As do I. And as does Elder Oaks. His talk doesn't change that.Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death
No, it's not fine. The implication that I am a hateful bigot is as real as the supposed implication that you are a moral coward if you support ssm. That is the other side of this discussion that is not being addressed.
way to project something no one ever said...
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
We're having a respectful conversation here, tooblue. Your first paragraph doesn't jibe with the milieu herein.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
That's my point. You have done a similar thing with Elder Oaks talk.
My comment is an honest expression. There is no malice or disrespect intended. My tone is not harsh. My intent it is to be direct. Elder Oaks did not say that a moral coward is someone who supports ssm. You and others feel that is what he implied. You are entitled to that opinion. I do not think you are sinful or evil for espousing it. However, I am entitled to challenge that opinion with a poster I personally know and trust.
Please don't make an issue out of my supposed tone. I have been bullied enough in these forums.
Last edited by tooblue; 10-11-2013 at 05:03 AM.
I have appreciated the dialogue. I remain concerned with Oaks' comments but dissecting them is necessary.
I have found myself lately not enjoying Oaks as much as I used to. I met him briefly when he came to organize our stake presidency a few years ago. He was very friendly and shook hands with nearly everyone in our stake. He was humble and humorous. After one of the newly called counselors in the stake presidency gushed over him, Oaks rebuked his gushing kindly by commenting that he was just a man and no celebrity. I respect that.
However, his comments this go around and several years ago regarding diversity do not jive with me in a lot of ways. Good people disagree with me on many many things. That is fine. I don't let other people dictate what I believe or how I think. Oaks comments won't keep me in or out of the church. They will, however, reveal the mentality leading the church just as Dieter U's do, and so on and so forth. When I see something that seems inconsistent or worrisome, I don't have any problem questioning it. I'm glad many people here don't either. The discussion stemming from the questioning is awesome.
No. I'm comfortable where I am on same sex marriage and homosexuality. But I don't think the church is. That's why there is a shift taking place. All of this talk of immutability of God's laws sounds too familiar for me to really believe that one day homosexuals won't be more accepted in lds ranks of activity. I don't expect temple marriages but I do believe there will be a softening on the stance that "gay" is absolutely a choice and therefore a sin and that "we should love the sinner and hate the sin" will dissipate somewhat. I do believe that many many gay people are born attracted to the same sex. I have known far too many and seen their journeys to believe that they are just choosing to sin.
I have had a similar experience. Also, I don't remember choosing to be straight; I was born attracted to big boobs.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
What is harmful about homosexual behavior in a loving marriage/committed relationship?
LOL at the thought of tooblue being hateful. He's not mean enough.
Talented? Yes.
Crazy? Sometimes.
Hateful? No.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
Hmmm. Doesn't that describe half the membership of this board? dance.gif
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
LOL! this is true of all persons be they male or female, gay or straight, it is universal of all infants!
Some of us keep the attraction all the days of our lives. I can't recall anything beyond, "damn! Susan Granger's hands sure are soft" in 6th grade.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
Careful, you don't want to hear what Dallin H. Oaks thinks about hand fetishes.
"Unclean hands, impure heart"
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
Fair enough! GO UTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHA! This has me actually laughing outloud in my office.
No need to worry about rejection from the Unitarians. We have no doctrines, only seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
- The inherent dignity and worth of every person.
- Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.
- Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregation.
- A free and responsible search for truth and meaning.
- The right of conscience and the use of democratic process within our congregation and in society at large.
- The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.
- Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
If you make friends with yourself, you will never be alone. -Maxwell Maltz
I think we're already there. The LDS Church said last spring that being gay was not a choice. Having sex outside of marriage, be it gay or not, will remain a sin. As far as I know, you can be a gay member in good standing as long as you are celibate.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
This is merely a transitory state. If you claim sex can only be enjoyed inside of marriage, and then deny marriage to two people because of their orientation, you've changed precious little. It's the same product no matter how you cross it.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
Here is a blog written about an Elder from my mission. He is active LDS, EQ teacher, and "out" as a gay man at work, with his family, and at church. He story is certainly not the story of every gay LDS man, but has strengthened his faith in his church.
http://theabhaus.blogspot.com/2013/1...story.html?m=1
If you make friends with yourself, you will never be alone. -Maxwell Maltz
"I don't know what we should do; what do you think we should do?" Awesome. Heart-breaking too.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
"We accept the Savior's invitation when we ponder and pray on the message of every [General Conference] talk." -- Thomas S. Monson
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
I have been reading through the conference issue of the Ensign this week. The ability to read the talks a few weeks after conference is an excellent opportunity. Some speakers present a challenge to some because of their speaking style, or their age. Someone here mentioned the talk by Elder Hales as being particularly difficult -- boring. When I read the talk, however, I thought the content was brilliant -- a user's guide to general conference.
Unfortunately, some talks seem to lose something in written form. I thought Elder Oaks talk was an example of that. His talk was controversial when given, but when I read it last night and found it to be like a legal document.
Also, unless the speaker says "close quote" at the end of a quote, it is hard for the listener to know when the quote ends. Some might not even realize the speaker was quoting someone. For example, the passage in Oaks talk referring to courage and moral cowardice was in fact a quote from a talk given by President Monson in 1986.
"Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well."
Link:
http://www.lds.org/general-conferenc...courage-counts
When I read that last night I seemed to recall that passage being discussed here. I looked for the quote here today, but didn't find it.
Last edited by USS Utah; 11-22-2013 at 12:47 PM.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
There is plenty of controversial and combative stuff in Oaks' talk.
http://www.lds.org/general-conferenc...-gods?lang=eng
"Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them. And, unlike other organizations that can change their policies and even their doctrines, our policies are determined by the truths God has identified as unchangeable.
"Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and 'in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.' But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called 'same-sex marriage' do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place.
"In this determination we may be misunderstood, and we may incur accusations of bigotry, suffer discrimination, or have to withstand invasions of our free exercise of religion. If so, I think we should remember our first priority—to serve God—and, like our pioneer predecessors, push our personal handcarts forward with the same fortitude they exhibited.
"A teaching of President Thomas S. Monson applies to this circumstance. At this conference 27 years ago, he boldly declared: 'Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but as the determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well.'
"I pray that we will not let the temporary challenges of mortality cause us to forget the great commandments and priorities we have been given by our Creator and our Savior. We must not set our hearts so much on the things of the world and aspire to the honors of men (see D&C 121:35) that we stop trying to achieve our eternal destiny. We who know God’s plan for His children—we who have made covenants to participate in it—have a clear responsibility. We must never deviate from our paramount desire, which is to achieve eternal life. We must never dilute our first priority—to have no other gods and to serve no other priorities ahead of God the Father and His Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ."
The fact remains that Oaks is very explicitly calling me a moral coward for taking a stance other than the position he defines by supporting gay marriage. I am a moral coward for taking a position that decreases the total amount of human suffering. I am a moral coward when I reject the insular group-think and take the kinder, more loving approach. The concept of Jesus in modern western society would tend more toward love, in my estimation.
I agree with Seattle Ute who elsewhere said that this talk was a huge step backward for those of us who would like to see a more 'liberal'* Mormon church.
This is a very direct assault on the ethical beliefs of what must be a consequential percentage of church members.
*as in, the kind which fully accepts those of us who don't fully believe all the church's claims and may have different political views, but stick around because of family or cultural reasons. Not as in the Sean Hannity' s favor epithet.
This religious-freedom tack has been an interesting one to watch, as LDS voices have tried to re-frame themselves as persecuted instead of persecutors (I'm thinking specifically of the gay-marriage debates).
I am just as eager as anyone to preserve religious freedom in this country. However, I find most of the examples of infringement on religious freedom to be unconvincing:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/offici...igious-freedom
http://www.ldsmag.com/1-ac-1/article/10921
http://www.religiousfreedom.org/about_us/
http://blogs.uvu.edu/newsroom/2013/0...-noah-feldman/
Having visited places in the world where there really is a lack of religious freedom (with occasional deadly consequences), I am perhaps not as sympathetic as I should be to the plight of (what appears to me to be barely more than) American religionists catching some negative publicity for their religious views. But I'm open to correction.
I realize that many of the arguments go back (erroneously, IMO) to the views of the Framers of the US Constitution. Thse Founding Fathers arguments are tough for me to swallow, since the Framers of the Constitution never envisioned anything like Medicare, Income Tax, or Women's Suffrage. Notions of "Freedom" change over time. This has generally been a good thing in this country.
Maybe some of the lawyers on the board can inform & convince me why religious freedom in the USA is "imperiled".
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
I wish I could find it now, but in the last few days I read an interesting piece by an Amish fellow addressing this issue. He used the famous example of Amish conscientious objectors, pointing out that there were consequences to claiming that status. That the religious freedom lay in having the ability to opt out, but that many of those who did were given alternate assignments which they were required to perform, often involving hard labor. But it would be crazy, he argued, for a person to claim conscientious objector status and then show up and demand the rank, status and pay check that go along with military service. You have the freedom to opt out, but you don't ALSO get the goodies.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
I would say you already have your answer, and I don't see a point in continuing to ask the question. The bolded portion of your comments above is evidence enough to suggest that religious freedom of expression is imperilled. On this Web site in another forum I once attempted to provide a sincere and more nuanced response from the perspective of a Latter Day Saint who lives in a country as prosperous economically and socially as the United States, but where these discussions have already been had and legislation has already been enacted. I was summarily told I was "this" or "that" in a derogative tone, which effectively ended the discussion. My views, thoughts or feelings on the matter—regardless of message board personas or dynamics—are considered unhelpful and even unduly dangerous. Effectually, I no longer have a voice on the subject. And if I do raise a voice, my words are instantaneously labeled hurtful, harmful and hateful, regardless of my willingness to want to be understood and to want to understand.
My response is not hyperbole. It is an honest reflection on the reality I live. For all the talk of taking steps forward or back there is so little consideration for where one stands at the moment. A lack of empathy, of any kind directed towards any point of view should raise more alarms that it does. It's just too easy to quibble about hypotheticals.
Last edited by tooblue; 12-02-2013 at 02:15 PM.
Interesting.
When I lived in PA, there were enough LDS kids in the local high school play to get the practices moved from Sunday afternoons to Saturday afternoons. They were very adamant about their right not to have to practice on their Sabbath. Too bad for the Jewish kids in the play, I guess. (yes, there were Jewish kids in the play)
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote