lds backlash from gay community cnn.com

[dorave]

hahahaha, I can screencap if you'd like

I'm glad you think that, but it doesn't address what we were taking about earlier. Why do you think that finding someone attractive is a lustful thought that needs to be surpressed?

Because I am a married man. I'm not saying every female is ugly in my eyes, I just choose not to sit there and think 'wow, that girl is hot' and reserve those thoughts for my wife.

Ya feel me?

[Dravin]

Because I am a married man. I'm not saying every female is ugly in my eyes, I just choose not to sit there and think 'wow, that girl is hot' and reserve those thoughts for my wife.

Ya feel me?

Are you saying you never notice the attractiveness of anyone other than your wife?

Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm honestly curious if that is what you are saying.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

Are you saying you never notice the attractiveness of anyone other than your wife?

Oh stay out of it, Dravin. You don't know anything, not being married yourself. Clearly you're just looking for a fight.

[Dravin]

Oh stay out of it, Dravin. You don't know anything, not being married yourself. Clearly you're just looking for a fight.

Ironically that post may be the one with the least amount of snark in it I've posted today.

[Wingnut]

It sounded more incredulous than snarky. I still stand by, "I'm married, not dead, and so is my husband."

Edited October 13, 2010 by Wingnut

[Dravin]

It sounded more incredulous than snarky. I still stand by, "I'm married, not dead, and so is my husband."

Well I'm thinking there may be some miscommunication going on. My step two isn't sitting there thinking, "Is she cute? Let's get a good look. Bust. Legs. Butt. Face. Niiiice..." It was to represent noticing someone's attractiveness to you. In hindsight I think may have been the wrong terminology as what the press release talked about was feelings. So feeling attracted is a better analog than thinking, "She's cute." I just failed to express myself adequately.

And I am afraid that current comments about pointing out hot people to your spouse (an very active and conscious re/action) are cementing a possible misunderstanding.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

I knew what you meant, Dravin. I also think that people are taking others' comments to extremes. The fact that I don't have a problem with my husband "checking out" another woman doesn't mean that I'm okay with him dwelling on it. I simply don't resent that he appreciates the beauty of another human being, and I'm glad that we have a comfortable enough relationship with each other to express and discuss such things. There are those that think it means that he's committing adultery in his heart -- respectfully, I disagree.

[Dravin]

I knew what you meant, Dravin.

I was thinking mostly about Dorave.

I also think that people are taking others' comments to extremes.

*checks*

Yep, its the internet.

[dorave]

Are you saying you never notice the attractiveness of anyone other than your wife?

Edit: I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm honestly curious if that is what you are saying.

What part of this quote dont you understand?

I'm not saying every female is ugly in my eyes, I just choose not to sit there and think 'wow, that girl is hot' and reserve those thoughts for my wife.

Is there something wrong here? ....because it would be awfully ironic if it were.

[dorave]

Well I'm thinking there may be some miscommunication going on. My step two isn't sitting there thinking, "Is she cute? Let's get a good look. Bust. Legs. Butt. Face. Niiiice..." It was to represent noticing someone's attractiveness to you. In hindsight I think may have been the wrong terminology as what the press release talked about was feelings. So feeling attracted is a better analog than thinking, "She's cute." I just failed to express myself adequately.

And I am afraid that current comments about pointing out hot people to your spouse (an very active and conscious re/action) are cementing a possible misunderstanding.

Which is why I said physical feelings ...all those pages ago, (as in physical attraction) NOT emotional or social attraction. If it is an attraction based purely on the physical -- then it pertains to the physical anotomy, yes that could mean the Bust. Legs. Butt. or Face and not include anything regarding the emotional, mental, intellectual or social aspects of what is attractive.

[dorave]

I knew what you meant, Dravin. I also think that people are taking others' comments to extremes. The fact that I don't have a problem with my husband "checking out" another woman doesn't mean that I'm okay with him dwelling on it. I simply don't resent that he appreciates the beauty of another human being, and I'm glad that we have a comfortable enough relationship with each other to express and discuss such things. There are those that think it means that he's committing adultery in his heart -- respectfully, I disagree.

I dont think it's committing adultery in ones heart -- I just know how thoughts can be degenerative and I respect others enough to leave thoughts of their anotomy to their personal space.

[Dravin]

What part of this quote dont you understand?

Is there something wrong here? ....because it would be awfully ironic if it were.

The two behaviors are not synonymous therefore a statement that you do not do one does not answer a question about the other. You conflate active conscious thought with subconscious biological reaction to visual stimuli. Additionally even if they were synonymous, which they are not, my question deals with you finding a woman unattractive as such would be noticing a woman's attractiveness ( as a negative factor) and not thinking ,"Wow, she's hot."

Edit: I removed some nitpick. Prince may or may not want to take back his thanks.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Dravin

[pam]

OH I hope not. This is just too entertaining! (Tongue in cheek but not entirely kidding- and I bet some of you feel the same but would never admit it on this forum. Nothing like a good controversy eh?)

Then you would be one of the few I've met. Most are tired of the debate.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Then you would be one of the few I've met. Most are tired of the debate.

Tired of the homosexuality debate, anyway. We veered off into another topic in here, and for that I am glad.

[Blackmarch]

As for this issue...the GLBT community has gone too far. How dare they condemn a religious talk given during an official church conference as hate-speech that might lead to suicide??? This is the ugliest form of social censorship. It is the very kind of blackballing that religious conservatives have been warning about for decades--that the day would come when it would be a crime to cite passages of the Bible, such as Romans 1, from a pulpit.

We were called cranks, conspiracy theoriests, whiners, and we were told--by this same community--that never would the ludicrous rules that infect Sweden, and much of Europe, hit our shores. Apparently, this is now what they are driving towards.

This campaign is even more insidious though. Rather than legislating religious censorhsip, they are using fear and intimidation to bully religious speakers, hoping and expecting that they will self-censor.

The crux of this discussion appears to be whether same-sex attraction is a hardwired, 100% biological condition--as natural as race. Despite what these SSA protestors are saying, the science is still out on that matter. Predisposition? Very likely. Pure biology? Unproven!

Even if same sex attraction is hardwired, so is hate, fear and the instinct to do violence stemming from fight or flight reflex... were we to use that line of reasoning for the subject to be ok or right, then the same reasoning could be used for violence and hate. Yet from a young age we are taught to control these urges (or usually taught).

I agree tho; that is issue is far from proven, in either direction.

I've said this before...but if there is any blessing in all this, the controversy, and the criticism your church bares, may actually win you some friends in the broader religious community.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Blackmarch

[dorave]

The two behaviors are not synonymous therefore a statement that you do not do one does not answer a question about the other. You conflate active conscious thought with subconscious biological reaction to visual stimuli. Additionally even if they were synonymous, which they are not, my question deals with you finding a woman unattractive as such would be noticing a woman's attractiveness ( as a negative factor) and not thinking ,"Wow, she's hot."

Edit: I removed some nitpick. Prince may or may not want to take back his thanks.

Say what?? Come again regarding not noticing a womens attractiveness?

And yes, I do believe the two behaviors are synonymous as they both refer to sexual attraction first and foremost, in a general human sense. Same gender attraction is a condition as is a heterosexual married man with a wandering eye. So a statement that you do not do one can in fact answer a question about the other or at least shed some light, if the common ground here is sin and the prevention of it, keeping in mind that all this is coming from a "we are all human, we are all not perfect, we all have urges" perspective. I don't believe we are all so machanical to say subconscious biological reaction from visual stimuli is all a physical feeling or tendancy ammonts to, one would have to be in denial or devoid of reality to believe so, and I see this as counter productive measure in helping to solve ones long-term struggles in facing these isues -- talk about brushing off your original stance Dravin.

[a-train]

The Church is simply inconsistant with respect to marriage. It once called for liberty, it now calls for state control. Tragedy.

The Church is still true.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Dorave, you seem to stand alone in your argument that being physically attracted to someone other than your spouse is sin. I too find that unreasonable. But perhaps we are all misunderstanding. Physical attraction is indeed biological. However, after about 30-seconds of thought it becomes meditation...it's intentional, and thus is lust.

The 30-second rule is arbitrary. However, you seem to suggest that even the initial thought is lust, and must be repented of. I'd suggest at least the first few seconds is temptation, and only when one consciously gives into the sinful, but enjoyable line of thought does it become lust. Your thoughts?

[dorave]

I can agree to that, however thats not entirely how I meant what I said. Cheers tho PC. Sorry I gotta make this quick but ill give that more thought but I think I understand.

[Dravin]

Say what?? Come again regarding not noticing a womens attractiveness?

You never stated such. You have a consistent habit of inserting meaning into a statement and assuming such is clear and inherent. You stated you don't sit there and think "wow that girl is hot." Which is not the same thing as noticing attraction. Instead of simply answering the question you grandstand.

And yes, I do believe the two behaviors are synonymous as they both refer to sexual attraction first and foremost, in a general human sense.

You believe actively considering and mentally commenting on the attractiveness of someone is synonymous with noticing said attraction? Note common themes is not the same thing as synonymous, the fact that both has to deal with physical attraction does not make them synonymous. No more so than consuming alcohol and drinking water are synonymous because they both involve drinking, or even thirst.

if the common ground here is sin

It isn't.

I don't believe we are all so machanical to say subconscious biological reaction from visual stimuli is all a physical feeling or tendancy ammonts to

Cookie?

talk about brushing off your original stance Dravin.

We aren't talking about my original stance, which was explaining how one can feel attraction and it not be sinful. I have not backed away from that. What we were doing was trying to flesh out just how far your thinking goes. Your habit as mentioned first in this post makes such a tedious process.

I can agree to that

Except you've been disagreeing with that premise since it was presented.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Dravin

[Gwen]

how come the laugh and thank buttons go away when a post is deleted? there is always a reason and we may want to thank or laugh at that..... hummmm.

[Surehand]

As for this issue...the GLBT community has gone too far. How dare they condemn a religious talk given during an official church conference as hate-speech that might lead to suicide??? This is the ugliest form of social censorship.

From my point of view the LGBT community has not gone yet far enough. Why? In Germany there is the saying of the honest man (Biedermann) and arsonist (Brandstifter). It means which arouses somebody by a speech other people so far / influenced that these do something unlawful or / and morally despicable. The speeches of Hitler and Stalin are, in political area, the best example of it.

And in the religious area?

How often preached priests of the inferiority of the women and blacks and they used Bible citations, better abused the Bible. And everything only to cement the Leadership of the (white) man. And now an apostle of the Mormons rushes, - it could also have been the pope or Fred Phelps - against the civil and human rights of homosexual people, and states, that they can be "cured". But homosexuality is no cold! The American Psychiolical Association, the American Association of Paediatrics and the social workers have proved it by researches.

What can arrange such a sermon, points the following story which I heard from a former JW (she is not it now any more) whose son committed suicide because he heard over and over again that his being, his feelings are wrong and ill and perverted. I have given the trouble to myself once to investigate on the Internet, and, besides, bumped into a side of homosexual Mormons in whom I found a "Memorial list" in which the following stories were to be found:

[Mod edit: links removed]

Do you think now that the accusations are groundless against this address of packer?

Edited October 14, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[PrinceofLight2000]

From my point of view the LGBT community has not gone yet far enough. Why? In Germany there is the saying of the honest man (Biedermann) and arsonist (Brandstifter). It means which arouses somebody by a speech other people so far / influenced that these do something unlawful or / and morally despicable. The speeches of Hitler and Stalin are, in political area, the best example of it.

And in the religious area?

How often preached priests of the inferiority of the women and blacks and they used Bible citations, better abused the Bible. And everything only to cement the Leadership of the (white) man. And now an apostle of the Mormons rushes, - it could also have been the pope or Fred Phelps - against the civil and human rights of homosexual people, and states, that they can be "cured". But homosexuality is no cold! The American Psychiolical Association, the American Association of Paediatrics and the social workers have proved it by researches.

What can arrange such a sermon, points the following story which I heard from a former JW (she is not it now any more) whose son committed suicide because he heard over and over again that his being, his feelings are wrong and ill and perverted. I have given the trouble to myself once to investigate on the Internet, and, besides, bumped into a side of homosexual Mormons in whom I found a "Memorial list" in which the following stories were to be found:

[mod edit - links removed.]

Do you think now that the accusations are groundless against this address of packer?

I don't know how many times I have to say that that isn't what Packer said. The problem is not with what he said, it's that members with some very strong preconceived notions have decided to attach that meaning to what he did say. On top of that, the edits should have cleared up any confusion about whether or not Packer meant homosexuals can be "cured". If you haven't seen the edited talk with the intended meaning, go here. At this point, the onus rests on any stubborn members who don't want to get behind the official statements of the Church.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Suzie]

On top of that, the edits should have cleared up any confusion about whether or not Packer meant homosexuals can be "cured".

The issue is why there was an edit in the first place? By choice or by social pressure? I have no problem with his original talk (even though I do not agree with some things he said) but I believe in his right to say it, my concern is more about the REASON for the change, if it was because of pressure from certain groups in society, it's concerning to me.

[PrinceofLight2000]

The issue is why there was an edit in the first place? By choice or by social pressure? I have no problem with his original talk (even though I do not agree with some things he said) but I believe in his right to say it, my concern is more about the REASON for the change, if it was because of pressure from certain groups in society, it's concerning to me.

I doubt social pressure had anything to do with it. Don't the GA's edit things together? If so, I'm almost positive Packer was criticized by his colleagues for even hinting at expressing his personal opinion on the issue in a talk that many members would see as doctrine. If there was any pressure, it was by the other apostles, and it was to reaffirm that it's Heavenly Father's will that we don't know the cause of SSA for every gay person. Personally, I think it's a mixed bag of genetics, development, and environmental conditioning that varies between each homosexual. If it was as crystal clear as some would believe, I don't think the GA's would remain so ambiguous about the why.

Furthermore, I don't even think Packer's original text was a problem. I interpreted the word "tendencies" to refer to "the tendencies to succumb to temptation". I think that was what Packer meant all along, and he just stumbled on the wording.

Edited October 14, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000