What LGBTQ+ hath wrot

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

But every year that goes by, I see more and more indication that the church is adopting this notion.

They are adopting it. I think in twenty years you'll see a vastly different view of homosexuality from the church than you do now. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

The dumpster fire at OSU with TPUSA is a distillation of the state of the Culture War that is happening WITHIN the Conservative Movement when it comes to the LGBTQ+ issue.  Even within a predominantly Christian Conservative setting, the inherent conflict has gotten everybody confused and angry at each other who would have been usually in lock-step in their socio-political leanings.

So why the dumpster fire?  Because Christian Leaders have failed to give clear and concise positions on the matter of sexuality versus identity.

 

 

[Nissan]

53 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok. Now that Vort has shown up, I can give my totally arguable, possibly wrong take on things.

Most of us were born into a world that has always thought "if you've got sinful urges, you're out of alignment with gospel standards".  In the last bit of time, the notion seems to be swinging to "sexual orientation is a core aspect of who we are, and may or may not say anything about your alignment with gospel standards, and you may be doing yourself a disservice by trying to change it."  

There's a new class of people out there - the "I'm proudly out-of-the-closet-celebrating-life gay, and I'm living gospel standards, and that's ok" type of person.  The differentiator is between urges/leanings/tendencies/inclinations/persuasions, and behavior is huge here.   In this new notion, a gay choir is more analogous to a disabled vet choir, or a recovering alcoholic choir.  We don't try to fix 'em any more, we accept 'em for "who they are". 

Your recovery from your physical disability is set by physical realities, and it may be a waste of time to try to pray your leg back.  Go join the choir.  You may be able to play at the temple, even though some of your choir members are drinking swearing adulterous SOB's. 

Your sobiety is set by your behavior, and your energies may be better spent on managing your behavior, instead of trying to eliminate your addiction.    Go join the choir, even though some of you might be off the wagon right now.

And, no matter how much you might want to be straight and get sealed in the temple and whatnot, you might be better served just by admitting you're gay and following God as a gay guy.  Go join the choir, even though some of you aren't interested in following gospel standards.

 

I'm not trying to be persuasive here.  I honestly don't know if this take on things is right or wrong.  I'm just a guy trying to make it through life walking the best path of discipleship I can see, and doing it imperfectly.  But every year that goes by, I see more and more indication that the church is adopting this notion.

I agree that is what is occurring but it is not in line with scripture.

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I think that's a relatively new thing. It's a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong-but various Christian faiths in the past generally didn't work together. 

Depends on what you consider "new."  I served my mission in the Washington DC temple area.  I was one of the missionaries assigned to play Joseph in the nativity they had.  And I distinctly remember other churches musical groups performing.  So as far as I can tell its been this way most my life.... So its not new to me.. however if one looks at the history of the church my few decades can be considered new comparatively.

[Fether]

Call me new fashion or whatever. But to me, complaining about a gay choir singing on temple square is as silly as complaining about an atheist speaking at BYU, or the church hosting a night of friendship where speakers from all faiths gather together to speak. Active homosexuals aren’t devil-cheatonyourwife-rapechildren-evil, it is keep-you-from-Christ-evil. And so are MANY organizations and religions we are actively inviting to and participating in events with.

To me this is a great example of being in the world, but not of it. 

Perhaps I’m jaded due to my close LGBTQ+ family ties 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Vort]

On 11/1/2019 at 10:25 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Ok. Now that Vort has shown up, I can give my totally arguable, possibly wrong take on things.

Most of us were born into a world that has always thought "if you've got sinful urges, you're out of alignment with gospel standards".  In the last bit of time, the notion seems to be swinging to "sexual orientation is a core aspect of who we are, and may or may not say anything about your alignment with gospel standards, and you may be doing yourself a disservice by trying to change it."  

There's a new class of people out there - the "I'm proudly out-of-the-closet-celebrating-life gay, and I'm living gospel standards, and that's ok" type of person.  The differentiator is between urges/leanings/tendencies/inclinations/persuasions, and behavior is huge here.   In this new notion, a gay choir is more analogous to a disabled vet choir, or a recovering alcoholic choir.  We don't try to fix 'em any more, we accept 'em for "who they are". 

Your recovery from your physical disability is set by physical realities, and it may be a waste of time to try to pray your leg back.  Go join the choir.  You may be able to play at the temple, even though some of your choir members are drinking swearing adulterous SOB's. 

Your sobiety is set by your behavior, and your energies may be better spent on managing your behavior, instead of trying to eliminate your addiction.    Go join the choir, even though some of you might be off the wagon right now.

And, no matter how much you might want to be straight and get sealed in the temple and whatnot, you might be better served just by admitting you're gay and following God as a gay guy.  Go join the choir, even though some of you aren't interested in following gospel standards.

 

I'm not trying to be persuasive here.  I honestly don't know if this take on things is right or wrong.  I'm just a guy trying to make it through life walking the best path of discipleship I can see, and doing it imperfectly.  But every year that goes by, I see more and more indication that the church is adopting this notion.

I think this makes a lot of sense, but only insofar as the members of the Gay Men's Choir are not advocating in any way for their lifestyle. An Alcoholics Anonymous Choir would not be putting forth alcohol consumption as a desirable end or suggesting that intoxication was somehow good. But I don't think the Gay Men's Choir is out advocating for avoidance of homosexuality. Quite to the contrary, I am sure.

We are living in Opposite World, where people proclaim sinful behavior as not merely a right but a virtue, while those who preach revealed Biblical morality are literally condemned from many quarters. One day, our descendants may look at our times and wonder how we ever managed to get things so screwed up*. The plain fact is that we would not invite a Pedophiles' Choir to sing on temple grounds. I expect this would be true, even if it was a "Recovering Pedophiles' Choir".

*(And when they do, I sincerely hope they don't start trying to exculpate everyone. "Oh, the poor dears, it wasn't their fault!" Wrong. It is totally our fault, and we should be condemned throughout all of history for our evils and willingness to follow the corrupt-but-popular crowd and deny the truths we have been given. At least, this is just deserts for those among us who join the howling mob because of their own cowardice or other failure to stand for the truth.)

But what happened to tolerance and fairness and common celebration of the wonderful Christmas season? Why the double standard? The pedophiles we hate, but the homosexuals are A-OK? For me, it's not the presence of homosexuals on temple grounds that rankles; we're all sinful, and the temple is a divine indulgence and sign of mercy even for the best of us. What rankles is the seemingly inescapable hypocrisy of the position. Because guess what? We shouldn't hate pedophiles, either. They deserve respect and understanding for their weaknesses exactly as much as the homosexuals. But they also do NOT deserve an LDS pulpit from which to proclaim their sexual longings and preferences, unless they are communicating that their sexual impulses are impure and need to be controlled in accordance with God's clear commandments.

And that's exactly what we should expect of a Homosexuals' Choir.

Again, if the First Presidency requested or approved this invitation to the Gay Men's Choir, I withdraw my objections. I will follow the First Presidency, even when I don't understand (or like) what actions they may take. I either support the actions of the First Presidency or I find myself in rebellion against God's chosen. And in that latter case, I hope I would have enough integrity just to renounce my religion altogether, rather than try to change things from the inside to better suit my tastes.

Edited November 5, 2019 by Vort
Update as per NT's correction

[Guest MormonGator]

49 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Depends on what you consider "new."   

Yeah, you might be right. After all, religions are notorious for their ability to listen to and talk to one another. Been going on for hundreds of years now. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by MormonGator

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

Call me new fashion or whatever. But to me, complaining about a gay choir singing on temple square is as silly as complaining about an atheist speaking at BYU, or the church hosting a night of friendship where speakers from all faiths gather together to speak.

Does the atheist come to BYU in the name of atheism, to represent atheism as the only reasonable belief system, and to cast aspersions (explicit or implicit) on those who believe otherwise?

Would you feel the same about the Church inviting the Adulterers' Choir or the Pedophiles' Choir or the Wifebeaters' Choir to sing at Temple Square, assuming they weren't actually explicitly out there advocating the LDS audience to accept adultery or pedophilia or beating your wife?

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Does the atheist come to BYU in the name of atheism, to represent atheism as the only reasonable belief system, and to cast aspersions (explicit or implicit) on those who believe otherwise?

Would you feel the same about the Church inviting the Adulterers' Choir or the Pedophiles' Choir or the Wifebeaters' Choir to sing at Temple Square, assuming they weren't actually explicitly out there advocating the LDS audience to accept adultery or pedophilia or beating your wife?

Can an atheist even go to BYU? I thought you had to be an active LDS to go? Remember, I never went there. 

[Fether]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Would you feel the same about the Church inviting the Adulterers' Choir or the Pedophiles' Choir or the Wifebeaters' Choir to sing at Temple Square, assuming they weren't actually explicitly out there advocating the LDS audience to accept adultery or pedophilia or beating your wife?

Those choirs are organizations that seek to harm others. Homosexuals are out to do as much harm as heterosexuals.

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Can an atheist even go to BYU? I thought you had to be an active LDS to go? Remember, I never went there. 

I’m referring to an invited speaker 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

Those choirs are organizations that seek to harm others. Homosexuals are out to do as much harm as heterosexuals.

The Adulterers' Choir doesn't want to hurt anyone. They aren't vicious. They just think people should be able to enjoy love in their own way.

The central question is how the choir presents itself. The Gay Men's Choir presents itself as a homosexuality-positive organization. That is not compatible with LDS theology. No amount of contortion will twist it into being so.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Can an atheist even go to BYU? I thought you had to be an active LDS to go? Remember, I never went there. 

You do not have to be LDS to go to BYU, though about 99% of the student body is. It's largely a self-selecting organization. I assume, though am not absolutely sure, that an atheist could attend BYU. Why s/he would want to is another, much more difficult, question.

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Gay Men's Choir presents itself as a homosexuality-positive organization. That is not compatible with LDS theology

Neither is the Catholic Church or evangelicals... yet we invite them to events all the time.

 

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Adulterers' Choir doesn't want to hurt anyone. They aren't vicious. They just think people should be able to enjoy love in their own way.

You can’t possibly be so blinded by your own opinion to not see how adultery harms more people than homosexuality. 

 

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

don't know whose decision it was to invite the Homosexual Men's Choir to sing at Temple Square. My instinct is that it was not the First Presidency. Therefore, I feel reasonably free to criticize such a decision, and my inclination is to criticize it quite vigorously...

I find this comment very silly. If the first presidency was against such an action, it would not have happened. Either they supported it or didn’t think it was a big deal.

[prisonchaplain]

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

In the first Vision God called all the existing churches wrong... and that their creeds were an abomination.  Note the word "Abomination" that is some of the strongest language the Lord has ever used against a group people.

Yet we often work with other churches.  . . .

SHHH!!! They don't all know that @prisonchaplain is a Gentile...and a clergymen. 

 

... I can see it now:  Meet T H E   A B O M I N A B L E   P R I S O N C H A P L A I N ! ! !  🙂

[Guest MormonGator]

36 minutes ago, Vort said:

You do not have to be LDS to go to BYU, though about 99% of the student body is. It's largely a self-selecting organization. I assume, though am not absolutely sure, that an atheist could attend BYU. Why s/he would want to is another, much more difficult, question.

Thanks. Like I said, I had no idea.
I'm also sure an atheist could attend BYU, but like you I have no idea why they'd want to. I think the atheists who do attend BYU are the ones who are "in the closet". 

 

42 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m referring to an invited speaker 

Maybe they'd be invited in the name of free speech? Again, I don't know-I didn't go there. It troubles me a bit for any college just to invite people who the student body will agree with. After all, a university shouldn't be an echo chamber. This goes for far left colleges too of course. 

[NeuroTypical]

https://prd.endorse.byu.edu/

Quote

All students applying to a Church Educational System school, which includes Brigham Young University, Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Brigham Young University-Idaho, and LDS Business College, are required to have an Ecclesiastical Endorsement.

 

59 minutes ago, Vort said:

An Al-Anon Choir would not be putting forth alcohol consumption as a desirable end or suggesting that intoxication was somehow good.

Quick pedantic point of order: Alcoholics Anonymous, or AA, is for alcoholics trying to be better.  Al-Anon is for spouses and loved ones of alcoholics, trying to be healthy and make healthy relationship choices.

(Hey, don't look at me, I just know things.)

Edited November 1, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

50 minutes ago, Fether said:

53 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Can an atheist even go to BYU? I thought you had to be an active LDS to go? Remember, I never went there. 

I’m referring to an invited speaker 

Has there ever been one?  I'm not sure there has.   Certainly, not one coming to speak on the subject of religion.

The most extreme I've heard, was when they had Baptist reverend Al Mohler coming to speak on the subject of religious liberty back in '14.   “I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together."   It was quite controversial.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It was quite controversial.

I imagine so. And that's okay. Eventually you will encounter "controversial" ideas/thoughts and you better find out how to deal with them. We don't our side to become snowflakes. 

[Midwest LDS]

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Maybe they'd be invited in the name of free speech? Again, I don't know-I didn't go there. It troubles me a bit for any college just to invite people who the student body will agree with. After all, a university shouldn't be an echo chamber. 

It's not a echo chamber (although I'm sure there is some restriction on who can give a speech). I remember when I attended, Senator Harry Reid was invited to speak. A lot of students attended and he was relatively well received.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Fether]

49 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Has there ever been one?  I'm not sure there has.   Certainly, not one coming to speak on the subject of religion.

I don’t think there has been, and after posting that, I realize they are different situations and non-comparable.

[Nissan]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Call me new fashion or whatever. But to me, complaining about a gay choir singing on temple square is as silly as complaining about an atheist speaking at BYU, or the church hosting a night of friendship where speakers from all faiths gather together to speak. Active homosexuals aren’t devil-cheatonyourwife-rapechildren-evil, it is keep-you-from-Christ-evil. And so are MANY organizations and religions we are actively inviting to and participating in events with.

To me this is a great example of being in the world, but not of it. 

Perhaps I’m jaded due to my close LGBTQ+ family ties 🤷🏻‍♂️

It's not on temple square, it's at the DC Temple Visitor's Center.

[Nissan]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I find this comment very silly. If the first presidency was against such an action, it would not have happened. Either they supported it or didn’t think it was a big deal.

I disagree. To suggest they supported it, is to believe that they have way, way more control than they do.

They are very, very busy; they do things like any good CEO does-put who they believe are competent people in charge of different swim lanes and let them work within that swim lane. Occasionally they might step in-but that is going to be occasionally. We seem to think way more in this Church is directly controlled by the 1stP vs. what is actually controlled by them.

[Nissan]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Those choirs are organizations that seek to harm others. Homosexuals are out to do as much harm as heterosexuals.

This is incorrect.

It all comes down to a world-view; is it inborn or is it learned behavior. If it is inborn then there is nothing we can do so whatever.

If it is learned however . . . .that brings a whole slew of other questions.  I believe it is learned-why? Because throughout history and time, different cultures and different societies have had different levels of homosexuality.  We see it in our own culture-as homosexuality has gained more acceptance-more people identify as homosexuals.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Neither is the Catholic Church or evangelicals... yet we invite them to events all the time.

So, then, your contention is that the practicing of homosexuality is essentially equivalent to the practice of religion.

I disagree.

2 hours ago, Fether said:

You can’t possibly be so blinded by your own opinion to not see how adultery harms more people than homosexuality.

You are mistaken. I am indeed so "blinded". Or perhaps it is you, not me, who is blinded so badly as not to be able to see something obvious: The practice of homosexuality destroys the precious souls of men at least as efficiently as, if not more than, heterosexual fornication.

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I find this comment very silly. If the first presidency was against such an action, it would not have happened. Either they supported it or didn’t think it was a big deal.

Do you really and honestly believe that the First Presidency personally approves every decision made by, for example, the Tabernacle Choir management? I find that belief to be, as you word it, silly.