NeuroTypical

Queer sister speaks at 2021 BYU Women's Conference

Recommended Posts

Quote

How are you teaching young women that you work with and serve with to be more inclusive?

I wonder if next year they will invite a 'sister wife' to speak to the audience as well, I mean in the spirit of inclusiveness and such.


 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"At the end of the day, we are all children of God...The heavenly Father I know and the Savior I believe in would never tell a mother to turn her back on their [sic] child."

True words. True for lesbian children, and equally true for rapist children, murdering children, children who feel the urge to molest babies, children who bite off their own fingers, children who torture small animals, and so forth. Mother love is not stopped by such things; on the other hand, such things are not sanctified by mother love. So what, exactly, was her point? Do we have a problem in the Church with mothers not loving their children because of their children's moral struggles? I doubt it.

"I am queer [i.e. a lesbian]." She was thanked for saying that. What if she had said, "I am sexually attracted to little girls"? "I like to have intimate relations with dogs"? "I masturbate continually, as much as I possibly can, even in public (but I try to be discreet)"? What would have been the response? "I'm so happy you said that. I just loved your introduction."

And this is at BYU, folks. Brigham Young University. I am left shaking my head and pretty much speechless.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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

I wonder if next year they will invite a 'sister wife' to speak to the audience as well, I mean in the spirit of inclusiveness and such.

It's high time we dropped our silly prejudice and bigotry toward those who sin differently from us, or who just love differently from us. Why shouldn't we have a sister wife explain the glory and subtle, humanizing attraction of being married to a man with other wives? Who are we to say such a thing is "bad" or "wrong"? When will we be enlightened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vort said:

"At the end of the day, we are all children of God...The heavenly Father I know and the Savior I believe in would never tell a mother to turn her back on their [sic] child."

True words. True for lesbian children, and equally true for rapist children, murdering children, children who feel the urge to molest babies, children who bite off their own fingers, children who torture small animals, and so forth. Mother love is not stopped by such things; on the other hand, such things are not sanctified by mother love. So what, exactly, was her point? Do we have a problem in the Church with mothers not loving their children because of their children's moral struggles? I doubt it.

It's sad that so many of the rising generation equate acceptance and tolerance for love. That when a parent tells their child they are doing something wrong, that they do not really love them.

I have a family member who smokes...a lot. If I truly love him, should I allow him to smoke in my home as much as he wants, whenever he wants, around anyone that may also be in the home. Of course not...and he does not expect me or anyone else to. The same scenario applies to homosexuals. But they just can't seem to get over the idea that we can not tolerate their behavior, and yet still love them at the same time. The adversary is cunning and disguises many of his worst works as love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Vort said:

...What if she had said, "I am sexually attracted to little girls"? "I like to have intimate relations with dogs"? "I masturbate continually, as much as I possibly can, even in public (but I try to be discreet)"? What would have been the response? "I'm so happy you said that. I just loved your introduction."

Sadly, this is the current view amongst some in the world today, and it will not be many years before this narrative will be openly pushed to the masses. After all, they were born that way, so why should we stop them from their pursuit of true happiness? God meant for them to be like that; He must truly love them for who they are, and so we should not judge them. If a child says they are transgender we should quickly give them hormone injections as young children to fix God's mistakes. Then, we can watch as they commit suicide as teens and young adults because their life couldn't possibly be more backwards and messed up.

It is crap like this that at times makes me want to sign up to colonize Mars...just to get away from all the derangement and delirium we have on earth right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of the general notions being presented here:

- There are such things as celibate gay folk in the church, out doing what God wants of them, worthy of holding temple recommends.  They get to say it out loud.
- A nonheterosexual orientation or preference, can be so deeply rooted as to be considered part of your nature.  Yeah, your 'natural man' nature, but still, your nature.
- Nobody knows how to treat gay people who want to do the best they can to be good followers of Christ. 

We're assuming that she's not a practicing lesbian.  She isn't saying it clearly, but she is being presented as a member in full fellowship.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

"I am queer [i.e. a lesbian]." She was thanked for saying that. What if she had said, "I am sexually attracted to little girls"? "I like to have intimate relations with dogs"? "I masturbate continually, as much as I possibly can, even in public (but I try to be discreet)"? What would have been the response? "I'm so happy you said that. I just loved your introduction."

Vort, you seem to be making the age-old mistake of equating a sinful nature with sinful behavior.  The oldest church publication about homosexuality I own is from the 1960's, and even back then, they drew the line between the two pretty darn clearly.

Saying "I am queer" is not the same as saying "I like to have intimate relations with dogs".  It's not the same as proudly bragging about sinful behavior.  You're waaay too bright to not understand that. 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Why shouldn't we have a sister wife explain the glory and subtle, humanizing attraction of being married to a man with other wives?

Again, standing there saying "I'm queer" is not the same as saying "I'm in open defiance of church teaching on the family."   Dang dood, you're better than this!

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


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

That when a parent tells their child they are doing something wrong, that they do not really love them.

What's this girl doing wrong?   

Again:  Bein' gay and actin' gay are two different things.  Aren't they?
 

Share this post


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

Saying "I am queer" is not the same as saying "I like to have intimate relations with dogs".

Then what is it saying? Is it not saying, "I am a woman who likes to romantically kiss and rub genitals with another woman"? Or does "queer" have another 21st-century meaning that I missed?

And as I have said many, many times before, if non-practicing homosexuals (that is, celibate homosexuals who live the law of chastity by abstaining from sexual gratification) are to be not merely embraced, but encouraged to talk about their proclivities, then the same must be true for non-practicing pedophiles. If homosexuals comprise 2% of the population, I bet pedophiles are not far removed from that number. Where is the demand for tolerance and love for our brothers and sisters who might happen to be attracted to prepubescents?

Which goes to show: This is not about tolerance or love or being Christ-like. This is about demanding acceptance of immoral sexual behavior. And if it continues, the pedophiles need not despair, because their turn in the victim seat is fast arriving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Then what is it saying? Is it not saying, "I am a woman who likes to romantically kiss and rub genitals with another woman"? Or does "queer" have another 21st-century meaning that I missed?

"I'm not that good of a husband, but I'm trying."
"I'm an alcoholic, 35 years sober next month."
Brigham Young: "I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself. But there is not a man in the world who cannot overcome his passion, if he will struggle earnestly to do so."

Random girl: "I'm queer, but I'm doing my best to be a good disciple of Christ."

You sure she's that different?

Share this post


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

if non-practicing homosexuals (that is, celibate homosexuals who live the law of chastity by abstaining from sexual gratification) are to be not merely embraced, but encouraged to talk about their proclivities, then the same must be true for non-practicing pedophiles.

I must have missed where this girl "talked about her proclivities".  Can you point to the timestamp where that happened?

Share this post


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

"I'm not that good of a husband, but I'm trying."
"I'm an alcoholic, 35 years sober next month."
Brigham Young: "I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself. But there is not a man in the world who cannot overcome his passion, if he will struggle earnestly to do so."

Random girl: "I'm queer, but I'm doing my best to be a good disciple of Christ."

You sure she's that different?

"I'm queer" was said in the same sentence as "I'm a daughter" and "I'm a child of God" and "I'm a young women's president". It was merely a morally neutral descriptor of just another part of her personality.

I don't expect this sister to go around apologizing for her lesbian impulses. That's none of my business, and I don't want it to be. Rather, I expect her to do what everyone else does: Not talk about her weaknesses in public unless they're actually relevant to the discussion. And when she does feel the need to discuss her weaknesses, she should take care not to try to portray those weaknesses as acceptable or herself as a victim of everyone else because of her weaknesses. I would expect no less of the reformed alcoholic, the smoker, or the guy who swears a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't expect this sister to go around apologizing for her lesbian impulses. That's none of my business, and I don't want it to be. Rather, I expect her to do what everyone else does: Not talk about her weaknesses in public unless they're actually relevant to the discussion. And when she does feel the need to discuss her weaknesses, she should take care not to try to portray those weaknesses as acceptable or herself as a victim of everyone else because of her weaknesses. I would expect no less of the reformed alcoholic, the smoker, or the guy who swears a lot.

This was poorly thought out. In fact, my beef is not with the woman who announced her homosexuality. She was simply doing as she had been asked to do. My beef is with the BYU faculty and administrators who thought it would be a wonderful idea to have this woman stand in front of the student body in a women's conference and announce it. What were they thinking? And what is wrong with the BYU administration that would allow such a thing to happen rather than being nipped in the bud?

Share this post


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

"I'm not that good of a husband, but I'm trying."
"I'm an alcoholic, 35 years sober next month."
Brigham Young: "I will say, there is not a man in this house who has a more indomitable and unyielding temper than myself. But there is not a man in the world who cannot overcome his passion, if he will struggle earnestly to do so."

Random girl: "I'm queer, but I'm doing my best to be a good disciple of Christ."

You sure she's that different?

Well, hang on a sec. ;) I think there’s a subtle difference between “I have a sinful nature, but I have faith that in Christ Jesus I can overcome it; and I look forward to a day when my nature is no longer sinful” versus “I have a sinful nature, and that’s basically OK, and while I will leave it ambiguous as to whether I plan to ever act out or not, I will under the guise of ‘testimony’, pooh-pooh the idea that the sinful elements of my nature need to or can change whether now or in the eternities”.

Your hypothetical bad husband/alcoholic (or your real-life Brigham Young) are firmly in the first category.  Where does the BYU speaker fall?

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Then what is it saying? Is it not saying, "I am a woman who likes to romantically [ahem . . . interact] with another woman"? Or does "queer" have another 21st-century meaning that I missed?

“Queer” can have a lot of meanings, and as near as I can tell the speaker here doesn’t specify the term’s definition as it applies to herself.  As I understand it, it can run the gamut from “sort of bisexual, sometimes” to “heterosexual and cisgender, but into cross-dressing” to “likes kink” to “basically normal, but too Woke to be ordinary and therefore desperately engaging in drama queenery in hopes that someone will Notice Me.” 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:
  Quote

And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.

  --  D&C 82:22

I confess, I have never understood this verse of scripture. Luke 16:9 introduces the idea of making friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. The context is the parable of the unjust steward, which concludes:

And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

In these words, the Lord seems to be teaching, perhaps ironically, that if you're going to be wicked, make friends with your fellow wicked people, who will then give you place with them in their (and your) damnation. This seems to echo the Lord's teaching that he would have us either hot or cold, so that we have place with one side or the other.

But the context in the Doctrine and Covenants is the Lord's commandment that the Saints form a "United Firm" (later called an Order) for the purpose of managing their efforts at publishing and their mercantile endeavors. In that context, it sounds suspiciously like the Lord is saying, "Make friends with the world and the worldly so they don't reject you."

I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand, it seems good common sense not to rile up your neighbors needlessly. Why make enemies if you can be friends? On the other hand, we should never join the worldly in their worldliness; that much is crystal clear from all scripture and prophetic teachings. Yet when hatred and persecution over plural marriage threatened the very foundation of the Church, Wilford Woodruff led the Saints in abandoning the practice—a practice which had set the Saints apart in their own eyes and in the eyes of the world, a practice which those Saints clung to even in the face of death, a practice which they were convinced came from God and made them holy before him. And President Woodruff made no bones about the reason he was ending plural marriage. He didn't claim that "the time has come" or that "the purposes of God have been fulfilled" or anything of the sort. He said in plain words that if the Saints continued to live this commandment of God, they would be jailed, the Church would be disincorporated, and the work of salvation on both sides of the veil would cease.

So was the ending of plural marriage really just a concession to the wicked United States of America? Some have claimed so, and cite the 1978 Priesthood revelation as yet another caving in to public demands. I have never believed that. I still do not. But it's not easy to argue that it's impossible, given what happened with plural marriage.

In some deep recess of my carnal mind, I wonder: Is the Church actually softening on the issue of homosexuality in order to "make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness"? I cringe at the very thought. This is an almost literal offering of our own children to Baal or Dagon or the Aztec gods. I cannot believe it is so, and for that reason I reject the thought. But it's clear that I do not understand what this verse means, or the mind of God in directing his children.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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

Worth noting that her inviter was the Relief Society General Presidency second counselor.

Yes. Though participating in a "BYU" Women's Conference the guest is on stage with the entire RS Gen. Presidency, and by association endorsed by them 'all'. 
So, it is beyond the point of what was BYU thinking, but rather... what was the RSGP thinking? No really... what were they thinking?

They could have brought any of the other 30,000 YW presidents from around the world, BUT they specifically brought her there like some kind of show pony because she is "Queer". 
She didn't say anything about hoping to overcome her queerness with the help and strength in the Lord, rather she wore it like a badge while the other two just stood there and one gave her praise. Unfortunately, this was like watching the RSGP give Caitlyn Jenner the Arthur Ashe Courage award. 

I'm saddened by their actions and troubled by the direction I'm afraid some individuals in the Church think we should go.  I'm saddened by members who feel they need to push our leaders to go this direction. 
I feel like I've crossed a moment where I can still be a "Fidei Defensor" but I don't have to agree with the actions of some leaders, especially from those who don't hold any priesthood keys for the actual Church itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Church or work I've always had great relations with anyone who's bothered to tell me that they are gay. If anyone has ever introduced themselves to me by announcing that they are gay or indicating that they struggle with same-sex attraction I usually reply with something like "Oh, you struggle with same-sex attraction? I can relate, I struggle with opposite-sex attraction!".

I believe it's important for them to know that I don't define them by their struggles, and there's no need for them or anyone else to announce them. We can just become great Gospel friends and put our shoulders to the wheel together. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vort said:

"At the end of the day, we are all children of God...The heavenly Father I know and the Savior I believe in would never tell a mother to turn her back on their [sic] child."

True words. True for lesbian children, and equally true for rapist children, murdering children, children who feel the urge to molest babies, children who bite off their own fingers, children who torture small animals, and so forth. Mother love is not stopped by such things; on the other hand, such things are not sanctified by mother love. So what, exactly, was her point? Do we have a problem in the Church with mothers not loving their children because of their children's moral struggles? I doubt it.

"I am queer [i.e. a lesbian]." She was thanked for saying that. What if she had said, "I am sexually attracted to little girls"? "I like to have intimate relations with dogs"? "I masturbate continually, as much as I possibly can, even in public (but I try to be discreet)"? What would have been the response? "I'm so happy you said that. I just loved your introduction."

And this is at BYU, folks. Brigham Young University. I am left shaking my head and pretty much speechless.

Note - I did not watch the video.

If she stated the comment at the beginning of your statement I know ONE reason that she may have said it and a reason why that was approved to be stated.

There is an unfortunate trend in the Church at times for parents to disinherit and disown LGBTQ children.  When a child comes out, or falls into that form of sin, the parents bar contact, and basically tell the child that they no longer want to see them or talk to them.  This has been a discussion point among many in that community who have had troubles within the Church.

It can be a VERY hard thing for parents to deal with.  I have one grandchild (though I suspect another one of mine may also fall into this camp, but they have not said anything to the family as of yet) that is part of the LGBT spectrum.  WE express our love for them and pray that they will stay within the church and the boundaries it has set, but regardless, we still love them as our grandkid.

Not all have done this with their children or grandchildren.  There has been a trend at times, as I said above, to instead think that "tough love" will convince that child to change instead and thus the parents tell them they do not want contact with their child until that child changes.  In many instances, this just pushes the child further away from their family and the church.  I do not feel it does them a service or helps them to remain in the Church.

Unfortunately, for some, it is easier to accept a child who had an abortion, or that is self-abusing (in the true, mental health fashion which means cutting on oneself or other forms of self-abuse in the actual definition of the word traditionally speaking), or other things than it is for them if their child comes out as LGBTQ. 

So, it may not be the reason she said it, but I can see that it could also be at the very heart of why she said it as well as why it was allowed to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the speech sounds doctrinally correct, I didn't hear any errors in it. I don't think the gender or sexual orientation of the person giving the speech is relevant as it neither adds to or detracts from the message. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A somber warning given by Elder Quentin L. Cook back in 2008 as the Church actively fought to keep marriage between a man and a woman - only. 

Quote

Some ask, what is wrong when marriage is granted to those of the same gender as was done by the California supreme court, I've already stated one reason, it is contrary to God's plan...

... in addition the courts decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberty, freedom of association and free speech rights. The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost, society will become more and more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family...

...people and private institutions with beliefs that oppose same sex marriage will be increasingly labeled as intolerant and subjected to legal penalties or social ostracism 

Welcome to 2021 my friends.
A time where members of the Church, a mere 13 years later, now label other members of Church who don't cater to the LGBTQ community as being intolerant, behind the times and unloving to all of "God's children". 

 

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