183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[CardiacCoug]

You are of course glossing over the fundamental difference: that a straight couple consists of a man and a woman. That--and the teachings on chastity and fidelity that go with it--is the foundational idea of a family in Mormon doctrine, not whether children are biological or adopted.

Sorry, the opinion that a male/female couple has any inherent moral superiority to a male/male or female/female is ridiculous. It's wrong and arrogant and it's an idea that is dying off and will be completely extinguished in modern society in a few decades, thank goodness.

The principles of chastity and fidelity wouldn't have to be changed at all in order to include gay people and gay couples: abstain before marriage and stay faithful in marriage. Why on earth would that need to apply any differently to straight or gay people? That's a bizarre argument.

Tex, you and your ilk just have your head in the sand. You're totally out of touch. There are so many people out there who are homosexual of course, but also a whole lot of people who are ambivalent and/or conflicted about their gender. You would seem to tell these people: God's Church doesn't believe you or understand you. It has nothing to offer you because you're not hetero and totally secure/confident in your gender like most of the rest of us. Really?

Not sure why you and so many like you feel it's so important to exclude anybody who doesn't fit the mold when it comes to sexual orientation and/or gender. How about the Church just includes everybody who is dumb enough to want to participate? Seems like the obviously correct thing to do.

[byu71]

Tex, you and your ilk just have your head in the sand.

Not sure why you and so many like you feel it's so important to exclude anybody who doesn't fit the mold when it comes to sexual orientation and/or gender. How about the Church just includes everybody who is dumb enough to want to participate? Seems like the obviously correct thing to do.

I could ask you why you and your ilk are so intent on forcing your belief's on someone else and yet you recoil at the thought of others doing it. I can see the the argument when it comes to the nation as a whole. If the electorate feels gay marriage is the way to go, so be it. Of course we can always rely on the intellectuals to tell us when the electorate is right on an issue and when they are wrong. They quote the polls when the electorate is in agreement and sight how stupid the electorate was in the past when the majority was wrong.

But a church is different. It is like a private club. If the values of the club are so out of touch and bad, the club will become irrelevant or very small. For instance the RFLDS.

It is just hard for me to understand why some of you have to force your belief's on someone else.

[CardiacCoug]

I could ask you why you and your ilk are so intent on forcing your belief's on someone else and yet you recoil at the thought of others doing it. I can see the the argument when it comes to the nation as a whole. If the electorate feels gay marriage is the way to go, so be it. Of course we can always rely on the intellectuals to tell us when the electorate is right on an issue and when they are wrong. They quote the polls when the electorate is in agreement and sight how stupid the electorate was in the past when the majority was wrong.

But a church is different. It is like a private club. If the values of the club are so out of touch and bad, the club will become irrelevant or very small. For instance the RFLDS.

It is just hard for me to understand why some of you have to force your beliefs on someone else.

Who's trying to force beliefs on anybody else? I respect your right and anybody's right to disagree with me

I'm just saying what I think. The issue of equal rights for gays is in fact a recapitulation of equal rights for all races. Gender equality is in fact a recapitulation of racial equality, both within society and within the Church. That's what I believe. The tempo of progress on these other issues is different but history will repeat itself.

Feel free to disagree. It's all good.

[old_gregg]

It is just hard for me to understand why some of you have to force your belief's on someone else.

you mean like a statutory codification of what an acceptable marriage looks like?

[byu71]

Who's trying to force beliefs on anybody else? I respect your right and anybody's right to disagree with me

I'm just saying what I think. The issue of equal rights for gays is in fact a recapitulation of equal rights for all races. Gender equality is in fact a recapitulation of racial equality, both within society and within the Church. That's what I believe. The tempo of progress on these other issues is different but history will repeat itself.

Feel free to disagree. It's all good.

OK, I must have taken wrong your thoughts about grandchilden looking back on me with thoughts of "crazy and wrong" or "horrible and stupid". My sense is those grandchildren will either be inactive or not even members. Which is just fine by me.

I know my great grandchildren will be looking back and thinking the honor code was "stupid and wrong" and why they will be rooting for the Utes or someone else.

[CardiacCoug]

OK, I must have taken wrong your thoughts about grandchilden looking back on me with thoughts of "crazy and wrong" or "horrible and stupid". My sense is those grandchildren will either be inactive or not even members. Which is just fine by me.

I know my great grandchildren will be looking back and thinking the honor code was "stupid and wrong" and why they will be rooting for the Utes or someone else.

You understand I'm saying EVERY generation seems to get things wrong that shock and appall subsequent generations. I'm not exempting myself or so-called progressives/intellectuals from this. Nobody is exempt.

It's always been human nature to think "Now we've figured it all out. We've made all the discoveries we can make. We're as enlightened as we could possibly be." Then another few decades go by and things are very, very different -- there's a whole lot of change and progress.

Maybe I'm wrong and orthodox Mormons really have have figured everything out and they won't ever change their doctrine/policies on gays or women at all in the future. That's possible, but doesn't seem likely to me at all based on historical trends.

[byu71]

You understand I'm saying EVERY generation seems to get things wrong that shock and appall subsequent generations. I'm not exempting myself or so-called progressives/intellectuals from this. Nobody is exempt.

It's always been human nature to think "Now we've figured it all out. We've made all the discoveries we can make. We're as enlightened as we could possibly be." Then another few decades go by and things are very, very different -- there's a whole lot of change and progress.

Maybe I'm wrong and orthodox Mormons really have have figured everything out and they won't ever change their doctrine/policies on gays or women at all in the future. That's possible, but doesn't seem likely to me at all based on historical trends.

You might be right and the more change that comes from political pressure the more people might regard their faith as just some other ordinary organization. Which do you think will come first, gay temple marriage or the doing away with the honor code?

Myself I think gay temple marriage comes first. The honor code is to productive as a tool to control young people in their college years.

I also think gay marriage is allowed before the WOW gets overhauled.

[TripletDaddy]

I went to this new "deli" right across from Crown Burger on North Temple. Used to be a Subway. A couple of guys in my office said the new deli is really good so I tried it out.

not really good.

[wally]

I went to this new "deli" right across from Crown Burger on North Temple. Used to be a Subway. A couple of guys in my office said the new deli is really good so I tried it out.

not really good.

I went there once when it was a subway. Not very good either.

[Jacob]

Edit: And why was GQC worth more than Taylor?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3122[/ATTACH]

I can't read the date on that quote, but GQC was a very important figure and defender of polygamy, not to mention practitioner of polygamy post-manifesto. If the date was before the Taylor presidency, then it would make sense.

[SCcoug]

Shame on Oaks for plagiarizing! That's pretty good but we know from Dieter's talk that JT could have simply made a mistake marrying all those women.

Edit: And why was GQC worth more than Taylor?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3122[/ATTACH]

I seem to remember that GQC was considered the real power behind the throne.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Stolen from FB:

While we were on a vacation church, this summer the guy started talking about George Albert Smith being part of the Zions Camp. That seemed like it couldn't be true, because though I admittedly don't know the past prophets in order I remember that GAS came before HJG in the primary song. So I looked and it was George A. Smith who while reading on my phone that night read this gem of a statement that made me chuckle.

We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 291)

I have to wonder how milquetoast he views guys like Tex as?

[woot]

Normalizing gay marriage and gay sexual relations would turn every teaching about the family on its head.

If we go ahead and accept this statement as truth, the only logical conclusion is that "every teaching about the family" must be wrong. Gay sexual relations are a normal part of the spectrum. There's really no disputing this.

In science, a hypothesis that ignores variation within populations is invariably going to run into issues, even if it's valid when only applied to population means.

[Paperback Writer]

You might be right and the more change that comes from political pressure the more people might regard their faith as just some other ordinary organization. Which do you think will come first, gay temple marriage or the doing away with the honor code?

I also think gay marriage is allowed before the WOW gets overhauled.

IMO, you've got it reversed. 1) WOW overhaul, 2) HOC dumped, 3) gay temple marriage.

The honor code is not a productive tool of control, it is an archaic tool of BYU's board of trustees who lack faith that BYU's student body will not live LDS standards. It won't be long until BYU's student body will be mostly RMs. No one will miss it when dress code and moral aspects of the HC are taken out (or no longer enforced).

Gender roles are already transforming from what has been considered norm. The reality is that both parents work and have careers. They share the roles of breadwinner, nurturer, home maker, etc. If male/female can be successful at this, then so too can male/male and female/female. For some couples, it might make sense to have defined roles. For others, all roles are shared. One size does not fit all and, IMO, Mormon culture is starting to figure that out.

[Tex]

Sorry, the opinion that a male/female couple has any inherent moral superiority to a male/male or female/female is ridiculous. It's wrong and arrogant and it's an idea that is dying off and will be completely extinguished in modern society in a few decades, thank goodness.

The principles of chastity and fidelity wouldn't have to be changed at all in order to include gay people and gay couples: abstain before marriage and stay faithful in marriage. Why on earth would that need to apply any differently to straight or gay people? That's a bizarre argument.

Tex, you and your ilk just have your head in the sand. You're totally out of touch. There are so many people out there who are homosexual of course, but also a whole lot of people who are ambivalent and/or conflicted about their gender. You would seem to tell these people: God's Church doesn't believe you or understand you. It has nothing to offer you because you're not hetero and totally secure/confident in your gender like most of the rest of us. Really?

Not sure why you and so many like you feel it's so important to exclude anybody who doesn't fit the mold when it comes to sexual orientation and/or gender. How about the Church just includes everybody who is dumb enough to want to participate? Seems like the obviously correct thing to do.

So you think that all the church really needs to do is a find/replace on male/female and the doctrine is all the same?

Unfortunately you continue to gloss over the fact that men and women are neither the same nor interchangeable, and LDS doctrine on the family is foundationally based on this truth. It's not just about whether a gay person can love a child. A man cannot simulate being a mother, and vice versa. More importantly, procreation--a core scriptural reason for marriage--is totally out of the question.

On your last point: the church exists to bring people to God, a purpose incompatible with sanctioning sin. Same-sex attraction is temptation to sin. When people yield to temptation, we teach them about the atonement. This doesn't change simply because secularists have decided to normalize it.