Loveloudfest and LDS approval?

[Suzie]

8 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This Mormon Message perfectly expresses my feelings on this topic.  And I think applies well to what we are discussing here.  @Suzie have you seen this?  You'll like it.
 

 

@LiterateParakeet what an amazing woman! I feel nothing but great admiration for her and her story (as well as the other story someone posted). I love our gay brothers and sisters and I am very happy the Church has created videos such as this one. They face many unseen challenges, I cannot comprehend what must be like to be in a position of this sort. What an inspirational story, her laugh at the end is priceless. Thanks for sharing.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, JoCa said:

"A biopsychosocial model mediated by choice best represents the current state of the research on homosexuality. Homosexuality is not explained by either a simple biological model or a simple psychological model, nor can homosexuality be reduced to a simple matter of choice. Emerging scientific evidence supports the notion that homosexuality is not easily or simply defined and that homosexuals are not a homogeneous population. In addition, the terms "homosexual attraction," "homosexual orientation," and "homosexual identity" refer to distinctly different phenomena.

Homosexual attractions may emerge during adolescence and disappear. In fact, in one study, nearly 26% of twelve-year-olds reported being unsure about their sexual orientation.24 However, only 2-3% will self-identify as gay as adults.25 A homosexual orientation, which is a general affective response to members of one's own sex, appears to be fluid-it may wax or wane. A homosexual identity is a sociopolitical statement that one wishes to be gay identified. Frequently, the three distinct categories are merged in both the media and academia, making it even difficult to discuss the term homosexuality. Perhaps the more important questions are as follows: What can scientists say about the malleability of homosexuality? Once established, are homosexual attractions modifiable or changeable? Or, can an individual who is predominantly homosexual become predominantly heterosexual."

This is pretty much exactly what I've said using my "elements" analogy.

[pam]

13 hours ago, person0 said:

Just found this story.  It is very Touching, and related to a general discussion about homosexuality:

 

Wow wow wow wow wow.  I was in tears watching this.  What strong young women these 2 are.  How difficult it must have been for them.  But for both to realize that they just needed to put their trust and love in Jesus Christ...wow.  

[NeuroTypical]

14 hours ago, person0 said:

Just found this story.  It is very Touching, and related to a general discussion about homosexuality:

 

 

Oh wow.  This is "love thy neighbor" 101 for anyone with hard feelings about the other side of the fence.

[Vort]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 8:48 AM, Suzie said:

Even if someone wants to identify themselves with any of those 50 gender identities, doing so is not a sin.

This idea strikes me as being based on a narrow, pedantic, highly legalistic pattern of thinking, where actions are reduced to "sin" or "not sin".

The Pharisees believed that salvation came by the law. So if you could reduce the law to a manageable set of allowed and prohibited actions, and then stay within those allowances and prohibitions, you would be saved. This led to such appalling hypocrisies as a man claiming himself as a righteous, observant son of the covenant, even while he withheld funds from his starving parents by claiming "corban" exemption. For this reason, the mortal Jesus vociferously condemned such people, even as the entire group of Pharisees.

I agree that calling oneself "homosexual" (or "pedosexual" or "dogosexual" or "vegesexual") is not sinful per se. One is simply identifying a characteristic of his or her personality. But when I identify in myself a tendency that strays from the divine -- such as a short temper, or a tendency to use vile language, or a lust for my neighbor's wife, or a desire to engage in sexual relations with someone or something other than my opposite-sex spouse -- I should identify it as such. I should admit to myself that this is a fault, a weakness, something to be fought against and overcome. If I publicly identify this trait, it seems obvious that I should also publicly acknowledge that I'm not proud of the trait, that I consider it a flaw, and that I'm certainly not encouraging others to cultivate this character flaw in themselves.

So, no, identifying oneself as one of fifty different "gender identities" is not itself a sin. But an obvious inference from such an action is that those fifty "gender identities" are in some way valid expressions of our divine creation. This inference ought never be allowed to stand. It should be explicitly refuted, especially in a case where impressionable children or others who may not be strong or wise or experienced enough to understand the societal subtleties of such expressions might be left thinking e.g. "hey, gay is okay!"

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Oh wow.  This is "love thy neighbor" 101 for anyone with hard feelings about the other side of the fence.

Yes! That was one of the things I loved about it too. 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This idea strikes me as being based on a narrow, pedantic, highly legalistic pattern of thinking, where actions are reduced to "sin" or "not sin".

The Pharisees believed that salvation came by the law. So if you could reduce the law to a manageable set of allowed and prohibited actions, and then stay within those allowances and prohibitions, you would be saved. This led to such appalling hypocrisies as a man claiming himself as a righteous, observant son of the covenant, even while he withheld funds from his starving parents by claiming "corban" exemption. For this reason, the mortal Jesus vociferously condemned such people, even as the entire group of Pharisees.

I agree that calling oneself "homosexual" (or "pedosexual" or "dogosexual" or "vegesexual") is not sinful per se. One is simply identifying a characteristic of his or her personality. But when I identify in myself a tendency that strays from the divine -- such as a short temper, or a tendency to use vile language, or a lust for my neighbor's wife, or a desire to engage in sexual relations with someone or something other than my opposite-sex spouse -- I should identify it as such. I should admit to myself that this is a fault, a weakness, something to be fought against and overcome. If I publicly identify this trait, it seems obvious that I should also publicly acknowledge that I'm not proud of the trait, that I consider it a flaw, and that I'm certainly not encouraging others to cultivate this character flaw in themselves.

So, no, identifying oneself as one of fifty different "gender identities" is not itself a sin. But an obvious inference from such an action is that those fifty "gender identities" are in some way valid expressions of our divine creation. This inference ought never be allowed to stand. It should be explicitly refuted, especially in a case where impressionable children or others who may not be strong or wise or experienced enough to understand the societal subtleties of such expressions might be left thinking e.g. "hey, gay is okay!"

As oft times happens, Vort put into words the things I thought I was thinking but couldn't (or...maybe just didn't take the time and effort to) quite put together beyond an impression.

Edited August 23, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Another video that fits this topic well....this video was part of the curriculum in my BYU-I Intro to Social Work class.  @Suzie @pam
 

 

[JoCa]

Maybe the Church should start looking at the latest research linking smartphones with teen depression and suicide rates instead of hopping on the PC political bandwagon . .. .

Read it and weep.  We are destroying our kids.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

[Guest MormonGator]

15 hours ago, JoCa said:

Maybe the Church should start looking at the latest research linking smartphones with teen depression and suicide rates instead of hopping on the PC political bandwagon . .. .

Read it and weep.  We are destroying our kids.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/

It's somewhat ironic to complain about how bad technology is on an internet forum-powered by computers and smartphones. 

[JoCa]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's somewhat ironic to complain about how bad technology is on an internet forum-powered by computers and smartphones. 

True enough, but I was more warning about teenagers and smartphones.  Teenagers are not adults and their brains are not fully developed and are thus more at risk vs. adults.

[Guest MormonGator]

38 minutes ago, JoCa said:

True enough, but I was more warning about teenagers and smartphones.  Teenagers are not adults and their brains are not fully developed and are thus more at risk vs. adults.

I understand and I'm only half teasing you.  I do think it's silly to complain about technology-after all, we wouldn't be here without it. 

But that does't mean I'm naive to the drawbacks of it. I agree, I don't think that teenagers should be given unfiltered access to all forms of technology.

[JoCa]

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/08/27/loveloud-fest-is-about-changing-the-hearts-of-people-says-imagine-dragons-frontman/

Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs for GLAAD, which focuses on discrimination in the media, said his organization’s research suggests that “as many as 20 percent of young people now identify as LGBTQ — far more than ever before.”

Oh wait a second .  . . .I thought people were "born that way".  They are "born that way" but 20 percent now identify as LGBTQRXYZ.  If that is correct, 20% . . .20% of youth id as LGBTQ, 1 in 5 youth are LGBTQ.  If true, oh my goodness as a society we are screwed.

I recently saw a study that looked at gender identity and sexual orientation over time, 20 years ago vast something like 95% were either completely straight male or female, today more people identify as well more fluid. "Born that way" lies of the devil. 

I think as this progresses farther and farther down the rabbit hole eventually the gig will be up and the born that way argument will drop by the wayside . . .once society has completely acquiesced to it.

Edited August 27, 2017 by JoCa

[Just_A_Guy]

By the way, Kate Kelley (remember her?) recently wrote a Facebook post lambasting the whole event as being too "patriarchal".

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By the way, Kate Kelley (remember her?) recently wrote a Facebook post lambasting the whole event as being too "patriarchal".

Of course she did.  

[Sunday21]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By the way, Kate Kelley (remember her?) recently wrote a Facebook post lambasting the whole event as being too "patriarchal".

What? ??? I can't get my mind around that one!

[JoCa]

11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By the way, Kate Kelley (remember her?) recently wrote a Facebook post lambasting the whole event as being too "patriarchal".

Too funny.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

By the way, Kate Kelley (remember her?) recently wrote a Facebook post lambasting the whole event as being too "patriarchal".

The extreme left turns on themselves again. 

[Lindy]

I was a bit taken aback myself by the support from the Church. How can they support something that is so wrong? Then I really thought about it, knowing that Church leaders had some reason for their "support". The word that jumped out at me was 'respectful'.  I can understand them wanting us to be respectful of our errant brothers and sisters. We may not agree with their choices, but we shouldn't give up hope they will come back to be the best they can be.

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's one of the things Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons said concerning the reason for holding the concert in an interview with Billboard:

"One of those ways is that Mormons believe the doctrine is if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful. That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children. To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect;"

Frankly, how anyone can not be confused by the church throwing even tacit support behind such an agenda is baffling.

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Here's one of the things Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons said concerning the reason for holding the concert in an interview with Billboard:

"One of those ways is that Mormons believe the doctrine is if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful. That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children. To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect;"

Frankly, how anyone can not be confused by the church throwing even tacit support behind such an agenda is baffling.

And then the Church files an amicus with SCOTUS on the gay wedding cake case, backing the baker.

The Church is certainly marching to its own drummer on this one.

[Grunt]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Here's one of the things Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons said concerning the reason for holding the concert in an interview with Billboard:

"One of those ways is that Mormons believe the doctrine is if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful. That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children. To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect;"

Frankly, how anyone can not be confused by the church throwing even tacit support behind such an agenda is baffling.

Isn't Dan Reynolds Mormon?

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Isn't Dan Reynolds "Mormon"?

Fixed it.

[JoCa]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Frankly, how anyone can not be confused by the church throwing even tacit support behind such an agenda is baffling.

Bingo; the Church is speaking out of both sounds of its mouth on this issue.  Exhibit B:

https://www.lds.org/topics/virtue?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/homosexuality?lang=eng

 

Virtue is a prerequisite to entering the Lord’s holy temples and to receiving the Spirit’s guidance. Virtue “is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards.” It encompasses chastity and moral purity. Virtue begins in the heart and in the mind.

-------

People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

Those two things can't be reconciled; The Church has cognitive dissonance on this issue.  I don't know why it has it, but it does.  You can't tell me that virtue begins in the heart and in the mind is a pattern of thought and behavior; Then tell me that identifying (i.e. something that comes from the heart and from thought) as homosexual is morally okay.

Being virtuous is a life-long pursuit of training our minds on how to act and how to think, on becoming someone who is virtuous.  But homosexuals get a pass-identifying as homosexual-i.e. adopting that pattern of thought, is now virtuous.  The only way that can ever become virtuous is if homosexuality is virtuous.

Quite frankly, the Church as an organization has become very, very confusing on this issue.  And it didn't use to be this way.

[JoCa]

Oh and this "support the youth" so they don't commit suicide is an absolute red herring . . .total poppycock.

The youth in general today have more anxiety problems, more mental health problems, more suicides than any other generation previously.  It ain't b/c someone is homosexual and they got made fun of at school.

No, it has to do with the absolute and total wussification of society.  Quite frankly the kids aren't tough enough and parents (in general) have absolutely failed the current generation in teaching them to have grit, suck it up and to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. 

It goes back to the absolute evil ideology that we have to instill in kids "self-esteem".  No, you want kids to have confidence not self-esteem.  And the only way kids or people get confidence is by actually doing thing and accomplishing things.  Having to struggle and then overcome challenges builds confidence-that is the only way anything else is counterfeit.  Telling a kid "you're special" hurts them way more than it helps.