday job?
Sabbath day observance is archaic, it’s a relic, and it has no place in the modern world. If someone wants to “observe” the sabbath, more power to them, but it isn’t sinful or bad in any way to spend Sunday like any other day. If I’m wrong, how am I wrong?
I’m about 30 pages into this book–it’s been discussed on this site a lot so I thought I should inform myself. Anyway, it’s been very interesting so far. I’ll say more when I finish. spacious maze wrote:Old-Timer wrote:I am a FIRM believer in evaluating the BofM ONLY on what it actually says
Remember the controversy over the book
A Million Little Pieceswhen Oprah found out the guy fudged the whole story of his drug problems. A lot of people were inspired by his story. When they found out it was bunk, they had to re-evaluate everything…..I can look at the stories as merely tropes, which I truly believe leads to truth just as easily.
If something isn’t “actually” true, but it still helps people, is it okay? How did Church leaders, and Church members, respond to Paul Dunn? His image was forever tainted, even though lots of people were truly inspired by what he said. In spite of the help his stories provided, the Church did not condone Dunn’s behavior–while I’m not aware of specific punishments, Dunn claimed in his apology letter to have been given a “heavy penalty”. So I guess my question is, what’s the difference? The Church didn’t condone/accept Dunn’s dishonesty even though it inspired people, but in spite of plenty of “accuracy” issues with the BoM, the Church seems okay with that.
When it comes to using war-like language for non-war situations, I don’t necessarily think its bad/harmful. Football is always linked to war or battle–most sports are–and it’s because war-like terms have become culturally understood in a variety of contexts. The dictionary has a few definitions for war: 1) A condition of active antagonism or contention; 2) A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious.People that are against gay marriage/gay relationships, are using war-like terms in culturally understood, dictionaryily correct ways. By using war-like terms, leaders of the anti-gay movement help inspire deep passion/emotion within their followers, and that leads to energetic efforts to fight the “battle”. I know that I said I don’t find the use of war-like terms harmful, and I used sports as an example, but I do think the use of bellicose language to try and prevent gays from gaining rights is unhelpful. The angry terminology seems to create more hate towards homosexuals, it seems to close peoples minds to any evidence that might help them understand gays better, and it ultimately creates a hostile environment that can only lead to bad things.
Articles like the one Cromar wrote aren’t good for anyone. Using the Bible to try and justify hate and anger towards gays seems like a useless approach. The the Old Testament has plenty of teachings that we don’t even think about accepting today–Leviticus 25:44-46 gives great advice on what kinds of slaves one can buy; Exodus talks about how a man can sell his daughter into slavery; Deuteronomy advises us to slay someone if they try and convince us to believe in other Gods; the list goes on and on. There is plenty of advice in the OT that we disregard–rightfully so–today. So, no, the Bible shouldn’t be used as an excuse to use volatile language towards homosexuality.
