New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[Jacob]

We know some people with a young boy that has shown nothing but female characteristics from the moment he was born. When he was 8 years old, he told his parents that if they didn't allow him to wear dresses, he would rather be dead. This is one of the most orthodox families you could meet (father is a seminary teacher). Try telling that family that gender is eternal.

Gender is not eternal, but it is inextricably tied to wearing dresses? I don't quite get it. I thought you wore purple that one day.

[Moliere]

OK, I'll attempt to explain why this floors me, and then UD can chime in with anything that I miss.

The clip utilizes techniques that support the church's assertion that marriage must be heterosexual and cannot be homosexual. The title "Gender is an essential characteristic" brings to mind the proclamation on the family, which also delineates what is expected of each gender. Then the cat comes in and they argue about the sex (gender) of the cat (gender is code for sex in the proclamation) It is expected that viewers will understand this connection between the title and the argument about the cat. Then when Packer's voice comes in (if I remember correctly this is from his infamous redacted talk in 2010) and the viewer is left to extrapolate that gender cannot be changed by a simple vote, therefore gender roles cannot be changed by legal proceedings either. The whole thing is designed to not so subtly suggest that because gender (and its associated roles, duties, and expectations) cannot be changed and is essential to our eternal identity, God would never allow that someone be born gay. It is a choice, not a congenital condition. This, of course seeks to negate the validity of same sex marriage as a civil right.

I'm floored that this would come out just after the unveiling of this new site. It weakens the message of the website and makes it all appear as nothing more than lip service and doublespeak.

Okay, that makes more sense and I first thought you were reading too much between the lines, but now I think the ambiguity is on purpose.

On one hand someone (likely not a member) will see this video and just be perplexed. They will think to themselves "of course you can't change a penis into a vagina just by voting." That was the message I first heard, but of course I'm a little unorthodox.

On the other hand, a church member will see the video and make the connection with Prop 8 and gay marriage and the Proclamation on the Family. They will agree with the message and use it in hurtful ways.

In the end you get a video that is vague and ambiguous and one that the church can come back and say "we didn't mean it in that way" if it ever comes to a head. I also agree the timing is weird, what with the public outreach to the gay community.

Maybe the church is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They are trying to appease orthodox members by continuing to denounce the evils of homosexuality while at the same time outreaching to that same community. It's kind of like how the church came out in support of gay rights for housing in SLC right in the middle of the Prop 8 backlash.

It's almost like the church is now the fence sitter.

[FMCoug]

Okay, that makes more sense and I first thought you were reading too much between the lines, but now I think the ambiguity is on purpose.

On one hand someone (likely not a member) will see this video and just be perplexed. They will think to themselves "of course you can't change a penis into a vagina just by voting." That was the message I first heard, but of course I'm a little unorthodox.

On the other hand, a church member will see the video and make the connection with Prop 8 and gay marriage and the Proclamation on the Family. They will agree with the message and use it in hurtful ways.

In the end you get a video that is vague and ambiguous and one that the church can come back and say "we didn't mean it in that way" if it ever comes to a head. I also agree the timing is weird, what with the public outreach to the gay community.

Maybe the church is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They are trying to appease orthodox members by continuing to denounce the evils of homosexuality while at the same time outreaching to that same community. It's kind of like how the church came out in support of gay rights for housing in SLC right in the middle of the Prop 8 backlash.

It's almost like the church is now the fence sitter.

I think it's probably more of a case of political infighting. A Packer faction vs. the more progressive faction. The progressives win with the website so the other one retaliates with the video.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[Jeff Lebowski]

Gender is not eternal, but it is inextricably tied to wearing dresses? I don't quite get it. I thought you wore purple that one day.

Was this an example of Jacob humor?

[DU Ute]

Was this an example of Jacob humor?

I lol'ed.

[SCcoug]

I think it's probably more of a case of political infighting. A Packer faction vs. the more progressive faction. The progressives win with the website so the other one retaliates with the video.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

I agree that was my first thought a well.

[pellegrino]

I think it's probably more of a case of political infighting. A Packer faction vs. the more progressive faction. The progressives win with the website so the other one retaliates with the video.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

likely

[Pheidippides]

I think it's probably more of a case of political infighting. A Packer faction vs. the more progressive faction. The progressives win with the website so the other one retaliates with the video.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

That was my guess too.

[Moliere]

That was my guess too.

Sweet! Our own Young/Pratt incident!

[FMCoug]

Sweet! Our own Young/Pratt incident!

When you have an organization where everybody thinks their idea or pet project is God's will, the politics get interesting. Especially because since contention is of the devil, the standard method for handling conflict is passive aggression.

[Pheidippides]

When you have an organization where everybody thinks their idea or pet project is God's will, the politics get interesting. Especially because since contention is of the devil, the standard method for handling conflict is passive aggression.

Quinn actually does a good job of saying exactly this, IMO.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The set ufor this video is also very odd. Is there any coincidence that this experience takes place in a classroom? Is this a jab at the public school system?

And of course they're working on art projects.

[UtahDan]

Predictably, down the memory hole the video goes.

[Eddie]

Predictably, down the memory hole the video goes.

Isn't that a GOOD thing? Someone noticed that the video was dumb and did away with it? Or - if the reality is that there is infighting, the progressive folks convinced whoever is in charge to do away with it?

Either way - isn't having this video gone what you want?

[UtahDan]

Isn't that a GOOD thing? Someone noticed that the video was dumb and did away with it? Or - if the reality is that there is infighting, the progressive folks convinced whoever is in charge to do away with it?

Either way - isn't having this video gone what you want?

Yes, I'm glad it's gone.