Interesting MoTab guest conductor

[BeccaKirstyn]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

It's not odd at all.  Why do we call ours the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir"?  It's branding and outreach.  We constantly talk about educating our communities about who we are and conducting outreach.  They are doing the same thing.  It's one of the reasons I have an issue with it.  We're supporting it.  How much press did this get?  How many of our own youth are well helping normalize homosexuality with?  

Regardless, I guess we'll see how it turns out.  

Oh sorry...should have clarified my response. I meant an individual label of sexuality. 

But I see what you mean about the general label of sexuality, like the Gay Men's Chorus. 

But again, I don't think affiliating with a group that is labeled as an LGBTQ organization normalizes the sinful behavior of homosexuality (because we must be careful--homosexuality in of itself is not a sin. Acting upon it is). 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

It's a good and fair question.  And since I don't know the answer, I classify the decision above my pay grade.  Is MoTab running rogue?  Did the Lord himself instruct for this sort of thing to be done?  Beats me.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

I am trusting the leaders of the church who arranged this event. 

As do I. Or to be more precise, I sustain them in their callings, even if I might disagree with this or that decision.

My point is that it seems insufficient just to wave a hand and say, "Hey, what's the big deal?" And pedophilia per se is not illegal, or even immoral. Only acting on those feelings is so. So I think my comparisons are perfectly fair, and again I ask: What's the difference? This is not to argue that it's wrong (or right). The question is half-rhetorical, meant to demonstrate that the hand-waving dismissal of complaints is insufficient, and half real -- I really do wonder what the difference is. Because I don't see it.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'd be willing to bet they don't view it as poorly as my generation does.  

Agree. 

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Oh sorry...should have clarified my response. I meant an individual label of sexuality. 

But I see what you mean about the general label of sexuality, like the Gay Men's Chorus. 

But again, I don't think affiliating with a group that is labeled as an LGBTQ organization normalizes the sinful behavior of homosexuality (because we must be careful--homosexuality in of itself is not a sin. Acting upon it is). 

Of course it normalizes it.    

I suppose it depends on what we mean by those terms.  I consider homosexuality to be the whole deal.  I consider same-sex attraction to be the condition.  I have nothing to base this understanding on, though.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Agree. 

Which is horrible for the church, society, and eternal salvation.

[BeccaKirstyn]

Just now, Grunt said:

I suppose it depends on what we mean by those terms.  I consider homosexuality to be the whole deal.  I consider same-sex attraction to be the condition.  I have nothing to base this understanding on, though.

Okay, I see what you mean. Don't disagree with your differentiation of homosexuality vs. same-sex attraction necessarily. 

We're all still learning and growing with what the leaders of the church are doing as the world continues to move in a completely different direction than we are. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

Which is horrible for the church, society, and eternal salvation.

So that wasn't you I saw at the LGBT-ally parade? 

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So that wasn't you I saw at the LGBT-ally parade? 

I can't imagine why any LDS would show up at a parade honoring sin.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I can't imagine why any LDS would show up at a parade honoring sin.

@Vort was there. 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

@Vort was there. 

He's a fundie, though.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

He's a fundie, though.

@mirkwood was too. 

[Vort]

Just now, Grunt said:

He's a fundie, though.

I put the fun in fundamentalism. (And the mental.)

[lostinwater]

32 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I mean...I do agree with this. Even though they don't see it as a sin. But it is still a label of sexuality which I've always found very odd. 

@BeccaKirstyn - this isn't directed at you.  i hope you don't take it that way.  You just have a very good way of stating things that encompass the heart of a lot of threads.   

People tend to build strong identities around aspects of themselves that have historically (and to an extent still largely do though in more subtle forms) resulted in their being imprisoned, despised, shunned, condemned, executed, murdered, tortured, excommunicated, and committed to insane asylums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

And before anyone writes this kind of stuff off as being over-cited exceptionalism of the liberal left, i recommend you head down to a shelter for LGBT youth that have been disowned/kicked out by their families or roommates or friends (just about every city has one) and have a talk with a few of the people there.  You'll find lots of first hand accounts.  

There's been an attempt to eradicate homosexuality (or in many/most places the homosexuals themselves) for the past several thousand years.  It's scope and sophistication and level of organization would make the average gay pride parade organization blush to the ears with insufficiency.  

And for the record, i'm not advocating promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools or the like.  Honestly, i don't have a horse in this race - but i know lots of people who do.  And i hate to break it to everyone - but by and large, they're not out to get you.  They're not evil demons.  They volunteer, and cry, and get sick, and go bankrupt, and have meaningful relationships, and bleed the same as everyone else.  Pretty much, they don't really care who you marry or what your family looks like - and are sort of confused at why that's a one-way street (just talking from their perspective).  They're not even close to being the main cause of the disintegration of the family, and God doesn't have special asteroids singled out just for their destruction - suddenly waking with wrath after sleeping through genocide or famine or pestilence.

i mean, if the goal is to drive wedges and convince ourselves and our children that homosexuality is the most evil, horrifically bad, worthless evil wave of filth that has ever swept across the face of the earth - then full steam ahead.  Though it's no longer legal to murder or imprison the homosexuals - so please keep this in mind when evaluating the long-term effectiveness of your efforts.

But i'd suggest that reaching out where you comfortably can (and i support other people's rights to define that as they choose - like i really do) may be a better choice.

Anyways, not responding on this thread any more.  It's just an opinion/point of view that is worth slightly less than what you paid for it.  Not one i'm attempting to ram down anyone's throats.  

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

@BeccaKirstyn - this isn't directed at you.  i hope you don't take it that way.  You just have a very good way of stating things that encompass the heart of a lot of threads.   

People tend to build strong identities around aspects of themselves that have historically (and to an extent still largely do though in more subtle forms) resulted in their being imprisoned, despised, shunned, condemned, executed, murdered, tortured, excommunicated, and committed to insane asylums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

And before anyone writes this kind of stuff off as being over-cited exceptionalism of the liberal left, i recommend you head down to a shelter for LGBT youth that have been disowned/kicked out by their families or roommates or friends (just about every city has one) and have a talk with a few of the people there.  You'll find lots of first hand accounts.  

There's been an attempt to eradicate homosexuality (or in many/most places the homosexuals themselves) for the past several thousand years.  It's scope and sophistication and level of organization would make the average gay pride parade organization blush to the ears with insufficiency.  

And for the record, i'm not advocating promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools or the like.  Honestly, i don't have a horse in this race - but i know lots of people who do.  And i hate to break it to everyone - but by and large, they're not out to get you.  They're not evil demons.  They volunteer, and cry, and get sick, and go bankrupt, and have meaningful relationships, and bleed the same as everyone else.  Pretty much, they don't really care who you marry or what your family looks like - and are sort of confused at why that's a one-way street (just talking from their perspective).  They're not even close to being the main cause of the disintegration of the family, and God doesn't have special asteroids singled out just for their destruction - suddenly waking with wrath after sleeping through genocide or famine or pestilence.

i mean, if the goal is to drive wedges and convince ourselves and our children that homosexuality is the most evil, horrifically bad, worthless evil wave of filth that has ever swept across the face of the earth - then full steam ahead.  Though it's no longer legal to murder or imprison the homosexuals - so please keep this in mind when evaluating the long-term effectiveness of your efforts.

But i'd suggest that reaching out where you comfortably can (and i support other people's rights to define that as they choose - like i really do) may be a better choice.

Anyways, not responding on this thread any more.  It's just an opinion/point of view that is worth slightly less than what you paid for it.  Not one i'm attempting to ram down anyone's throats.  

Beautiful post. Thank you for reminding all of us what many people in the LGBT community struggle with. 

[bytebear]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Agreed.

As do I. Or to be more precise, I sustain them in their callings, even if I might disagree with this or that decision.

My point is that it seems insufficient just to wave a hand and say, "Hey, what's the big deal?" And pedophilia per se is not illegal, or even immoral. Only acting on those feelings is so. So I think my comparisons are perfectly fair, and again I ask: What's the difference? This is not to argue that it's wrong (or right). The question is half-rhetorical, meant to demonstrate that the hand-waving dismissal of complaints is insufficient, and half real -- I really do wonder what the difference is. Because I don't see it.

Gay marriage is not pedophilia, so why conflate the two?  Unless you want to make it into something it's not.  I see a HUUUUGE difference between pedophilia and gay relationships between two consenting adults.  I also see a huge difference between current marital norms and polygamy, but I won't go down that path.

[BeccaKirstyn]

8 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

@BeccaKirstyn - this isn't directed at you.  i hope you don't take it that way.  You just have a very good way of stating things that encompass the heart of a lot of threads.   

 

Idk if this is a good thing or a bad thing 😂

Thanks for your post. 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Gay marriage is not pedophilia, so why conflate the two?  Unless you want to make it into something it's not.  I see a HUUUUGE difference between pedophilia and gay relationships between two consenting adults.  I also see a huge difference between current marital norms and polygamy, but I won't go down that path.

Agreed, like comparing a man deciding with his girlfriend to sleep with each other before marriage to a man who decides to brutally rape a woman. It's really disgusting anyone would complain the two, shameful.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Gay marriage is not pedophilia, so why conflate the two?

Because both are examples of sexual desires which, if acted on, result in misery and the destruction of souls and the societies that enshrine such actions. The legality or illegality of each is merely a reflection of current fashions and tastes. Remember that "pedophilia" is purely a definitional matter. Drop the legal age of sexual consent to three years old, and almost all cases of pedophilia magically disappear.

13 minutes ago, bytebear said:

I see a HUUUUGE difference between pedophilia and gay relationships between two consenting adults.

I see a definitional game. Especially today, when girls start their menses earlier than ever, is thirteen a reasonable age for sexual consent? Or is that pedophilia?

Homosexual activities are a perversion of sex. They constitute an abomination. That is the eternal reality. So when a person chooses to define himself primarily in terms of his impulses to commit such perverse acts, why would we single him out to be a guest conductor of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Why would we not do the same for the polygamist leader, or the polyamorous leader, or the pedophilia leader, or the pro-abortion leader, or even the cigarette company leader?

I do not necessarily expect a good answer. But I do think the question is perfectly legitimate, and should not be hand-waved away or dismissed with irrelevant appeals to legality.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, miav said:

Agreed, like comparing a man deciding with his girlfriend to sleep with each other before marriage to a man who decides to brutally rape a woman. It's really disgusting anyone would complain the two, shameful.

How is the mere desire to have emotionally sexual intimacy with a child comparable to committing forcible rape?

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

. But I do think the question is perfectly legitimate, and should not be hand-waved away or dismissed 

Too late. 

[bytebear]

Hmm.. committed monogamous relationship between two adults, compared to heterosexual who sluts around, has multiple abortions, passes around STDs, and also violates the sexual laws of God.  Yep, exactly the same.  <eye roll>   Seems you are a bit hung up on this particular sin.  Now, wasn't someone saying which person they would rather have conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?  I think I know my choice.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

How is the mere desire to have emotionally sexual intimacy with a child comparable to committing forcible rape?

Because pedophilia leads to the forcible rape of children. Why is pornagraphy, which is an "emotionally sexual intimacy" be so dangerous? It's only emotion right? No, the consequences of pornagraphy reach far beyond "emotionally sexual" nature, you know that. So too are the consequences of pedophilia.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Hmm.. committed monogamous relationship between two adults, compared to heterosexual who sluts around, has multiple abortions, passes around STDs, and also violates the sexual laws of God.  Yep, exactly the same.  <eye roll>   Seems you are a bit hung up on this particular sin.  Now, wasn't someone saying which person they would rather have conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir?  I think I know my choice.

So, then, your answer boils down to, "There are worse things than homosexual behavior. Therefore, a representative of the homosexual lobby should conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir." I find that reasoning profoundly unconvincing.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, miav said:

Because pedophilia leads to the forcible rape of children. Why is pornagraphy, which is an "emotionally sexual intimacy" be so dangerous? It's only emotion right? No, the consequences of pornagraphy reach far beyond "emotionally sexual" nature, you know that. So too are the consequences of pedophilia.

Then by your reasoning, homosexual impulses lead to the forcible rape of same-sex individuals.

You talk as if merely having sexual impulses toward children is inherently sinful. Do you have anything to back up this opinion?

[bytebear]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

So, then, your answer boils down to, "There are worse things than homosexual behavior. Therefore, a representative of the homosexual lobby should conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir." I find that reasoning profoundly unconvincing.

My answer is yes. As I see it, a gay couple has made a choice that stops their progression.  They cannot have biological children in this life or the next.  But other than that, I don't see much harm to anyone else.  With the heterosexual, I see them destroying several lives, including any children that they may produce.  So, yes, I see a difference.  And by the way, the gay couple's eternal fate is the same as one who chooses to marry a non-member, or pre-1978, a member who is of African descent.

I think you are far to hung up on the sexual act, than the actual ramifications of sexual acts.