New LDS Church Website: Mormons and Gays

[FMCoug]

I suppose this was inevitable.

http://mormonsandnegroes.org/

I was wondering where SU has been in this thread. Guess he was busy.

[Northwestcoug]

I suppose this was inevitable.

http://mormonsandnegroes.org/

Very clever.

[LA Ute]

The woman in one of the videos on the website is interviewed:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...-LDS.html?pg=1

[UtahDan]

Don't ask now. Just wait for the Mormon Expositor webcast.

Done. Thanks for suggesting it!

[UtahDan]

A couple of thoughts having now read the whole thing and given it some thought. So first, I think you have to get out of the way that it still fundamentally misunderstands homosexuality and how central it is to the identity of a person. Who you love, wanting a family and children are not small parts of one's self that can be downplayed or placed in a secondary position for most people. As Mitch Mayne succinctly put it, trying to do that amounts to a "celebate half-life." The message of hope here is that in the next life you will be straight, just stay the course for now. That is not going to be satisfying for almost anyone who is gay.

But with that said, I don't think this is aimed primarily at gay people. I think it is aimed at straight people. And I believe the brethren, in good faith, are trying to attack the part of the problem that they can theologically. The two stated goals are to treat gays, or gay and lesbian brothers and sisters (and the fact they use that terminology to recognize a whole new class of persons is pretty big) with kindness and, two, to try to keep them in the church. I think notwithstanding the optimism that a lot of people have, they are very explicit that male/female pairings are central to Gods plan and Dalin Oaks says "this has not changed and is not changing." I really don't think that will ever change. But what they are trying to attack is the situation where there is rejection within families and ward. They are trying to get the message out of, look, the relationship is the most important thing (Stake Pres. Carter's video in particular is great). I think it is misguided in some of the ways it tries to get people to identify with gays (for example, our "common humanity" is that we all sin and struggle and this is just their struggle, gay people simply don't see themselves as suffering from any thing or in need of fixing), but the "Love one another" section is for the most part good and I think encourages people to look past their differences on this issue.

I think it is not perfect for a lot of reasons, but if you grant the theological constraints I think they are under I think it is very hard not to give full marks for effort. And given all the deaths that are caused in huge measure by the rejection young gay people experience, this really should be helpful.

[wuapinmon]

I suppose this was inevitable.

http://mormonsandnegroes.org/

Ouch.

[UtahDan]

So for those who care, interesting podcast I hosted with guests Mitch Mayne , Stacey and Amy, who one of the podcast members:

http://mormonexpositor.com/24-the-mo...ed-discussion/

The perspectives of Mitch (gay and still in the church) and Stacey (out of the church, married to her partner, kids, etc.) in particular were fascinating for me to listen to. I feel lucky yo have been a part of this one.

[Sullyute]

So for those who care, interesting podcast I hosted with guests Mitch Mayne , Stacey and Amy, who one of the podcast members:

http://mormonexpositor.com/24-the-mo...ed-discussion/

The perspectives of Mitch (gay and still in the church) and Stacey (out of the church, married to her partner, kids, etc.) in particular were fascinating for me to listen to. I feel lucky yo have been a part of this one.

So I am almost done listening to this podcast. I also read the article that was mentioned in the podcast and posted earlier by Lebowski.

I don't understand everything in the article (medecine/biology) is not my thing, but it seems to me that the science supports the Church's view that being gay is just a fluke and not eternal.

Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation.

These epi-marks protect fathers and mothers from excess or underexposure to testosterone — when they carry over to opposite-sex offspring, it can cause the masculinization of females or the feminization of males," Rice says, which can lead to a child becoming gay. Rice notes that these markers are "highly variable" and that only strong epi-marks will result in a homosexual offspring.

This seems to state that it is just a random thing that happens in the womb, just like being born with down syndrome, spina bifida, cerebrel palsy, dwarfism, etc. We believe that these things will be fixed in the "next life" and are only a test for this life. So wouldn't this support the same belief on being gay, that it is just a test and that you will be "cured of the gay" in the next life?

[woot]

So I am almost done listening to this podcast. I also read the article that was mentioned in the podcast and posted earlier by Lebowski.

I don't understand everything in the article (medecine/biology) is not my thing, but it seems to me that the science supports the Church's view that being gay is just a fluke and not eternal.



This seems to state that it is just a random thing that happens in the womb, just like being born with down syndrome, spina bifida, cerebrel palsy, dwarfism, etc. We believe that these things will be fixed in the "next life" and are only a test for this life. So wouldn't this support the same belief on being gay, that it is just a test and that you will be "cured of the gay" in the next life?

Hi. It's me, woot! I've been lurking a bit. Go Cougs, etc.

So regarding this post, it seems important to point out that the concept of the genome being analogous to a blueprint has been overturned. The blueprint concept would have us believe that 1 genotype = 1 phenotype (anatomy, physiology, behavior) and that any deviation from the exact plan in our genes will result in pathology. In actuality, we now understand that our genes can lead to many different phenotypes, and that our genes code for quite a range of possible phenotypes.

We're learning more all the time about the degree to which epigenetics are responsible for phenotypic traits. Here are a couple anatomical examples:

The dorsally concave curvature of your lower spine (lumbar lordosis) isn't genetic. Even though the vast majority of humans have this trait, it turns out that not only are you not born with it, it develops only in those who are capable of bipedal walking. Those born with disabilities that prevent bipedalism never develop this lordotic curvature. Furthermore, there's a Japanese tradition called "Sarumawashi", in which macaques are made to walk bipedally. Sure enough, these monkeys develop lumbar lordosis.

Perhaps a more relevant example in this forum is humeral torsion. If you do a great deal of throwing during development, perhaps as a little league pitcher, say, your throwing arm will develop differently from those of your peers. When you grow up, you'll find that you have a much greater ability to externally rotate your shoulder, which is how you get pitchers and QBs that can put such force on the ball despite being less muscular. Incidentally, this is also why Riley Nelson, given a few years living in a weight room with nothing to eat but protein shakes and steroids, would still not be able to put much velocity on the ball. His humerus just isn't shaped right for it. Notably, there seem to be genetic constraints on this process, meaning that some kids are more "plastic" than others. Maybe Riley did throw a hundred footballs through (read: at) the tire swing in the backyard every day growing up, but just didn't have the developmental plasticity for it to result in more advantageous morphology.

There are many more examples, most more mundane than these, but the point is that our phenotypes result from a very complex interplay between various factors, only some of which are genetic. This knowledge may motivate some to consider homosexuality to be some kind of birth defect or disease, but I would hope that it would add some nuance to a discussion that too often involves a false dichotomy between genetics and choice.

One of the grandest benefits of the enlightenment was the realization that our moral sense must be based on the welfare of living individuals, not on their immortal souls. Honest and passionate folks can strongly disagree regarding spiritual matters, so it's imperative that we not allow such considerations to infringe on the real happiness of real people.

[pellegrino]

WOOT!

does this mean you're back?

[UtahDan]

Woot! I have missed you. In fact, I need your input here:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...oot#post856572

Here:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...oot#post800924

And you totally need to read this thread and comment:

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showth...highlight=woot

TIA.

[Sullyute]

There are many more examples, most more mundane than these, but the point is that our phenotypes result from a very complex interplay between various factors, only some of which are genetic. This knowledge may motivate some to consider homosexuality to be some kind of birth defect or disease, but I would hope that it would add some nuance to a discussion that too often involves a false dichotomy between genetics and choice.

One of the grandest benefits of the enlightenment was the realization that our moral sense must be based on the welfare of living individuals, not on their immortal souls. Honest and passionate folks can strongly disagree regarding spiritual matters, so it's imperative that we not allow such considerations to infringe on the real happiness of real people.

Thanks for the information Woot. It definitely seems like more we learn the less we know. I really like your last paragraph, very wise advice.

[myboynoah]

Thanks for the information Woot. It definitely seems like more we learn the less we know. I really like your last paragraph, very wise advice.

This line was much better.

Maybe Riley did throw a hundred footballs through (read: at) the tire swing in the backyard every day growing up, but just didn't have the developmental plasticity for it to result in more advantageous morphology.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Dang it, woot. Don't be such a stranger.

[woot]

Well golly thanks for making me feel so welcome. Not sure how much I'll post but I might have to look through the threads UD linked to at least.