3rd hour meeting on fostering love with members of the LGBTQ community

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know, Vort. This begins to feel to me like a fallacious use of a slipper slope argument. I'm not convinced that accepting homosexuality as good will certainly lead to acceptance of all of those other things. I can readily see how accepting gay marriage readily leads to accepting polygamous marriages, but I'm not sure the other concepts necessarily follow.

It's not a matter of whether these follow homosexual acceptance. It is simple intellectual honesty: If you redefine homosexual activity as "good" because it's what consenting people like to do, then you must also redefine those other activities as "good" based on desire of consenting people. (And no arguments that "animals can't consent" -- we pen them, experiment on them, cut them up and eat them, so saying that sex is somehow abusive when the other things are acceptable is absurd.)

20 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As such, this feels more like fearmongering to me.

It is no such thing. It is the recognition that in proclaiming homosexual relations as "good", the arguments used to normalize homosexual expression work perfectly well to normalize all sorts of other things that most people find objectionable.

[lostinwater]

This clip seems particularly relevant.  i think it shows the legitimate heartbreak and hopes of both sides.  i hope everyone here has seen the movie already.  If not, you really need to.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

14 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

This clip seems particularly relevant.  i think it shows the legitimate heartbreak and hopes of both sides.  i hope everyone here has seen the movie already.  If not, you really need to.

I'm a massive fan of that movie, and yes, the stuff Tevye is wrestling with is analogous. 

But just so we're clear - I don't think anyone is suggesting ostracizing anyone, or cutting them off of the family, or anything like that.  These days we struggle with "should I walk her down the aisle at the wedding" more, and "you're dead to me" less.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

Jewish people refused to let go of the laws of Moses, they do not eat cheeseburgers, no pork, wear tassels on their cloth, and refuse to progress, refuse to move on to higher laws....   I personally believe in eternal progression... not eternal stagnation...  laws change.

So let me make sure I'm understand you. According to you, homosexual activity is the "higher law". Right?

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Why do you insist that acceptance of homosexuality is good? To be consistent, are you willing to concede that we should accept bestiality, polyamory, and lowering the legal age of sexual consent to six? Shall we accept mutual voluntary limb amputation between consenting adults as a beautiful example of human expression?

If it ever becomes good, you’re my first choice.  I love your posts.  

[Sunday21]

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

CogDis?  I'm not trying to hold two different beliefs in my head at the same time.  Not sure Wade is either.

I'm not sure if I think the 3rd hour is appropriate or not, whether it will result in a net blessing or a net negative.  But my belief is that the Lord's servants pretty much always try their best to do what's right, whether they end up actually getting there or not.

To put it another way - I've stood in a circle and given a blessing to a child, with a man who turned a blind eye to his own daughter's sexual abuse.  That was a hard decision, but ultimately it wasn't my job to judge his worthiness.  Deciding to neither support nor condemn the Riverton Bishop is an easy decision.   I mean, it would be even easier if it was a clear-cut decision of which one I should pick.  But it isn't clear cut, so I'm big on just declining to get behind either of the two rally flags here.  

I'm three years into a 20 year bet with an atheist buddy of mine.  He figures we'll have same-sex marriage in the temple within those 20 years, I figure we won't.  Loser dresses up in a pink tutu and sings "I'm a little teapot".  I'd get a massive kick out of winning, but I could probably survive losing.

Oh please! We must see this. Everyone note on the calendar!

[Vort]

1 minute ago, changed said:

From "don't kill one another" to love your enemies...  

The higher law is one of love, hope for all, faith that g-d is guiding and directing everyone through the paths that are best individually suited for them, that all tears will be wiped away, and we will all see one another - not through a glass darkly, but as we all really are.

What about when my tears are caused by my self-mutilation? And what if, when you encourage me to stop mutilating myself, I instead proclaim self-mutilation a glorious, life-affirming thing and tell you to quit being so bigoted and narrow-minded? Will God wipe away those tears, too?

Do you suppose there is an eternal law that says that people get to choose, even if they choose pain and misery, and that God doesn't force them to choose the better path? If this is the case, do you suppose God might give advice (let's call them "commandments") to warn people to avoid certain thoughts and activities that are intrinsically damaging? Do you suppose God might even call some certain people (let's call them "prophets") to warn his children against these things?

When these "prophets" then proceed to teach these "commandments", what do you think of people who call them narrow-minded bigots and urge everyone to accept, not just people (which is correct), but the damaging activities and beliefs that those people have? Do you suppose they're deluded?

How would you approach one such person to try to tell her that what she's doing is wrong, however noble it may seem to her? Would it be like talking to a wall?

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, changed said:

I personally believe in eternal progression... not eternal stagnation...  laws change.

From "don't kill one another" to love your enemies...  

The higher law is one of love, hope for all, faith that g-d is guiding and directing everyone through the paths that are best individually suited for them, that all tears will be wiped away, and we will all see one another - not through a glass darkly, but as we all really are.

God is love. God loves all his children. God loves:

1) Those in the Celestial kingdom

2) Those in the Terrestrial kingdom

3) Those in the Telestial kingdom (fornicators)

The Church teaches the laws -- higher laws -- in order for an individual to enjoy eternal progression. What you are specifying is sadly filled with irony. You believe in "eternal progression... not eternal stagnation..." and yet what you are preaching results in "eternal stagnation" for those you are wanting to love, which has already been shown to to cause God to weep:

Quote

 

And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?
32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection,

 

The "higher law" is obedience to God and his commandments which allows one to eternally progress. Seeking to change God's laws isn't seeing clearly.

[lostinwater]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm a massive fan of that movie, and yes, the stuff Tevye is wrestling with is analogous. 

But just so we're clear - I don't think anyone is suggesting ostracizing anyone, or cutting them off of the family, or anything like that.  These days we struggle with "should I walk her down the aisle at the wedding" more, and "you're dead to me" less.

Thanks.  Good point.  

My guess is that both sides read malice in motive into the other side that isn't really there.  That's one of the things i love about Fiddler on the Roof - you see the equally non-malicious yet equally broken hearts of both Chava and Tevye.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If it ever becomes good, you’re my first choice.  I love your posts.  

Grunt, you're the kind of man I'd like as a friend. Maybe even a very good friend. But just a friend.

[Anddenex]

21 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If it ever becomes good, you’re my first choice.  I love your posts.  

This might have been a little to intimate -- you know -- TMI!

Edited February 6, 2018 by Anddenex

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

My guess is that both sides read malice in motive into the other side that isn't really there.

Can you explain the non-malicious motives of those who condemn Christians (and Mormons) as "bigots" and who shout down all expressions of ideas that don't support their beliefs in the beauty and nobility of homosexual activity? I'm very curious to know what non-maliciously motivates someone to do the very things that they themselves decried as uncivil and hateful only a few years before.

[NeuroTypical]

Point to Vort.

And counterpoint - I don't see anyone on that facebook page, or in those talks, or even in the comment section, doing anything even remotely like that.  I mean, I don't know if those people are policing their comment sections and deleting stuff right and left, but it's really really rare to see facebook comments, on a topic so divisive, that consistently positive.

[lostinwater]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Can you explain the non-malicious motives of those who condemn Christians (and Mormons) as "bigots" and who shout down all expressions of ideas that don't support their beliefs in the beauty and nobility of homosexual activity? I'm very curious to know what non-maliciously motivates someone to do the very things that they themselves decried as uncivil and hateful only a few years before.

Thanks.  

Sure - lots of emotional pain built up over time, eventually getting so bad the person numbs it with a sense of anger and indignation towards someone else.  

Just my experience, but a lot of the malice in the world is just a negative feedback loop that nobody is willing to break.  It deflates like a popped balloon when people lay down their swords.  Though certainly, my experiences and the perceptions they create are not your experiences/perceptions.  And i hope we can forgive one another for that.

But the person/people who treated you that way were wrong to do so.  And on their behalf, you have my wholly inadequate apologies.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Sure - lots of emotional pain built up over time, eventually getting so bad the person numbs it with a sense of anger and indignation towards someone else.

So then, it's not malicious if your feelings are hurt? I think malice is malicious, whatever its source.

8 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But the person/people who treated you that way were wrong to do so.  And on their behalf, you have my wholly inadequate apologies.

You've done me no wrong, liw. You've been nothing but a polite conversationalist. Please don't apologize on behalf of others, though I do appreciate the sentiment.

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, changed said:

There seems to be a divide between those with LGBT in their immediate family, and those who do not understand what the issues really are....

What a hateful statement you have made.

[lostinwater]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

So then, it's not malicious if your feelings are hurt? I think malice is malicious, whatever its source.

This probably is just because i've been fortunate enough not to have someone attack me in the way in which you have.  But no, i think most people who do hurtful things do it out of ignorance, or just because being angry at someone else is the only way they know how to deal with their pain.  But again, this is a relatively natural view of humanity to take, given that nothing particularly bad has happened to me.  It sounds like you have not been so lucky.

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

You've done me no wrong, liw. You've been nothing but a polite conversationalist. Please don't apologize on behalf of others, though I do appreciate the sentiment.

Well, that's very kind of you.  Not sure i deserve it, though.  We disagree on a lot, but no arguing that your intellect is top notch, and i am honored whenever you respond to one of my comments.  Keeps me (perpetually) on my toes, for sure.

[Vort]

To be clear: I'm a 55-year-old man. I am not wallowing in hurt feelings or outrage. But I do have a pronounced bias toward reasoned conversation and equitable treatment of both (all) sides of a discussion. My words above are not intended as an expression of personal outrage, but as a means to point out the absurd inequality of treatment of those opinions deemed as overly incorrect. JAG made the same point above much more succinctly.

[Guest MormonGator]

55 minutes ago, Vort said:

To be clear: I'm a 55-year-old man.

:: ahem :: :: cough cough :: Sorry had something in my throat. 

55?

Edited February 6, 2018 by MormonGator

[Vort]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

:: ahem :: :: cough cough :: Sorry had something in my throat. 

55?

Contrary to popular opinion, I can indeed drive 55. I just normally don't drive that slow on the highway or that fast on city streets.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Contrary to popular opinion, I can indeed drive 55. I just normally don't drive that slow on the highway or that fast on city streets.

And he quotes a Sammy Hagar song?! @Vort has become cool! 

Seriously, I'm in the minority who prefers Van Hagar to Van Halen. Flame on. 

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Seriously, I'm in the minority who prefers Van Hagar to Van Halen. Flame on. 

I won't flame you, but I don't think you're in the minority. Most people I talk to who even know who Van Halen is (was) like Sammy better. I'm a Diamond Dave fan, at least in a VH context, so I can't agree. But I respect your right to hold an incorrect opinion.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I won't flame you, but I don't think you're in the minority. Most people I talk to who even know who Van Halen is (was) like Sammy better. I'm a Diamond Dave fan, at least in a VH context, so I can't agree. But I respect your right to hold an incorrect opinion.

Right Now vs Jump. 

Q.E.D. 

[Vort]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Right Now vs Jump. 

Q.E.D. 

Mmmmm... I agree that Right Now is a better song, but Dave had a rawness and electricity to his voice that Hagar lacked. I'll grant that Sammy had a better voice on a sort of pure vocal scale, but that's sort of like saying that your ward's lead bass has a better voice than Louis Armstrong. At that level, it's irrelevant, because Armstrong/Roth simply has the pipes to match the music. (I also grant that Hagar was and is probably a nicer guy than Roth, but this is rock and roll, not the Elk's Club.)

I'll take any of the first three albums plus 1984 over any album VH has done since. Again, I'm probably in the minority, but that's okay. Sometimes you just have to take comfort in the fact that you're right, not popular.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Mmmmm... I agree that Right Now is a better song, but Dave had a rawness and electricity to his voice that Hagar lacked. I'll grant that Sammy had a better voice on a sort of pure vocal scale, but that's sort of like saying that your ward's lead bass has a better voice than Louis Armstrong. At that level, it's irrelevant, because Armstrong/Roth simply has the pipes to match the music. (I also grant that Hagar was and is probably a nicer guy than Roth, but this is rock and roll, not the Elk's Club.)

I'll take any of the first three albums plus 1984 over any album VH has done since. Again, I'm probably in the minority, but that's okay. Sometimes you just have to take comfort in the fact that you're right, not popular.

At least we can agree that Gary Cherone (whom I saw a Kiss show in Boston) was not a good choice for them. Right? Right? 

(rumored to be a super nice guy, but his VH album was not a success)