Can you lose your temple recommend if. . .

[Soulsearcher]

Tell him he needs to join the church to teach. :)

lol it doesn't work, trust me, it leads to a constant headache from banging your head against the wall. LOL also i'll be a good boy and not post a link to that post on my other sites.

As for the original question, i seem to remember on one of the many many other threads on this topic that it was said leaders will not penalize members who did not or do not support prop 8. I almost swear it was MOE who brought it up, but lost track over the many many threads on the subject.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[sister_in_faith]

Vort,

what I objected to was the sentence where he said "In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality." I replyed with: "Sorry, I have to say that I cannot think of ANY conditions where one could argue that rape of ANY kind is beneficial in any way. period."

I am arguing that rape has no possible benefits. I'm not terribly concerned about what point he was trying to make, I was objecting to the idea that rape could be beneficial in any way. And that is it.

I think it is astonishing that anyone would even imply that rape could be in any way beneficial. I think even implying that is a slap in the face of every woman (or man) who has ever been the victim of sexual violence, and it is an inappropriate comment to make. That is what I was pointing out.

[annewandering]

[quote name=Vort;636771

Even if you don't like how Traveler expressed himself (and I think his choice of hyperbole unfortunate)' date=' isn't his point rather obviously true?

I do understand what he was getting at. I am not a person who can stand by and let something like his comment pass without comment.

Imagine, if you will, coming here wanting to know more about the church and then seeing that very 'unfortunate' wording. We want people to join the church not run from it as fast as they can. Homosexuality is enough of a 'hot' button already.

Dont forget that, is it 1 out of 3, people have been raped? I guarantee that is the only line they are going to see. It would greatly relieve me if traveler was willing to edit his post to correct his poor choice of wording but that, of course, would be up to him.

[iinarihoudai]

In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality.

That is the most offensive thing I have ever heard. 1 in 3 women have been raped. 1 in 6 *men* have been raped. Do you not know that the church does not discipline a woman for getting an abortion due to rape? Think about that. Where's your beneficial rape now?

Homosexuality is better because it does not cause psychological trauma for two willing same-sex adults to be sexually intimate. Rape causes psychological trauma that is very difficult to heal from. We need to stop comparing homosexuality to rape or murder or to any other crime. Doing so makes us Mormons look like bigoted fools.

At least one???

Maybe then people won't be so anti-homosexual as to believe that rape is a better alternative.

[pam]

These two aren't the only ones that took Traveler's comment the same way. Perhaps we need to allow Traveler to better explain himself. I too, took Traveler's comment in a rather offensive way.

[Dravin]

Sorry, I have to say that I cannot think of ANY conditions where one could argue that rape of ANY kind is beneficial in any way. period.

Traveler provided one (I disagree with him but that's neither here nor there for this particular response), and not only did he provide one, you responded to it. So either you are responding to an event you do not think happened, or what you actually meant to say is you can not think of any conditions where one could argue that rape of any kind is beneficial in any way that you'd agree with or consider valid.

Heterosexual marriage (relationships) is necessary and beneficial to insure that human society endure beyond the current generation. In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality.

Okay, but using the same logic we can conclude that premarital sex is more beneficial than celibacy. We can also conclude that philandry is more beneficial than fidelity, and that in the general case polygamy is more beneficial than monogamy. There is also the issue of infertility. I understand that given the premise your logic does hold but I disagree that the potential for life is a reliable or desirable metric to be used for the benefit or value of a relationship within an earthly time-frame, and if the government should recognize a relationship.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Soulsearcher]

Homosexuality is better because it does not cause psychological trauma for two willing same-sex adults to be sexually intimate. Rape causes psychological trauma that is very difficult to heal from. We need to stop comparing homosexuality to rape or murder or to any other crime. Doing so makes us Mormons look like bigoted fools.

We ended up having a conversation about this at work yesterday. My friend stopped by for a bit and a group of us started conversing over the post Traveler made. I started off by saying what was said but not the source. With two gay guys, an older woman in her 60's a few Christians from random denominations and a Lutheran ministers daughter the outrage and disbelief was pretty high, until i said the source of the comment was a mormon. the response was "well that explains it, what do you expect?" They were all still pretty upset over the comment but all of a sudden it made sense because to their perception it's right inline with what mormons would say.

[Vort]

These two aren't the only ones that took Traveler's comment the same way. Perhaps we need to allow Traveler to better explain himself. I too, took Traveler's comment in a rather offensive way.

Perhaps it would be even better for people to understand that a speaker (or writer) sometimes tries to establish his point by using an extreme example. This is actually a common rhetorical device, not unlike a parable of sorts. When you, the reader, see such a thing, it is incumbent upon YOU to read what he says carefully and try to understand his meaning.

In the present case, Traveler made his meaning clear to anyone who bothered actually to read what he wrote. As I said previously, I think his example was unfortunate, as it tended to obscure rather than clarify his point. But he most obviously was not arguing that rape was beneficial.

If Traveler was guilty of choosing a poor hyperbolic example, the readers who castigated him were guilty of failing in their duty to be careful and reasonable readers who give the benefit of the doubt to those who write -- as the list rules state.

[Vort]

We ended up having a conversation about this at work yesterday. My friend stopped by for a bit and a group of us started conversing over the post Traveler made. I started off by saying what was said but not the source. With two gay guys, an older woman in her 60's a few Christians from random denominations and a Lutheran ministers daughter the outrage and disbelief was pretty high, until i said the source of the comment was a mormon. the response was "well that explains it, what do you expect?" They were all still pretty upset over the comment but all of a sudden it made sense because to their perception it's right inline with what mormons would say.

Bull crap.

That's pretty much all the response your idiotic post and comments to workmates merits. You are either not smart enough to understand Traveler's point or not honest enough to look past the poor way he tried to make it.

If you hate Mormons so much, leave.

And if you're bad-mouthing Mormons at work, I can only hope any nearby Mormons who hear you complain to management and you find your bigoted rear ends out the door.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Vort

[Soulsearcher]

Bull crap.

If you hate Mormons so much, leave.

I don't hate them. I posted this to show that there is a perception out there that such comments have become expected by those who don't really know a great deal about mormons. You might not like it, but just like politicians some members and even the church as a whole has mad choices or comments that have painted a picture that isn't correct, but influences the perceptions of many. This is what some people expect from the church and it's members. It's not backed by doctrine or supported by leaders but it's still presented by enough members to give the church a black eye now and then. Why do you think there's ad campaigns out there to change perceptions about the church? They know public perception isn't where in needs to be.

Also there was no bad mouthing at all, just let them read the post directly on my phone. They took it from there. I actually quite enjoy having the local mormons in the store. I've gotten to know a few families, even helped out with a YSA event in the mall that really i wasn't allowed to and enjoy talking to the missionaries when they come in shopping. There also wasn't anything bigoted said really, they just spoke from their knowledge however incorrect it might have been.(which was my point)

Edited November 25, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[Maureen]

If human society becomes so depraved that it's main concern is to "endure beyond the current generation" by any means possible, like rape; then IMO the destruction of human society is inevitable.

M.

[iinarihoudai]

If you look at the story of Lot, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are rife with rape being culturally acceptable.

[Dravin]

The strongest implication I can read out of his statement is that homosexual relationships are so reprobate that even rape, as despicable as it is, has more value. While I can understand why that drags up some pretty visceral reactions it's not arguing that rape should be promoted over homosexual relationships, or that rape is somehow a good or acceptable thing, but rather is akin to the argument that if we disallow something that is a 9.5 on the bad scale why do we allow something that is a perfect 10 on the scale?

And please, for the love of everything, I'm not saying I'm espousing the above view or that he is just that the above is as far as I think one can run with his comments without breaking them.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Dravin

[john doe]

We ended up having a conversation about this at work yesterday. My friend stopped by for a bit and a group of us started conversing over the post Traveler made. I started off by saying what was said but not the source. With two gay guys, an older woman in her 60's a few Christians from random denominations and a Lutheran ministers daughter the outrage and disbelief was pretty high, until i said the source of the comment was a mormon. the response was "well that explains it, what do you expect?" They were all still pretty upset over the comment but all of a sudden it made sense because to their perception it's right inline with what mormons would say.

Yeah, it's not like any gays or Christians have ever said stupid things before. Did you ask your Christian friends about the idea of it being okay to get a divorce from a spouse with Alzheimer's?

[Soulsearcher]

Yeah, it's not like any gays or Christians have ever said stupid things before. Did you ask your Christian friends about the idea of it being okay to get a divorce from a spouse with Alzheimer's?

Actually we tend to all tease each other equally. The one thing i like about this store more than most i've worked in is it's very much an open forum on religion and sexual orientation. We usually have a mix of pagans, christians of many denominations, usually one or two gay guys on staff, married people, divorced, dating, we can all be very open. Pretty much no topic is off limits and we enjoy digging. When the missionaries are in or ysa i have a chance to teach some of the younger staff who have a colored or insufficient understanding of LDS. We've covered many topics and most in good nature, now and then one hits a nerve such as this did and we talk it out and get to the bottom of it. this conversation pretty much ended with an understanding of it either being a very poorly worded comment or a member who really didn't represent the entire mormon population, took a bit of explaining from me but in the end they understood a bit better where the church stands on some things. lol people can think i hate mormons, but i spend way too much time explaining the church and how it works for that to be true, just because i don't agree doesn't mean i hate.

[iinarihoudai]

Perhaps it would be even better for people to understand that a speaker (or writer) sometimes tries to establish his point by using an extreme example. This is actually a common rhetorical device, not unlike a parable of sorts. When you, the reader, see such a thing, it is incumbent upon YOU to read what he says carefully and try to understand his meaning.

In the present case, Traveler made his meaning clear to anyone who bothered actually to read what he wrote. As I said previously, I think his example was unfortunate, as it tended to obscure rather than clarify his point. But he most obviously was not arguing that rape was beneficial.

If Traveler was guilty of choosing a poor hyperbolic example, the readers who castigated him were guilty of failing in their duty to be careful and reasonable readers who give the benefit of the doubt to those who write -- as the list rules state.

I read his post. Please do not be so insulting as to blame me and other readers for being offended with his "poor choice of words" and claim that since we're saying something about the thing that caused offense we didn't read or understand his post. It was Traveler's duty to carefully consider his words. Did you not read Dravin's response?

Dravin said, "Okay, but using the same logic we can conclude that premarital sex is more beneficial than celibacy. We can also conclude that philandry is more beneficial than fidelity, and that in the general case polygamy is more beneficial than monogamy. There is also the issue of infertility within an earthly time-frame. I understand that given the premise your logic does hold but I disagree that the potential for life is a reliable or desirable metric to be used for the benefit or value of a relationship, and if the government should recognize a relationship."

Traveler could have used any of those other examples to make his point, which was that homosexuality is not beneficial because such a relationship cannot naturally beget children.

Soulsearcher, I hope you have explained to your co-workers that a bunch of Mormons are calling BS on Traveler's comment. But your point is well made. We already have a hate stigma on us about the homosexuality issue. We have an oppressive stigma for not allowing women to hold the Priesthood. Those two together make it easy to believe that Traveler's comment is a common Mormon belief. We also have stigmas over previous issues such as practicing polygamy and for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood and for encouraging parents to use corporal punishment (which caused my step-mother serious emotional problems). We don't need to add to it. Everything we do and say has an impact and doubly so when it's so public.

Vort, when you make the claim that we're overreacting and not understanding Traveler's point you add to the problem. How hard is it to say, dude, that's a terrible example you need to fix that?

[iinarihoudai]

The strongest implication I can read out of his statement is that homosexual relationships are so reprobate that even rape, as despicable as it is, has more value. While I can understand why that drags up some pretty visceral reactions it's not arguing that rape should be promoted over homosexual relationships, or that rape is somehow a good or acceptable thing, but rather is akin to the argument that if we disallow something that is a 9.5 on the bad scale why do we allow something that is a perfect 10 on the scale?

And please, for the love of everything, I'm not saying I'm espousing the above view or that he is just that the above is as far as I think one can run with his comments without breaking them.

Probably not, but I wish he'd come back and explain himself and hopefully apologize. We don't need to use extreme examples all the time to make a point. All he had to say was that homosexuality isn't beneficial to society because those couples cannot naturally have children. Opinion stated. Done.

[Dravin]

Probably not, but I wish he'd come back and explain himself and hopefully apologize. We don't need to use extreme examples all the time to make a point. All he had to say was that homosexuality isn't beneficial to society because those couples cannot naturally have children. Opinion stated. Done.

Not everyone is very active on the forums and they only stop by every couple of days, so Traveler will most likely (assuming the thread remains open, if it turns into a pit of outrage and ill feelings it'll get closed) be back to explain himself it just may not be immediately. The question is will people let him do so? Or will those participating in the thread feed off each other and construct a potential straw-man that we attack with outrage and vicious furry as we slowly work ourselves into a frenzy about what Traveler might mean?

It's just one of those things that's easy to have happen on a message board, it's the telephone game effect as each person cues off the last post vehemently disagreeing with the original objected post instead of responding to the post itself. Let it go on long enough and post #453 will be wondering what kind of human being wants to campaign for legally mandated rape to keep population numbers up.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

I read his post. Please do not be so insulting as to blame me and other readers for being offended with his "poor choice of words" and claim that since we're saying something about the thing that caused offense we didn't read or understand his post.

Assuming you did not read or understand his post was charity. The alternative is to suppose you are a liar, or else are simply too stupid to be able to divine his intent.

It was Traveler's duty to carefully consider his words. Did you not read Dravin's response?

I did indeed. And like the vast majority of Dravin's posts, it was well-considered and insightful, the furthest thing possible from a knee-jerk reaction based on an inattentive misreading.

Traveler could have used any of those other examples to make his point, which was that homosexuality is not beneficial because such a relationship cannot naturally beget children.

So it appears you still have not bothered to read or consider what Traveler wrote. Let me help you by providing the offending paragraph:

In the debates over homosexual marriage I have asked for at least one benefit for society provided by homosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage (relationships) is necessary and beneficial to insure that human society endure beyond the current generation. In fact - using simple rhetorical logic, we can establish that even heterosexual rape is more beneficial than homosexuality. That is really sad when we consider that so many want to publicly force everyone to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. The true reality is that it is not the same nor is the social benefit even close to the same.

His intent is clear, even obvious, to anyone who cares actually to read what he wrote rather than just assign meaning to his words based on their own bigoted prejudice:

Homosexual "marriage" provides no societal benefit, not even the (arguable) societal benefit provided by forcible rape, something we all agree is bad.

Now, perhaps you disagree with his meaning (that homosexual "marriage" provides no society benefit). Fine. Provide an example of societal benefit, and you have carried your point.

Or perhaps you disagree that his hyperbolic example of forcible rape resulting in pregnancy is one of actual society benefit. Fine. Express why you disagree.

Or perhaps you find the example itself so repugnant that you feel you must voice objection to it. Fine. By all means, do so. I myself have noted several times that I think it an unfortunate example that obscures rather than clarifies his point.

But what is not acceptable is to assign a false meaning to what Traveler wrote and then castigate him for that meaning. That's a dishonest strawman technique. Traveler never wrote or suggested that forcible rape is morally superior to homosexuality.

Soulsearcher, I hope you have explained to your co-workers that a bunch of Mormons are calling BS on Traveler's comment.

Better yet, explain to your co-workers that they should take care to read what is written and not impose their bigotry (as you have clearly indicated) on the situation, rather than bleating, "Oh, he's a Mormon, so that's why he is saying [insert something that he didn't say but that confirms their prejudicial bigotry against Mormons]."

But your point is well made. We already have a hate stigma on us about the homosexuality issue. We have an oppressive stigma for not allowing women to hold the Priesthood.

"[N]ot allowing women to hold the Priesthood," huh?

I guess your prejudices are pretty well exposed.

We also have stigmas over previous issues such as practicing polygamy and for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood and for encouraging parents to use corporal punishment (which caused my step-mother serious emotional problems). We don't need to add to it.

Perhaps you would do well to quit caring so ardently what other people might think of us.

Vort, when you make the claim that we're overreacting and not understanding Traveler's point you add to the problem. How hard is it to say, dude, that's a terrible example you need to fix that?

So, then, the correct thing to do is to jump on the Condemnation Bandwagon. Truth is irrelevant! The only thing that matters is that we LOOK like we're being the heroic defenders of the downtrodden! Who cares what someone actually said or meant? Our sacred duty is to help crucify those who transgress political correctness!

Barf.

[ruthiechan]

Vort, buddy, you can do better than to resort to name calling. If you go back and reread Iinarihoudai's response you'll see that despite her ire she did give a reasoned response about why Traveler's extreme example doesn't wash, namely that pregnancy by rape is one of three reasons why the church will not discipline a woman for getting an abortion. Therefore the assertion that the benefit of life coming out of the rape is more beneficial than homosexuality does not work. It seems to me that you are doing the very thing you are saying that Iinarihoudai is doing to Traveler.

[Vort]

Vort, buddy, you can do better than to resort to name calling.

You are mistaken, Ruthie. I did not call anyone names.

If you go back and reread Iinarihoudai's response you'll see that despite her ire she did give a reasoned response about why Traveler's extreme example doesn't wash, namely that pregnancy by rape is one of three reasons why the church will not discipline a woman for getting an abortion. Therefore the assertion that the benefit of life coming out of the rape is more beneficial than homosexuality does not work.

First, that was not Traveler's assertion. Second, the Church's stance on the acceptability of abortion for pregnancy caused by forcible rape does not establish that pregnancy is not a potentially beneficial outcome of forcible rape.

It seems to me that you are doing the very thing you are saying that Iinarihoudai is doing to Traveler.

Then you are mistaken.

[pam]

Assuming you did not read or understand his post was charity. The alternative is to suppose you are a liar, or else are simply too stupid to be able to divine his intent.

No name calling? What was that?

[Vort]

No name calling? What was that?

Name calling: "You are stupid."

Not name calling: "You didn't read the post. The only other possibility is that you are too stupid to understand it. Since I do not want to assume your stupidity, I made the assumption that you didn't read it."

See the difference?

[Vort]

This is ridiculous.

You folks want to crucify Traveler for what he didn't say? You want to avoid paying attention to what he wrote and instead demonstrate how wonderfully politically correct you are? Be my guest. If you butcher my words like that, I will gladly call you out and point out your lies and your stupidity. But Traveler is a big boy and can fight his own battles. He doesn't need me to defend his choice of words, a choice that I don't even agree with.

Knock yourselves out. I will remove my last several posts.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Vort

[Maureen]

Vort, you may not understand how the majority of us have found Traveler's wording offensive; but you are doing the same thing by becoming offended at how we are perceiving Traveler's words.

M.