NeuroTypical

Queer sister speaks at 2021 BYU Women's Conference

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, dprh said:

Dude, I even admitted that there was a semantics issue.  I'll repeat my question.  Can you see a difference between feeling bad about doing something bad and feeling like you are bad?

Sure. That doesn't mean it's always wrong to feel like you've been bad. Sometimes you have been bad. That should be recognized and acknowledged.

41 minutes ago, dprh said:

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth.  You pick one piece of my post, come up with extreme examples and extrapolate conclusions.  These are the types of responses that make this forum a less-than-welcoming place sometimes.  

Thanks for all the fish.

I realize my attempts at silly humor don't always come across as such. My comment above was meant humorously, not cuttingly.

The "extreme examples" are there because I want to point out a fundamental flaw in the thinking. If you just redefine away problems and state that thus-and-such condition does not exist because you refuse to acknowledge the wording, you haven't actually solved any problems. You're just playing word games.

If "bad man" has no meaning, then what we're really doing is reassigning the meaning of "bad man" to something else, like "man who makes bad choices and ends up doing horrific things" or "poor, messed-up guy who takes pleasure in inflicting pain". How is that any better than simply saying "bad man"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much has been said in this thread.

Sometimes I think a new approach needs to be done by the membership in the US in general.  Today, the general approach is to focus solely on one specific sin or the other and exclude the rest of the commandment that the sin is part of or included with.  This applies today to the Law of Chastity.

This thread can be shown to be an example of it.  Not all the posts, but many, focus only one one part of the Law of Chastity, that of homosexual relations.  This is more a cultural thing (at least my thoughts are that it is) among members. 

I feel that instead of focusing on whether someone is attracted to others of the same gender or sex, we need to instead focus on the Law of Chastity itself.  It has a wide envelop.  The basic idea is that there are NO Sexual relations outside the boundaries the Lord has set, primarily meaning that there is NO relations of that sort outside of the ordained bonds of marriage, which means that such relations are only allowed in marriages between a man and woman.  

This does not mean people will not have feelings stirred inside of them in this regard.  WE DO counsel youth regularly in regards to this.  MANY of them feel such things towards others.  To feel such things is normal, however, we also counsel them that they NEED to curb these emotions so that they keep the Law of Chastity strictly and only use the power of procreation within the confines of what is now known as traditional marriage.  We have speakers talk to them about this, we have others talk to them about this. 

There are many angles to cover this from.  There are those that have attraction to those of the same sex as they are.  They can be told that this is normal for some people, but that does not make them bad or terrible anymore than any other youth or individual who also has attractions to others.  They are still loved and are still our Father's children.  They NEED to keep these feelings in check though, and the only permissible outlet is that set by the Lord.

We DO have talks and other items that discuss the attraction others have to each other, especially in a heterosexual manner.  We talk about the attraction and the feelings that go with it.  We do not preach that it is a sin to simply have these feelings, but we do teach that we must CONTROL these feelings and the actions that go along with it. 

There is a great problem within the church today.  A study many years ago now showed that 25% of seminary students had premarital relations.  This is a seriously bad number.  This was over a decade ago.  I can only imagine the numbers are worse today.  When I was in leadership, I saw this firsthand.  We have a MUCH bigger problem with premarital relations of an inappropriate type among your youth in regards to those of the opposite sex than we do with those who are homosexual.  Both can be a problem, but I see the problems with the Law of Chastity currently as a massive problem among our youth and most of those are NOT regarding Homosexual attractions.

It used to be taught that Adultery was a sin second to murder, and fornication was like unto it.  They were silent on how homosexual sins fell into this.  This was probably for good reason, as the bigger problems the youth had was in relation to fornication or the steps that eventually lead to it.

Sometimes, unfortunately, church members are only focusing on the smaller problems of same sex attraction these days.  However, the problem is FAR bigger, and many of our youth are falling into sins which have them breaking the Law of Chastity.  We need to teach them more about keeping the Law of Chastity and the blessings that come from it. 

We also need to teach acceptance of others and to Love our Neighbors as ourselves.  (Side note about this:  A thought occurred to me the other day; If we really loved our Neighbors in that manner, a Christian nation could instantly eliminate poverty, hunger, and homelessness overnight.  There would be no need for welfare or Social Security. The fact that we have not shows just how Christian or UnChristian we really are).  WE do not love the sin, we love the sinner.

We also need to understand that people are at different stages of learning and advancement in this life.  When others struggle with various areas of the Law of Chastity, instead of instant condemnation, we should approach it with understanding and love to encourage the person to overcome these problems and have a more solid commitment to be faithful in their life.  They need encouragement at their low points, and help in becoming better people.

I think we underestimate how much compassion and love can go to encouraging the youth today (and I suppose that also includes young adults who would be the audiences at BYU today for the most part) to keep the Law of Chastity and stay on the Covenant Path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not all the posts, but many, focus only one one part of the Law of Chastity, that of homosexual relations.

That is literally the topic of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

We also need to teach acceptance of others and to Love our Neighbors as ourselves.  (Side note about this:  A thought occurred to me the other day; If we really loved our Neighbors in that manner, a Christian nation could instantly eliminate poverty, hunger, and homelessness overnight.  There would be no need for welfare or Social Security. The fact that we have not shows just how Christian or UnChristian we really are

Exactly. Everyone loves to show off how “Christian” they are, then when you ask them to turn the other cheek or to pray for those that persecute you, well, those verses are misunderstood anyway.

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

There is a great problem within the church today.  A study many years ago now showed that 25% of seminary students had premarital relations.  This is a seriously bad number.  This was over a decade ago.  I can only imagine the numbers are worse today.  When I was in leadership, I saw this firsthand.  We have a MUCH bigger problem with premarital relations of an inappropriate type among your youth in regards to those of the opposite sex than we do with those who are homosexual.  Both can be a problem, but I see the problems with the Law of Chastity currently as a massive problem among our youth and most of those are NOT regarding Homosexual attractions.

In our ward and stake we actually don't have this problem, but the opposite (at least as far as youth/parents report it to their Bishops). Pre-marital sex is way down amongst heterosexual youth. The only ones that seem to be engaging in sex are those that claim to be gay. Our straight boys have 2 main problems - pornography, and slothfulness. All they do is watch anime and porn, and play video games. Zero ambition to do anything with their lives. The girls have more problems surrounding mental health and abuse of various kinds - depression, anxiety, alcohol, drugs, cutting, etc... Porn use amongst young women is also rising.

The number of youth in our stake/area going on dates, and even interacting with the opposite sex, is falling. A counselor in our Stake Presidency is a High School principal, and he has said over the last 5-6 years that attendance at school dances has dropped off significantly. Our priests quorum has 14 relatively active boys, and only 2 of them have ever been on a date. The world is not teaching our youth the proper fundamentals of interacting with the opposite sex...it is teaching the exact opposite of what should be done. Women are taught that men and the patriarchy are dangerous and abusive, and will hold them back; and men are taught that women are a useless waste of time and money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Women are taught that men and the patriarchy are dangerous and abusive, and will hold them back; and men are taught that women are a useless waste of time and money.

You mean like this?

http://www.lanet.lv/users/judrups/Humor/chemelem.html

NOTE: The website title says "Women".  But the "Man: a Chemical Analysis" follows at the bottom.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@scottyg

To be fair, as a young man in Catholic school we were lectured to quite frequently that we were sinful, lecherous, lazy, immature...while women were virtuous, mannerly, pure, wonderful...it got old.  It also got a little silly, if I’m being honest. We’d make jokes about it, even the girls would.
 

The staff and church leadership at the school was too (Naive? Clueless? Politically correct? Stupid?) to see that girls would tease one another into eating disorders and also pressure the boys for sexual activity. 

No, I have no idea how LDS teach their kids simply because I’m not a parent. But, if you constantly tell me how bad I am don’t be shocked when I act that way. After all, I’m just doing what you said and what you expect. So....
 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every gay person (adults) in the Church is “struggling” with same sex attraction. They are aware of their feelings and they ACCEPT IT and continue LIVING. It is not a constant battle for many and they don’t want to be seen as addicts “recovering” or “struggling”.

In my line of work, I see young men and young women struggling to feel they’re not broken, and seeking (desperately in some instances) the tender love of a mother and father. They long for support from parents and family.  

Sometimes they do have understanding parents who are cognizant of the difference between loving their child and supporting a lifestyle they don’t believe in. Many parents believe that showing any kind of care or concern for their child is automatically a way to support homosexuality. They use these weapons to manipulate their vulnerable son/daughter. When it doesn’t work out, a few of these parents clearly state that their child is now dead.

I see adults as well and many in our Church.  The experience is a bit different, they are more grounded and they know where they’re standing.  Most of them do want to remain in the Church and they are very much aware that they might not be able to find an eternal companion - but just like Liv, they work every day to be better disciples of Christ. They have callings, they help those in need, they go to the Temple, and they are supported by their leaders. They are in good standing with the Lord and yet… time after time a few people within the Church shows them it is NOT good enough and never will be even if the Almighty God says they can enter His house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie said:

Not every gay person (adults) in the Church is “struggling” with same sex attraction. They are aware of their feelings and they ACCEPT IT and continue LIVING. It is not a constant battle for many and they don’t want to be seen as addicts “recovering” or “struggling”.

. . .

I see adults as well and many in our Church.  The experience is a bit different, they are more grounded and they know where they’re standing.  Most of them do want to remain in the Church and they are very much aware that they might not be able to find an eternal companion - but just like Liv, they work every day to be better disciples of Christ. They have callings, they help those in need, they go to the Temple, and they are supported by their leaders. They are in good standing with the Lord and yet… time after time a few people within the Church shows them it is NOT good enough and never will be even if the Almighty God says they can enter His house.

 

Suzie, I hope what you say is true.  

But the thing is, for the last thirty years the party line has been that what you describe—a LGBTQ individual finding contented fulfillment in a lifelong commitment to celibacy—is emotionally, psychologically, neurologically, evolutionarily impossible. 

And a lot of us are kinda wondering why it’s so desperately important for us to know that a person is deeply tempted to commit a sin he has sworn never to commit, unless he indeed characterizes the issue as a “struggle” and wants third parties to support him in that struggle. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAG, before I make any assumptions... what do you mean exactly by "you hope what I say is true"?

I can only speak from my experience. A lot of these members grew up in the Church and they cannot conceive a life without the Gospel. As you know, many are returned missionaries and many are serving missions currently. They accept who they are, they don’t see it as an identify flaw and this is one of the reasons why we hear from missionaries in the field and people like Liv describing themselves as gay.

 Of course, the journey is unique to each individual particularly when they are young teenagers. Teenagers struggle in understanding why this is happening, it is a very lonely road filled with anxiety and fears because they do not want to lose their parent’s love.

JAG, we can argue/debate the psychology behind celibacy and whether or not it is possible or impossible to find fulfillment in a lifelong commitment to it but this isn’t the purpose of my post. My purpose is to show that we find criticism EVEN in the scenario of a gay member living the Gospel and being in good standing with the Lord (holding a Temple recommend).  Some members will always seem them as pariahs. We can do better.

 

Note: My apologies, I cannot use the quotation feature for some reason and I have no idea why the font is like this.

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Suzie said:

[1]Before I make any assumptions, what do you mean exactly?

[2]I can only speak from my experience. A lot of these members grew up in the Church, and they cannot conceive a life without the Gospel. As you know, many are returned missionaries and others are serving missions currently. They accept who they are, they don't see it as an identity flaw and this is one of the reasons why we hear from missionaries in the field and people like Liv, describing themselves as gay.

[3]Of course, the journey is unique to each individual particularly when they are young teenagers. Teenagers struggle in understanding why this is happening, it is a very lonely road filled with anxiety and fears because they don't want to lose their parent's love.

[4]JAG, we can argue/debate the psychology behind celibacy and whether or not it is possible to find fulfillment in a lifelong commitment to it, but this isn't the purpose of my post. My purpose is to show that we find criticism EVEN in the scenario of a gay member living the Gospel and being in good standing with the Lord (holding a Temple Recommend). Some members will always seem them as pariahs. We can do better. 

1.  I was referring specifically to the parts of your post that I had quoted.  I hope many LGBTQ members are enjoying happy, fulfilling lives by seeking to be disciples of Christ and earnestly striving to follow all His commandments, not excluding (and of course, not limited to) the Law of Chastity.  

2.  The thing is, while I acknowledge that their situations are unique—they are not the only people who struggle with some kind of propensity for sin.  What other group of people in the Church who are afflicted with a common weakness, have ever sought validation for the weakness itself and affirmed a hope that the weakness—even if not acted upon—remain a part of their mortal identity?  Porn users like myself, don’t.  Habitual cussers (also like myself), don’t.  Bad spouses and inadequate parents (also like myself), don’t.  Drug users, don’t.  People who are attracted to children, don’t.  Where is the theological or ecclesiastical precedent for this?

3.  Yes, but teenagers have walked this road through time immemorial; including in the 1970s and 1980s when Church leaders and institutions were saying and doing some very shocking things.  Yet the suicide epidemic came, not in 1975 or 1985; but in the early 2000s as the gay rights movement caught fire.

The trauma isn’t in being taught sound doctrine or being held to the behavioral norms that logically flow from that doctrine.  The trauma is in the tension between sound doctrine on the one hand, versus distorted definitions of self-worth and self-fulfillment and the meaning of life on the other hand.

4.  I didn’t think we needed to debate the question of whether lifelong fulfillment can be found in celibacy, because your last post seemed to acknowledge—indeed, seemed premised upon—the idea that this is something that is indeed happening in the Church on a widespread basis. 

To the extent that a truly committed, obedient, chaste person finds ostracism in the LDS community upon announcing themselves as LGBTQ and insisting that they have no inclination to have that change—the result, I think, isn’t a factor of cultural homophobia.  It’s a factor of the generalized LDS belief that it is both possible and imperative to use the Atonement to at least try to change one’s sinful nature; in conjunction with a sense of bewilderment as to why someone wouldn’t even try to use the Atonement to at least hope for a purification of their nature, while still demanding the privilege of acceptance in a community that is under covenant to do just that. 
 

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But the thing is, for the last thirty years the party line has been that what you describe—a LGBTQ individual finding contented fulfillment in a lifelong commitment to celibacy—is emotionally, psychologically, neurologically, evolutionarily impossible. 

Well, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here, I'm not even sure which party is producing the line you're citing.  But I do know that "B" stands for "Bisexual", meaning, can be attracted to either sex.  One would think an acceptable temple sealing could result in such a case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I hope our heterosexual members of the Church are enjoying happy, fulfilling lives by seeking to be disciples of Christ and earnestly striving to follow all His commandments, not excluding (and of course, not limited to) the Law of Chastity.  

2.  No one denies the fact that ALL of us struggle with weaknesses but JAG, individuals in a few of these groups made a choice. (no judging, but making a distinction). How come gay members of the Church  are in the same group when they didn't choose who to feel attracted to but instead always felt that way? How is this group seeking validation?

3. Perhaps because they were brainwashed to believe there was something wrong with them and they were given electroconvulsive therapy, conversion therapy or implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of their brain? Or because they were too scared to say "I am gay" and they lived "in the closet" until they died?

Why should they have an inclination to "change"? To change what exactly?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, I'm speaking from a position of ignorance here, I'm not even sure which party is producing the line you're citing.  But I do know that "B" stands for "Bisexual", meaning, can be attracted to either sex.  One would think an acceptable temple sealing could result in such a case...

Granted as to bisexual folk (but then, why would they need the Church to acknowledge or accommodate them at all, if they can happily be in a straight marriage?  It’s like me insisting the Church acknowledge that I could get very rich in a life of crime, while ostensibly declaring that I have no intent to ever break the law.  I could do it, but . . . why?)

But otherwise—You’ve never, ever, in decades of online discussion participation, seen someone suggest that the Church’s demand that gay folks *not* participate in gay sex is contrary to their emotional, psychological, or even neurological health?

Is that what I am to understand you to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Suzie said:

1. I hope our heterosexual members of the Church are enjoying happy, fulfilling lives by seeking to be disciples of Christ and earnestly striving to follow all His commandments, not excluding (and of course, not limited to) the Law of Chastity.  

2.  No one denies the fact that ALL of us struggle with weaknesses but JAG, individuals in a few of these groups made a choice. (no judging, but making a distinction). How come gay members of the Church  are in the same group when they didn't choose who to feel attracted to but instead always felt that way? How is this group seeking validation?

3. Perhaps because they were brainwashed to believe there was something wrong with them and they were given electroconvulsive therapy, conversion therapy or implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of their brain? Or because they were too scared to say "I am gay" and they lived "in the closet" until they died?

[4]Why should they have an inclination to "change"? To change what exactly?

 

1.  Good.  And of course, heterosexual  LDS members have the advantage that there has not been a broadly publicized, well-funded movement with support in academia and the mental health professions that has specifically targeted LDS youth and insisted that heterosexual Church members will never find fulfillment and meaning within the confines of the law of chastity.

2.  How is a propensity to any sort of behavior a “choice”?  I’ll agree that dispositions or predilections can be reinforced by the consequences of prior behavior—but this is also true to some degree in matters of sexual predisposition; which is one reason that the number of youth identifying as LGBTQ has (IIRC) doubled or tripled over the past fifteen years.  (And also why we’ve seen numerous reports of transgender teens who, once removed from their school peer groups due to COVID, decided that they were actually cisgender after all.) 

Anyone who says “I am this way and I have no need to change, and you need to acknowledge that I have no need to change”, is practically by definition seeking validation.

3.  “Brainwashed”?  There was something wrong with them (and with all of us).  They (and we) want to sin.

And . . . is the modern trend of them just committing suicide, supposed to be better than whatever we had decades ago?  “Better dead than closeted”—is that the mantra now?

And, we’re just going to give a pass to the LGBTQ advocates (and the rest of the proponents of the sexual revolution) who for decades said “your life will never be truly fulfilling or meaningful or worthwhile unless you’re getting laid, when you want, with whoever you want”?  We’re going to rewrite history and pretend that LGBTQ advocates were just fine, all along, with the Church’s insistence on celibacy for gay members; and that it was the big bad Mormon Church telling chaste LGBTQ members that they had no place among us?

4.  The same as the rest of us.  Our hearts.  Our desires.

2 Nephi 4:31-32.  Mosiah 3:19.  Mosiah 5:2.  Alma 5:12-14.

I don’t deny that, especially in matters of sexual orientation, it can be gut-wrenchingly hard (in some cases, impossible in mortality) to completely get there.

But if we don’t want that change, we’re not saints.  And I think the Church membership generally is entitled to know that any given nominal member at least wants it—Mosiah 18:10, and all that.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  The thing is, while I acknowledge that their situations are unique—they are not the only people who struggle with some kind of propensity for sin.  What other group of people in the Church who are afflicted with a common weakness, have ever sought validation for the weakness itself and affirmed a hope that the weakness—even if not acted upon—remain a part of their mortal identity?  Porn users like myself, don’t.  Habitual cussers (also like myself), don’t.  Bad spouses and inadequate parents (also like myself), don’t.  Drug users, don’t.  People who are attracted to children, don’t.  Where is the theological or ecclesiastical precedent for this?

I cannot speak for Suzie, but I have a poor example that may illuminate why this may be. 

I got to learn about many people over a few years in leadership, and several (more than people may think if the ward I was in is any indication of how many are in other wards) individuals that were disabled to various degrees.  Many of them did not let anyone else know and I would not have found out if there had not arisen a situation where they felt I needed to be informed.  Most of them felt (and I actually agree that they were correct in many instances) that the members in many instances would discriminate against them.  If the members found out someone was disabled, that there would be stereotypes tossed at them either consciously or unconsciously.  Some of these would be where, in the instance of physical handicap, that they would not be allowed to help in physical activities and treated as if they were an invalid.  I had seen this actually occur.  We had one individual that was a worker with scouting who, when the other scouting leaders found out that they had physical difficulties, asked that for that individual to be released.  This individual had previously done all that was asked for them to do and was a successful leader.  The difference was the membership wanting to "make their burden easier" whether the individual wanted that to happen or not.

Dealing with this type of discrimination from some members is difficult.  In some ways it feels as if the members do not accept those who have disabilities.  I do not feel it is intentional and many times it is only seeking to try to help the individuals, or at least that is how members see it, but even situations like the one above can feel harsh.  

Other times they literally cannot perform certain callings or do certain things.  However, they have many talents in other areas which sometimes are not realized because they have a physical disability.  This failure to be accepted fully as others can lead to the individual themselves having trouble accepting themselves and their abilities to do things.  This has led many that I found out about their difficulties to hide them from others.

Some do not hide their disabilities.  They acknowledge them openly.  Initially, dealing with others and their life with a disability can be difficult, especially when moving to a new ward.  Not all who do this adapt and some have problems coming to the ward...not because they cannot physically do so, but because the difficulty of facing others who do not recognize what the individual actually can do vs. what they have difficulty doing.  Others flourish.  These openly accept their difficulties and how others may perceive them, but some of them also recognize they have hidden talents and strengths because of these things that others would call disabilities.  They accept it is part of themselves.  Rather than try to do away or hide it, they show that they still can be complete members with the ability to add great meaning to our lives and the lives of others.  The disability they experience in their lives may hinder them in some areas, but it can also be beneficial in others.

As I said, this is a poor example (for starters, because having attractions that differ from others, or temptations that are different than what others may experience is not necessarily a disability or a sin, it is merely different things that they deal with or have in their lives), but in some ways there are similarities that I see between how the two different groups deal with who they are, acceptance of themselves, and acceptance from members.

It is still not a great example, but perhaps it can help illustrate how admitting one has this as part of their lives and talking to others about it may not necessarily be a bad thing, rather it is just something different in their lives that defines them, but does not control them.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I got to learn about many people over a few years in leadership, and several (more than people may think if the ward I was in is any indication of how many are in other wards) individuals that were disabled to various degrees.  Many of them did not let anyone else know and I would not have found out if there had not arisen a situation where they felt I needed to be informed.  Most of them felt (and I actually agree that they were correct in many instances) that the members in many instances would discriminate against them.  If the members found out someone was disabled, that there would be stereotypes tossed at them either consciously or unconsciously.  Some of these would be where, in the instance of physical handicap, that they would not be allowed to help in physical activities and treated as if they were an invalid.  I had seen this actually occur.  We had one individual that was a worker with scouting who, when the other scouting leaders found out that they had physical difficulties, asked that for that individual to be released.  This individual had previously done all that was asked for them to do and was a successful leader.  The difference was the membership wanting to "make their burden easier" whether the individual wanted that to happen or not.

JJ, I don't know if you intended this,  but the take-away from such an experience is that 

1) We all have disabilities of some sort.
B) It would probably be better if we all just did our best to deal with it as much as possible.
Finally) We should be very discriminating when we decide with whom to share our difficulties.

Yet the tone of your post seemed to try to argue that we SHOULD be open with whom we share our difficulties.  Did I misread you?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Granted as to bisexual folk (but then, why would they need the Church to acknowledge or accommodate them at all, if they can happily be in a straight marriage? 

I've documented here why I think the Church is taking an active role in more than acknowledging, but positively spotlighting, LGBT folks, either active members or not.  But if you want a better answer, perhaps listen to the preceding 5 minutes of the video in the OP.  Sister Jean B. Bingham, the general RS president, set the stage like this:

"President Henry B Eyring has said "Even differences can be seen as an opportunity. God will help us see a difference in someone else, not as a source of irritation, but as a contribution." Differences can make our world richer.  When we recognize and celebrate strengths other than our own, we can better accomplish the Lord's work in His way.  Sister Eubank will talk more about seeing beyond differences." 

Then Sister Eubank says "Most of us want to be welcoming.  But sometimes we get tongue tied, or we're afraid of making mistakes, and we just don't know what to say, or how to change the way we respond to people."  Then she cites Matthew 8 as an example of how "it's almost as if Matthew wants to hammer us over the head with this lesson about how revolutionary Jesus was in helping other people belong." She spends a few moments expanding on the theme, then introduces Liv as her friend, and, with all three members of the general RS presidency on stage, talks with her about her highs and lows as an LDS queer woman. 

So, instead of them needing us to "acknowledge or accommodate", the better words seem to be:  They need us to welcome and help them belong, we need to not get irritated by them, but see them as a contribution, finding strengths in them to recognize and celebrate.

So, we should be bending over backwards to accommodate different people, no matter how they're different.  Even if they're gay different.  We should not accommodate sinful behavior.  And since gay different is so new and weird to church culture, our church leaders (at least the general presidency of the Relief Society, all three of 'em), dragged one up on stage to show them to the world and say "Look - not weird!  Look at how strong!  Look at how you people need to change your act in regards to this sister!"

 

Quote

But otherwise—You’ve never, ever, in decades of online discussion participation, seen someone suggest that the Church’s demand that gay folks *not* participate in gay sex is contrary to their emotional, psychological, or even neurological health?

I refer you to my earlier post, linked above.  I think I address things pretty dang clearly, let me know if you'd like clarification.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've documented here why I think the Church is taking an active role in more than acknowledging, but positively spotlighting, LGBT folks, either active members or not.  But if you want a better answer, perhaps listen to the preceding 5 minutes of the video in the OP.  Sister Jean B. Bingham, the general RS president, set the stage like this:

"President Henry B Eyring has said "Even differences can be seen as an opportunity. God will help us see a difference in someone else, not as a source of irritation, but as a contribution." Differences can make our world richer.  When we recognize and celebrate strengths other than our own, we can better accomplish the Lord's work in His way.  Sister Eubank will talk more about seeing beyond differences." 

Then Sister Eubank says "Most of us want to be welcoming.  But sometimes we get tongue tied, or we're afraid of making mistakes, and we just don't know what to say, or how to change the way we respond to people."  Then she cites Matthew 8 as an example of how "it's almost as if Matthew wants to hammer us over the head with this lesson about how revolutionary Jesus was in helping other people belong." She spends a few moments expanding on the theme, then introduces Liv as her friend, and, with all three members of the general RS presidency on stage, talks with her about her highs and lows as an LDS queer woman. 

So, instead of "acknowledge or accommodate", the better words seem to be welcoming and helping different people belong, not getting irritated by them, seeing them as a contribution, finding strengths in the different people to recognize and celebrate.

So, we should be bending over backwards to accommodate different people, no matter how they're different.  Even if they're gay different.  We should not accommodate sinful behavior.  And since gay different is so new and weird to church culture, our church leaders (at least the general presidency of the Relief Society, all three of 'em), dragged one up on stage to show them to the world and say "Look - not weird!  Look at how strong!  Look at how you people need to change your act in regards to this sister!"

What you say above sounds good, NT, but IMO it misses the central point.

Sister Liv has urges to fornicate (with members of her own sex). This is how she casually defines herself—sister, YW leader, queer, daughter of God, likes long hikes and camping, etc. Just another morally neutral descriptor.

So replace "fornicate (with members of her own sex)" with any other carnal urge toward sin, and tell me how people would respond to its usage as a morally neutral descriptor. Try "fornicate with her neighbor's husband", or "molest young children", or "abuse small animals", or "embezzle funds from her employer", or "curse at loved ones when she's not feeling well". None of them really work.

Now, factor in that large swaths of society, including those who call themselves Saints, even on this list, openly advocate for the Church's acceptance of homosexuality. Rather than standing firmly against such agitators and making it clear that we reject all sin in any form, even sin that's currently popular, we instead take a mealy-mouthed approach that doesn't exactly say that homosexuality is okay, but simply avoids the issue of morality and proclaims that homosexuals are people, too!

Duh.

Can you see that being done with those who are sexually attracted to children? With those who have a terrible temper and a propensity toward physical abuse? With those who are prone to lying and deceiving incessantly? With those who struggle with pimping out their daughters? With those who enjoy kicking puppies and are constantly tempted to do so?

The teaching "Homosexually inclined people are children of God and heirs to salvation if they accept Christ" is, I daresay, perfectly fine with and accepted by 98% of Latter-day Saints. Few would argue with it. But it is assumed that the next sentence clarifies, "To accept Christ means to follow his teachings, put off the natural man, and reject carnal actions such as homosexual activity or nurturing homosexual attractions." That latter sentence is missing, and the silence is deafening.

Many young Latter-day Saints are being influenced and deceived by the lies of the political Left. At or near the front of this pack of lies is the lie that homosexuality is morally acceptable, a wonderful expression of human love to be nurtured and encouraged in anyone who claims to feel that way, and that anyone who claims otherwise is a "homophobe" and should be shunned from all polite society (and from all economic participation, as far as possible). Our children are hearing these lies, and many of those precious young people are buying into them. We are literally seeing our children being taken from the truth before our eyes.

So what is our response? Is it to stand firm as an example to our children, to fight the good fight, to reject evil in all its guises? Or is it rather to talk about love and acceptance and tolerance and all the other buzzwords that sound so good but that the political Left has perverted over the last two full generations as shibboleths of political correctness?

Please show me how Sister Liv's open proclamation of her "queerness" and Sister Eubank's subsequent thanks to her make sense in the context of any temptation toward moral perversion, especially sexual perversion, other than homosexuality. If we're talking about a propensity toward sex with little children, are we going to thank people for their bravery in admitting such—especially when their "admission" is really more of a laundry list of personal identifiers? "I'm a son, a brother, a Young Men's president, a man who dreams about sex with little boys, a son of God, and a program manager at work"? How's that going to go over? "Thanks so much for that inspiring introduction, Brother Lyle!" I don't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

So what is our response? Is it to stand firm as an example to our children, to fight the good fight, to reject evil in all its guises? Or is it rather to talk about love and acceptance and tolerance and all the other buzzwords that sound so good but that the political Left has perverted over the last two full generations as shibboleths of political correctness?

It looks like the church has taken the “talk about love and acceptance and tolerance” (your words, not mine) path. They probably won’t switch lanes from that anytime soon.

This presents a challenge to LDS traditionalists. Will they continue to “follow the prophet/church teachings” or not? 
 

It’s also interesting for LDS liberals-this is their moment too. Will they stay in the church as the church becomes more inclusive or will they jump onto the next social cause and leave? 
 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

So what is (my) response? Is it to stand firm as an example to our children, to fight the good fight, to reject evil in all its guises?

Yes, yes and yes. 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Or is it rather to talk about love and acceptance and tolerance and all the other buzzwords that sound so good but that the political Left has perverted over the last two full generations as shibboleths of political correctness?

Bingo. "Perverted" is absolutely correct, to the point that people don't even know up from down any longer as if they were in a mist of darkness.
I don't really care what the 'struggle' is, I just want people, especially "LDS" members who should know better, to:

1. Stop trying to normalize their struggles
2. Stop trying to demand that I, my family, other church members and society in general accept and embrace their struggles or we are some kind of "phobe".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

@Vort, should you ever get the chance to ask one of our church leaders these questions, I hope you decide to do so.  Then come back and tell us what they say!

That's nice, NT, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, I am not on intimate terms with any General Authorities and will almost certainly never get the chance to ask such a question of one of them. But I am interested to hear your answers to my questions and observations, as I put them to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now