clbent04

I understand why you and Vort would both say this. But taking into consideration how the Church has been influenced by society and the likely trajectory of its base, it's a relevant hypothetical. Is the base of the Church likely going to be more conservative or liberal in 20 years? How would my own faith in the Church be challenged with the Church changing it's position on homosexuality as a sin? In my mind, this is the right time to ask this question, because in 20 years, when we wish we could revert back to the much more conservative values of 2021, there is going to be a different feeling in the air. I believe the climate around issues like homosexuality will be much different than how we perceive it today. Like @Just_A_Guy, I don't want to box myself in either, but I do have to ask myself how much societal influence is too much? And it's not just the Church that is influenced by society. It's all of us! How many of us can honestly say we haven't softened our positions on certain issues over the years?

Mainly I’m wondering what I responded to Gator above. How much societal influence within the Church is okay? I get that the Church is a living, breathing thing, but the gospel is the gospel, right?

What if electroshock therapy had of been universally condemned at the time the Church decided to use it? Would the Church still have used it? The motive of my question is to understand how much society impacts the Church’s positions. To say society has zero influence over the Church’s positions is inaccurate (consider the Word of Wisdom, polygamy, men's clean-shaven standard…). How much societal influence is okay? Considering some Church positions are influenced by society, I think it’s entirely possible that in 20 years the Church lessens its stance of the severity of homosexuality as a sin. In 20 years, if the Church said as long as you practice chastity as a heterosexual couple is expected to, then homosexuality is no longer a sin, would you be okay with that? In my opinion, if the Church took that position today, it would lose its base. It would be absolutely detrimental to the Church to no longer condemn homosexual practices. But in 20 years, in the year 2041, what is the Church’s base going to look like? Maybe more liberal than it is now? As long as the Church stays at least 3 steps more conservative than society, I think that’s where it’s base is happy. And when society moves it’s conservative-value goalposts up a step, pressure is put on the Church to do the same. Do you think the Church would have ever allowed a queer woman to mention her sexuality over the pulpit in the 1950’s?

When is it not okay for God’s church to behave like a science experiment over being a divinely inspired institution?

I’m asking if Church leadership condoned it. Is the Church designed to follow whatever society stamps as state of the art and cutting edge?

First time I’ve come across this. I wanted to see if this was truly condoned by the Church. 1959 – Church leaders begin their electroshock aversion therapy program on BYU campus in an attempt to change the sexual orientation of gay teens and men. The program lasted over two decades until at least 1983.

It’s a relevant hypothetical considering what members are now saying over the pulpit, and the societal pressure many institutions are facing to cater to the LGBT community. Has the Church ever had to change direction based on pressures from outside the Church? It did by suspending the practice of polygamy.

If the prophet said tomorrow that being gay or acting out on homosexual tendencies when legally married was no longer sinful, would you still support the Church?

I get how authenticity and agenda pushing can overlap, but can’t authenticity in a case like Matt’s not have an agenda other than the guy just sharing a part of who he is?

Having attended BYU, this surprises me. Granted, I graduated in 2010, but I don’t see how it could have gone downhill much. Have your brothers indicated what kind of split they’re seeing among BYU faculty who follow Church guidance verse question it?

I guess it depends on how you dissect it. Matt could be saying "I am proud to be a gay son of God" in the sense that he's proud to be a son of God despite his imperfections, or, it could be he's proud of being gay, which would be something entirely inappropriate to admit at BYU. When I initially read the story I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, but I don't have much context to the story other than the few articles I've read.

I never realized there was a disconnect between what BYU and Church leadership did. But obviously there is. Elder Holland says Matt Easton commandeered the graduation podium, but Matt states that he was given prior approval by the BYU dean for everything he said in his speech. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/08/23/byu-teachers-are-expected/ Elder Holland "Holland brought up the time a student 'commandeer[ed] a graduation podium intended to represent everyone getting diplomas to announce his personal sexual orientation." “What might commencement come to mean or not mean if we push individual license over institutional dignity for very long?” Matt Easton Matt Easton, the gay valedictorian, was surprised and disappointed by Holland’s mention of his action. “I am proud of what I did two years ago,” he responded Monday, “and I stand by what I said.” His speech, including the mention of his sexual orientation, was approved by his dean two weeks in advance, Easton said from his home in Berkeley, Calif, where he is about to begin graduate school. “I wasn’t trying to grandstand or ‘commandeer’ the event. I drew on my personal experiences because they shaped my time at BYU — authenticity is not the same as ‘agenda pushing.’” Questions 1.) Does anyone have any context to this situation as to why Elder Holland didn't focus on solely reproving the BYU dean and staff for allowing Matt Easton to state his sexual orientation in his valedictorian speech? 2.) Are BYU valedictorians supposed to just speak generically and not draw upon any personal accounts or life experience for future commencement speeches?

The quantum computer is something every modern household should have these days! All that is required is a temperature-controlled clean room, liquid helium, and endless amounts of money. No big deal that the slightest outside disruption--heat or light, for instance--can destroy the balance of quantum states that stores information and makes the computing possible, right? A wonderfully practical computer for anyone with kids! What's so hard to understand computing at the subatomic level anyways? The fact that the laws of physics change and are far from understood at subatomic levels shouldn't be a big deal.

Ok good. Now that I got your attention, I'll pitch you for my premium, paid-subscription content which includes quantum computing!

Computers and the digital age as we know it today are all possible because of ones and zeros. But what's underneath the hood driving those ones and zeros? The short answer is ones and zeros represent binary logic. Programming this binary logic was made possible a device called a transistor. A transistor acts as a fork in the road directing voltages down one of two paths: a high-voltage or low-voltage path. To conceptualize this, these high and low voltages have commonly been referred to as "ones and zeros", with high voltages being related as ones, and low voltages being related as zeros. Amazingly enough, nearly all modern computer logic is driven off these ones and zeros. Contemplating this is truly remarkable considering one transistor by itself is only capable of binary logic such as true or false. However, when multiple transistors are structured together in certain patterns, additional logic is possible. Ones and zeros are the building blocks for computer processing. The base of all commonly used software is driven by these ones and zeros. On the surface of modern technology, it might seem like we've evolved beyond that, but underneath it all, even advanced programming languages like Java and Python are driven by arrays of ones and zeros. Bell Laboratories developed the transistor in 1947. If it weren't for the application of transistors, the exponential advancements we've experienced in technology since then would not be possible. Without transistors, our technology would look a lot more like it did back in 1947 than it does in 2021. This is because prior to the transistor, reliable, affordable and scalable processing power was not possible. The vacuum tube, for example, came before the transistor which proved to be cost prohibitive, required high maintenance, and took up a lot of space. If we tried reverting back to vacuum tubes today to replace all the transistors in the world, for one it wouldn't be possible, and two, even if we tried, the unsustainability, impracticality, and cost would quickly deplete world economies. So how are transistors able to systemically channel high and low voltages? It's made possible with a relationship of the chemical elements silicon, phosphorus, and boron. These elements, when aligned the way they are in a transistor, allow electrons to pass through when high voltages are present and remain static if the voltages aren't high enough. In a transistor, silicon is treated with elements such as phosphorus and boron to create electron-emitting-n-type and electron-absorbing-p-type layers. 3 layers are formed and stacked side by side: N-P-N (the emitter-base-collector OR the source-gate-drain). Each layer has one terminal connected into it which is one of the 3 pins of a transistor. Due to certain phenomena in the P-N interface, a special region called a P-N junction forms between the emitter and base. Electrons will only pass through all three layers when a voltage exceeding a certain threshold is applied (represented as a one), otherwise it remains in an off state (represented as a zero). https://youtu.be/WhNyURBiJcU How electrons are able to pass through is all possible because of a technique of silicon being “doped” with phosphorus and boron. https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-phosphorous-boron-4097224 Regarding the N-P-N layers of a transistor, the first N layer containing phosphorus has 5 electrons in its P-N junction layer, and in the last N layer containing boron it has 3 electrons in its P-N junction layer. Since silicon has 4 valence electrons, when a high enough voltage is passed through the first P-N junction layer, this allows the 5th electron to drop off and pass through the gate which forms an electric current passing through to the last P-N junction layer increasing the electrons in this area from 3 to 4 (thereby changing the “0” to a “1”). With the electron passing or not passing through dependent on voltage levels makes possible modern-day computer processing.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-19-vaccines-work-against-the-delta-variant#Key-takeaways Maybe I should have gone with Moderna over Pfizer.

Ex-Mormons are loving it as they revel in the hypocrisy of anti-vax members not following Church leadership. They’re are anticipating a mass exodus from the Church of members leaving over the issue.

After being very much against receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines, I went ahead and got vaccinated today. And now that I'm vaccinated (or at least I've received the first shot of the Pfizer vaccine), I just wanted to say how ignorant and dumb everyone is who hasn't received the vaccine yet. Lol that is a joke!!! I don't mean that even slightly seriously. I'm just sarcastically referring to the zealot, pro-vax diehards that like to push their agendas onto everyone else. If anything, I think it was reckless and maybe even foolish for people to rush to get this vaccine day 1 that it was authorized for emergency use. I don't understand why people were so anxious to be guinea pigs. I see many people in the pro-vax category label those who haven't received the vaccine yet as dumb, and they have this weird, exclusive-membership like pride for having received the vaccine themselves that they seemingly use to judge those who haven't been vaccinated. And in no way I'm accusing you of this @NeuroTypical. Your approach to explaining your position on having received the vaccine is much more appreciated since you don't strike me as a judgmental person, and you lead your statements with data and statistics and not the emotional hype many others do. While I was not interested in getting the vaccine up until 4 days ago, I wanted to share how my perspective changed in hopes of allowing the diehard pro-vaxxers out there the ability to sympathize with those who remain unvaccinated. Factors supporting my anti-COVID-19 vaccination stance -Natural antibodies for those who have recovered from COVID-19. Back in January 2020, I got coronavirus and was practically bedridden for 3 days. Sickest I've ever been in my life. Had trouble breathing, fever, the whole works. I fortunately recovered and figured the natural antibodies built up from that sickness may be just as effective from any benefits of the vaccines, and since the CDC and everyone else handling the pandemic dedicated very few resources to studying the effectiveness of naturally created antibodies, I was left to trust that the human body is more advanced and sophisticated than these "break-though" vaccines that so many seemed eager to receive. -Misinformation and mishandling of the pandemic. Evident from Fauci, the CDC and all others that put themselves in avoidable contradictory positions if only they had led with the data over rushing to answer something they don't fully understand. -Long term affects. No one knows. -Probability of dying or developing serious complications from COVID-19 remains low for unvaccinated individuals. While it's a compelling argument to consider that the benefits of receiving the vaccine outweigh the risks of potential side effects, what's not focused on is you have ZERO risks of any vaccine side effects if you don't take the vaccine, and you remain with the same probability of being unlikely to die or develop serious complications from COVID-19. -Overreacting. Does a virus that's more contagious than flu but still flu-like deserve the attention the world has given it? I don't think so. Where would we be if we had of just let the coronavirus run its course throughout the world? The world economy has taken a major blow with businesses being stifled the way they've been. Are we better or worse considering the measures taken? Not really answerable, but overreacting seems obvious to me. -Transmission. Whether or not you're vaccinated, transmission still occurs. You don't get vaccinated to stop transmission, you do so to minimize your own risk. But if the low risk of remaining unvaccinated is acceptable to you, what's the point in getting vaccinated? The argument of needing to get the vaccine to stop the spread of the virus isn't a valid argument since no one knows at this point in time how to stop it from spreading. Factors that changed my mind to receive the COVID-19 vaccination -On August 10, 2021, I received an email notification from Ticketmaster informing me that the Maroon 5 concert I purchased tickets for several months ago will be requiring proof of being fully vaccinated 2 weeks prior to the event.

Yes, this is stated correctly and more succinctly than how I originally stated it. I think oftentimes, someone like me has an idea in their minds they are trying to express, but describe their thoughts in a way that is technically incorrect and not fully in line with the original point they were trying to make.

I guess I'm talking about any associations we have, but I wrote the OP specifically thinking about our relationships with other members within the Church. I've always wondered how lawyers try to balance their personal opinions of their clients versus trying to represent their clients' best legal interests. These are great suggestions. Just getting to know others more seems to be the best remedy.

I imagine Jerusalem still viewed Laban's death as a murder given they probably weren't privy to all the facts considering Nephi's skedaddle with his family

My Jerusalem channel 9 news network analogy was me making the distinction between what God and mankind would classify as murder

Oh really? Cause I have a copy of the newspaper from the local Jerusalem news network that covered the story that night that Nephi killed Laban, and the headline was "Laban, Notable Citizen of Jerusalem, Murdered"

How many beers will one Baptist drink who has a cooler with a 12-pack of beer? All of them. How many beers will two Baptists together drink who have a cooler with a 12-pack of beer? None. How many Mormons go to church on Sundays as museums for the perfect? All of them. How many Mormons go to church on Sundays as hospitals for the afflicted? None. No, I did not get the job for writing jokes on popsicle sticks for Deseret Industries.

That is something worth considering. Thank you for sharing that.