Important Prop. 8 Ruling Today

[clackamascoug]

Here's a different take on Homosexuality. Maybe not my exact view, but just a stab at seeing the mortar between the bricks.

My daughter was born with two malady's, Down Syndrome, and Autism. She didn't ask to be this way, it just happened. She will never get to marry, or raise a family, or have the joys of being a parent. In fact, the joys that she occasions are less than most people. The good news is that she is not accountable for her actions, and in my opinion has a free pass to the CK. Perhaps being homosexual from birth is a malady that falls into the same category of accountability, and their malady and consequent actions are not held against them in the sense that it is a detriment to their eternal salvation.

I'd like to believe that in some other dimension that my daughter is "normal" and will live out the consquences of her actions, and when she dies, she will know good from evil, and normal from handicapped. Perhaps in another dimension I'm wearing a feather boa, and tripping the light fantastic. In the end, maybe I'll have a much better understanding of the big picture from having "been there, and done that."

Worlds without End.

[Surfah]

Speaking of a little more than you asked for, respond to this.

So, I've been reading about the work of Peter Berger on the sociology of knowledge, and it's got me thinking about Zizek's Sublime Object of Ideology as it relates to current LDS official and lay 'knowledge' about homosexuality, especially since Elder Packer gave a talk to seminary students in late 2011 wherein he said that homosexuality is against the standards of the Church and, "that will not change."



Peter Berger calls the sociology of knowledge part of our construction of reality. We inhabit a society with roles that we perform and 'knowledge' about them that we obtain from various observations and sources. Over time these roles become institutionalized as others take on the same roles, and this gives them meaning, lending creedence to the belief that reality is a social construction because it allows us to imbue actions and events with meaning and interpretations of the knowledge that comes from the understood meaning of our reality.

For example, a Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that God speaks to him, or in another iteration, this same Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that he is possessed by a demon, and in yet another iteration this same Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that he is psychotic and needs to see a physician. All three of those 'knowledges' derive their meaning from the social construction of reality that each of the men inhabits. Berger's opinion is that while the conditions might be the same or might be different (spiritual events being impossible to qualify scientifically), there are consequences to the 'knowledge' known in the reality of each individual. The first iteration can be benevolent or malevolent, the second one will probably be malevolent, and third one will seek help before allowing the condition to influence decisions in reality (society).

We can apply this to any type of knowledge, and not just ones of mental sanity. A gay person 'knows' that he was born that way, another one 'knows' that she is flawed because of her temptations which she cannot resist, and another gay person 'knows' that self-denial their entire life despite their temptations (about which I'm neither approving of nor disapproving of) is the only way to obtain salvation from their Creator. What are the consequences of each of these kinds of knowledge? They are legion and unknowable, but certainly some can be predicted without too much conjecture. The first instance might find the person openly gay, but tolerant of those who disapprove. Or, openly gay and antagonistic towards those who disapprove. Or, openly gay and violently opposed to those who disapprove.

Right now, in the Church, the official doctrine/policy/standard is that 'we know' that homosexual acts are abominations and unholy acts against chastity and grievous sins in the sight of God. The Church's ideology is such that we have been forewarned that allowing homosexuals to legally marry will disintegrate the traditional family and bring about the calamities foretold by prophets of old (and new). The very existence of our country going forward is said to be jeopardized by the allowance of matrimony between two individuals of the same gender. I don't have the inclination to dig around right now for quotes from sources, but I think that the above description is a reasonable description of the Church's 'official' ideology about homosexuality in the 21st Century. The lay ideology is far too broad and varied to try and contain inside of one single whole, but I would argue that a significant majority of LDS members in the US who are active and hold a temple recommend and are over age 35 are pretty much in lockstep with the official ideology of the Church, because they:

1. 'Know the Church is true'
2. 'Know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet.
3. 'Know that the Q12 are prophets, seers, and revelators
4. 'Know that the prophet will not lead the Church astray'
5. and
6. 'Know that they have their agency'

.

Gays who oppose the Church's ideology have their own. They 'know' that:

1. they never chose to be attracted to the same sex
2. religious freedom shouldn't allow the Church to impose its morals on them
3. the Constitution should protect them from laws that prevent their right to marriage
4. the Church is hypocritical given its own history concerning non-traditional marriages
5. and
6. the LDS leadership causes gay LDS members to loathe themselves so much that they sometimes kill themselves. This then becomes a case of them 'knowing' that people like Boyd K. Packer are 'abusers' in the psychological sense.

So, what then, are the consequences of this knowledge/ideology? Well, ideologies are difficult to navigate because, like Berger says, they form a reality to us that can be difficult to see through. Someone in an ideology can be shown evidence that disproves their 'knowledge' and they will actually use that information in an ideological way to strengthen their position in the reality of the knowledge they claim to have. We've all known a mumpsimus or two.

As it relates to this issue, I think it's important to try and view the issue of the Brethren's criticisms of homosexuality through an objective post-ideological view. If we merely try to view the qualities of homosexuals as they are, a 'reality' as it were, inside of LDS ideology, then we might find that some of our unconscious prejudices are magically confirmed by further rationalizations. If we view the issue through the ideology of gays, then again, we might find that some of the Church's actions and stances are downright pathologically paranoid constructions, as we also might equally perceive the stances against the Church of gays who play (again in an ideological view) the 'victim card.'

I think it's far healthier to remove ourselves from the ideologies of both sides (in as much as that's possible) and view the LDS ideological view of homosexuals and homosexual sex as an attempt to patch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system. What does that mean? We have a conundrum. If we have agency, if we are children of our Heavenly Father--created in his image, and if we are created with temptations that make us feel flawed for life, how then can a just God expect us to obey all of the commandments and yet find happiness in this life? How does our ideology address the children born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sets of genitalia, and those who have ovaries inside but a penis and no vagina? We're reminded of Packer's famous now-redacted conference question of "Why would a loving God make them that way?" The consequences of this hole in our ideology, this unanswerable question in the face of the prophetic declaration that "gender is eternal," demonstrate an inconsistency, and therefore, we're left with an ideology that doesn't ultimately provide a logical answer to the knowledge that it lacks--and the consequences that stem from that absence of knowledge.

So, despite my goal of remaining outside of ideology, I arrive at this conclusion, which sounds like a new ideology:

Until the LDS ideology can justify the existence and acceptance of these people (those born with ambiguous genitalia) as whole and natural children of our Heavenly Father, then the ideology for most members will continue to function thusly:

MEMBER:"I have several homosexual friends. They have adopted children, are loving parents, faithful companions, and great neighbors. I don't know why the Brethren are always saying that the calamities foretold by prophets will come about because of these people."

GENERAL CONFERENCE: "THAT'S PRECISELY WHY YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL!"

Until the Church's ideology can account for biological mutations that fall outside of the current conceptions of gender (read: normal male and normal female) then it (the Church's ideology) will remain pathologically (in the sense of the suffering/consequences this ideology causes in gays' and their families' lives) opposed to actions that it deems contrary to the 'knowledge' that it currently has about gender, same-sex attraction, and homosexual sex acts. It's not homosexuality being a choice that causes the ideology to balk at change. That's easy enough to justify in the current one. The real rub lies in the ones that you cannot explain away easily. The biologically male children with vaginas and clitorises and the biologically female children with penises and the 250,000 kids born with ambiguous genitalia each year. How does the ideology convince them that they're made in the image of God when their gender is female, they're attracted to men, but their penis is going to be there next to their husband's when they go to have sex on their sealing day?


I can think of few cases outside of gender issues wherein any possible solution to the underlying 'problem' (even imagined future ones) still leaves you unable, in all cases, of partaking fully of the plan of salvation, the new & everlasting covenant, and exaltation.

Poor people can win the lottery or work their way out of poverty without being denied the fullness of the Gospel. Those without a working body can hold out hope of a healing, a surgery, or some technology to improve their life, but they can always partake of the Gospel (as much of it as they can comprehend if they are mentally retarded). But, those who are intersexed and those who are homosexual have no solution to their problem, especially the intersexed. Imagine the psychological toll that life would take on you if you were really really attracted to women, but the Church said that heterosexual relations were an abomination. Could you really make yourself lust after a man and find fulfillment in homosexual sex? I could not.

Now, imagine that a physician cut you and made you a woman at birth, but you were biologically a heterosexual male. How would it feel to be a woman physically but a man biologically and in your view of yourself, and to lust after women, all while knowing that the Church expected you to be with a man? The whole "gender is eternal" ideology founders in the face of these situations, which is why I think that it pathologically denies homosexuals equality: it cannot square intersex people with itself, so it resists.

To those who argue that "it will all be worked out in the afterlife," if your solution to the intersex problem relies on vindication in the afterlife, but does nothing to comfort those people in this life, then it is trite and coy. LDS ideology works well for heterosexual people. It calls sinful all those who fall outside the norm. It cannot account for them, so it makes them an Other without any solution other than a promise of a better time in the eternities. Theologically, to an intersex person, that could (and probably does) feel almost like God does not love you as much as others, because the ordinances are denied to you for something that you 'know' is not a choice.

The consequences of that 'knowledge' in the homosexual Church member are pathological. They 'know' that they are sinful. They 'know' that others will reject them. They 'know' that their sexuality is forbidden. The pathology of these knowledges causes a lifetime of self-loathing and spiritual despair, leading, I would imagine, the vast majority to leave the Church. Current Church ideology presents the situation as welcoming them back, providing they remain chaste, repent, and only engage in heterosexual relations with their spouse.

We still don't know what causes someone to be homosexual. If it's genetic or environmental in the womb, then calling it a sin robs us of our agency.

The ideology currently denies that this is the case. We've seen the ideology change in the past about other things that were once considered immoral. This one, however, does not appear as simple to resolve given the other theological ramifications.

Wuap, he's gay, not blind. And increasing the font of a post that you already shared elsewhere (and bumped) and reposting it here is bad form (and probably just a poor post since it never really gained any traction).

[wuapinmon]

Wuap, he's gay, not blind. And increasing the font of a post that you already shared elsewhere (and bumped) and reposting it here is bad form (and probably just a poor post since it never really gained any traction).

Criticize the bump, the repost, or the font size...fine. But a poor post? Ya know that look that Freddy gives Tom Ripley from the music listening booth? Yeah.

[LA Ute]

Here's a different take on Homosexuality. Maybe not my exact view, but just a stab at seeing the mortar between the bricks.

My daughter was born with two malady's, Down Syndrome, and Autism. She didn't ask to be this way, it just happened. She will never get to marry, or raise a family, or have the joys of being a parent. In fact, the joys that she occasions are less than most people. The good news is that she is not accountable for her actions, and in my opinion has a free pass to the CK. Perhaps being homosexual from birth is a malady that falls into the same category of accountability, and their malady and consequent actions are not held against them in the sense that it is a detriment to their eternal salvation.

I'd like to believe that in some other dimension that my daughter is "normal" and will live out the consquences of her actions, and when she dies, she will know good from evil, and normal from handicapped. Perhaps in another dimension I'm wearing a feather boa, and tripping the light fantastic. In the end, maybe I'll have a much better understanding of the big picture from having "been there, and done that."

Worlds without End.

Interesting thoughts. I appreciate your perspective and I hope you are right.

[YOhio]

Criticize the bump, the repost, or the font size...fine. But a poor post? Ya know that look that Freddy gives Tom Ripley from the music listening booth? Yeah.

lol. Tell us again how great a post it was!

[il Padrino Ute]

Criticize the bump, the repost, or the font size...fine. But a poor post? Ya know that look that Freddy gives Tom Ripley from the music listening booth? Yeah.

It's okay waup. I think all of my posts are great too.

[wuapinmon]

lol. Tell us again how great a post it was!

[UVACoug]

Speaking of a little more than you asked for, respond to this.

So, I've been reading about the work of Peter Berger on the sociology of knowledge, and it's got me thinking about Zizek's Sublime Object of Ideology as it relates to current LDS official and lay 'knowledge' about homosexuality, especially since Elder Packer gave a talk to seminary students in late 2011 wherein he said that homosexuality is against the standards of the Church and, "that will not change."



Peter Berger calls the sociology of knowledge part of our construction of reality. We inhabit a society with roles that we perform and 'knowledge' about them that we obtain from various observations and sources. Over time these roles become institutionalized as others take on the same roles, and this gives them meaning, lending creedence to the belief that reality is a social construction because it allows us to imbue actions and events with meaning and interpretations of the knowledge that comes from the understood meaning of our reality.

For example, a Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that God speaks to him, or in another iteration, this same Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that he is possessed by a demon, and in yet another iteration this same Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that he is psychotic and needs to see a physician. All three of those 'knowledges' derive their meaning from the social construction of reality that each of the men inhabits. Berger's opinion is that while the conditions might be the same or might be different (spiritual events being impossible to qualify scientifically), there are consequences to the 'knowledge' known in the reality of each individual. The first iteration can be benevolent or malevolent, the second one will probably be malevolent, and third one will seek help before allowing the condition to influence decisions in reality (society).

We can apply this to any type of knowledge, and not just ones of mental sanity. A gay person 'knows' that he was born that way, another one 'knows' that she is flawed because of her temptations which she cannot resist, and another gay person 'knows' that self-denial their entire life despite their temptations (about which I'm neither approving of nor disapproving of) is the only way to obtain salvation from their Creator. What are the consequences of each of these kinds of knowledge? They are legion and unknowable, but certainly some can be predicted without too much conjecture. The first instance might find the person openly gay, but tolerant of those who disapprove. Or, openly gay and antagonistic towards those who disapprove. Or, openly gay and violently opposed to those who disapprove.

Right now, in the Church, the official doctrine/policy/standard is that 'we know' that homosexual acts are abominations and unholy acts against chastity and grievous sins in the sight of God. The Church's ideology is such that we have been forewarned that allowing homosexuals to legally marry will disintegrate the traditional family and bring about the calamities foretold by prophets of old (and new). The very existence of our country going forward is said to be jeopardized by the allowance of matrimony between two individuals of the same gender. I don't have the inclination to dig around right now for quotes from sources, but I think that the above description is a reasonable description of the Church's 'official' ideology about homosexuality in the 21st Century. The lay ideology is far too broad and varied to try and contain inside of one single whole, but I would argue that a significant majority of LDS members in the US who are active and hold a temple recommend and are over age 35 are pretty much in lockstep with the official ideology of the Church, because they:

1. 'Know the Church is true'
2. 'Know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet.
3. 'Know that the Q12 are prophets, seers, and revelators
4. 'Know that the prophet will not lead the Church astray'
5. and
6. 'Know that they have their agency'

.

Gays who oppose the Church's ideology have their own. They 'know' that:

1. they never chose to be attracted to the same sex
2. religious freedom shouldn't allow the Church to impose its morals on them
3. the Constitution should protect them from laws that prevent their right to marriage
4. the Church is hypocritical given its own history concerning non-traditional marriages
5. and
6. the LDS leadership causes gay LDS members to loathe themselves so much that they sometimes kill themselves. This then becomes a case of them 'knowing' that people like Boyd K. Packer are 'abusers' in the psychological sense.

So, what then, are the consequences of this knowledge/ideology? Well, ideologies are difficult to navigate because, like Berger says, they form a reality to us that can be difficult to see through. Someone in an ideology can be shown evidence that disproves their 'knowledge' and they will actually use that information in an ideological way to strengthen their position in the reality of the knowledge they claim to have. We've all known a mumpsimus or two.

As it relates to this issue, I think it's important to try and view the issue of the Brethren's criticisms of homosexuality through an objective post-ideological view. If we merely try to view the qualities of homosexuals as they are, a 'reality' as it were, inside of LDS ideology, then we might find that some of our unconscious prejudices are magically confirmed by further rationalizations. If we view the issue through the ideology of gays, then again, we might find that some of the Church's actions and stances are downright pathologically paranoid constructions, as we also might equally perceive the stances against the Church of gays who play (again in an ideological view) the 'victim card.'

I think it's far healthier to remove ourselves from the ideologies of both sides (in as much as that's possible) and view the LDS ideological view of homosexuals and homosexual sex as an attempt to patch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system. What does that mean? We have a conundrum. If we have agency, if we are children of our Heavenly Father--created in his image, and if we are created with temptations that make us feel flawed for life, how then can a just God expect us to obey all of the commandments and yet find happiness in this life? How does our ideology address the children born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sets of genitalia, and those who have ovaries inside but a penis and no vagina? We're reminded of Packer's famous now-redacted conference question of "Why would a loving God make them that way?" The consequences of this hole in our ideology, this unanswerable question in the face of the prophetic declaration that "gender is eternal," demonstrate an inconsistency, and therefore, we're left with an ideology that doesn't ultimately provide a logical answer to the knowledge that it lacks--and the consequences that stem from that absence of knowledge.

So, despite my goal of remaining outside of ideology, I arrive at this conclusion, which sounds like a new ideology:

Until the LDS ideology can justify the existence and acceptance of these people (those born with ambiguous genitalia) as whole and natural children of our Heavenly Father, then the ideology for most members will continue to function thusly:

MEMBER:"I have several homosexual friends. They have adopted children, are loving parents, faithful companions, and great neighbors. I don't know why the Brethren are always saying that the calamities foretold by prophets will come about because of these people."

GENERAL CONFERENCE: "THAT'S PRECISELY WHY YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL!"

Until the Church's ideology can account for biological mutations that fall outside of the current conceptions of gender (read: normal male and normal female) then it (the Church's ideology) will remain pathologically (in the sense of the suffering/consequences this ideology causes in gays' and their families' lives) opposed to actions that it deems contrary to the 'knowledge' that it currently has about gender, same-sex attraction, and homosexual sex acts. It's not homosexuality being a choice that causes the ideology to balk at change. That's easy enough to justify in the current one. The real rub lies in the ones that you cannot explain away easily. The biologically male children with vaginas and clitorises and the biologically female children with penises and the 250,000 kids born with ambiguous genitalia each year. How does the ideology convince them that they're made in the image of God when their gender is female, they're attracted to men, but their penis is going to be there next to their husband's when they go to have sex on their sealing day?


I can think of few cases outside of gender issues wherein any possible solution to the underlying 'problem' (even imagined future ones) still leaves you unable, in all cases, of partaking fully of the plan of salvation, the new & everlasting covenant, and exaltation.

Poor people can win the lottery or work their way out of poverty without being denied the fullness of the Gospel. Those without a working body can hold out hope of a healing, a surgery, or some technology to improve their life, but they can always partake of the Gospel (as much of it as they can comprehend if they are mentally retarded). But, those who are intersexed and those who are homosexual have no solution to their problem, especially the intersexed. Imagine the psychological toll that life would take on you if you were really really attracted to women, but the Church said that heterosexual relations were an abomination. Could you really make yourself lust after a man and find fulfillment in homosexual sex? I could not.

Now, imagine that a physician cut you and made you a woman at birth, but you were biologically a heterosexual male. How would it feel to be a woman physically but a man biologically and in your view of yourself, and to lust after women, all while knowing that the Church expected you to be with a man? The whole "gender is eternal" ideology founders in the face of these situations, which is why I think that it pathologically denies homosexuals equality: it cannot square intersex people with itself, so it resists.

To those who argue that "it will all be worked out in the afterlife," if your solution to the intersex problem relies on vindication in the afterlife, but does nothing to comfort those people in this life, then it is trite and coy. LDS ideology works well for heterosexual people. It calls sinful all those who fall outside the norm. It cannot account for them, so it makes them an Other without any solution other than a promise of a better time in the eternities. Theologically, to an intersex person, that could (and probably does) feel almost like God does not love you as much as others, because the ordinances are denied to you for something that you 'know' is not a choice.

The consequences of that 'knowledge' in the homosexual Church member are pathological. They 'know' that they are sinful. They 'know' that others will reject them. They 'know' that their sexuality is forbidden. The pathology of these knowledges causes a lifetime of self-loathing and spiritual despair, leading, I would imagine, the vast majority to leave the Church. Current Church ideology presents the situation as welcoming them back, providing they remain chaste, repent, and only engage in heterosexual relations with their spouse.

We still don't know what causes someone to be homosexual. If it's genetic or environmental in the womb, then calling it a sin robs us of our agency.

The ideology currently denies that this is the case. We've seen the ideology change in the past about other things that were once considered immoral. This one, however, does not appear as simple to resolve given the other theological ramifications.

Wow! There is a lot there to discuss. Maybe when I have a few free hours (or days), I will give a more detailed response. I think the author makes a lot of very good points, and advocates what amounts to a nice thought experiment. I certainly think it is important to try to break out of paradigms and look at issues and questions from different perspectives, relying on different assumptions. But the conclusion the author comes to (if there is a conclusion, I really couldn't tell ... I will have to reread it a few times) seems to rest on the assumption that there is no truth. At least no truth that we can ever understand well enough to take a firm opinion on anything. I don't find this type of postmodern thinking very useful at all, to be honest.

Who is to say that the "LDS Ideology", as the author puts it, isn't right? Those that adhere to it have at least come to the belief that it is true, even if they have no way of really knowing that that is the case. Are they supposed to just ignore that belief?

I also find the talk about ambiguous genitalia to be a little bit of a red herring. It gets brought up to make the author sound profound ... as if he found something that no one else ever considers that undermines the "LDS Ideology." To the contrary, I hear that claim brought up all the time. I consider it a trope. I think it is pretty easy to justify the existence of ambiguous genitalia with the "LDS Ideology". (Something I will not attempt to do now).

The author, while trying to convince people to abandon their ideology, is simply inventing one of his own. I have no right to say that he is absolutely wrong and I am absolutely right. However, I believe that is true ... and that is what faith is all about.

[UVACoug]

Here's a different take on Homosexuality. Maybe not my exact view, but just a stab at seeing the mortar between the bricks.

My daughter was born with two malady's, Down Syndrome, and Autism. She didn't ask to be this way, it just happened. She will never get to marry, or raise a family, or have the joys of being a parent. In fact, the joys that she occasions are less than most people. The good news is that she is not accountable for her actions, and in my opinion has a free pass to the CK. Perhaps being homosexual from birth is a malady that falls into the same category of accountability, and their malady and consequent actions are not held against them in the sense that it is a detriment to their eternal salvation.

I'd like to believe that in some other dimension that my daughter is "normal" and will live out the consquences of her actions, and when she dies, she will know good from evil, and normal from handicapped. Perhaps in another dimension I'm wearing a feather boa, and tripping the light fantastic. In the end, maybe I'll have a much better understanding of the big picture from having "been there, and done that."

Worlds without End.

I wouldn't ever compare myself to someone like your daughter, out of respect to her and her difficulties more than anything. I also realize that some might be offended by referring to homosexuality as a malady. I am not personally offended ... not because I consider my homosexuality to be a disease or even a burden ... but because I realize that it is difficult to describe exactly what it is when discussing these types of topics.

With that said, I find this analogy to be a useful one. I would take it a step further, and apply to everyone generally. We are all born with imperfections -- whether those are physical deformities (such as ambiguous genitalia or other birth defects), a tendency to be susceptible to certain types of behavior (alcoholism), or an abnormal sexual orientation. Sometimes those imperfections are more pronounced than others, and sometimes it is hard to identify them at all. I think we are given these things as gifts from God to help us learn how to become better individuals, and to help those we come in contact with become better individuals as well. Each one is perfectly tailored to each person. I can't think of something that is more loving than a God who puts each of his children in the best position to become the best individuals they can become.

Some might think that is a bunch of nonsense dreamt up to justify the "LDS Ideology." I don't. I think it is true. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. It is a premise or idea based on faith.

[clackamascoug]

I wouldn't ever compare myself to someone like your daughter, out of respect to her and her difficulties more than anything. I also realize that some might be offended by referring to homosexuality as a malady. I am not personally offended ... not because I consider my homosexuality to be a disease or even a burden ... but because I realize that it is difficult to describe exactly what it is when discussing these types of topics.

With that said, I find this analogy to be a useful one. I would take it a step further, and apply to everyone generally. We are all born with imperfections -- whether those are physical deformities (such as ambiguous genitalia or other birth defects), a tendency to be susceptible to certain types of behavior (alcoholism), or an abnormal sexual orientation. Sometimes those imperfections are more pronounced than others, and sometimes it is hard to identify them at all. I think we are given these things as gifts from God to help us learn how to become better individuals, and to help those we come in contact with become better individuals as well. Each one is perfectly tailored to each person. I can't think of something that is more loving than a God who puts each of his children in the best position to become the best individuals they can become.

Some might think that is a bunch of nonsense dreamt up to justify the "LDS Ideology." I don't. I think it is true. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. It is a premise or idea based on faith.

That's a nice thoughtful response. If the Glory of God is Intelligence, and if we learn better by doing, then we need as many opportunities to learn as possible. Good, Bad, Indifferent.

[wuapinmon]

Wow! There is a lot there to discuss. Maybe when I have a few free hours (or days), I will give a more detailed response. I think the author makes a lot of very good points, and advocates what amounts to a nice thought experiment. I certainly think it is important to try to break out of paradigms and look at issues and questions from different perspectives, relying on different assumptions. But the conclusion the author comes to (if there is a conclusion, I really couldn't tell ... I will have to reread it a few times) seems to rest on the assumption that there is no truth. At least no truth that we can ever understand well enough to take a firm opinion on anything. I don't find this type of postmodern thinking very useful at all, to be honest.

Who is to say that the "LDS Ideology", as the author puts it, isn't right? Those that adhere to it have at least come to the belief that it is true, even if they have no way of really knowing that that is the case. Are they supposed to just ignore that belief?

I also find the talk about ambiguous genitalia a little bit of a red herring. It gets brought up to make the author sound profound ... as if he found something that no one else ever considers that undermines the "LDS Ideology." To the contrary, I hear that claim brought up all the time. I consider it a trope. I think it is pretty easy to justify the existence of ambiguous genitalia with the "LDS Ideology". (Something I will not attempt to do now).

The author, while trying to convince people to abandon their ideology, is simply inventing one of his own. I have no right to say that he is absolutely wrong and I am absolutely right. However, I believe that is true ... and that is what faith is all about.

I am the author. There's no attempt to get anyone to abandon their ideology, an accusation of apostasy that is itself a trope. LDS ideology cannot square itself to the intersexed, at least not in a way that doesn't sound trite, to those afflicted, and they do exist. Until this can be squared, and I do not believe that it can right now beyond platitudes, then we're never going to see any change with regard to homosexuality and mormonism (unless a change that addresses both occurs). You won't do it now because it cannot be done.

I made no claim to be the first to articulate this nor to being profound; you're surmising. I just want people to think about things and discuss an idea that cannot be summed up in a sentence. As to the idea of belief, that's a fluid thing, malleable to the current situation (e.g. OD1, OD2) and pressures. You shouldn't ignore what you believe, but absent theophany, if you don't know, faith doesn't mean that belief cannot be questioned. Go read any volume of the Journal of Discourses and see if you believe all that's said by Brigham Young. In conclusion, I'll leave that to you.

[splitbamboo]

We are all born with imperfections -- whether those are physical deformities (such as ambiguous genitalia or other birth defects), a tendency to be susceptible to certain types of behavior (alcoholism), or an abnormal sexual orientation. Sometimes those imperfections are more pronounced than others, and sometimes it is hard to identify them at all. I think we are given these things as gifts from God to help us learn how to become better individuals, and to help those we come in contact with become better individuals as well. Each one is perfectly tailored to each person. I can't think of something that is more loving than a God who puts each of his children in the best position to become the best individuals they can become.

Some might think that is a bunch of nonsense dreamt up to justify the "LDS Ideology." I don't. I think it is true. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. It is a premise or idea based on faith.

I think our faith needs more of grace in our "theology." We all need God's (Christ's) grace.

[UVACoug]

LDS ideology cannot square itself to the intersexed, at least not in a way that doesn't sound trite, to those afflicted, and they do exist. Until this can be squared, and I do not believe that it can right now beyond platitudes, then we're never going to see any change with regard to homosexuality and mormonism (unless a change that addresses both occurs). You won't do it now because it cannot be done.

This is a silly argument. You can't just write something off on the basis that it sounds trite.

I made no claim to be the first to articulate this nor to being profound; you're surmising. I just want people to think about things and discuss an idea that cannot be summed up in a sentence. As to the idea of belief, that's a fluid thing, malleable to the current situation (e.g. OD1, OD2) and pressures. You shouldn't ignore what you believe, but absent theophany, if you don't know, faith doesn't mean that belief cannot be questioned. Go read any volume of the Journal of Discourses and see if you believe all that's said by Brigham Young. In conclusion, I'll leave that to you.

You will note that I never said anything about not questioning faith. In fact, I think I implied pretty heavily that questioning faith is a good thing. Questioning faith and discarding it are not the same thing.

[wuapinmon]

You will note that I never said anything about not questioning faith. In fact, I think I implied pretty heavily that questioning faith is a good thing. Questioning faith and discarding it are not the same thing.

I understood your post to tacitly imply "when the Brethren speak, the thinking is done" because while you speak of breaking out of paradigms, you still come back to your reliance upon the thoughts of others for your own attitudes/beliefs/faith about the issue.

This is a silly argument. You can't just write something off on the basis that it sounds trite.

You mean like you've just done? I don't think it's silly. You may. I'll leave you alone now.

[UVACoug]

I understood your post to tacitly imply "when the Brethren speak, the thinking is done" because while you speak of breaking out of paradigms, you still come back to your reliance upon the thoughts of others for your own attitudes/beliefs/faith about the issue.

Well ... if you want to imply things that weren't said or intended, I don't see the point in continuing to have this conversation.

You mean like you've just done? I don't think it's silly. You may. I'll leave you alone now.

I never wrote off anything. I disagreed with your philosophy. I can see that you are set in your ways and not open to other viewpoints. That is pretty ironic, given your baseless assertion that I can't think for myself.