The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[NorthwestUteFan]

http://i.imgur.com/jzCMB0F.jpgGod speaks.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Kind of. The change was officially made to the handbook for bishops and stake presidents. But it was leaked to the media. But it would have gotten out when bishops started enforcing it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Area Presidencies (several people x hundreds of areas)
Stake presidencies (3 + secretary x thousands of stakes)

Bishoprics (3+secretary)
Clerk
finance clerk
membership clerk
HPGL?
EQP?

(x 25,000+ wards and branches in the church)

A LOT of people have access to this document online through lds.org. And the hard copies will soon follow. This was going to get out somehow. Significantly more than one person in that group read the new manual or went to a stake leadership training and afterward said, "this isn't right".

At least one of those people out of a few hundred thousand dropped a dime.

[UTEopia]

After a few days reflection and consideration, it is still unclear to me why this policy needed to be stated. The LDS Church has made it clear that the doctrine is that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and any other marriage is not. I was not confused by this and I doubt anyone else was. Baptism of persons under the age of 18 requires the consent of the parents, whether the parent is single and never married, divorced, a member, a non-member, etc., etc., etc. It is extremely unlikely that gay parents would consent to the baptism of their child and, if they did, one would think that they would be supportive of the child in attending Church and participating in the programs of the Church. Put another way, they would be no less supportive than Catholic parents or atheist parents or inactive parents or adulterous parents. So if consent is granted . . .

As for the requirement of disavowing, Elder Christofferson indicated that you are not disavowing the parents, but rather assenting to the doctrine of the Church respecting marriage. Doesn't everyone who joins the Church and continues to participate assent to the doctrines of the Church?

I know that the Church leaders probably did not anticipate this material being made public, but that was naive thinking on their part. There had to be a better way to set out the policy in a more general way.

[LA Ute]

It wasn't released, right? It was leaked?

I don't know. I have heard it was leaked. Is it already in the Handbook? I don't have access anymore.

Even if the policy addition was in draft form it would have been better not to be playing catch up after a leak. It looks like they were unprepared for the totally foreseeable reaction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I'm going to soften my initial reaction, that this was a simple pre-emptive legal move. Plenty of other scenarios where minors are not allowed to join before 18.

(Actually, I could have blocked my son's getting baptized at age 16, and initially my wife wanted to do that, but based on my kid, I persuaded her that it was OK for him to choose his direction, that I supported it. Things have worked out well. My wife got baptized as well, by my son, after he returned from his mission, and I have to say things have been good, but it all works mostly because I'm a live, and let live guy. If I was a very strong whatever else, it would have been hell.)

Very true about the dangers of trying to convert muslims, and actually I've heard a "less intense" version of this same aversion to changing religions by my Hindu colleagues. In their view, changing religions is a direct insult to their ancestors.

It's interesting the amount of research cited by the D-News on "imprinting" (my term) of kids, and the likelihood of children being faithful, based on whether both parents remain faithful, or one parent becomes "less active", etc. I'm sure this was fairly well known previously, which led to GA talks about the eternal importance of parents remaining strong in the faith, etc. "Not only does it impact you, it impacts your children, your grandchildren and descendants you'll never meet here on Earth".

My dad was a Jack Mormon, and I distinctly remember this message and how it made me conclude that our family was less "select", or less valiant, or whatever, which is part of why I always had an affinity for African-Americans and the Navajo kids in the placement program, because they came from disadvantaged backgrounds, as well. It's amazing how strong labeling is.

All of the scenarios the handbook and church policy tries to cover bring me back to the impression I got after being in the Native American sweat lodge, attending African American baptist church for years, and hanging out with the Polynesians and their diversity of Christian backgrounds: Religions become their own worst enemy in how detailed the ideologies, commandments, ordinances and rituals become. In this thread we're parsing the handbook like a bunch of lawyers (which I realize many are).

Shouldn't it be simpler than that? It is for the Native Americans, for African Americans, for Polynesians. I wonder how much of the complexity of western religion comes from the culture where it arose, or was restored to, etc.

What I'm getting at many Mormons get a taste of when they attend a ward service in an area where there are many more African American Mormons in the congregation. It's definitely a different "vibe". I've never been to one of these wards, but I completely understand, based on my years of going to Calvary Baptist in SLC.

[mUUser]

After watching the interview, I'm speechless. Not really, but for now, I'm speechless. It's gonna take a bit of time to digest this unnecessary, confusing, illogical, mean-spirited moment in the church's history.

[tooblue]

What I'm getting at many Mormons get a taste of when they attend a ward service in an area where there are many more African American Mormons in the congregation. It's definitely a different "vibe". I've never been to one of these wards, but I completely understand, based on my years of going to Calvary Baptist in SLC.

It is very different, and as a result of my considerable experience with wonderfully diverse LDS—including a healthy population of adult individuals, of Iranian and middle eastern heritage, who require approval from SLC in order to be baptized because of the real threat of death etc.—Wards, the hand wringing on this site about this and many other issues by predominantly white, American and living in the Western US individuals, is insufferable.

[Utah]

This is nothing more than bigotry, plain and simple.

The only question is, when does the Church retract this and call Monson a bigot ala Brigham Young.

The Church has found its way out of anything. Just throw the past leader under the bus, call him uninspired, then show how inspired your new leader is by changing it.

This church is not led by revelation.

[Ma'ake]

It is very different, and as a result of my considerable experience with wonderfully diverse LDS—including a healthy population of adult individuals, of Iranian and middle eastern heritage, who require approval from SLC in order to be baptized because of the real threat of death etc.—Wards, the hand wringing on this site about this and many other issues by predominantly white, American and living in the Western US individuals, is insufferable.

I was at the "insurfferable" stage in my reaction for quite awhile, but now I'm more at a "fascination" stage. Human beings are tribal creatures, in many ways. Within the tribe are different mindsets *about* the tribe. Orthodox / literal vs more nuanced perspectives, etc.

When I converse with Hindu colleagues about their background, the upwardly mobile, liberal Hindus I know share their frustration and disgust with the caste system, or the gang rape problem, etc. (very serious issues). The details change, the but conversations are essentially the same as I have with many good LDS friends who struggle with various issues in the LDS world.

I've heard the same discourse in Tongan (though my comprehension level is much lower, I can get the gist of the message), I've heard the same among good African American friends, who simultaneously value their community and culture, but disagree with some aspects, here and there.

It's not hard for me to imagine similar conversations among our ancestors, waaaaay back, like "I can't believe he had sex with that Neanderthal girl again! Where does he think this is taking us? We will be destroyed by Thor! Wait... that other group has a few half breeds, and they seem to be doing OK. Maybe we'll be OK".

;)

[Ma'ake]

This is nothing more than bigotry, plain and simple.

The only question is, when does the Church retract this and call Monson a bigot ala Brigham Young.

The Church has found its way out of anything. Just throw the past leader under the bus, call him uninspired, then show how inspired your new leader is by changing it.

This church is not led by revelation.

I have to disagree. I'd bet my house that things will be quite different in the future, but I wince at the assertion of "bigotry". If it exists in result, it is certainly not by intent, not with guys like Christopherson, with his own family history, trying to reconcile all the issues they have to deal with.

As for revelation - what exactly does that mean? Is there some old guy with a long white beard answering questions from authorized agents? I just don't believe that. I can understand how that understanding evolved, but it just doesn't pass the rationality test, for me.

Have there been many different people throughout history who have yearned for answers and been inspired in the understandings they arrive at? Absolutely. Case in point: Pope Francis.

"Hold fast unto that which is good". Like creating a new position called "nickelback" to defend slot receivers, what is "good" evolves.

[LA Ute]

I am still digesting this development and reading what I can. This is a fascinating perspective from an active, believing gay Mormon:

http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2015/11/waiting-on-lord-same-sex-adoption.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

There's a 13 year old in my ward. His parents are divorced, dad remarried and active in the church, mom very antagonistic to the church. The kid has not been baptized but has been meeting with the missionaries on almost a weekly basis to try amend this. Given that I've taught the kid in Sunday School and soon to be in Young Men's when he turns 14 next month, I've been asked to participate in a few of these discussions.

The missionaries have used the commitment pattern for prayer to gain a testimony, to soften his mom's heart to allow him to be baptized and "a myriad of a few other things" to really twist this kid up. It's been hard to sit through at times. But with the dad there, he seems totally cool with the twisting, so who am I?

Seems like this new policy should be far more reaching than just children of a homosexual. Maybe not letting any child of a split family to get baptized until they're 18 is the policy where we end up down the road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Bill Reel is a podcaster even LA and Sancho can appreciate. He was a Bishop in the Midwest until his recent move to Southern Utah. He has a very Terryl Givens-esque approach to belief

He is having a difficult time with the new policy statement and he voices his concerns in a manner that I believe many believing members also feel.

Give it a listen. (After the game, of course) http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2015/11/same-sex-policy-changes-my-thoughts/

[LA Ute]

I'm still trying to figure out why this was rolled out in such an unfortunate way. I understand the problem with a leak, but they should have been ready for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

I am still digesting this development and reading what I can. This is a fascinating perspective from an active, believing gay Mormon:

http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2015/11/waiting-on-lord-same-sex-adoption.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm going to call this the LDS Bottomless Rule: Inevitably discussion of LDS Church issues reaches a level of impoverishment below what is worthwhile even to discuss. For example: Book of Mormon historicity; the latest official explanations for disqualifying children of same sex parents from membership.

[LA Ute]

I'm going to call this the LDS Bottomless Rule: Inevitably discussion of LDS Church issues reaches a level of impoverishment below what is worthwhile even to discuss. For example: Book of Mormon historicity; the latest official explanations for disqualifying children of same sex parents from membership.

I'm pretty weary of this subject but I'll just point out that no one (no minor child, I should have said) is disqualified from membership by this policy. It's worthwhile and interesting to discuss and elucidate real facts or issues. Caricatures of issues and facts, not so much.

[Ma'ake]

I am still digesting this development and reading what I can. This is a fascinating perspective from an active, believing gay Mormon:
http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/2015/11/waiting-on-lord-same-sex-adoption.html?m=1


Interesting read. Within an LDS mindset, a powerful story, strong reinforcement. I'm always interested in the "flip side" perspective.

When my son was going to be baptized LDS, we were approached by good friends at Calvary who had had something similar happen to them. One of their daughters decided to become LDS, which wreaked havoc on her mom, and the daughter went on a mission, but came home early, shaken, and returned to Calvary, "came back into the fold".

"Have faith, pray, and hope it's God's will for them to come back".

A totally different situation happened with my childhood, super-LDS friend. He went on a mission, came back convinced that "Christianity" was the way - like the BYU WR Luke Ashworth - and his parents' faces would grow horrified when he came up in conversation. "We hope, we're praying and fasting. That's all we can do".

This is all evidence for me that Thomas Jefferson was right, God must be a Deist.

There's no way that God would allow this amount of angst and turmoil to occur, in polar opposite directions, over "him".

[LA Ute]

I think the church may end up clarifying the new policy. For example, I don't get why the consent of both parents doesn't clear the way for baby blessings, baptism, ordinations, and the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisrenrut]

I think the church may end up clarifying the new policy. For example, I don't get why the consent of both parents doesn't clear the way for baby blessings, baptism, ordinations, and the rest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you watch Christopherson's Q&A? it is supposed to keep the child from having to, in their innocence, not have to deal with the dissonance of being taught to believe at church that what is happening at home is not right in a bigger way than normal sin. I guess polygamy and SSM count as bigger sins.

We'll be testing this in our ward soon. A current active deacon lives with his divorced mom, while his dad is in a SSM in California. According to the handbook, he can't be ordained a teacher when he turns 14 in January. The way it is written now is super-strict and doesn't allow for an exception until he is of "legal" age. It's these kind of scenarios that will cause clarification or change, hopefully in the near future. I don't see how stopping his progression protects his innocence at all.

[LA Ute]

Did you watch Christopherson's Q&A? it is supposed to keep the child from having to, in their innocence, not have to deal with the dissonance of being taught to believe at church that what is happening at home is not right in a bigger way than normal sin. I guess polygamy and SSM count as bigger sins.

We'll be testing this in our ward soon. A current active deacon lives with his divorced mom, while his dad is in a SSM in California. According to the handbook, he can't be ordained a teacher when he turns 14 in January. The way it is written now is super-strict and doesn't allow for an exception until he is of "legal" age. It's these kind of scenarios that will cause clarification or change, hopefully in the near future. I don't see how stopping his progression protects his innocence at all.

Your example is the type of situation I am thinking about. It's probably much more common than cases where both parents are in a SSM. When one parent bolts from the marriage the other ought to be able to carry on with raising the children. In cases where there is joint custody you'd still need both parents to consent but that is nothing new.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

The rumor is that the church's internal data shows 80% of Millenials disagree with this new policy. If the Millenials are that far opposed to it, just imagine how much more opposed the younger generations will be (they will be nearly unanimous opposed). Lots of them know or are related to an lgbt person and realize they are exactly like they are. There seems to be a belief in the COB that gay people are criminal sex perverts, and not just ordinary people like everybody else. Besides, if marriage is only about sex will somebody please tell my wife? :D

We had three active families in our ward post on FB that they are taking a break from church for a few months over this new policy, and one is completely resigning. Another family (Young Men's President and RS Counselor) are also very upset and confused, and are unsure what lies in their future. This is an ENORMOUS blow to a smaller ward outside of the Jell-O belt to have almost 10% of the active, temple-attending, calling-fulfilling members suddenly walk away.

As of this morning an attorney in SLC has already processed 1400+ resignations during this year (1100+ of them since last Thursday) and he has well over 1000 Facebook confirmations of people who will join in a mass resignation event at Temple Square this coming Saturday.

And I saved the best for last. My wife's close friend told us this story. Her parents serve in a mission presidency (prob shouldn't publically say which mission, pm for more info). A mission companionship has been teaching a ~13 yr-old boy and his father. Last week they had a great discussion with them, and the father texted the missionaries the next day thanking them for a wonderful meeting.

The boy was scheduled to get baptized next week. The father is married to another man, and both of them support the boy getting baptized. This wasn't a problem until last Thursday.

On Friday the father texted the missionaries asking about the new policy. The missionaries had no idea what to do so they called the mission president. He told the missionaries they had to cancel the boy's baptism and stop teaching him. They didn't know what to do (because they are only a few years older than the boy), so the MP counselor (our friend's father) went with them.

The experience was horrible. The boy was devastated as were his dads. There are no good answers that don't point directly at irrational intolerance and a bigotry so deep that it extends to the innocent children.

My friend's father returned home to his wife and told her, "Let me know when we can be finished with this religion. I will not pay another single penny of tithing to support this organization."

[NorthwestUteFan]

Then again, perhaps they are doing these children a favor:

[UtahsMrSports]

The rumor is that the church's internal data shows 80% of Millenials disagree with this new policy. If the Millenials are that far opposed to it, just imagine how much more opposed the younger generations will be (they will be nearly unanimous opposed). Lots of them know or are related to an lgbt person and realize they are exactly like they are. There seems to be a belief in the COB that gay people are criminal sex perverts, and not just ordinary people like everybody else. Besides, if marriage is only about sex will somebody please tell my wife? :D

We had three active families in our ward post on FB that they are taking a break from church for a few months over this new policy, and one is completely resigning. Another family (Young Men's President and RS Counselor) are also very upset and confused, and are unsure what lies in their future. This is an ENORMOUS blow to a smaller ward outside of the Jell-O belt to have almost 10% of the active, temple-attending, calling-fulfilling members suddenly walk away.

As of this morning an attorney in SLC has already processed 1400+ resignations during this year (1100+ of them since last Thursday) and he has well over 1000 Facebook confirmations of people who will join in a mass resignation event at Temple Square this coming Saturday.

And I saved the best for last. My wife's close friend told us this story. Her parents serve in a mission presidency (prob shouldn't publically say which mission, pm for more info). A mission companionship has been teaching a ~13 yr-old boy and his father. Last week they had a great discussion with them, and the father texted the missionaries the next day thanking them for a wonderful meeting.

The boy was scheduled to get baptized next week. The father is married to another man, and both of them support the boy getting baptized. This wasn't a problem until last Thursday.

On Friday the father texted the missionaries asking about the new policy. The missionaries had no idea what to do so they called the mission president. He told the missionaries they had to cancel the boy's baptism and stop teaching him. They didn't know what to do (because they are only a few years older than the boy), so the MP counselor (our friend's father) went with them.

The experience was horrible. The boy was devastated as were his dads. There are no good answers that don't point directly at irrational intolerance and a bigotry so deep that it extends to the innocent children.

My friend's father returned home to his wife and told her, "Let me know when we can be finished with this religion. I will not pay another single penny of tithing to support this organization."

Another mass resignation! Cool! Maybe this one will cross that elusive double digit threshold!

[Ma'ake]

I think the church may end up clarifying the new policy. For example, I don't get why the consent of both parents doesn't clear the way for baby blessings, baptism, ordinations, and the rest.


Yep.

The good people who write the Handbook probably had no idea that equating SSM couples with Polygamous households was going to blow up like this.

My wife and son were discussing this issue Sunday, and my very discouraged wife kept re-iterating that this *feels* much like the Priesthood ban. Then she started reading a 1st Presidency letter from 1947 stating that interracial marriage was repugnant, etc. I had seen a letter from the same 1st Presidency from *1949* saying the ban wasn't policy, but a direct commandment from God.

So, in one of those occasional surreal moments, *I* started on a defense of the late 40s First Presidency, saying David O McKay was one of those signers, yet he was also one who kept asking about the policy, praying, re-thinking things. He died, but that process of reviewing, studying, and praying came to fruition in 1978.

So, I gave my wife a pep talk, got her off to church, and I went hiking, where I find my own Zen.

I stand by my original thesis in this thread. The wheels are turning. Slowly, haltingly. Hearts are being softened, questions are pondered, a path forward is looked for.

The biggest differences today are technology, and back in Utah in the late 20th century relatively few Utahns knew many black people. Everyone knows multiple gay people, whether they realize it or not. The theological path is more complex, the pressure is far broader, and changes in social understandings happen far more quickly in 2015.

(This is a huge issue for the Mormon leadership, but I'm glad they are the people they are, instead of the paranoid wing of the 7th Day Adventists, who believe the Second Coming is 2 or 3 years away, at most, preparing for an era where Catholics and other Christians imprison and possibly execute 7DA adherents because they didn't crumble and change the Sabbath to be Sunday. Sheesh.)

[Applejack]

I still think these cases will be fast tracked. There are enough of them, and they are not what this was intended for.

Sad to me that the church did this so poorly. If the handbook had just started with "In order to avoid creating conflict in the home,...." And why was there ever a need to say "must disavow"? If the case is going to the first presidency, then the first presidency can ask what they want to ask. There's no need to specify to bishops and stake presidents that anyone need disavow anything.

What is this fast track procedure? As I read the rule, there is no exception for kids. They can't even ask the first presidency until they are 18.

[tooblue]

The rumor is that the church's internal data shows 80% of Millenials disagree with this new policy. If the Millenials are that far opposed to it, just imagine how much more opposed the younger generations will be (they will be nearly unanimous opposed).

This is such a common type of refrain I read from you and others here in this forum. Why? I interact with millennials on a daily basis. They are not the “great hope” you suppose them to be. While they are "politically" more tolerant, they are far more irrationally strident than any previous generation I have encountered. With greater—or what one might call absolute—societal tolerance comes much less empathy. I witness this phenomenon daily. It's jarring, because I can see where one could imagine the opposite to be true. But that's just not the case. Remembering of course, gay marriage has been legal here for more than ten years.

And I agree with Ma'ake: the wheels are turning.

[LA Ute]

What is this fast track procedure? As I read the rule, there is no exception for kids. They can't even ask the first presidency until they are 18.

I am willing to bet that the rule's rigidity will be relaxed. How soon is anyone's guess but I hope it's soon.

[mUUser]

Bottom line is this new policy was totally unnecessary, came across as mean spirited, and has caused a lot of confusion, anger, sadness, doubt etc..... I'm hoping church leaders are wishing they had a do-over on this one. It's gotta go -- it's the right thing to do.

[chrisrenrut]

Bottom line is this new policy was totally unnecessary, came across as mean spirited, and has caused a lot of confusion, anger, sadness, doubt etc..... I'm hoping church leaders are wishing they had a do-over on this one. It's gotta go -- it's the right thing to do.

+1.

[LA Ute]

This is it. You don't get a 2nd chance to make a digital 1st impression. Once facebook, twitter, and various memes of different degrees of cleverness decided that this was about punishing children, it was about punishing children. No amount of next day "this is to protect families from discord" talk can erase that.

This could have been phrased and released in a way that would have caused 1/10th the reaction.

Ding-ding-ding-ding!

[NorthwestUteFan]

Another mass resignation! Cool! Maybe this one will cross that elusive double digit threshold!

The first one was bigger than my entire ward. I don't know how many people attended but the organizers had confirmation of over 250 "You're Fired" letters mailed to the church. But most of those people had already thought their way out of the church so the impact was probably minimal.

This time it is the active, temple recommend-holding members who are very upset and thinking about leaving and questioning whether they can continue to lend their good names to the organization.

Statistically everybody knows more lgbt people than they know left-handed people.

[SeattleUte]

The first one was bigger than my entire ward. I don't know how many people attended but the organizers had confirmation of over 250 "You're Fired" letters mailed to the church. But most of those people had already thought their way out of the church so the impact was probably minimal.

This time it is the active, temple recommend-holding members who are very upset and thinking about leaving and questioning whether they can continue to lend their good names to the organization.

Statistically everybody knows more lgbt people than they know left-handed people.

I never understood resignation. Why give credence to your record status in the Church?

[mUUser]

I never understood resignation. Why give credence to your record status in the Church?


Interesting question......and not sure any good answer exists. Perhaps people just don't want to be bugged anymore?

My parents haven't attended church in over 40 years, but still maintain their membership.

My mom, until recently, when her VT companion passed, was a visiting teacher during that time. But, that's all she did.

My dad, over the course of 40 years accepted a couple of callings that wouldn't require regular church attendance. For example, he directed the ward choir for a number of years. When the choir sang, he was at church. When they didn't. He wasn't at church.

They've also maintained HT'ers over the past 40 years, with their current HT'ers having visited for about 30 years now. Actually, the husband died this year, but his wife continues to visit them on her own.

Again, I'm not sure why my dad hasn't given up his membership. He's agnostic now. Every time there's a new HPGL, they always charge over to the house in an attempt to reactivate him. I've probably asked one of my best buddies who's in their ward to run interference with the HPGL a half-dozen times over the years. They just get too pushy.

Even if my dad wanted to attend church anymore, he couldn't. Simply to infirm to spend an hour or three at church. His time is short.

I think once my dad passes, my mom may return to church. I think she sometimes misses it.

Not sure why I even posted this as it doesn't answer your question.....just that church, or lack of it, works in different ways for different people.

[UtahsMrSports]

The first one was bigger than my entire ward. I don't know how many people attended but the organizers had confirmation of over 250 "You're Fired" letters mailed to the church. But most of those people had already thought their way out of the church so the impact was probably minimal.

This time it is the active, temple recommend-holding members who are very upset and thinking about leaving and questioning whether they can continue to lend their good names to the organization.

Statistically everybody knows more lgbt people than they know left-handed people.

Im not convinced that these mass resignation events draw much more than folks who are already long gone. I am not convinced that this will be the catastrophic event that the Dehlinites and Kellyites are hoping for/predicting. Was this handled well? obviously not ideally. Time will tell how it plays out.

[mUUser]

Im not convinced that these mass resignation events draw much more than folks who are already long gone.....


This one feels different to me because it goes after children. Children are off limits......

[chrisrenrut]

This one feels different to me because it goes after children. Children are off limits......

Based on my Facebook feed, most who are being most vocal about resigning are already disaffected. This includes a few relatives and close friends, and multiple more people I don't know who commented on their posts.

I would imagine that that those who are currently somewhat invovled in the church that are considering resigning may be doing so in a more quite, less public manner.

[LA Ute]

Based on my Facebook feed, most who are being most vocal about resigning are already disaffected. This includes a few relatives and close friends, and multiple more people I don't know who commented on their posts.

I would imagine that that those who are currently somewhat invovled in the church that are considering resigning may be doing so in a more quite, less public manner.

I was about to type a response but decided I honestly don't know what to say.

[SeattleUte]

Based on my Facebook feed, most who are being most vocal about resigning are already disaffected. This includes a few relatives and close friends, and multiple more people I don't know who commented on their posts.

I would imagine that that those who are currently somewhat invovled in the church that are considering resigning may be doing so in a more quite, less public manner.

And the people who are defending it would defend anything the gerontocracy did without question, as they are now demonstrating. It's done to protect the same sex families from discord? GMAFB. They don't care about that; it's what they want. An 18 year old has to repudiate his parents' marriage as an abomination; how mature do people think an 18 year old is? You who defend them just want to be led by the nose.

Dostoevsky could be pretty pious, and he spoke about Christ ecstatically but didn't like church or priests. I totally get that. My view of religion is no secret, and the thing by far that I find most distasteful about religion is the authority. Dostoevsky's analogy of people willingly herded like cattle has always resonated with me. There are good things about the LDS Church; the worst thing are those old white men who encourage their deification. Sterling McMurrin said they treat the members like babies, and I totally agree. Something about human nature wants that, but I didn't get that gene.

[chrisrenrut]

And the people who are defending it would defend anything the gerontocracy did without question, as they are now demonstrating. It's done to protect the same sex families from discord? GMAFB. They don't care about that; it's what they want. An 18 year old has to repudiate his parents' marriage as an abomination; how mature do people think an 18 year old is? You who defend them just want to be led by the nose.

Dostoevsky could be pretty pious, and he spoke about Christ ecstatically but didn't like church or priests. I totally get that. My view of religion is no secret, and the thing by far that I find most distasteful about religion is the authority. Dostoevsky's analogy of people willingly herded like cattle has always resonated with me. There are good things about the LDS Church; the worst thing are those old white men who encourage their deification. Sterling McMurrin said they treat the members like babies, and I totally agree. Something about human nature wants that, but I didn't get that gene.

Wow, I had no idea you felt this way! It's great to see you take this rare opportunity. You shouldn't be so demure in your opinions on religion.:)

[LA Ute]

Wow, I had no idea you felt this way! It's great to see you take this rare opportunity. You shouldn't be so demure in your opinions on religion.:)

Crazy Uncle SU:flamethrower: chrisrenrut

[Sullyute]

The first one was bigger than my entire ward. I don't know how many people attended but the organizers had confirmation of over 250 "You're Fired" letters mailed to the church. But most of those people had already thought their way out of the church so the impact was probably minimal.

This time it is the active, temple recommend-holding members who are very upset and thinking about leaving and questioning whether they can continue to lend their good names to the organization.

Statistically everybody knows more lgbt people than they know left-handed people.

Hopefully the Church will go after those wierdos next. :Evil:

[Rocker Ute]

The first one was bigger than my entire ward. I don't know how many people attended but the organizers had confirmation of over 250 "You're Fired" letters mailed to the church. But most of those people had already thought their way out of the church so the impact was probably minimal.

This time it is the active, temple recommend-holding members who are very upset and thinking about leaving and questioning whether they can continue to lend their good names to the organization.

Statistically everybody knows more lgbt people than they know left-handed people.


More than 10% of the population is LGBT?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living-pictures/little-known-facts-about-lefthanders.aspx

[chrisrenrut]

Crazy Uncle SU:flamethrower: chrisrenrut

I hope SU doesn't feel oppressed, or that I'm being intolerant of his opinion. If so, we can make the Unbeleiver thread his safe zone.

[LA Ute]

I hope SU doesn't feel oppressed, or that I'm being intolerant of his opinion. If so, we can make the Unbeleiver thread his safe zone.

He's impressively resilient. He'll be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

More than 10% of the population is LGBT?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

http://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living-pictures/little-known-facts-about-lefthanders.aspx

I should mention that you all know me, your resident flamboyant left-hander. Societal pressures that tried to force me into using backward scissors, caused me to perpetually have ink on the side of my hand, forced me to shake with my less dominant hand by tradition and left me unable to borrow a friend's golf clubs to learn how to golf. These and many other things have left me isolated and alone, damaged by your perpetual insensitivity.

[LA Ute]

I should mention that you all know me, your resident flamboyant left-hander. Societal pressures that tried to force me into using backward scissors, caused me to perpetually have ink on the side of my hand, forced me to shake with my less dominant hand by tradition and left me unable to borrow a friend's golf clubs to learn how to golf. These and many other things have left me isolated and alone, damaged by your perpetual insensitivity.

I feel your pain. It is well known that I am an unrepentant southpaw. I throw, shoot and kick a ball right-handed, however. Multidextrous is my category.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I too am a lefty. Unfortunately, several years of shock therapy was never fully able to cure me of my disorder and really turned me into a bit of an ambidextrous Frankenstein. I throw left handed, but bat better from a righty stance. I dribble and shoot most dominantly with my right. Running and cycling, my sports of choice in my old age seems to trade off with each stride.

[Scorcho]

the difficult thing for me is that I have a teenager who is already struggling with her testimony. When her non-LDS friends talk to her about this she shy's away from the topic.

At one time she had pride and confidence in being LDS, but that isn't as apparent any longer. When she tried to talk to me about it, I was stumped, I had nothing for her.

[LA Ute]

the difficult thing for me is that I have a teenager who is already struggling with her testimony. When her non-LDS friends talk to her about this she shy's away from the topic.

At one time she had pride and confidence in being LDS, but that isn't as apparent any longer. When she tried to talk to me about it, I was stumped, I had nothing for her.

This is a very tough problem. When adults with strong testimonies struggle to defend the policy (it just isn't easy), how can we expect teens to defend it well and feel comfortable doing it? My college freshman daughter is doing OK so far, but tells me she had more flak about being LDS in one day -- the day this broke -- than she had encountered in her entire life up to then (and she'd had quite a bit in high school). What puzzles me about this whole thing is that the church seemed unprepared for the public reaction.

All that said, John Dehlin is a viper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

You have to wonder what role, if any, all this played in the ruling from the juvenile judge who ordered a foster child be removed from a gay couple this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

i hope all of you who live out of state realize this is not just a mormon/non mormon thing. There are many many devout families in our part of the world (SLC; not Provo Sandy or Davis County) who are very very troubled by this and wnet to church on Sunday with a heavy heart. Facebook has exploded with devout members expressing doubt about this policy--and believe it is a mistake.

[LA Ute]

i hope all of you who live out of state realize this is not just a mormon/non mormon thing. There are many many devout families in our part of the world (SLC; not Provo Sandy or Davis County) who are very very troubled by this and wnet to church on Sunday with a heavy heart. Facebook has exploded with devout members expressing doubt about this policy--and believe it is a mistake.

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

You have to wonder what role, if any, all this played in the ruling from the juvenile judge who ordered a foster child be removed from a gay couple this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have wondered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

the difficult thing for me is that I have a teenager who is already struggling with her testimony. When her non-LDS friends talk to her about this she shy's away from the topic.

At one time she had pride and confidence in being LDS, but that isn't as apparent any longer. When she tried to talk to me about it, I was stumped, I had nothing for her.

This made me wince, and I'm not even a believer (in the LDS theology, nor do I subscribe to any particular theology).

I read a thoughtful piece on an apologetics board a few years back by somebody named Brandt Gardner, who gave some advice to the faithful when they encountered information that disrupted their "paradigm":

"As you encounter new information, adjust your paradigm"

Think about the thoughts that caused you to arrive at your current belief. Were they erroneous? Were they maybe a bit naïve? (There's nothing wrong with being innocent, not being jaded or cynical.) Were your expectations unrealistic? We're talking about human beings steering the ship here on earth, after all.

Reality is always more complex and nuanced than idealistic thinking. But absorbing the reality that grey predominates doesn't mean you need to jettison your ideals, your core beliefs.

Being a teenager is not easy, but hopefully this is a good lesson in the wisdom in looking beyond the headline.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Ma'ake, I think you hit the bullseye on this situation but perhaps not the way you intended. I don't see this ad people abandoning their values as much as I see it as the LDS church taking a stance that does not seem to support people's own innate sense of morality.

And as for all you left-handed people, your kids will not be allowed into the club until they turn 18, move out of your homes, get interviewed by the club president, and disavow your lefthanded lifestyle choices. We can't have your left-handedness rub off on anybody else.

[Ma'ake]

NUF - Great post, I agree. :)

The general issue, then SSM provoking a stance, which itself becomes controversial, reveals a significant landscape shift. (Any guesses on how widespread the sentiment is on seeing this as "harsh"? Can't be more than 20%, it seems to me, because most people just focus on their daily lives.)

Theology often lags social change, but in the time compression and amplified thought expression we have in 2015, how fast can theology adapt?

The reaction itself will prompt a focused revisiting of scripture, thinking evolves.

I don't know how quickly the issue of slavery went from being sanctioned by the Bible to being anathema to Biblical teachings, but suffice it to say we're in a similar period of change, and the speed of change (enabled by technology) brings very interesting pressure.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I agree this undercurrent of discontent is not in any way widespread in the broader Mormon culture. But it is extremely broad in certain populations. In this case the population with broad discontent is the 15-35 age range. Much older populations are likely to be more broadly supportive. In many ways this is a Cronkite moment for the church (LBJ famously quipped about a negative comnentary about the Vietnam war, "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I have lost America" ). Just how far into the future can an organization exist if its policies are anathema to young people?

Your comment on theology supporting, then abhorring slavery is salient. Religions long supported slavery, going back many thousands of years, with occasional exceptions. Relevant to American slavery, there was a small abolition movement in churches in England in the early 1700s which led to England banning slave trade. Later in the century and in the early 1800s, this caught on in American churches in the New England states, notably among Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Unitarians. This movement among abolitionist preachers and secular leaders grew and America changed. Today there are scattered pockets of Christian churches that still preach racist teachings, but they are very few and far between. The entire field has flipped, but it started with scattered pockets of resistance.

Maybe we are just making this too hard. How difficult could it be to just follow the Prophet and ignore the nagging doubts in our moral minds?

fYJI74u7jlQ

[DrumNFeather]

Some clarification, FWIW: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

[chrisrenrut]

Some clarification, FWIW: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

Baby steps. That at least a alleviates the issue coming up in my ward.

[LA Ute]

Some clarification, FWIW: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

A common-sense clarification.

[Sullyute]

Some clarification, FWIW: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

Ok, so they used "same-gender marriage or similar relationship." What constitutes a "similar relationship"? Gay people living together? Dating but not living together?

[LA Ute]

Ok, so they used "same-gender marriage or similar relationship." What constitutes a "similar relationship"? Gay people living together? Dating but not living together?

I guess they'll figure that out case by case.

[SeattleUte]

Some clarification, FWIW: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

Not surprising. This only undermines the logic of their purported rationale, but who ever expected logic or consistency from this bunch.

[Ma'ake]

NUF - I found a letter on the 'net penned by 4 Quakers in the year 1688 in Pennsylvania stating their objection to slavery.

Remarkable position to take, 99 years before slavery was put into the Constitution with the 3/5ths compromise, but also remarkable that it was also roughly 200 years later when the change on Biblical interpretation was settled, more or less.

There's a big difference in degree between slavery and racism, and I realize my thesis that homosexuals may ultimately achieve full parity within LDS theology is a Grand Canyon sized gulf from tolerating gay marriage in a secular way, but I think it would be more like 20-40 years, instead of 200.

Kate Kelly got booted, which was probably inevitable given how hard she was pushing, but I would include the notable progress in giving women leadership positions as both a result of increased scrutiny on the topic, perhaps a bit of backpedaling from the indigestion on early polygamy history, but this also nudges forward toward gender (perhaps) becoming a non-factor.

In 1978, the wording was "all worthy males..."

Will we see "all worthy members..." by 2028? Who knows, but that would be the final barrier, it seems to me.

[Scorcho]

Like many Mormons, I’ve had questions/doubts about some of the toxic LDS issues like the practice of polygamy, the delay of the Priesthood to Blacks, the Mountain Meadow incident, etc. but I could always distance myself from those topics and come to an understanding that was a different time, and not relevant to me today. I could simply hold on to the core concepts of the LDS Gospel and not concern myself with the more controversial fringe topics (I think most LDS Members are like me and can compartmentalize these things we don’t fully understand). I know for some people that isn’t possible, and I can respect that.

However, this issue is completely different. It is relevant to me today. It’s puzzling and concerning. It’s shaken my faith.

We all have relatives, friends, co-workers who are homosexual. 99% of those are great family members, good friends and great citizens. In fact I believe many of them go out of their way to be more charitable simply because they feel the need to be more accepted than those of us that are straight. When I worked for AT&T, they put an emphasis on advertising to the gay community. Studies had shown that they were generally more affluent, had more disposable income and were less likely to default on bills. I do see these LDS policy changes as hated-filled and un-Christ like and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from when they were announced. There are all sorts of non-traditional people who make great parents.

I won’t leave the church because of this policy. I still believe that the core gospel has great principles that makes life fuller and happier and maybe given some time, my heart will soften and maybe by some miracle I gain some further understanding as to why. But for the first time, I am embarrassed and feel ashamed to be part of something I thought strived to eclipse all of that.

It’s just sad.

[Rocker Ute]

I can't remember where I mentioned this, but the clarification letter is in line with what my Stake President told me when I asked him about it, and what he said they were counseled to do. This is obviously a good step, and makes me wonder if the many stories that popped up of people being sent home from their missions, refused mission service, baptism, etc were instances of a Stake President being off the rails and not asking for further clarification, or if they were largely made up or where people would just assume that was what was going to happen. Probably a little from column a and a little from column b.

[LA Ute]

I can't remember where I mentioned this, but the clarification letter is in line with what my Stake President told me when I asked him about it, and what he said they were counseled to do. This is obviously a good step, and makes me wonder if the many stories that popped up of people being sent home from their missions, refused mission service, baptism, etc where instances of a Stake President being off the rails and not asking for further clarification, or if they were largely made up or where people would just assume that was what was going to happen. Probably a little from column a and a little from column b.

I hope the great majority are from column B!

[Scorcho]

Some clarification, FWIW: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/13/clarification/

i realize I'm nitpicking, but how thoughtful of the First Presidency to include that all children can receive Priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

Are you kidding me? Was that really necessary to clarify? Are they also eligible to receive Christmas presents on December 25th?


Time for me to back away from this topic before I go off on personal PPI's and probing questions about watching the Bravo channel.

[mUUser]

This policy is a cluster, even if there were a dozen clarifications attached to it. At this point it simply needs to be repealed.

[LA Ute]

i realize I'm nitpicking, but how thoughtful of the First Presidency to include that all children can receive Priesthood blessings of healing and spiritual guidance.

My guess is that they were concerned about people who are not familiar with the church thinking the kids would be spiritual outcasts in every way until they are 18 and could not benefit from anything the church has to offer. After all, the SL Tribune headline -- which the AP picked up -- was that the church was making children of same sex marriage apostates.

[UtahsMrSports]

My guess is that they were concerned about people who are not familiar with the church thinking the kids would be spiritual outcasts in every way until they are 18 and could not benefit from anything the church has to offer. After all, the SL Tribune headline -- which the AP picked up -- was that the church was making children of same sex marriage apostates.

You are not accusing the Trib of misrepresenting something are you, cause that would never happen............

In all seriousness, the winners in all of this are Peggy Fletcher-Hack and Pat Bagley. Generally, they have to put some effort into stirring the pot. This situation has given them a ton of free material, which they have capitalized on.

[LA Ute]

Understanding the Handbook (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook)
Just out today. Fire away.

[mUUser]

This policy is a cluster, even if there were a dozen clarifications attached to it. At this point it simply needs to be repealed.


Understanding the Handbook (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook)


Just out today. Fire away.


2 down. 10 more to go? :p

[Scorcho]

Understanding the Handbook (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook)


Just out today. Fire away.

i have no issue with that. It is clear, understandable and well written.

[Scorcho]

I obviously agree, but I'm not sure how this is related to the handbook thing. The Church is saying that gay couples are living in sin, not that they are unfit to be parents. They are effectively saying "you should raise your kids without the distraction of a church that is counter to your relationship. If you understand how we feel about same sex marriage and still want your kid to be baptized, come talk to us about it."

To bottom line it (which is a horrible pun), the LDS Church is extremely afraid of homosexuality and everything that comes with it. I do believe they are concerned with LDS Millennials being more open and accepting to gay lifestyles.

What was a half-court press with Prop-8 appears to have expanded to a ¾ court press with these new guidelines

[Rocker Ute]

You are not accusing the Trib of misrepresenting something are you, cause that would never happen............

In all seriousness, the winners in all of this are Peggy Fletcher-Hack and Pat Bagley. Generally, they have to put some effort into stirring the pot. This situation has given them a ton of free material, which they have capitalized on.

A lesser known fact is that Peggy Fletcher-Stack is LDS, lives in my brother's stake.

[Scratch]

I, for one, wish that the LDS church would have taken the opposite approach and decided to aggressively proselytize children in SSM households and baptized/indoctrinated them despite their parents wishes.

[SeattleUte]

I, for one, wish that the LDS church would have taken the opposite approach and decided to aggressively proselytize children in SSM households and baptized/indoctrinated them despite their parents wishes.

I'll see you your proselytizing the children and raise you proselytizing the parents and offering them temple marriage. Wouldn't that be something to celebrate.

[tooblue]

Blue - last week you told us that we don't understand diversity as well as you, and now we don't understand millennials. Maybe some other people around here have also had life experience?

Anyway, I read this last night, and the term "vindictive protectiveness" reminded me of your post:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

You're right. My comments were condescending. I apologize. I consider it a great blessing to have lived in Wards and Stakes where you can look out from the pulpit on congregations with members from more than thirty different nations. My primary intent was agree with Ma'ake that it changes the way you worship and how you live the gospel. I also have immediate family who are black. That changes the very nature of dinner conversations at each frequent family gathering. It's a great blessing in mine and my family's life and I should be more careful not to diminish it with my tone.

In regards to millennials, my only intent was to dispel the myth that they are any kind of a "great hope." I just don't see it. On the contrary, I am often left disillusioned by my daily experiences. An anecdote from today in particular can highlight my concerns. In my role, teaching art and design at a community college, I have the responsibility to teach principles of narrative as it relates to interactive, multimedia and Web design. I am specifically charged with creating outlines for large, comprehensive integrated media projects. This past summer I connected with researchers at a local natural history museum to augment the quality of the content in our students project work. It's exciting and interesting. The struggle I face though is the general ignorance and limited awareness of my students.

To be succinct, I have researched and created an outline for the design and development of a gesture controlled app, which can be used on a tv connected to an xbox kinect type of device. Beyond teaching principles of interactive narratives, conceptualizing and writing the project outline, my secondary role is to teach the students how to make the app beautiful and improve the user experience through good design. With this particular project I have chosen to use a classic moral tale to introduce and tell a modern moral tale about climate change. We are adapting a version of one of Aesop's fables.

The first thing I did today was ask students to explain what a 'moral tale' is. Not a single student could. In fact they could not even define or tell me what the word 'moral' means. I asked them to look it up (google it). They did, but still struggled to understand the explanation and definition. My class is three hours long. I spent most of it simply defining, explaining, trying desperately to convey the potential impact of the moral tale. Exacerbating the issue, not a single one has ever heard of Aesop, nor have they heard or read a single fable. It was a long day.

My students are not stupid. Many are talented, and willing to work hard, though they require a lot of hand-holding—they are millennials. This class is offered in their final year of study. A few have attended a couple of years of University but left to attend college for more practical hands-on technical skills. For more than a few, this will not be the last or only program they enroll in. They will get a couple of diploma's, and some will return to University. They are coddled and do not want to grow up, or leave school. It reminds me of the scripture:

2 Timothy 3:7 ... Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth

[Rocker Ute]

Millennials act and think exactly like computers. I am being dead serious. Set them to a task and they can do it, but they need instruction on everything. Once I understood that about them it was a lot easier to work with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't mention millenials because I think they will 'save humanity' (although they will eventually figure out how to do that, just like every other generation). I mention them because they are highly connected to peers with diverse backgrounds and they tend strongly to know and accept LGBT people.

They as an age group very strongly favor full acceptance in society of LGBT people, and they tend to prefer to abandon religion rather than allow a religion to convince them to discriminate against LGBT people. People this age would statictically prefer to leave the religion of their youth, or refuse to join a religion, if that religion is seen as discriminatory to homosexuals. The LDS church will hold less appeal to people in this age range and younger.

It should be readily obvious where this leads 10-25 years into the future.

From the Pew Religious Landscape Study of 2014 http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/ :


But while there is much continuity in the relationship of religion and politics in the U.S., not everything is fixed in stone. The Landscape Study shows, for example, that nearly all major religious groups have become significantly more accepting of homosexuality in recent years – even groups, such as evangelicals and Mormons, that traditionally have expressed strong opposition to same-sex relationships. Changing attitudes about homosexuality are linked to the same generational forces helping to reshape religious identity and practice in the United States, with Millennials expressing far more acceptance of homosexuality than older adults do. Fully half of Millennials who identify as evangelical Protestants, for instance, now say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

[Damage U]

Millennials act and think exactly like computers. I am being dead serious. Set them to a task and they can do it, but they need instruction on everything. Once I understood that about them it was a lot easier to work with them.


I guess this is a sign that I'm in the get off my lawn crowd. I have no patients for that. If I have to explain everything step by step, I might as well do the job myself.

[LA Ute]

This is a long but interesting piece by Rod Dreher, a non-Mormon observer, well worth the time it takes to read it.

Mormons & Gay Marriage (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mormons-gay-marriage-benedict-option/)

[Applejack]

This is a long but interesting piece by Rod Dreher, a non-Mormon observer, well worth the time it takes to read it.

Mormons & Gay Marriage (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mormons-gay-marriage-benedict-option/)



Emphasis on long. I'm still unsure of his point after reading it.

[LA Ute]

Emphasis on long. I'm still unsure of his point after reading it.

Try this one, which Dreher relied on. It gets to the nub of the issue, I think, without branching off into metaphysics.

Are Mormons villains, or just people with a different story about their identity? (https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/jacob-hess/are-mormons-villains-or-just-people-with-different-story-about-their-ident)


The author takes a pretty calm, even-handed approach.

[mUUser]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

[LA Ute]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

Just curious, did you read the Hess blog post linked in my post just prior to yours?

[concerned]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.

I am in a book group with two current bishops, and I know they each basically feel the same way. A third member of our group was scheduled to give a talk that Sunday after the announcement, and spoke from some earlier conference talk about how mistakes happen, and he said he thought this was one of them. So you are not alone.

[Scratch]

I've decided to just lay it out there in my next TR interview -- a year away. When asked, I'm simply going to state I don't believe this policy is God inspired, then let the person with the proper authority make the call as to whether I'm eligible to attend the temple. I guess this would fall under the "prophets, seers and revelator " & "support, affiliate or agree with..." questions.


I would be very surprised to see a TR pulled for that stance, but obviously you never know what a bishop/SP is going to do.

[LA Ute]

Interesting report by Peggy Fletcher Stack:

Gay leader huddles with Mormon officials, finds ‘genuine empathy and concern’ in wake of policy

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/3347602-155/gay-leader-huddles-with-mormon-officials


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Kind of interesting. Not sure I see the legal analysis:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/01/faithful-latter-day-saints-dealing-with.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

Kind of interesting. Not sure I see the legal analysis:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/01/faithful-latter-day-saints-dealing-with.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So she cries for several weeks over the new policy, then wakes up one morning with the personal revelation that the church had no choice but to institute the policy, not for their reasons stated (to protect the children), but for legal CYA.....and now she's ok with everything. Yikes.

[Applejack]

Kind of interesting. Not sure I see the legal analysis:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/01/faithful-latter-day-saints-dealing-with.html?m=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:troll:

[LA Ute]

This is directly relevant to the subject of this thread, so I will post it here:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865645244/President-Russell-M-Nelson-Becoming-true-millennials.html


“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively,” he said. “And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”

This “prophetic process” — which also includes fasting, prayer, studying, pondering, counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue — was followed in 2012 with the change in age for missionary service, as well as the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries, President Nelson said.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter,” he said. “Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

“And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.”

Members of the church have to decide how they feel about this statement by the president of the Q12. I am still working through how I will apply it myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

:troll:

Russell Nelson had the ultimate troll last Sat night in a fireside for young single adults.



"I promise you that when you begin to catch even a glimpse of how your Heavenly Father sees you and what He is counting on you to do for Him, your life will never be the same!"
~RMN


Later in the broadcast he stayed emphatically that the new policy change is, in fact, a revelation from God.

So Heavenly Father loves you and sees you as better than you think you are, now go out and support this policy change because The Lord commands it.

[Sullyute]

I don't understand how the brethren/Church doesn't realize that they when they pick up a stick that they get the other end too. Every time they try and clarify, rationalize, explain, etc this gay policy, gay marriage, gay rights, gay anything, they get the bad publicity that comes with it.

The rest of society has moved on with full acceptance. So unless they are going to come out and also give full acceptance, then it is just another reminder of being behind the times, repeating history, hateful, bigoted, etc. I realize that they may not see it that way, but a growing minority of their members, and the vast majority of non-members definitely do.

Brethren, do whatever you feel is best, but as a concerned member of your flock, please stop talking about it in public!

[eldiente]

Brethren, do whatever you feel is best, but as a concerned member of your flock, please stop talking about it in public!

Watchmen on the tower.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Ma'ake started this thread to address exactly the issue stated in the title. Elder Nelson's talk is directly on point. Members of the church are going to read it and will have to decide how to respond. I think it is a significant development regarding this issue. Just to be clear, that is why I posted it. I am not trying to preach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Watchmen on the tower.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes. Just like the Japanese soldier who defended his post in the Philippines until 1974.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1583047.1389980207!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/japan.jpg

[LA Ute]

I feel like I'm missing something. I read the little summary. What's the new development?

It is a talk by the president of the Quorum of the 12, describing exactly the deliberative process by which the new handbook policy came to be. I could be wrong, but I don't think that had been done yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eldiente]

Yes. Just like the Japanese soldier who defended his post in the Philippines until 1974.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1583047.1389980207!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/japan.jpg


More like - https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-110-watchman-on-the-tower?lang=eng


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Oh. I guess I just assume they deliberate on these kinds of things.

There was a narrative being pushed that he policy was the work of clerks or staff and hadn't been thought through carefully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

There was a narrative being pushed that he policy was the work of clerks or staff and hadn't been thought through carefully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The policy is now officially a Revelation. And anybody who disagrees with or fights against this position is officially one of Satan's servants (according to RMN).

It is getting hard to keep up.

[NorthwestUteFan]

You love to do this, but I think you know better.
It is hard work being one of Satan's servants.

[Solon]

It is hard work being one of Satan's servants.

What is the list of sins/behaviors that will get a person excommunicated from the LDS church?
(I am avoiding "denying the Holy Ghost" because I don't really know what that means or how it can be measured)

1. Felony Crimes.
2. Infidelity/Adultery.
3. Open & Public Apostasy.
4. Abortion.
5. Gay Marriage.

Are there others that I'm missing?
Numbers 2-5 are legal behaviors but considered serious sins.
Perhaps the better way to conceive of gay marriage in the LDS world-view is that it's in the realm of adultery, abortion, and apostasy?

(not looking to push an agenda; just trying to situate this in context)

[LA Ute]

What is the list of sins/behaviors that will get a person excommunicated from the LDS church?
(I am avoiding "denying the Holy Ghost" because I don't really know what that means or how it can be measured)

1. Felony Crimes.
2. Infidelity/Adultery.
3. Open & Public Apostasy.
4. Abortion.
5. Gay Marriage.

Are there others that I'm missing?
Numbers 2-5 are legal behaviors but considered serious sins.
Perhaps the better way to conceive of gay marriage in the LDS world-view is that it's in the realm of adultery, abortion, and apostasy?

(not looking to push an agenda; just trying to situate this in context)

I think it's in the realm of messing with the law of chastity. But if you are asking about "automatic" excommunication, I don't know that there is such a thing, except for outright resignation. There are certain acts that require a disciplinary council, but I'd need to check a church handbook to remind myself which ones they are.

[Solon]

There are certain acts that require a disciplinary council, but I'd need to check a church handbook to remind myself which ones they are.

or check your diary!

[NorthwestUteFan]

or check your diary!
Here is the quick summary. IIRC the new policy/Revelation said that entering a same-sex marriage is considered grounds for mandatory excommunication (from the Clarification Letter released a few months ago).


from Wiki (note this is when a Court of Love is mandatory, and not necessarily when Excommunication is mandatory)


When a disciplinary council is mandatoryEdit

The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church:

Murder: the "deliberate and unjustified taking of human life". The church does not classify killings performed by*police*orsoldiers*in the line of duty as being murder. It also does not classify*abortion*as murder.[13]
Incest: defined as "sexual relations" between a parent (or grandparent) and a natural, adopted, or foster child or a stepchild. It also includes sexual relations between siblings.[13]

Apostasy: refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy.[13]*In November 2015, the church clarified that its members who are in a*same-sex marriage*are in apostasy.[14]

Serious transgression while holding a prominent church position*: "serious transgression" is defined as "a deliberate and major offense against morality" and includes "attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation),[15]*deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing."[13]*"Prominent church position" includes the positions ofarea seventy,*temple president,*mission president,*stake president,*patriarch, andbishop.[13]

Transgressor who is a*predator[13]

Pattern of serious transgressions[13]*(as defined above)

Serious transgression (as defined above) that is widely known[13]



Note that taking up arms against the nation in a standoff over ranch lands, while owing well over a million dollars in back grazing fees, and taking over a Federal building in an effort to start a Revolution, is not considered to be a problem.

But get married to your life partner, and you and your kids are no longer allowed at church.

[Scratch]

Note that taking up arms against the nation in a standoff over ranch lands, while owing well over a million dollars in back grazing fees, and taking over a Federal building in an effort to start a Revolution, is not considered to be a problem.


I, too, am shocked that the handbook didn't specifically include this possible eventuality. Besides, isn't that a felony, so it is covered?

[Scratch]

But get married to your life partner, and you and your kids are no longer allowed at church.

And obviously that's not true, but don't let the truth interfere with rhetoric.

[concerned]

I think it's in the realm of messing with the law of chastity. But if you are asking about "automatic" excommunication, I don't know that there is such a thing, except for outright resignation. There are certain acts that require a disciplinary council, but I'd need to check a church handbook to remind myself which ones they are.

You get excommunicated if you resign? "You're fired; no I'm not , I quit first; you're fired; I quit; you're fired; I quit."

[kccougar]

Here is the quick summary. IIRC the new policy/Revelation said that entering a same-sex marriage is considered grounds for mandatory excommunication (from the Clarification Letter released a few months ago).



Note that taking up arms against the nation in a standoff over ranch lands, while owing well over a million dollars in back grazing fees, and taking over a Federal building in an effort to start a Revolution, is not considered to be a problem.

But get married to your life partner, and you and your kids are no longer allowed at church.


Holding a disciplinary council is mandatory, excommunication is not.

[LA Ute]

Here is the quick summary. IIRC the new policy/Revelation said that entering a same-sex marriage is considered grounds for mandatory excommunication (from the Clarification Letter released a few months ago).

A mandatory disciplinary council does not mean there's a mandatory outcome. That's an important distinction.

[NorthwestUteFan]

And obviously that's not true, but don't let the truth interfere with rhetoric.
Being in a same-sex marriage is listed under Apostasy in the revision to the Church Handbook of Instructions and is an offense mandating a Disciplinary Council. So while technically a person could still attend, it would be as an excommunicated member (except in a rare occasion where a married gay couple, who are church members, would go through a DC, but would not be given any kind of church punishment).

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29


Again, nobody would care at all of the church didn't attempt to interfere with the laws of the land. If they simply said, "We don't agree with the laws and intend our members to live a higher law. However, we won't interfere with legislation..." then nobody would care. That approach works well with Word of Wisdom issues.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I, too, am shocked that the handbook didn't specifically include this possible eventuality. Besides, isn't that a felony, so it is covered?
That was a joke. But the Bundy clan hasn't faced any kind of church discipline for their actions, although that is probably because they are byu fans.

[Scratch]

That was a joke. But the Bundy clan hasn't faced any kind of church discipline for their actions, although that is probably because they are byu fans.

I knew it was a joke. And I would be pleased if they do get charged, are convicted, and get disciplined by the church after their absurd antics.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I knew it was a joke. And I would be pleased if they do get charged, are convicted, and get disciplined by the church after their absurd antics.
I would love to see them charged as well. But to be honest I think the church should largely remain silent in terms of church discipline for their actions.

I have an acquaintance in Phoenix who lives in Ammon Bundy's stake and says he is a great guy, but doesn't quite know where all of the powerful vitriol suddenly came from. Different topic for a different time I guess. We all have skeletons in our past, and church should be a hospital for the sick instead of a frontier courthouse with a spiritual gallows in the back.

[Rocker Ute]

Holding a disciplinary council is mandatory, excommunication is not.

The correct answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

The correct answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey, I said that. Just not as succinctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

Hey, I said that. Just not as succinctly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Proof that it isn't only great minds that think alike.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Wow. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646442/John-Gustav-Wrathall-Show-an-increase-of-love.html

In my "prediction" about how the Church will evolve on the issue of homosexuality, I've been a reader of tea-leaves, an observer. This is incredibly difficult for those who are more affected. Wrenching.

After the Church's policy on children of gay marriages was "revealed", the wife came home from church with red eyes, she'd been crying with one of the mom's on our street who has a couple of gay sons, including the son who recently married - with his spouse bringing along a young daughter from a failed hetero marriage - the son who had met with Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland.

My gut reaction to seeing this sadness was a deja-vu of the reaction I had in the 70s as a teenager on the issue of race: "How can 'God' bring this type of persecution via His church?"

In my long path of coming to grips with my own beliefs, my understanding has changed - this kind of difficult issue is to be expected.

I'm a believer, but my belief is much more along the lines of Thomas Jefferson, the Deist. Only human beings could create a complicated, contradictory set of beliefs and commandments. My own hunch about what The Creator wants us to learn is (probably maddeningly) simple: learn to love one another. Not enough material to fill up a 3 hour block every week. :)

[LA Ute]

I am really happy the church is giving guidance like this:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865646414/LDS-Church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-Mormon-LGBT-community.html?pg=all?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldssmil e.com%2F2016%2F07%2F01%2Flds-church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-mormon-lgbt-community%2F#GXqMa3uEJckLL6dk.01

"We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope," senior church leaders said through a spokesman....

"Every soul is precious to God and to the church and the loss of life to suicide is heartbreaking," church spokesman Dale Jones said. "Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope. Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated. The church has repeatedly stated that those who feel same-sex attraction and yet choose to live the commandments of God can live fulfilling lives as worthy members of the church. We want all to enjoy the blessings and safety offered by embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ and living the principles of His gospel."

Not everyone will like that but I especially liked the part stating that "Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated." We've got to get good at that.

[LA Ute]

This is not about LDS theology but it is an articulate expression of concerns that lots of religious thinking people share.

OBERGEFELL AND THE NEW GNOSTICISM
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/obergefell-and-the-new-gnosticism

[Applejack]

This is not about LDS theology but it is an articulate expression of concerns that lots of religious thinking people share.

OBERGEFELL AND THE NEW GNOSTICISM


http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/obergefell-and-the-new-gnosticism

LOL. Keep trying with this gobble-dee-gook word salad stuff: it's becoming more and more clear that gay marriage wasn't ever really a threat (duh). You are fighting a battle lost.

[LA Ute]

LOL. Keep trying with this gobble-dee-gook word salad stuff: it's becoming more and more clear that gay marriage wasn't ever really a threat (duh). You are fighting a battle lost.

The intellectually lazy approach you and SU take to this subject is really disappointing. You're both very smart and well-educated. It's a shame. On the subject of marriage equality, over the last eight or nine years I have learned a great deal about the views opposing mine, and I have come to respect those views. You don't seem interested in that kind of dialogue. I posted this link to an article that I thought was thoughtful and respectful and interesting. And yet you respond yet again with nothing more than "LOL" followed by ridicule, without engaging at all. Like I say, intellectually lazy. Why do that?

P.S. You're confusing my efforts at thoughtful and civil discussion with my "fighting a battle." Think harder.

[Applejack]

The intellectually lazy approach you and SU take to this subject is really disappointing. You're both very smart and well-educated. It's a shame. On the subject of marriage equality, over the last eight or nine years I have learned a great deal about the views opposing mine, and I have come to respect those views. You don't seem interested in that kind of dialogue. I posted this link to an article that I thought was thoughtful and respectful and interesting. And yet you respond yet again with nothing more than "LOL" followed by ridicule, without engaging at all. Like I say, intellectually lazy. Why do that?

P.S. You're confusing my efforts at thoughtful and civil discussion with my "fighting a battle." Think harder.

I probably came off a bit too strong with my comment; it was written hastily after reading your link.

But this subject (gay marriage) really is over. I'm all for opposing viewpoints, but are we still discussing the merits of gay marriage? I think I know the two sides' arguments.

If you want to discuss how the church should handle same sex marriage, or adoption, or even state rights in marriage, have at it. But if you are going to post an article written by an advocacy group (I presume) arguing that Obergefell requires people to believe in gay rights (or something; what is he saying?), well, that's going to elicit an LOL.

[USS Utah]

But this subject (gay marriage) really is over

It must be. We have moved on to bathroom rights.

[Rocker Ute]

It must be. We have moved on to bathroom rights.

A couple of weeks ago my dad killed a 5ft garden snake in his backyard. He was showing me and my kids pictures of it (before he killed it) and my daughter asked if it was a boy or a girl snake. My dad said he didn't know, and then asked, "How do you tell what sex a snake is?" I said, "You wait to see what bathroom it goes into..." and then we all sat there in silence for a moment.

Times they are a-changin'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I probably came off a bit too strong with my comment; it was written hastily after reading your link.

But this subject (gay marriage) really is over. I'm all for opposing viewpoints, but are we still discussing the merits of gay marriage? I think I know the two sides' arguments.

If you want to discuss how the church should handle same sex marriage, or adoption, or even state rights in marriage, have at it. But if you are going to post an article written by an advocacy group (I presume) arguing that Obergefell requires people to believe in gay rights (or something; what is he saying?), well, that's going to elicit an LOL.

Yes, the debate over whether or not gay marriage will happen is over. That's clear. It's the constitutional law of the land. The article I linked to was in First Things, a well-established high-end journal about religion and public life. So it wasn't from an advocacy organization:

http://www.firstthings.com

The author of the piece is "Sherif Girgis, a recent graduate of Yale Law School, [who] is completing a Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton." Anyway, it was about the question of where we are now, and where we are going as a society after Obergefell.. The piece was written from a religious point of view, and it is clear that the author is a believer, even if not a Mormon, so I thought it belonged in this thread.

No hard feelings. I know people can justifiably be tired of this subject. If you take a look at the piece, however, I think you will see it is a far cry from a "word salad."

[mUUser]

Frankly, I'm unsure as to what end you (and he) are arguing.

Also, the counsel of the church is nothing more than a plea to display basic human decency. Did we really need a statement on that?--I suppose we all need to be reminded to be kind, empathetic, loving, and service-oriented -- but the counsel certainly doesn't break any new ground. I assume the counsel relates to the individual level, and not on an institutional level, as the church as an organization is still mired in an entanglement of mixed messages regarding LGBT individuals.

[LA Ute]

Frankly, I'm unsure as to what end you (and he) are arguing.

Also, the counsel of the church is nothing more than a plea to display basic human decency. Did we really need a statement on that?--I suppose we all need to be reminded to be kind, empathetic, loving, and service-oriented -- but the counsel certainly doesn't break any new ground.

Don't we get pleas for basic human decency all the time, being deeply flawed and imperfect human beings? Most of us need to be reminded from time to time. Also, I think what's being encouraged is more than "basic:"


Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope. Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated.

Seems a bit beyond the basics.

I think you're being pretty hard on the church. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is not an easy tightrope to walk, especially that today, even considering gay sexual behavior a violation of God's commandments puts those who hold that belief on the far outer edges of polite society, to say the least. Note that Mormons and many other religions consider many things a sin, and everything we consider sexual sin is increasingly an marginalized view these days.

Anyway, I think it's great, amid all the cacophony surrounding the gay marriage issue, for the leadership to remind devout Mormons to stay focused on love, compassion and service.

[UTEopia]

I've always struggled with the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner." How is that possible? I hate what you do (smoke, drink alcohol), but I love you - who wants to be around someone who hates what they do? How comfortable is that? Even more to the point, I hate what you are (homosexual), but I love you - now that really stretches it. Who can feel comfortable around people who hate what they are? I currently have an LDS church calling where my wife and I serve in a branch that serves a women's halfway house. These women are either transitioning out of prison or getting a chance to avoid going to prison. There are 40-50 women in the facility and about 20 or so come to services each week. Today we drove a woman who has been out of the facility for a couple of months but walks to the facility (about 1 mile) to come to church with us. She is lesbian and her partner is in the facility. They attend church together, hold hands and participate. She was raised LDS but has had a long history of incarceration. She has mentioned several times that she will continue coming to our little branch as long as possible because she knows she is accepted and that she cannot go to other congregations because she knows that many will not.

[sancho]

I've always struggled with the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner." How is that possible? I hate what you do (smoke, drink alcohol), but I love you - who wants to be around someone who hates what they do? How comfortable is that?

I think it's more like, "I love you, and I hate what this is doing to you." That's how it works with me. I love myself, but I hate my sins and weaknesses.

I hate what alcohol does to people and to the world in general, but just about everyone I hang out with drinks. This causes me no conflict.

I guess I hate sin in the abstract and in personal cases where it causes me pain, but I'm not thinking about other people's specific sins unless I'm in that rare situation of being able to help them.

I think of Jesus as a pretty good "love the sinner, hate the sin" model.

[LA Ute]

I think it's more like, "I love you, and I hate what this is doing to you." That's how it works with me. I love myself, but I hate my sins and weaknesses.

I hate what alcohol does to people and to the world in general, but just about everyone I hang out with drinks. This causes me no conflict.

I guess I hate sin in the abstract and in personal cases where it causes me pain, but I'm not thinking about other people's specific sins unless I'm in that rare situation of being able to help them.

I think of Jesus as a pretty good "love the sinner, hate the sin" model.

I agree with Sancho.

[LA Ute]

I've always struggled with the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner." How is that possible?

It's crude expression of the idea. I don't use it much for that reason. The idea is to love everyone regardless of their behavior. Not easy for most of us to do, hence the usefulness of constant reminders to keep trying. It's easy to get it wrong when the behavior that's against fundamental church teachings is so closely tied into who the person is. I can't say I've got this one all figured out.

[mpfunk]

I am really happy the church is giving guidance like this:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865646414/LDS-Church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-Mormon-LGBT-community.html?pg=all?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ldssmil e.com%2F2016%2F07%2F01%2Flds-church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-mormon-lgbt-community%2F#GXqMa3uEJckLL6dk.01

"We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope," senior church leaders said through a spokesman....

"Every soul is precious to God and to the church and the loss of life to suicide is heartbreaking," church spokesman Dale Jones said. "Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope. Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated. The church has repeatedly stated that those who feel same-sex attraction and yet choose to live the commandments of God can live fulfilling lives as worthy members of the church. We want all to enjoy the blessings and safety offered by embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ and living the principles of His gospel."

Not everyone will like that but I especially liked the part stating that "Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated." We've got to get good at that.
It's a bullshit statement. Actions speak much louder than hollow words. Hollow words that continue to use a term that the community has repeatedly asked not to be used.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[sancho]

It's a bullshit statement. Actions speak much louder than hollow words. Hollow words that continue to use a term that the community has repeatedly asked not to be used.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

Oh please. It's neither a great nor crappy statement. It's the same statement I've heard my entire life from the church. Some follow it, and some don't. Whoever crafted it probably backs it up with action. None of us would have ever read it if not for LA posting it.

[USS Utah]

I've always struggled with the concept of "hate the sin, love the sinner." How is that possible? I hate what you do (smoke, drink alcohol), but I love you - who wants to be around someone who hates what they do? How comfortable is that? Even more to the point, I hate what you are (homosexual), but I love you - now that really stretches it. Who can feel comfortable around people who hate what they are?

Many years ago some fireside speaker I once heard defined charity as separating behavior from the individual. Therefore, it is not who you are but what you do.

As far as being around people who are doing things of which you disapprove -- and I think approve/disapprove would be more accurate than hate -- you can keep that to yourself and probably should. I have been with people who drink, for example, but they never heard anything from me regarding any disapproval I might have. But then, I've always been a live and let live kind of person.

[Rocker Ute]

Not to hijack this thread but we've overused and abused words like hate and bigot. It gets assigned when people disagree.

Reminds me of my brother a number of years back making a comment about a 'grammar nazi' at work. His Jewish employer asked him not to use that word as he felt it lessened the evil the Nazis represented in people's minds. He was worried that young people would simply think a nazi was a strict person.

I feel the same about this stuff. We rush to proclaim hate and bigotry and the words have lost their meaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Not to hijack this thread but we've overused and abused words like hate and bigot. It gets assigned when people disagree.

Reminds me of my brother a number of years back making a comment about a 'grammar nazi' at work. His Jewish employer asked him not to use that word as he felt it lessened the evil the Nazis represented in people's minds. He was worried that young people would simply think a nazi was a strict person.

I feel the same about this stuff. We rush to proclaim hate and bigotry and the words have lost their meaning.

I'm going to be accused of going on and on about intellectual laziness, but here goes. The use of bombshell words like hater, Nazi, bigot, racist, homophobe, xenophobe, islamophobe and so forth is intellectually lazy. I can see the attraction, however. Using those words reduces complex subjects to a single emotionally-charged epithet. Therefore, it's not necessary actually to address an argument or position substantively -- why should you? It's merely hatred or nazism or bigotry, etc., and doesn't deserve a thoughtful response. So one gets off easy when one uses them. As an added bonus, the other person in one's discussion is put on the defensive, and simultaneously one gets to signal one's own virtue as a non-hater, non-Nazi, non-bigot, etc. I don't have a lot of patience anymore for this style of discussion.

[Solon]

The intellectually lazy approach you and SU take to this subject is really disappointing. You're both very smart and well-educated. It's a shame. On the subject of marriage equality, over the last eight or nine years I have learned a great deal about the views opposing mine, and I have come to respect those views. You don't seem interested in that kind of dialogue. I posted this link to an article that I thought was thoughtful and respectful and interesting. And yet you respond yet again with nothing more than "LOL" followed by ridicule, without engaging at all. Like I say, intellectually lazy. Why do that?

P.S. You're confusing my efforts at thoughtful and civil discussion with my "fighting a battle." Think harder.

I agree that LA Ute posts in good faith geared towards rational discussion.

This blog-post, though, (for quick reference: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/obergefell-and-the-new-gnosticism) is really bad as an argument (and in clarity - at some point, good writing demands clarity of expression)

Girgis's main thesis: that "sexual progressivism is illiberal" is poorly defined and even more poorly defended. What the author means is that the people who have advocated for sexual progressivism are acting illiberally in their denigration of those who have resisted. This is difficult to argue with. The rhetoric is heated and often crosses the boundaries of decent discussion (more on this below). But - like the LDS church's protestations of late - it essentially moves the argument from a rational discussion of why same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues, as the author points out, as the dialogue has shifted "virtually overnight") is morally or socially unacceptable to a discussion of whether those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues) should be free from attacks & ridicule.

As both sides in this discussion continue to claim the higher-ground of victimhood, there isn't much hope of progress. The author's insistence on characterizing this new approach to marriage & self & individuality as a "New Gnosticism" is verbose & overblown: the embedded link that gives more explanation of The New Gnosticism asserts that this movement espouses "counterprinciples to the principles of existence" and likens the swelling of gay-rights to the rise of Nazism in the 20th century. It goes on to alarm the world that "the nihilism inherent in the homosexual movement necessarily extends to all of reality." The ridiculousness of this "New Gnosticism" discussion is evident, I hope.

(Quick reference to the New Gnosticism link: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3869/the_new_gnosticism_of_the_homosexual_movement.aspx )

When Girgis does decide to allude to the moral underpinnings of the anti-same-sex argument (i.e., the basis for rational debate), it is in a sweeping, generalized, taken-for-granted way that indicates apologia rather than argumentum. For example, Girgis (sarcastically?) derides the Supreme Court for legally deciding that "one-flesh union has no distinct value in itself" and "what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering", conveniently omitting mention of divorce, cohabitation, and serial-fatherhood - legal, but distasteful to religious morality. I doubt Girgis is really lamenting the fact that divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are legal. Instead, these obligatory and token talking-points are a red-herring: the main thrust of the article is to lament the illiberal criticism of those who do view same-sex marriage as immoral. And here, Girgis would have a point to make. However, I don't see this as a Religiosu Freedom issue.

Really, this is a discussion about Freedom of Speech, although nobody seems to recognize it. Religious Freedom does not mean that someone has the right to avoid criticism of his/her religious beliefs. On the other hand, true Free Speech requires individual and mutual respect. As freespeechdebate.com puts it, "we respect the believer, but not necessarily the content of the belief" (http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-6/)

As long as Girgis and other religious apologists continue to demand freedom from criticism, and as long as their opponents insist on criticizing individuals instead of the content of their beliefs (while safeguarding the right for those beliefs to continue), we're going to continue to see these kinds of semantic arguments, overall whining, and comparisons to the Nazis (on both sides).

[SeattleUte]

I agree that LA Ute posts in good faith geared towards rational discussion.

This blog-post, though, (for quick reference: http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/06/obergefell-and-the-new-gnosticism) is really bad as an argument (and in clarity - at some point, good writing demands clarity of expression)

Girgis's main thesis: that "sexual progressivism is illiberal" is poorly defined and even more poorly defended. What the author means is that the people who have advocated for sexual progressivism are acting illiberally in their denigration of those who have resisted. This is difficult to argue with. The rhetoric is heated and often crosses the boundaries of decent discussion (more on this below). But - like the LDS church's protestations of late - it essentially moves the argument from a rational discussion of why same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues, as the author points out, as the dialogue has shifted "virtually overnight") is morally or socially unacceptable to a discussion of whether those who continue to oppose same-sex marriage (and now transgender issues) should be free from attacks & ridicule.

As both sides in this discussion continue to claim the higher-ground of victimhood, there isn't much hope of progress. The author's insistence on characterizing this new approach to marriage & self & individuality as a "New Gnosticism" is verbose & overblown: the embedded link that gives more explanation of The New Gnosticism asserts that this movement espouses "counterprinciples to the principles of existence" and likens the swelling of gay-rights to the rise of Nazism in the 20th century. It goes on to alarm the world that "the nihilism inherent in the homosexual movement necessarily extends to all of reality." The ridiculousness of this "New Gnosticism" discussion is evident, I hope.

(Quick reference to the New Gnosticism link: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3869/the_new_gnosticism_of_the_homosexual_movement.aspx )

When Girgis does decide to allude to the moral underpinnings of the anti-same-sex argument (i.e., the basis for rational debate), it is in a sweeping, generalized, taken-for-granted way that indicates apologia rather than argumentum. For example, Girgis (sarcastically?) derides the Supreme Court for legally deciding that "one-flesh union has no distinct value in itself" and "what children need is parenting in some disembodied sense, and not mothering and fathering", conveniently omitting mention of divorce, cohabitation, and serial-fatherhood - legal, but distasteful to religious morality. I doubt Girgis is really lamenting the fact that divorce and out-of-wedlock childbirth are legal. Instead, these obligatory and token talking-points are a red-herring: the main thrust of the article is to lament the illiberal criticism of those who do view same-sex marriage as immoral. And here, Girgis would have a point to make. However, I don't see this as a Religiosu Freedom issue.

Really, this is a discussion about Freedom of Speech, although nobody seems to recognize it. Religious Freedom does not mean that someone has the right to avoid criticism of his/her religious beliefs. On the other hand, true Free Speech requires individual and mutual respect. As freespeechdebate.com puts it, "we respect the believer, but not necessarily the content of the belief" (http://freespeechdebate.com/en/principle/p-6/)

As long as Girgis and other religious apologists continue to demand freedom from criticism, and as long as their opponents insist on criticizing individuals instead of the content of their beliefs (while safeguarding the right for those beliefs to continue), we're going to continue to see these kinds of semantic arguments, overall whining, and comparisons to the Nazis (on both sides).

Solon, thank you for taking the time to write this; I agree with all of it except to the extent that it seems you are trying to be too politic (your fatal flaw in an otherwise impeccable presentation over the years of your philosophical outlook). As LA notes, same-sex marriage is the law of the land and that battle is over. Indeed, it seems that overwhelmingly most Americans have moved on, have accepted--if not celebrated--this new law, and that in the years (quite a few years now) that states began making same sex marriage a right, the institution of the family has not been evidently harmed as a result of this discrete development.

So, what is going on? Why do bloggers like this Girgis (and posters who link them) persist? What they want is in fact respect. Restoration of religion's erstwhile moral authority would be ideal, but for now all they want is respect. I agree with you wholeheartedly that "Religious Freedom does not mean that someone has the right to avoid criticism of his/her religious beliefs." I consider it a positive development for humankind that religions are no longer automatically granted respect for absurd or injurious beliefs or positions only because they are religions. And this leads me to my one, really very minor disagreement with your post. You follow the foregoing quotation with, "On the other hand, true Free Speech requires individual and mutual respect." Actually, free speech is a term of art in the law that means abridgement of speech by force of law, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. Even Obama may give a speech that evinces disrespect for speech predicated on religion, such as speech that diminishes transgender folks--or maybe even the individuals issuing such speech themselves because of such speech, and there is no violation of fee speech in that sense.

To the extent you are advocating a code of conduct that you believe to be moral or ethical, I'm sorry, I can't respect speech that cites religious belief as the sole support for conduct or positions that are absurd or injurious. And I find it hard for my reaction to such speech not to affect my assessment of the speaker's character. But the great thing about speech is that turnabout is fair play--apparently they respect me less for my rejection, indeed, my outright lack of respect for their beliefs. Isn't that what religions have done for eons (that and set people on fire for rejecting their beliefs, outside of places and epochs founded on Enlightenment principles), denigrate the character of those who don't believe as they do. And that's what makes richly ironic this current debate about religious people complaining about "illiberal" reactions to their absurd and injurious beliefs.

[sancho]

the institution of the family has not been evidently harmed as a result of this discrete development.


I will admit - I couldn't really follow the past two posts except for this part. I never really bought into the "harm the institution of the family" argument for a few reasons, but I do want to point out that a few years of legalized marriage couldn't possibly be enough time to say that nothing has happened. If there are any negative consequences to the social/cultural changes we are experiencing related to sexuality and gender, they won't be felt for decades or centuries. They will also be completely intractable amongst the infinitely many competing factors, so it's not something worth thinking too hard about.

[SeattleUte]

I will admit - I couldn't really follow the past two posts except for this part. I never really bought into the "harm the institution of the family" argument for a few reasons, but I do want to point out that a few years of legalized marriage couldn't possibly be enough time to say that nothing has happened. If there are any negative consequences to the social/cultural changes we are experiencing related to sexuality and gender, they won't be felt for decades or centuries. They will also be completely intractable amongst the infinitely many competing factors, so it's not something worth thinking too hard about.

The reason that you don't buy it is it violates your common sense. Yes, there are infinite factors that affect the success or failure of a family. The harm to the institution of the family argument has just been an effort to make rational argument where the real reason is just pure unadulterated personal bias--so my comment that you quoted was actually sarcastic. Homosexuality has been loathed and regarded as sin for a long time in monotheism, and religion is nothing if not resistant to change (I would say progress). That's the true reason religion opposes same sex marriage.

[Rocker Ute]

Seattle, is he calling for respect for their speech (or accepting what they are saying) or respect for one another to speak about and believe whatever they chose, even when you disagree with it? I would assume he meant the latter, and that creates open discourse versus shouting each other down, which is a good thing. Reading about Skokie, Ill. in 1977 is interesting as I wonder if things would have turned out the same way for free speech today. Interestingly I think that Skokie won in this exercise of free speech in saying that right was more important than shutting down something that was truly despicable.

Most people would cite the discourse of Jefferson and Adams that went on for years even while bitter enemies as an example of strong disagreement but mutual respect.

As for what sancho mentioned, it is hard to proclaim that there are no negative affects of SSM just yet, there are too many factors in society (I would argue that will taint unfavorably for SSM) like continued social stigma to get a truly good sample. There very well may be, but when then I read that we are being messed up by simply not being able to see the stars (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/) it is hard to argue that there are no side effects for what has been biologically happening for millennia (male and female parenting) by watching for a few years. Certainly there will be effects, the question is are they enough to justify banning it (which I would put at highly-doubtful).

But, we've got to shout louder and win faster today, social media demands it.

[SeattleUte]

Seattle, is he calling for respect for their speech (or accepting what they are saying) or respect for one another to speak about and believe whatever they chose, even when you disagree with it? I would assume he meant the latter, and that creates open discourse versus shouting each other down, which is a good thing. Reading about Skokie, Ill. in 1977 is interesting as I wonder if things would have turned out the same way for free speech today. Interestingly I think that Skokie won in this exercise of free speech in saying that right was more important than shutting down something that was truly despicable.

Most people would cite the discourse of Jefferson and Adams that went on for years even while bitter enemies as an example of strong disagreement but mutual respect.

As for what sancho mentioned, it is hard to proclaim that there are no negative affects of SSM just yet, there are too many factors in society (I would argue that will taint unfavorably for SSM) like continued social stigma to get a truly good sample. There very well may be, but when then I read that we are being messed up by simply not being able to see the stars (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627884/) it is hard to argue that there are no side effects for what has been biologically happening for millennia (male and female parenting) by watching for a few years. Certainly there will be effects, the question is are they enough to justify banning it (which I would put at highly-doubtful).

But, we've got to shout louder and win faster today, social media demands it.

Supporting the Court's decision in Skokie and even, as a private person, respecting those Nazi demonstrators who the Court said had a right to march are two different things--indeed that's what makes Skokie so resonant.

[Rocker Ute]

Supporting the Court's decision in Skokie and even, as a private person, respecting those Nazi demonstrators who the Court said had a right to march are two different things--indeed that's what makes Skokie so resonant.

Nobody is asking anyone to respect the Nazi's, just respect their right to speech, that is what I'm driving at. I believe is what Solon was talking about when he spoke of 'individual and mutual respect'.

[LA Ute]

Girgis is is a young scholar (just beginning his doctoral program, IIRC). Still, somehow his essay got past the editors at First Things --which, BTW, is not a mere blog, SU. As I said, I posted it here simple because I thought his argument was interesting and somewhat novel, and contained some persuasive points. A sincere thanks to you all for your interesting analyses. I'd say more, but I am flat on my back with a bad case of food poisoning.

[SeattleUte]

Nobody is asking anyone to respect the Nazi's, just respect their right to speech, that is what I'm driving at. I believe is what Solon was talking about when he spoke of 'individual and mutual respect'.

Oh, okay. Then we don't disagree. I certainly respect Gurgis's right to publish his article. But I don't think Gurgis is concerned about that.

[SeattleUte]

Girgis is is a young scholar (just beginning his doctoral program, IIRC). Still, somehow his essay got past the editors at First Things --which, BTW, is not a mere blog, SU. As I said, I posted it here simple because I thought his argument was interesting and somewhat novel, and contained some persuasive points. A sincere thanks to you all for your interesting analyses. I'd say more, but I am flat on my back with a bad case of food poisoning.

Food poisoning is a very serious thing. Take care of yourself and keep us posted. We love you, LA.

[Ma'ake]

By demonizing the creeping Agnosticism/Progressivism, Girgis completely ignores and discards how progressive views of human nature have benefitted untold numbers of people who have belief systems he fully supports.

Example: Arranged Marriages. Through human history, arranged marriage has been the predominant model, whether it was part of a treaty between warring tribes, or an economic partnership among fathers, or whatever.

Today, the notion of choice in entering marriage is the predominant model, and has even worked its way into theology, notably Mormonism. (I'm sure there were arranged marriages in the history of Mormonism, but it's at odds with the current belief system).

To demonstrate how progressivism has altered understandings and holds itself accountable to its own advances in understand of human nature, imagine the (justifiable) outrage if we were to find out that parents were arranging gay marriages of their children.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

https://www.facebook.com/727323385/videos/10153900837038386/

[Scratch]

https://www.facebook.com/727323385/videos/10153900837038386/

So I'm trying to follow the logic here, but I have admittedly just been aware of this from a distance. The narrative is that there has been a spike in the number of gay LDS suicides, correct? If that's true, what is the driving factor behind the spike in suicides? I mean, it's not like the LDS church was super sympathetic to and supportive of homosexuality and then suddenly changed direction. If anything, the LDS church has softened its position and made more inclusive statements recently than ever in the past. So what has happened to cause the spike, because I don't see a logical argument for saying that it's the LDS church's approach to homosexuality. And by the way, if there is a significantly higher number of suicides in the gay LDS community then that is a very concerning issue that should be addressed, but I'm trying to understand if there is something that is causing a spike that needs to be examined.

[SeattleUte]

So I'm trying to follow the logic here, but I have admittedly just been aware of this from a distance. The narrative is that there has been a spike in the number of gay LDS suicides, correct? If that's true, what is the driving factor behind the spike in suicides? I mean, it's not like the LDS church was super sympathetic to and supportive of homosexuality and then suddenly changed direction. If anything, the LDS church has softened its position and made more inclusive statements recently than ever in the past. So what has happened to cause the spike, because I don't see a logical argument for saying that it's the LDS church's approach to homosexuality. And by the way, if there is a significantly higher number of suicides in the gay LDS community then that is a very concerning issue that should be addressed, but I'm trying to understand if there is something that is causing a spike that needs to be examined.


In "The Old Regime and the Revolution," a study of political ferment in late-eighteenth-century France, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that, in the decades leading up to the Revolution, France had been notably prosperous and progressive. We hear a lot about the hunger and the song of angry men, and yet the truth is that, objectively, the French at the start of the seventeen-eighties had less cause for anger than they’d had in years. Tocqueville thought it wasn’t a coincidence. “Evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable, become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested,” he wrote. His claim helped give rise to the idea of the revolution of rising expectations: an observation that radical movements appear not when expectations are low but when they’re high, and vulnerable to disappointment.


This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges

[LA Ute]

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges

Fascinating. Thanks for posting.

[Scratch]

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges

Yep, that's an interesting quote, thanks.

[Two Utes]

This phenomenon, which I think most definitely is real, explains much of what is going on in current America and the world including the bizarre forms of student unrest (I got this quote out of a New Yorker article on that subject). If you study and have lived as long as I have you realize that, in general, things have never been as good for humans worldwide and in America as they are today. By any measure--civil rights, liberty, any kind of mortality, economic plenty etc. Yet people have never been so angry and felt so oppressed; here in America Bernie Sanders made a political career out of making people feel like they're helpless and screwed by rich bogeymen.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/the-new-activism-of-liberal-arts-colleges



It would be nice if the author could write like a normal human being. Otherwise, pretty damn good article. Many college campuses are very frightening places, and not for the reasons students think.

They should be wary. The work place is beginning to separate from those campuses.

[Diehard Ute]

It would be nice if the author could write like a normal human being. Otherwise, pretty damn good article. Many college campuses are very frightening places.

They should be wary. The work place is beginning to separate from those campuses.

It was a bit shocking to me to see their belief that grades should be gifted simply because they're protesting....and then they should be paid to protest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Two Utes]

It was a bit shocking to me to see their belief that grades should be gifted simply because they're protesting....and then they should be paid to protest.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They need a living wage and we just don't understand. Holy shit.

[SeattleUte]

It would be nice if the author could write like a normal human being. Otherwise, pretty damn good article. Many college campuses are very frightening places, and not for the reasons students think.

They should be wary. The work place is beginning to separate from those campuses.

It's the New Yorker. How can it not be great writing.

[chrisrenrut]

So I'm trying to follow the logic here, but I have admittedly just been aware of this from a distance. The narrative is that there has been a spike in the number of gay LDS suicides, correct? If that's true, what is the driving factor behind the spike in suicides? I mean, it's not like the LDS church was super sympathetic to and supportive of homosexuality and then suddenly changed direction. If anything, the LDS church has softened its position and made more inclusive statements recently than ever in the past. So what has happened to cause the spike, because I don't see a logical argument for saying that it's the LDS church's approach to homosexuality. And by the way, if there is a significantly higher number of suicides in the gay LDS community then that is a very concerning issue that should be addressed, but I'm trying to understand if there is something that is causing a spike that needs to be examined.

If there is a spike, my first thought is that society as a whole has dramatically changed their views on LGBT lifestyle in the last 5-10 years. What used to be taboo and shameful everywhere is now only taboo and shamefully in the eyes of the church (and the persons family as a result). I could see some young folks finding the confusion of their natural feelings, societies acceptance (maybe even pressure?), contacted with the church's position harder to accept than the previous paradigm.

Just a guess on my part. I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes, so to speak. I also wonder if there is a spike in young Mormon LGBT, or if social media is just shining a brighter light on the issue than before.

[Rocker Ute]

If there is a spike, my first thought is that society as a whole has dramatically changed their views on LGBT lifestyle in the last 5-10 years. What used to be taboo and shameful everywhere is now only taboo and shamefully in the eyes of the church (and the persons family as a result). I could see some young folks finding the confusion of their natural feelings, societies acceptance (maybe even pressure?), contacted with the church's position harder to accept than the previous paradigm.

Just a guess on my part. I have a hard time putting myself in their shoes, so to speak. I also wonder if there is a spike in young Mormon LGBT, or if social media is just shining a brighter light on the issue than before.

One death is too many, simply put. It is tragic if one's home life and church life is such that it creates enough pressure that anyone would want to take their life.

As for the spike there have been some unverified numbers flying around. At one time they were reporting 30+ LGBT/LDS teen suicides at the end of the year in Utah. The main problem is the state only reported 10 suicides total, so it is hard to know what numbers are right. But we have a responsibility to treat it like an epidemic and we need to think that way individually. Each one of us can let people we know in these situation know that they are loved and wanted and valued and needed. I was happy to see a young woman who just came out a few weeks previously (after she served a mission) come to church to hear her sister speak. People literally lined up to hug her after sacrament meeting and let her know she was loved and they cared about her just as they always did. I hope every LDS congregation can do the same.

[UtahsMrSports]

Some folks pin it on the november announcement about children of gay parents not being able to be baptized. Like you guys have said, hard to get anylegitimate data to prove or disprove.

[sancho]

Some folks pin it on the november announcement about children of gay parents not being able to be baptized. Like you guys have said, hard to get anylegitimate data to prove or disprove.

That would be doubly tragic because the handbook change turned out to not be such a much. The blame would lie on the extremely poor roll out from the Church and on the hysterical social media overreaction.

[LA Ute]

That would be doubly tragic because the handbook change turned out to not be such a much. The blame would lie on the extremely poor roll out from the Church and on the hysterical social media overreaction.

Someone leaked the new policy to Dehlin just minutes after it was finalized. I am sure someone in church public affairs regrets not being prepared for such an event. Someone in a position of influence should have said,"Hold on, this one is going to cause a reaction, let's get out ahead of it."

I agree with Rocker. I have close friends who've lost children to suicide and it's horrible. The impact is widespread and lasting. A brilliant and talented high school classmate of mine committed suicide and over 40 years later that loss still haunts all of us who knew him.

[Two Utes]

Someone leaked the new policy to Dehlin just minutes after it was finalized. I am sure someone in church public affairs regrets not being prepared for such an event. Someone in a position of influence should have said,"Hold on, this one is going to cause a reaction, let's get out ahead of it."

I agree with Rocker. I have close friends who've lost children to suicide and it's horrible. The impact is widespread and lasting. A brilliant and talented high school classmate of mine committed suicide and over 40 years later that loss still haunts all of us who knew him.

On the issue of suicides, according to the Trib, the suicide rate among teens in Utah has skyrocketed overall and not just among the gay population. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if I had to guess, social media doesn't help. I think there is a perception with the youth that there is this big world that is always looking right at them (when in reality most of us know that very few people really give a shit about any one of us individually). So, when something happens to you and you think the whole world is judging you, it may cause problems. I also think kids aren't as well equipped in (or tolerant to) dealing with anxiety. (Our parenting style probably isn't helping). I have a friend who is a bishop in a "young adults" ward and he told me he is stunned at the number of young adults who come to him about the massive anxiety they are suffering from.

Most of my life I suffered from massive anxiety. I just thought it was part of life.

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

[Diehard Ute]

On the issue of suicides, according to the Trib, the suicide rate in teens in Utah has skyrocketed overall and not just among the gay population. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if I had to guess, social media doesn't help. I think there is a perception with the youth that there is this big world that is always looking right at them (when in reality most of us know that very few people really give a shit about any one of us individually). So, when something happens to you and you think the whole world is judging you, it may cause problems. I also think kids aren't as well equipped in (or tolerant to) dealing with anxiety. I have a friend who is a bishop in a "young adults" ward and he told me he is stunned at the number of young adults who come to him about the massive anxiety they are suffering from.

Most of my life I suffered from massive anxiety. I just thought it was part of life.

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

I think some of our societal shifts are certainly affecting this.

In sports the past idea was you had to learn to lose in order to be a good winner. Now it's just you have to try.

I think sometimes we've gone so far into the idea that everything should be warm and fuzzy that we don't teach good coping strategies to our youth. So when things do go bad they're left no knowing what to do

I would also agree social media has changed things. When I grew up home was a safe haven. Those who wanted to try and make me miserable couldn't do that at my house. With social media there is no safe haven as long as that phone is in a kids hand. Technology is awesome and awful at the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

On the issue of suicides, according to the Trib, the suicide rate among teens in Utah has skyrocketed overall and not just among the gay population. I'm not sure what the problem is, but if I had to guess, social media doesn't help. I think there is a perception with the youth that there is this big world that is always looking right at them (when in reality most of us know that very few people really give a shit about any one of us individually). So, when something happens to you and you think the whole world is judging you, it may cause problems. I also think kids aren't as well equipped in (or tolerant to) dealing with anxiety. (Our parenting style probably isn't helping). I have a friend who is a bishop in a "young adults" ward and he told me he is stunned at the number of young adults who come to him about the massive anxiety they are suffering from.

Most of my life I suffered from massive anxiety. I just thought it was part of life.

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

The study, found here (https://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/complete_profile/SuicDth.html), actually notes kids being bullied at school and electronically are at the highest risk factor, so fits in somewhat with your notion on social media. I am shocked at how intense online bullying can be. A little aside but a couple of years ago on the Utenation Facebook group I made a joke about one of the posters there who wanted Whittingham fired. I hadn't bothered looking at his profile and didn't realize he was actually just a high school kid (to my shame) but he and his friends went on this hyper-intense attack on me through Facebook. I of course didn't care but I was surprised at the volume and intensity of what they were trying to do to me, and just thought of being a kid and receiving that kind of an attack, it gave me a great deal of sympathy for kids.

Anyway, I agree with you. Despite giving lip service to diversity and being different there is actually immense pressure on kids directly and indirectly to conform to norms through a false belief that they are being watched by everyone constantly.

[LA Ute]

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.

I personally think that almost all people who commit suicide are suffering from some mental disorder -- depression, most often -- that overcomes the human survival instinct. There are exceptions -- cowards, like Hermann Goering, and other who make the decision rationally.


I think some of our societal shifts are certainly affecting this.

In sports the past idea was you had to learn to lose in order to be a good winner. Now it's just you have to try.

I hope this practice dies out. Our kids got the obligatory participation trophies from youth sports. They never cared about them and we've thrown those trophies out. They did care about the trophies they actually won or were part of winning.

[Solon]

Suicide is an extremely irrational act. Your perceptions of life have got to be way off to commit such an act.


I personally think that almost all people who commit suicide are suffering from some mental disorder -- depression, most often -- that overcomes the human survival instinct. There are exceptions -- cowards, like Hermann Goering, and other who make the decision rationally.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I agree with both of you for most cases.
In some cases, though, I think it is a supremely rational act. The freedom to choose when & where to end one's life is an important right to me (provided one is making a deliberate decision rather than an impulsive act).

The movement to allow terminally ill or permanently (severely) disabled people to end their lives on their own terms is gaining momentum.

[sancho]

I would also agree social media has changed things. When I grew up home was a safe haven. Those who wanted to try and make me miserable couldn't do that at my house. With social media there is no safe haven as long as that phone is in a kids hand. Technology is awesome and awful at the same time.


This is really frightening to a father of young kids. I was extremely relieved a week ago when talking to my son about an experience at basketball camp. He was telling us about getting picked on by another kid at the camp. We asked him about it, and he said "I just ignore him. I think he doesn't really get it."

I remember reading stuff about social media having a depressing effect in people who see wonderful families, vacations, moments, etc in the posts of others. I could imagine feeling that as a teenager. I remember sometimes being depressed as a teenager when I thought everyone else was out killing life while I was not.

[Sullyute]

At the risk of derailing the thread, I agree with both of you for most cases.
In some cases, though, I think it is a supremely rational act. The freedom to choose when & where to end one's life is an important right to me (provided one is making a deliberate decision rather than an impulsive act).

The movement to allow terminally ill or permanently (severely) disabled people to end their lives on their own terms is gaining momentum.

I agree. I think people should be able to make the rational decision to end their life humanely instead of relying on the violent means most use now.

[tooblue]

For more than fifteen years I have taught at a vocational institution. Primarily, I educate design students, focused on Web and interactive technologies. I write a lot of curriculum, coming up with novel ways to teach principles of good user interface and user experience design. A lot has changed since I first began teaching, but nothing has changed more than the student’s expectations, incompressible apprehensions and the knowledge base they bring with them to the classroom. I not so affectionately refer to the current crop of students as the Lego Kit generation. Unless you provide them with a kit that includes highly detailed illustrations, explicit step-by-step instructions, and spend a good deal of time mentoring (holding their hand) and regularly affirming their efforts, they fall apart when faced with a challenge.

Over the past three years, I have assigned a particular project that highlights the peculiarities of the current dynamic. The project involves the development of an app, based on a customizable app building template (aka, a Lego Kit). The project on the whole is complex in the way it forces students to apply basic programming principles, grapple with interface and user design issues and the need to manage interactive narratives. In addition to all of the above, the students are expected to develop the illustrative, photographic and video content for the app themselves. This is a joint project between two courses—my design course and an applied scripting and technology course. It’s a comprehensive effort and can be considered a capstone project in their final semester.

Owing to the limited time-frames of semester based teaching and learning, and despite the fact we are supplying them the Kit, it’s too much to also ask the students to come up with a compelling subject matter to build content for (five or so years ago, that wasn’t the case). So, while another faculty member, who teaches the applied class has built and provided them with the customizable app template to work with, I do the research and provide them a subject matter to work with. It’s important the subject matter be interesting, socially relevant and not encourage the students to run afoul of copyright. Because the app, in potential commercial form, could be used to power an information kiosk in a museum or science center, I focus on content that is historical and geared towards youth or children.

In particular, I love Aesop’s fables. They are short, easy to grasp, interpret and adapt to these types of applications. What’s more, you can easily build upon the moral of the story to inform an audience about a contemporary issue such as, say, climate change or bio diversity. Which is made easier by the fact the fables mostly involve interactions between animals: foxes, hares and tortoises etc. In very basic terms, they are simply creating an interactive story book, that is installed on a large touchscreen computer. The fable, with cute animals and a simple moral lesson is just a hook … to get the user to watch loosely related infographic videos and visualized data about the shrinking polar ice caps and mass species extinction.

Having been online since they popped out of the womb, the students mostly get it—what they are supposed to do. The project makes sense. However, I’ve observed and made note of a phenomenon, while assigning and discussing the project outline with my students, that is troubling. Beyond the fact we are supplying the students with a template/kit, accompanied by a good deal of hand-holding, which is a frustrating issue all on its own. The students struggle mightily to discern the moral of the assigned fable they are expected to adapt.

For example, I often use “The Fox and The Crow” as the story they are expected to illustrate, animate and make interactive. Over the past three years, when I ask the class if they have heard of Aesop, I have not had one student answer in the affirmative. Next, I ask them if they know what a Fable is, or if they know a Fable can be defined as a moral tale? Again, not a single student in three years has answered yes, or can tell me what I mean when I say, “a Fable can be defined as a moral tale.” In follow up, I ask the students to define morality for me. Not a single student has been able to, so I eventually allow them to google it. We then read the definition aloud and discuss how morality can be conveyed in a story, thus rendering that story a ‘moral tale’ aka a ‘Fable.’ Lastly, we then read the “The Fox and The Crow.” After reading it a second time to themselves, I let the students stew on it before asking them what the moral of the The Fox and The Crow is.

Over the past three years, the overwhelmingly unanimous answer has been (and I’m paraphrasing): “If I’m crafty, like a fox, I can trick people into giving me something valuable that they didn’t want to give up.” In a sense, that’s not a wrong, or perhaps even a bad answer, depending upon your perspective (and whether or not you're a lawyer). It’s telling though, and quite sad when you really think about it. First, it demonstrates to me they have little or no historical frame of reference for what can be considered moral teaching and learning, except what they glean from popular culture and the media. Moreover, not only can they not discern the moral of the Fable, but they can’t define morality, except in their own, arguable skewed, terms. That's in part what renders' this generation vulnerable and disappointed.

Of course, this is just a foolishly long anecdote for a message board. I started writing it while watching the soccer match. Allez les bleus! And go Cougars.

[sancho]

Over the past three years, when I ask the class if they have heard of Aesop, I have not had one student answer in the affirmative. Next, I ask them if they know what a Fable is, or if they know a Fable can be defined as a moral tale? Again, not a single student in three years has answered yes


Oh, Canada. So cute.

[Rocker Ute]

For more than fifteen years I have taught at a vocational institution. Primarily, I educate design students, focused on Web and interactive technologies. I write a lot of curriculum, coming up with novel ways to teach principles of good user interface and user experience design. A lot has changed since I first began teaching, but nothing has changed more than the student’s expectations, incompressible apprehensions and the knowledge base they bring with them to the classroom. I not so affectionately refer to the current crop of students as the Lego Kit generation. Unless you provide them with a kit that includes highly detailed illustrations, explicit step-by-step instructions, and spend a good deal of time mentoring (holding their hand) and regularly affirming their efforts, they fall apart when faced with a challenge.

Over the past three years, I have assigned a particular project that highlights the peculiarities of the current dynamic. The project involves the development of an app, based on a customizable app building template (aka, a Lego Kit). The project on the whole is complex in the way it forces students to apply basic programming principles, grapple with interface and user design issues and the need to manage interactive narratives. In addition to all of the above, the students are expected to develop the illustrative, photographic and video content for the app themselves. This is a joint project between two courses—my design course and an applied scripting and technology course. It’s a comprehensive effort and can be considered a capstone project in their final semester.

Owing to the limited time-frames of semester based teaching and learning, and despite the fact we are supplying them the Kit, it’s too much to also ask the students to come up with a compelling subject matter to build content for (five or so years ago, that wasn’t the case). So, while another faculty member, who teaches the applied class has built and provided them with the customizable app template to work with, I do the research and provide them a subject matter to work with. It’s important the subject matter be interesting, socially relevant and not encourage the students to run afoul of copyright. Because the app, in potential commercial form, could be used to power an information kiosk in a museum or science center, I focus on content that is historical and geared towards youth or children.

In particular, I love Aesop’s fables. They are short, easy to grasp, interpret and adapt to these types of applications. What’s more, you can easily build upon the moral of the story to inform an audience about a contemporary issue such as, say, climate change or bio diversity. Which is made easier by the fact the fables mostly involve interactions between animals: foxes, hares and tortoises etc. In very basic terms, they are simply creating an interactive story book, that is installed on a large touchscreen computer. The fable, with cute animals and a simple moral lesson is just a hook … to get the user to watch loosely related infographic videos and visualized data about the shrinking polar ice caps and mass species extinction.

Having been online since they popped out of the womb, the students mostly get it—what they are supposed to do. The project makes sense. However, I’ve observed and made note of a phenomenon, while assigning and discussing the project outline with my students, that is troubling. Beyond the fact we are supplying the students with a template/kit, accompanied by a good deal of hand-holding, which is a frustrating issue all on its own. The students struggle mightily to discern the moral of the assigned fable they are expected to adapt.

For example, I often use “The Fox and The Crow” as the story they are expected to illustrate, animate and make interactive. Over the past three years, when I ask the class if they have heard of Aesop, I have not had one student answer in the affirmative. Next, I ask them if they know what a Fable is, or if they know a Fable can be defined as a moral tale? Again, not a single student in three years has answered yes, or can tell me what I mean when I say, “a Fable can be defined as a moral tale.” In follow up, I ask the students to define morality for me. Not a single student has been able to, so I eventually allow them to google it. We then read the definition aloud and discuss how morality can be conveyed in a story, thus rendering that story a ‘moral tale’ aka a ‘Fable.’ Lastly, we then read the “The Fox and The Crow.” After reading it a second time to themselves, I let the students stew on it before asking them what the moral of the The Fox and The Crow is.

Over the past three years, the overwhelmingly unanimous answer has been (and I’m paraphrasing): “If I’m crafty, like a fox, I can trick people into giving me something valuable that they didn’t want to give up.” In a sense, that’s not a wrong, or perhaps even a bad answer, depending upon your perspective (and whether or not you're a lawyer). It’s telling though, and quite sad when you really think about it. First, it demonstrates to me they have little or no historical frame of reference for what can be considered moral teaching and learning, except what they glean from popular culture and the media. Moreover, not only can they not discern the moral of the Fable, but they can’t define morality, except in their own, arguable skewed, terms. That's in part what renders' this generation vulnerable and disappointed.

Of course, this is just a foolishly long anecdote for a message board. I started writing it while watching the soccer match. Allez les bleus! And go Cougars.

My experience is largely the same. "Here is the problem now how will you tackle it..." Used to be s great way to teach, now most struggle with it. If you give specific instructions on how to do if they do it well. I've observed that young people act an awful lot like a computer. Execute commands and wait for the next instructions.

However there are some kids who are completely amazing the other way and can run circles around me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

Oh, Canada. So cute.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/double_x/2015/11/151119_DX_Hillary-Myths.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-03-07-1457372468-7442274-trump.jpg

[Rocker Ute]

Tooblue shows us the equivalent of "scoreboard" for every country in the world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

For more than fifteen years I have taught at a vocational institution. Primarily, I educate design students, focused on Web and interactive technologies. I write a lot of curriculum, coming up with novel ways to teach principles of good user interface and user experience design. A lot has changed since I first began teaching, but nothing has changed more than the student’s expectations, incompressible apprehensions and the knowledge base they bring with them to the classroom. I not so affectionately refer to the current crop of students as the Lego Kit generation. Unless you provide them with a kit that includes highly detailed illustrations, explicit step-by-step instructions, and spend a good deal of time mentoring (holding their hand) and regularly affirming their efforts, they fall apart when faced with a challenge.

Over the past three years, I have assigned a particular project that highlights the peculiarities of the current dynamic. The project involves the development of an app, based on a customizable app building template (aka, a Lego Kit). The project on the whole is complex in the way it forces students to apply basic programming principles, grapple with interface and user design issues and the need to manage interactive narratives. In addition to all of the above, the students are expected to develop the illustrative, photographic and video content for the app themselves. This is a joint project between two courses—my design course and an applied scripting and technology course. It’s a comprehensive effort and can be considered a capstone project in their final semester.

Owing to the limited time-frames of semester based teaching and learning, and despite the fact we are supplying them the Kit, it’s too much to also ask the students to come up with a compelling subject matter to build content for (five or so years ago, that wasn’t the case). So, while another faculty member, who teaches the applied class has built and provided them with the customizable app template to work with, I do the research and provide them a subject matter to work with. It’s important the subject matter be interesting, socially relevant and not encourage the students to run afoul of copyright. Because the app, in potential commercial form, could be used to power an information kiosk in a museum or science center, I focus on content that is historical and geared towards youth or children.

In particular, I love Aesop’s fables. They are short, easy to grasp, interpret and adapt to these types of applications. What’s more, you can easily build upon the moral of the story to inform an audience about a contemporary issue such as, say, climate change or bio diversity. Which is made easier by the fact the fables mostly involve interactions between animals: foxes, hares and tortoises etc. In very basic terms, they are simply creating an interactive story book, that is installed on a large touchscreen computer. The fable, with cute animals and a simple moral lesson is just a hook … to get the user to watch loosely related infographic videos and visualized data about the shrinking polar ice caps and mass species extinction.

Having been online since they popped out of the womb, the students mostly get it—what they are supposed to do. The project makes sense. However, I’ve observed and made note of a phenomenon, while assigning and discussing the project outline with my students, that is troubling. Beyond the fact we are supplying the students with a template/kit, accompanied by a good deal of hand-holding, which is a frustrating issue all on its own. The students struggle mightily to discern the moral of the assigned fable they are expected to adapt.

For example, I often use “The Fox and The Crow” as the story they are expected to illustrate, animate and make interactive. Over the past three years, when I ask the class if they have heard of Aesop, I have not had one student answer in the affirmative. Next, I ask them if they know what a Fable is, or if they know a Fable can be defined as a moral tale? Again, not a single student in three years has answered yes, or can tell me what I mean when I say, “a Fable can be defined as a moral tale.” In follow up, I ask the students to define morality for me. Not a single student has been able to, so I eventually allow them to google it. We then read the definition aloud and discuss how morality can be conveyed in a story, thus rendering that story a ‘moral tale’ aka a ‘Fable.’ Lastly, we then read the “The Fox and The Crow.” After reading it a second time to themselves, I let the students stew on it before asking them what the moral of the The Fox and The Crow is.

Over the past three years, the overwhelmingly unanimous answer has been (and I’m paraphrasing): “If I’m crafty, like a fox, I can trick people into giving me something valuable that they didn’t want to give up.” In a sense, that’s not a wrong, or perhaps even a bad answer, depending upon your perspective (and whether or not you're a lawyer). It’s telling though, and quite sad when you really think about it. First, it demonstrates to me they have little or no historical frame of reference for what can be considered moral teaching and learning, except what they glean from popular culture and the media. Moreover, not only can they not discern the moral of the Fable, but they can’t define morality, except in their own, arguable skewed, terms. That's in part what renders' this generation vulnerable and disappointed.

Of course, this is just a foolishly long anecdote for a message board. I started writing it while watching the soccer match. Allez les bleus! And go Cougars.

It was an interesting perspective until you turned it into a lament about religion's irrelevance any more.

[tooblue]

It was an interesting perspective until you turned it into a lament about religion's irrelevance any more.

lol ... you really are a one trick pony. I didn't mention religion. It's a shame (but absolutely not surprising) you choose to. Considering you of all people, as champion of the enlightenment and proponent of reason over tradition, are not lamenting and in turn commenting on the failure of modernity and it's systems of indoctrination to teach morality sans the influence of faith based institutions. Which is your wish—a wish that has been granted. So, let me do it for you: if the basics of morality, as taught in Aesop's fables, aren't and thusly can't be taught, where do future generations learn about morality? Watching Super Hero movies, I guess.

[LA Ute]

Saw this and couldn't resist throwing it in here. :stirpot:

A rational nation ruled by science would be a terrible idea (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096315-a-rational-nation-ruled-by-science-would-be-a-terrible-idea/)



Imagine a future society in which everything is perfectly logical. What could go wrong?

“Scientism” is the belief that all we need to solve the world’s problems is – you guessed it – science. People sometimes use the phrase “rational thinking”, but it amounts to the same thing. If only people would drop religion and all their other prejudices, we could use logic to fix everything.

Last week, US astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson offered up the perfect example of scientism when he proposed the country of Rationalia (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Rationalia?src=hash), in which “all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence”.

Tyson is a very smart man, but this is not a smart idea. It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence. Of course, imagining a society in which everyone behaves logically sounds appealing. But employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing....

[SeattleUte]

lol ... you really are a one trick pony. I didn't mention religion. It's a shame (but absolutely not surprising) you choose to. Considering you of all people, as champion of the enlightenment and proponent of reason over tradition, are not lamenting and in turn commenting on the failure of modernity and it's systems of indoctrination to teach morality sans the influence of faith based institutions. Which is your wish—a wish that has been granted. So, let me do it for you: if the basics of morality, as taught in Aesop's fables, aren't and thusly can't be taught, where do future generations learn about morality? Watching Super Hero movies, I guess.

You're the one trick pony, and I was reacting to your codes. You've confirmed the subtext that I discerned.

I'm not going to debate the thesis of your essay, because I don't debate you; I chose my words carefully in saying that it was an interesting perspective to a point. Suffice to say I have a more optimistic and positive view of our young people than you do--but I have limited experience with Canadians, and sometimes I do suspect that Canada lacks a moral backbone.

[SeattleUte]

Saw this and couldn't resist throwing it in here. :stirpot:

A rational nation ruled by science would be a terrible idea (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096315-a-rational-nation-ruled-by-science-would-be-a-terrible-idea/)

This is a tiresome straw man from the one trick pony religious apologists. Nobody is advocating this. Here is my response.

https://www.amazon.com/Response-Terryl-Fiona-Givenss-Crucible-ebook/dp/B01999RMQC

I'd be happy to send you a free copy or a pdf.

[Rocker Ute]

This is a tiresome straw man from the one trick pony religious apologists. Nobody is advocating this. Here is my response.

https://www.amazon.com/Response-Terryl-Fiona-Givenss-Crucible-ebook/dp/B01999RMQC

I'd be happy to send you a free copy or a pdf.

Nobody except Neil deGrasse Tyson... but yes, carry on. I will admit as I thought about it I came to the conclusion that he found a method of governance even more inefficient than Democracy.

[mpfunk]

I was happy to see a young woman who just came out a few weeks previously (after she served a mission) come to church to hear her sister speak. People literally lined up to hug her after sacrament meeting and let her know she was loved and they cared about her just as they always did. I hope every LDS congregation can do the same.

I may be too jaded and I recognize that. I happy to hear that happened for this woman. However, how would the reaction have been if the she came to see her sister speak and brought her girlfriend with her? I think people do okay showing love to those who are homosexual that are celibate and still claim association with the church, not so much for those that decide that they want to pursue love and sex. I sincerely doubt she would have been getting hugs with her girlfriend there with her.

I have the same hope as you, I also don't think that with the current stance of the church that the hope can be fulfilled. There isn't a place for LGBTQ individuals in the church. There just isn't.

[tooblue]

You're the one trick pony, and I was reacting to your codes. You've confirmed the subtext that I discerned.

I'm not going to debate the thesis of your essay, because I don't debate you; I chose my words carefully in saying that it was an interesting perspective to a point. Suffice to say I have a more optimistic and positive view of our young people than you do--but I have limited experience with Canadians, and sometimes I do suspect that Canada lacks a moral backbone.

Look, you posted an interesting, though unduly verbose, New Yorker article. My anecdote is offered purely as a follow up contribution to that vein of the conversation going on in this thread. There is no debate. I'm in complete agreement with you that the tenets of the enlightenment in their modern application have failed. For that's one conclusion that can be discerned from your contribution (the linked article), which in part encouraged my contribution (a personal anecdote).

That you find my anecdote threatening in any way is curious. Your ad hominem attack though is absurd for many reasons, but primarily due to your own admission that you are speaking from a position of ignorance. That's Donald Trump style dangerous. You too are obviously vulnerable and disappointed. I'm sorry my post triggered such an unfriendly response.

[LA Ute]

This is a tiresome straw man from the one trick pony religious apologists. Nobody is advocating this. Here is my response.

https://www.amazon.com/Response-Terryl-Fiona-Givenss-Crucible-ebook/dp/B01999RMQC

I'd be happy to send you a free copy or a pdf.

You..wrote...a...book...refuting the Givens' book....

Wow.

I think we should issue you a white shirt (or maybe a black one) and a nametag now that you are publicly proselytizing people to either leave the church or not to return to it if they've left already. "Anti-Elder Seattle Ute." Has a nice ring to it. You and John Dehlin need to get together. Is he still doing his podcasts? You'd be a great guest.

[SeattleUte]

You..wrote...a...book...refuting the Givens' book....

Wow.

I think we should issue you a white shirt (or maybe a black one) and a nametag now that you are publicly proselytizing people to either leave the church or not to return to it if they've left already. "Anti-Elder Seattle Ute." Has a nice ring to it. You and John Dehlin need to get together. Is he still doing his podcasts? You'd be a great guest.

I didn't know the Givenses book was doctrine. I guess it is for a certain demographic of Mormonism.

[LA Ute]

I didn't know the Givenses book was doctrine. I guess it is for a certain demographic of Mormonism.

Maybe you're just a counter-apologist. That has kind of a semi-scholarly, official-sounding ring to it. Dehlin will love you on his show. Go here:

http://www.mormonstories.org/

[USS Utah]

One death is too many, simply put. It is tragic if one's home life and church life is such that it creates enough pressure that anyone would want to take their life.

As for the spike there have been some unverified numbers flying around. At one time they were reporting 30+ LGBT/LDS teen suicides at the end of the year in Utah. The main problem is the state only reported 10 suicides total, so it is hard to know what numbers are right. But we have a responsibility to treat it like an epidemic and we need to think that way individually. Each one of us can let people we know in these situation know that they are loved and wanted and valued and needed. I was happy to see a young woman who just came out a few weeks previously (after she served a mission) come to church to hear her sister speak. People literally lined up to hug her after sacrament meeting and let her know she was loved and they cared about her just as they always did. I hope every LDS congregation can do the same.

An old high school friend recently lost her son to suicide. His family did everything they could to give love and show acceptance. There were others in the neighborhood and community that also gave love and support. And yet.

Yes, we must all give love and support, but, at least in some cases, it appears that this is not enough. Ultimately, and not just with suicides in the LGBT community but with anyone who has or is contemplating suicide, a lot still rests on the individual.

[Rocker Ute]

I may be too jaded and I recognize that. I happy to hear that happened for this woman. However, how would the reaction have been if the she came to see her sister speak and brought her girlfriend with her? I think people do okay showing love to those who are homosexual that are celibate and still claim association with the church, not so much for those that decide that they want to pursue love and sex. I sincerely doubt she would have been getting hugs with her girlfriend there with her.

I have the same hope as you, I also don't think that with the current stance of the church that the hope can be fulfilled. There isn't a place for LGBTQ individuals in the church. There just isn't.

Well you don't know the back story or the story of her family. I won't get into because it is her story to tell and time will tell how it all shakes out, but I'll just tell you that you are wrong about how people would react. We all know she has a partner and I've talked to a number of people who have met her and everyone has been positive. I think you've just spent too much time in Utah county and my observation is people have a narrative that they need to fill.

Sad because it doesn't fix things, it just throws up more barriers. It convinces people that the love that was shown them was fake and there is no hope for them. It just isn't true.

It takes time, it takes persistence and it takes exposure, understanding and empathy. Why try to fight against that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Nobody except Neil deGrasse Tyson... but yes, carry on. I will admit as I thought about it I came to the conclusion that he found a method of governance even more inefficient than Democracy.

That's not true. Tyson advocates against irratinonal or unreasonable belief--against nonsense. But he talks all the time about the kind of human imagination, intuition, emotional force, and willpower that brings about what was thought to be impossible or was wholly unexpected, and mystery, and instances of dazzling clarity and understanding intrinsic to being human that the Givenses and their ilk would have you believe people like Tyson reject. The Givenses are educated enough and familiar enough with academic and intellectual life to know better; it's what they do. But their characterization of secular society is stupidly binary; they're just trying to impart relevancy to Mormonism in this age by suggesting that it provides unique access to the sublime metaphysical. I think mostly they're sentimental and they love their Mormon people.

[sancho]

That's not true. Tyson advocates against irratinonal or unreasonable belief--against nonsense. But he talks all the time about the kind of human imagination, intuition, emotional force, and willpower that brings about what was thought to be impossible or was wholly unexpected, and mystery, and instances of dazzling clarity and understanding intrinsic to being human

I love Tyson. He came to town last year, and I was able to flip two free tickets to some pop science loving sap for $150. Thanks Neil!

[SeattleUte]

I love Tyson. He came to town last year, and I was able to flip two free tickets to some pop science loving sap for $150. Thanks Neil!

I'd rather pay $75 to see Tyson (which doesn't seem that outrageous, actually) than sit in General Conference for free. I'll sit in GC for my hourly rate.

[sancho]

I'd rather pay $75 to see Tyson (which doesn't seem that outrageous, actually)

Well, there's one born every minute...

[Rocker Ute]

That's not true. Tyson advocates against irratinonal or unreasonable belief--against nonsense. But he talks all the time about the kind of human imagination, intuition, emotional force, and willpower that brings about what was thought to be impossible or was wholly unexpected, and mystery, and instances of dazzling clarity and understanding intrinsic to being human that the Givenses and their ilk would have you believe people like Tyson reject. The Givenses are educated enough and familiar enough with academic and intellectual life to know better; it's what they do. But their characterization of secular society is stupidly binary; they're just trying to impart relevancy to Mormonism in this age by suggesting that it provides unique access to the sublime metaphysical. I think mostly they're sentimental and they love their Mormon people.

Wait, what are we arguing? It keeps shifting to different things. You said in response to LA's article about Tyson's rational and evidence based government, that nobody was advocating for that. I quipped that Tyson was.

Now it feels like a shoehorned promotion for your book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Wait, what are we arguing? It keeps shifting to different things. You said in response to LA's article about Tyson's rational and evidence based government, that nobody was advocating for that. I quipped that Tyson was.

Now it feels like a shoehorned promotion for your book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The article mischaracterized Tyson's views.

[SeattleUte]

Well, there's one born every minute...

Right. You must have paid more for the tickets than you sold them. They would cost more than that in Seattle.

[Rocker Ute]

Right. You must have paid more for the tickets than you sold them. They would cost more than that in Seattle.

Having successfully avoided the Givens as a whole and not seeing them mentioned in the subject article I guess I wasn't understanding what it had to do with anything.

I like Tyson and you are right that he does celebrate human ingenuity. My point in it being more inefficient than democracy is just that rational thinking is more often than not naturally slow.

For example, let's take gay marriage. As an enlightened and rational society we might say, "If two people love each other, who are we to stand in the way, let them get married." And then we'd all celebrate. But then a rational person might step up and say, "Wait a minute, this is relatively new and truthfully we don't know either way whether this might have a long term effect on children who for millennia have been patented by a male and a female. Further study is required before we make a decision as a society..." and so we might then still be without this right... Not a perfect example but hopefully you get my (only) point.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

Having successfully avoided the Givens as a whole and not seeing them mentioned in the subject article I guess I wasn't understanding what it had to do with anything.

I like Tyson and you are right that he does celebrate human ingenuity. My point in it being more inefficient than democracy is just that rational thinking is more often than not naturally slow.

For example, let's take gay marriage. As an enlightened and rational society we might say, "If two people love each other, who are we to stand in the way, let them get married." And then we'd all celebrate. But then a rational person might step up and say, "Wait a minute, this is relatively new and truthfully we don't know either way whether this might have a long term effect on children who for millennia have been patented by a male and a female. Further study is required before we make a decision as a society..." and so we might then still be without this right... Not a perfect example but hopefully you get my (only) point.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it. My only point about the Givenses is that they turn their defense of religion into a defense of human emotion, inspiration, mystery, etc. and nobody is banishing those things. Ironically, their sources are mostly romantic poets, novelists, and philosophers, who were not religious, or not beholden to any sect. This article reminded me of their approach.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

Got it. My only point about the Givenses is that they turn their defense of religion into a defense of human emotion, inspiration, mystery, etc. and nobody is banishing those things. Ironically, their sources are mostly romantic poets, novelists, and philosophers, who were not religious, or not beholden to any sect. This article reminded me of their approach.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might be the only person here who has read the givenses?

[sancho]

For example, let's take gay marriage. As an enlightened and rational society we might say, "If two people love each other, who are we to stand in the way, let them get married." And then we'd all celebrate. But then a rational person might step up and say, "Wait a minute, this is relatively new and truthfully we don't know either way whether this might have a long term effect on children who for millennia have been patented by a male and a female. Further study is required before we make a decision as a society..." and so we might then still be without this right... Not a perfect example but hopefully you get my (only) point.


I think what you described would be a society based on science, not reason.

For a system based only on reason, we would first have to establish agreed upon axioms. That's where the dream would begin and end.

[SeattleUte]

You might be the only person here who has read the givenses?

I read it under protest. There's a backstory. I swore off reading books on Mormonism, pro or con, a long time ago.

[Rocker Ute]

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160709/2551124e3949a2c9e2eee19b072352ce.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I read it under protest. There's a backstory. I swore off reading books on Mormonism, pro or con, a long time ago.

I have a hunch that you are not in the Givens' intended audience.

[tooblue]

I have a hunch that you are not in the Givens' intended audience.

A one trick pony's gotta do what he's gotta do to maintain his story arc:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3679510/There-just-SIX-plots-film-book-TV-Researchers-reveal-building-blocks-storytelling.html

[Scorcho]

1872

[Rocker Ute]

I've always heard there are only two story lines:

"Boy leaves town" and "Someone new comes to town".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Cougar Nation is smartin' right now, with the LGBT letter trying to dissuade the Big-12 from inviting them. Anger, defiance, dismay.

The orthodox BYU/LDS thinking is something along the lines of "if the world wants us to change to fit the current thought-stream, we should stay proudly independent". Understandable.

I see something else going on. The longtime Ute fan in me had to see how Cougarboard was reacting, and there was plenty of the predictable responses. But I saw another, albeit less prevalent thought expressed, which was basically:

Fan 1 - "Tom Holmoe is right, we never discriminate against anyone. Why can't they be more tolerant of our religious views?"

Fan 2 - "Actually, we do discriminate. Dating couples on BYU's campus can hold hands, kiss, etc. Gays can't".

If it was one of us Ute fans who pointed this out to them, it would be just another rivalry dig. Because this conversation was occurring between Y fans, education was occurring, in real time, ala "I never really thought it of that way, and I'm not going to admit that on a message board for the school that represents my church, but I see your point".

Will BYU change their honor code before the season starts? Of course not. Does this collective pain point facilitate and perhaps accelerate evolution in understanding? I think so.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Here is a relevant Twitter exchange between Riley 'Abs' Nelson, and a close friend mine:

http://imgur.com/3pOecqt.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DuBug55.jpg

To his credit, Riley retracted his tweet and apologized.

[tooblue]

Here is a relevant Twitter exchange between Riley 'Abs' Nelson, and a close friend mine:

http://imgur.com/3pOecqt.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DuBug55.jpg

To his credit, Riley retracted his tweet and apologized.

There's no defence for Nelson's tweet. It's beyond idiotic. Unfortunately, the included response to his tweet is equally ineffective in making a sincere, valid point. Primarily, due to hyperbole of the text, but also, inanely, due to summary insinuation that: "Mormons had it coming because they too (allegedly) made threats?" Does the person who wrote that response understand what he is advocating? Does any person or group, per this situation truly have it coming?

What is a tragedy, which has largely gone unnoticed, is the nature of the letter sent to the Big12 presidents. It is a not so thinly veiled threat, calculated in its intent to harm and punish. For groups, supposedly so desperate for dialogue and understanding that's unfortunate. But such is politics. (just imagine if a different track was taken—perhaps more remarkable things could've been achieved, greater than the state of Utah evolving LGBT rights protection laws etc.) It's a missed opportunity.

To be clear, my post here is not a defence of BYU, the honour code etc. Personally, I do not think BYU is getting an invite to the Big12, and it has nothing to do with the letter. It's much larger than that, and to be blunt it is bigotry of a type that will keep BYU out. And please don't insult by pretending it is anything more than that. No, I do not have a persecution complex. No, I am not a pessimist, nor am I dismayed. It just is what it is.

Of course, lastly, what is equally disgusting is the barely contained sense of glee with which a few on this board are discussing this. It's disappointing. But again, it's my own fault for thinking I would come here and find anything different. Now that's sad. Oh, well. Go Cougars! And I hope the Utes do well this year also (except on September 10).

[NorthwestUteFan]

Forgive my glee. I get excited when goodness and love triumphs over evil.


(P.S. Nice job. This is your best Poe troll yet)

[sancho]

and to be blunt it is bigotry of a type that will keep BYU out.

Of course, lastly, what is equally disgusting is the barely contained sense of glee with which a few on this board are discussing this. It's disappointing.

I agree with you. The bigotry of geography is the worst kind. The bigotry of wanting teams that have been successful is a close second.

Your second paragraph makes me wish I had shown a little more glee. The disappointment and disgust of an internet troll is usually a positive sign. I guess I'm saving my glee for the final verdict. I hope you still have a little disgust left for me by then.

[tooblue]

I agree with you. The bigotry of geography is the worst kind. The bigotry of wanting teams that have been successful is a close second.

Your second paragraph makes me wish I had shown a little more glee. The disappointment and disgust of an internet troll is usually a positive sign. I guess I'm saving my glee for the final verdict. I hope you still have a little disgust left for me by then.

A troll. LOL ... Dehumanizing and demonizing me will not bring you peace of mind for your schadenfreude. And for me, I'm not sure it's misfortune we're looking at here. That's why I'm not dismayed.

[tooblue]

Forgive my glee. I get excited when goodness and love triumphs over evil.


(P.S. Nice job. This is your best Poe troll yet)

When I post in the thread about BYU I can be accused of trolling. That's what sports fans of opposing teams do, hopefully always in good fun. Here, I'm not trolling.

[sancho]

Forgive my glee. I get excited when goodness and love triumphs over evil.


(P.S. Nice job. This is your best Poe troll yet)

Poe?

I assume you're taking about Utah football when you say goodness and love. If you are taking politics, you are way off. There's never been any love in politics.

[tooblue]

I know, I’m supposedly trolling. But maybe, in context to this particular thread, we should talk about this for a minute. Consider the following ‘what if’ for a moment; what if the LGBT groups had written a different type of letter. For example: “Hey, Big12. We see you are considering adding BYU to your league. It’s obvious we disagree greatly with the policies of an LDS church sponsored private school—specifically, their honor code and the potential hypocrisy in its enforcement on LGBT individuals who attend the school, or who could be on campus for a sporting event. Considering the LDS church's past willingness to come to the table to talk about these issues (see: landmark LGBT state of Utah legislation), this could be a great opportunity to start a sincere dialogue about BYU's policies. This could be the best way to possibly affect significant change that is to the best benefit of LGBT students and student athletes, starting with the newest member of the Big12. We would very much like to be a part of the dialogue, which could not only bring about change on BYU’s campus, but have far reaching effects on many other campuses across the country.”

Instead the groups advocated for the presidents to shun BYU. Because obviously, that works so well.

[sancho]

Instead the groups advocated for the presidents to shun BYU. Because obviously, that works so well.

When have you ever seen a political group attempt dialogue and compromise when they believe they are in position for total victory?

Like you said, it's better if BYU doesn't get in, so maybe they did you a favor.

[LA Ute]

When have you ever seen a political group attempt dialogue and compromise when they believe they are in position for total victory?

Yep. I see where the LGBT groups are coming from, my own thinking having evolved on these issues, but trying to punish people and groups over matters of conscience is wrong, IMO.

[UTEopia]

Yep. I see where the LGBT groups are coming from, my own thinking having evolved on these issues, but trying to punish people and groups over matters of conscience is wrong, IMO.

To many people the most important issue of conscience is that all people, regardless of orientation, be treated equally, so when an organization or institution punishes them by excluding them, they strike back. I've recently been reading a biography on Lincoln and it is interesting to read about all of the discord between the abolitionists and secessionists. Not only did they disagree in the political debates, but the disagreement often led members of the community to tar and feather, destroy property and kill members of the opposition. The matters of conscience ultimately led one group to attempt to leave the union and then to the most deadly war in US history.

[Rocker Ute]

To many people the most important issue of conscience is that all people, regardless of orientation, be treated equally, so when an organization or institution punishes them by excluding them, they strike back. I've recently been reading a biography on Lincoln and it is interesting to read about all of the discord between the abolitionists and secessionists. Not only did they disagree in the political debates, but the disagreement often led members of the community to tar and feather, destroy property and kill members of the opposition. The matters of conscience ultimately led one group to attempt to leave the union and then to the most deadly war in US history.

So aren't you kind of making LAs point that people are taking matters of conscience beyond that and trying to do each other harm? No matter though.

This can go in circles and circles and just results in escalations. I can't help but think about the only time the LDS church and the LGBT community made any sort of progress was when they say down together and began talking. Tooblue's hope that that the LGBT community should have taken a higher ground approach is naive, but now couldn't the church step up and say to them, "We've heard your concerns and we want to sit down together and talk..."

Seems to me an opportunity is being missed in a big way, and it isn't by the LGBT community, particularly when we are claiming to be disciples of Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

So aren't you kind of making LAs point that people are taking matters of conscience beyond that and trying to do each other harm? No matter though.

This can go in circles and circles and just results in escalations. I can't help but think about the only time the LDS church and the LGBT community made any sort of progress was when they say down together and began talking. Tooblue's hope that that the LGBT community should have taken a higher ground approach is naive, but now couldn't the church step up and say to them, "We've heard your concerns and we want to sit down together and talk..."

Seems to me an opportunity is being missed in a big way, and it isn't by the LGBT community, particularly when we are claiming to be disciples of Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not naivety. My position is informed by actual experience dealing with similar issues under different circumstances. There are more effective ways of tackling this issue. The LGBT groups in question, dropped the ball. And I have absolute faith the Church may do precisely what you suggest they could, because that is what they have done in the past (see: state of Utah landmark LGBT legislation). That’s why I am not dismayed.

So long as we are talking about naivety, I want to explain my point of view more thoroughly through a couple of interesting anecdotes. I’m an artist and designer. For many years I have worked closely with, taught, mentored and been mentored by numerous other artists and designers. Many of whom are gay, struggling with or exploring their sexuality, in addition to questioning and changing their gender identity. Interestingly, as a teacher I am—generally speaking and as happens frequently—the person many such students turn to for advice and understanding. Now that’s partly due to the fact I have administrative duties in addition to teaching duties. But it’s also due to the fact I am honest, direct and sincere.

In one instance I had a student named Pat. Yes, that was his actual name. During his graduating portfolio assessment, with a panel of professors—the culmination of three years of work—he fainted due to anxiety. Later, he came to me and explained: “I just can’t do this. I’m dealing with so much. I would be so much more comfortable presenting my work as a woman.” (note: he is 6'4")

“Please, present as a woman then. Be true to yourself. We genuinely care about you as a person, and we simply want to evaluate your work to confirm you are ready to compete in a competitive job market,” was my response. Given a second chance, Pat, as a competent artist and designer gave a great presentation, without fainting. Pat is now gainfully employed.

I have been blessed to teach and work with another student, who when first enrolled was Melissa. By the end of the first year, Melissa became Jason. By the beginning of the next year Jason became Melissa again. Two years later, Melissa was once again enrolled in one of my courses and unbeknownst to me was now ‘permanently’ Jason. I had not seen him in several months. At first he was angry with me because, I mistakenly called him Melissa. Without hesitation, I explained his anger was unacceptable and he should apologize: last time I spoke with him he was Melissa, not Jason, and he had given me no indication that he was now, again, Jason. He is still formally listed, legally, on the student roster as Melissa.

Later that day, Jason came to me with a dilemma: “Your one of the few people I trust. You are honest with me … which bathroom do you think I should be using—I don’t want to cause trouble, but I am confused.” I replied, “physically, Jason, you look like a woman. You best continue to use the woman’s bathroom.” And so he did.

This brings me to my last point, which could be considered in light of the recent controversies surrounding Target’s non gender specific store bathrooms and recent legislation in North Carolina. That incident I had with Jason wasn’t isolated. It has been and will continue to be an issue with a number of students. It had the potential to blow up on our campus. Myself and along with another administrator, in pressing the issue, wanted to avoid such a conflict. I actually live in a very conservative community, relatively speaking. There was a lot of conflict among senior admin and facilities managers. Our solution presented to them was simple. The logic goes like this: We have Men’s, Woman’s, Physically Challenged, and Faculty bathrooms. Why can’t we also have Transgender bathrooms? It’s worthwhile to consider. Senior admin and facilities looked at one another, and the very next summer it was done. We now have a variety of bathrooms, mostly in our area of the campus, students of all stripes can choose from.

Imagine, if Target, and legislators in North Carolina had acted similarly? Sometimes, conflict is good and necessary, especially in a democracy. Sometimes it is just due to stupidity. The LGBT groups acted stupidly.

[Moose]

Is it possible that pressures currently felt by BYU athletics to conform on homosexuality issues may be a catalyst to a change in doctrine? This question I think is better answered by those who are old enough to remember events in the 70's.

Is it possible that pressure felt by BYU from athletics and scheduling had a role in preparing church leaders for revelation in regards to race in 1978? I honestly don't know, I was born in the late 70's and have no recollection. Maybe it's impossible to know for sure, but for those who remember this era, were BYU athletics starting to suffer due these pressures? Were members feeling like they were being persecuted against because of their beliefs, or were they growing impatient with the church leadership for not catching up to most other Christian religions?

I had an argument with a girl who stated that she thought college sports were a big waste of time and money and that all sports provided were physical exercise for the participants, nothing else. She could accomplish the same by following an aerobics video from home. Needless to say, I disagreed. I pointed out that many of our best leaders in business and politics were college athletes and the skills they developed in athletics were a big part of what they accomplished. I never thought about possible influences on religion from athletics, but it seems possible.

[Moose]

Our solution presented to them was simple. The logic goes like this: We have Men’s, Woman’s, Physically Challenged, and Faculty bathrooms. Why can’t we also have Transgender bathrooms? It’s worthwhile to consider. Senior admin and facilities looked at one another, and the very next summer it was done. We now have a variety of bathrooms, mostly in our area of the campus, students of all stripes can choose from.

Imagine, if Target, and legislators in North Carolina had acted similarly? Sometimes, conflict is good and necessary, especially in a democracy. Sometimes it is just due to stupidity. The LGBT groups acted stupidly.

Have you ever installed a bathroom where there is not already plumbing in place to do so? It's a big deal, costs a lot of money, and takes a lot of work. If I had a small business, installing a third bathroom for transgender would be absolutely out of the question. I guess if you know there are always going to be several transgender people using the bathroom, okay. What needs to happen is no bathroom should be specified as male or female. Require stalls at every toilet for privacy. Done. The only contact between people in bathrooms should be at the sink, and conversations between men, women, transgender..anyone, at the sink, should not be a problem.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm not sure there was time for the LGBT groups to offer up a calm discussion about the honor code issues. They're under the impression that that the BIG XII is making a decision swiftly. It would have been nice had the BIG XII released a decision date, and LGBT and BYU could have hashed out differences. Maybe this will happen by 2024 when BYU will have its next shot at gaining conference admission.

[Rocker Ute]

It’s not naivety. My position is informed by actual experience dealing with similar issues under different circumstances. There are more effective ways of tackling this issue. The LGBT groups in question, dropped the ball. And I have absolute faith the Church may do precisely what you suggest they could, because that is what they have done in the past (see: state of Utah landmark LGBT legislation). .

I'm not saying you are naive about the issues I am saying it is naive to expect a group that is hurt by something to act calmly and diplomatically as you've described. That should be the role of the offender in my opinion.

For example, if I back into someone's car and they come out angry at me I shouldn't be surprised, nor should I demand that they approach me with a humble desire to reconcile. It would be nice, but shouldn't be expected. Instead it should be my role to attempt to make things right. Even more so for our shared faith. It doesn't mean they need to resolve all issues... on some they may not be able to.

So I find it strange that you require that of them. But the church can and should do something. Unlike you I am not sure they will, particularly for a matter as silly as football conferences. I don't think BYU sports matter to the brethren as much as BYU fans want to believe. I would however hope that they seek reconciliation because they should, not for admittance to an athletic conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

There are more effective ways of tackling this issue. The LGBT groups in question, dropped the ball.

Effective meaning what? The letter writers got publicity, which they wanted. They will get even more publicity for their cause if BYU is not added to the big 12. Or, they may cause BYU to re-word some of the honor code. In either of those outcomes, their approach will have been very effective.

[tooblue]

Have you ever installed a bathroom where there is not already plumbing in place to do so? It's a big deal, costs a lot of money, and takes a lot of work. If I had a small business, installing a third bathroom for transgender would be absolutely out of the question. I guess if you know there are always going to be several transgender people using the bathroom, okay. What needs to happen is no bathroom should be specified as male or female. Require stalls at every toilet for privacy. Done. The only contact between people in bathrooms should be at the sink, and conversations between men, women, transgender..anyone, at the sink, should not be a problem.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm not sure there was time for the LGBT groups to offer up a calm discussion about the honor code issues. They're under the impression that that the BIG XII is making a decision swiftly. It would have been nice had the BIG XII released a decision date, and LGBT and BYU could have hashed out differences. Maybe this will happen by 2024 when BYU will have its next shot at gaining conference admission.

It wasn't cost effective, even for a large institution, to create the primary Transgender bathroom in my area (about 20 feet from my office). There was just too much infrastructure to account for new plumbing. The only thing facilities management could do was rebuild an existing bathroom designated for individuals with physical challenges. At first several LGBT individuals balked at the shared purpose of the facility. A couple of them actually stated they were offended to be compared to and lumped in with persons with disabilities.

They were encouraged to think more carefully about their position: were they saying they are superior to, and deserve special consideration beyond what persons with physical challenges deserve? Considering every existing male and female bathroom on campus, by law, already has stalls designed for wheel chair access. After really thinking about it for a while, there were no more complaints, and there hasn't been further conflict (for several years now).

But that's the type of tone deafness I'm talking about—it's appalling. What are these LGBT groups really looking for? What's more, by law (as far as I know) all small businesses if they offer a bathroom to customers that bathroom must be accessible. In fact, in many places there already are family bathrooms in addition to male and female bathrooms. There are always cost effective solutions to every situation.

As a person with irritable bowl, I use a lot of public bathrooms. I've spent a lot of time in Europe. In many places you have to pay to use a toilet, which is both a good and bad thing. But the thing I like about Europe, is the stalls are often completely enclosed floor to ceiling, which makes so much more sense than the way stalls are built in North America. Unfortunately, I've thought about this a lot. There's always a good, cost effective solution to consider.

------ this probably belongs in the football forum -------

Also, one caveat on BYU to the Big12. Just because I don't think they will get an invite doesn't mean they won't. If BYU isn't invited, it's a clear sign Oklahoma and Texas will bolt sooner rather than later, and then the Big12 will fold without a good landing spot for the rest of its teams. Which is what I think is going to happen. The best way to ensure continued profitable viability of the conference is to start by adding BYU. Diluting the conference with lessor teams leads to ruin. That is what the PAC12 is discovering (I'm not trolling).

The nature of GOR is changing much more rapidly than is anticipated. Especially, with the onslaught of digital networks. ESPN shows all the signs of a dying empire. FOX is ill-equipped to fill the void because they are too invested in the old network models. Facebook, Google, Apple and Netflix are getting in on the distribution of live sporting events. They have resources the networks can only dream of. How many more NFL games this year will be broadcast via Twitter? I have't watched a single Olympic event this year on network tv. HBO is sitting pretty all on it's own. Netflix original content is proliferating at a remarkable rate.

How screwed are you in the new landscape if all you have to sell in the evolving digital market is the Utah football brand? Your own conference can't sell that; why isn't the PAC12 network on Direct TV yet? This issue isn't going to wait for 2024. I've been on these message boards a long time. Way back when, on some other forum I suggested Apple had changed the world with the release of the iPhone etc. I was summarily mocked and laughed at. Go ahead mock me now.

[Moose]

As a person with irritable bowl, I use a lot of public bathrooms.

You irritable bowel people are what I worry about when I go to a public restroom. Worry about my kids being exposed to that too. Disgusting.

[tooblue]

I'm not saying you are naive about the issues I am saying it is naive to expect a group that is hurt by something to act calmly and diplomatically as you've described. That should be the role of the offender in my opinion.


For example, if I back into someone's car and they come out angry at me I shouldn't be surprised, nor should I demand that they approach me with a humble desire to reconcile. It would be nice, but shouldn't be expected. Instead it should be my role to attempt to make things right. Even more so for our shared faith. It doesn't mean they need to resolve all issues... on some they may not be able to.

So I find it strange that you require that of them. But the church can and should do something. Unlike you I am not sure they will, particularly for a matter as silly as football conferences. I don't think BYU sports matter to the brethren as much as BYU fans want to believe. I would however hope that they seek reconciliation because they should, not for admittance to an athletic conference.


Effective meaning what? The letter writers got publicity, which they wanted. They will get even more publicity for their cause if BYU is not added to the big 12. Or, they may cause BYU to re-word some of the honor code. In either of those outcomes, their approach will have been very effective.

The story has already been flushed through the news cycle. If may resurface again if BYU isn't invited, but not likely, at least not in a positive way or as anything more than a footnote. Consider how great similar actions taken were in taking down Chick-fi-a. Actually, they had no effect at all.

The only thing the actions will be effective at, is the continued polarization of two separate factions. When in fact the LGBT group could've started a much more meaningful dialogue now. Yes, that's what I expect of them—to learn from their past actions. Because, that is supposedly what they want. Unless of course it's not. Which makes one wonder, what do they really want? I actually don't think they know, hence their stupidity.

BYU may change some wording, but that's far less likely if they are not invited into the conference. Precisely, because I agree with Rocker that the brethren don't care all that much about BYU sports—not to the extent the LGBT groups are likely banking on, or fans could ever hope. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. That's just the way I see it.

[tooblue]

You irritable bowel people are what I worry about when I go to a public restroom. Worry about my kids being exposed to that too. Disgusting.

Are you kidding me? We are 1billion times cleaner than your average idiot, precisely because we spend a lot of time on the toilet. I carry disinfectant and cleaning supplies with me everywhere I go because of the morons who can't be bothered to lift a seat to pee, despite the presence of urinals. And there is nothing worse than those who wipe their crap everywhere like it's play doe or paint. When I'm done in a stall, it's cleaned because I had to use it.

[sancho]

Also, one caveat on BYU to the Big12. Just because I don't think they will get an invite doesn't mean they won't. If BYU isn't invited, it's a clear sign Oklahoma and Texas will bolt sooner rather than later, and then the Big12 will fold without a good landing spot for the rest of its teams. Which is what I think is going to happen. The best way to ensure continued profitable viability of the conference is to start by adding BYU. Diluting the conference with lessor teams leads to ruin. That is what the PAC12 is discovering (I'm not trolling).


This paragraph makes no sense. The fates of UT and OU are not tied to BYU in any way.

Diluting the conference with lessor teams is something the big 12 has already apparently decided to do. BYU is on that list of lessor teams.

[tooblue]

This paragraph makes no sense. The fates of UT and OU are not tied to BYU in any way.

Diluting the conference with lessor teams is something the big 12 has already apparently decided to do. BYU is on that list of lessor teams.

I'm not suggesting the fates of UT and OU are tied to BYU. They are not. The fates of the other teams in the Big12 are to some degree. According the AP BYU is ranked the 34th all time best college football program. Utah is ranked 64th. BYU has a national fan base. They would boast the third largest stadium in among Big12 teams ... Oh, hades. You're just going to be obtuse about this anyway, and what's more this discussion belongs in another forum. I just don't have the energy. Go Cougs!

[Moose]

Are you kidding me?

Yes.

[tooblue]

Just to get the thread back on track:

Houston Voters Reject Measure Barring LGBT Discrimination
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/houston-equal-rights-ordinance_us_5638de92e4b00a4d2e0bee4e


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdqfv9aGbgM

[LA Ute]

To many people the most important issue of conscience is that all people, regardless of orientation, be treated equally, so when an organization or institution punishes them by excluding them, they strike back. I've recently been reading a biography on Lincoln and it is interesting to read about all of the discord between the abolitionists and secessionists. Not only did they disagree in the political debates, but the disagreement often led members of the community to tar and feather, destroy property and kill members of the opposition. The matters of conscience ultimately led one group to attempt to leave the union and then to the most deadly war in US history.

I am talking more about trying to punish a person (or an entity) in his/her livelihood or other personal endeavors because of personal beliefs and related actions like voting, political donations, choice of religion. Slavery in the US was about treating human beings as property, so I don't think the analogy is sound. That was much more than simply a matter of conscience. LGBT rights raise much more subtle issues.

The core question of the overall issue is whether race and behavior based on sexual orientation are distinguishable because both are immutable. There are powerful arguments and ardent believers on both sides of the issue. If, one the one hand, the two are really the same thing, then morally and ethically those who oppose same-sex marriage or sexual relations ought to be moved into the margins of polite society just as those who oppose interracial marriage now are.

If, on the other hand, race and behavior based on sexual orientation are distinguishable, then (a) it's wrong to treat opponents of same-sex marriage, etc., as benighted people who should be marginalized; (b) there needs to be dialogue, tolerance, and compromise between the two sides of the issue like that which we saw in Utah over the new discrimination law; (c) it's wrong to try to get someone fired, for example, because of his belief on the issue; and (d) in any event there still must not be invidious discrimination against LGBT people.

Deciding what constitutes "invidious discrimination" will, in some cases, require lots of that dialogue, tolerance and compromise. (E.g., housing or employment discrimination is clearly invidious discrimination; choosing not to perform same-sex marriages for religious reasons is clearly not.) The grayer areas are about refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings and all that sort of thing. For the record, I would've just baked the cake.

[sancho]

I'm not suggesting the fates of UT and OU are tied to BYU. They are not. The fates of the other teams in the Big12 are to some degree. According the AP BYU is ranked the 34th all time best college football program. Utah is ranked 64th. BYU has a national fan base. They would boast the third largest stadium in among Big12 teams ... Oh, hades. You're just going to be obtuse about this anyway, and what's more this discussion belongs in another forum. I just don't have the energy. Go Cougs!

I get that BYU has a big stadium, but I don't get how that can save the other teams of the Big12. How does it benefit them? I'm open to the idea of stadium size being meaningful, but I don't see why yet.

As for a national fan base, I do think BYU would sell 1,000 or so tickets in Ames and Lubbock. That is a marginal financial help to some of the smaller schools that is more than offset by the cost of traveling to Provo for games.

I'm not sure why BYU's placement on some all time list is beneficial to the Big12, especially when that placement was primarily earned 3 decades ago. A power ranking that spans the past 5 seasons would be more useful. I have read articles saying the other Big12 schools are afraid of adding Houston. I have not seen anyone write anything about the Big12 being afraid of BYU, UCF, Tulane, Cincy, UConn, or Memphis.

In short, if ISU, TTech, WVU, TCU, and OkieSt are pinning their survival hopes on BYU, things are far worse in the Big 12 than anyone thought.

[Mormon Red Death]

Generous orthodoxy
http://leopard.megaphone.fm/PP6772350337.mp3


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Generous orthodoxy
http://leopard.megaphone.fm/PP6772350337.mp3


Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I enjoy Malcolm Gladwell. That is an excellent discussion. I listened to that podcast earlier today and agree with on both points.

As for the topic at hand, it is silly to attempt to force byu and the church to change their policies. It can't be done without a significant modification to the theology, and to modify the structure of relationships the celestial kingdom will be to abandon that which is unique to Mormonism.

What needs to happen is people who believe the lgbt policies are out line with their own personal beliefs need to allow byu and the church to stand on their morals, and then exercise their freedom to stop associating with byu and the church.

[Ma'ake]

@too blue - I understand you thinking the letter is an assault on BYU, designed to specifically damage BYU and perhaps Mormonism, maybe revenge for Prop 8. Totally understandable.

If you climb up to 30,000 feet, the view looks a bit different.

The letter hit BYU nation in a sensitive area - yearning for P5 football conference membership. If the letter was diplomatic and less confrontational, would we be talking about it? Almost certainly not.

So, the letter had the intended effect - stir conversation. I think the last thing in the world the writers of the letter expect is for BYU to immediately change the Honor Code, with changes happening quickly to give full parity to gays within LDS theology, temple rites, etc.

THAT kind of change can't be applied from the outside. Anyone who thinks it can doesn't understand the strong history of religious liberty in the US, the same robust tradition that has carved out exceptions for religious colleges and universities to enact discriminatory policies, and still be acceptable for federal financial aid.

What the letter will probably do is have an effect at the dinner table, in family home evenings, in explaining - and re-explaining - why the Church allows heterosexual couples to hold hands and kiss in public, at BYU, but if a LGBT couple did the same, they'd be expelled.

Over the course of a much longer period of time, the steps are small, but they add up.

Respecting the difference of opinion among us here on similarities between the priesthood ban and LGBT issues, it's notable that David O. McKay was a member of the First Presidency in the late 1940s when two letters were issued without ambiguity - the priesthood ban was not a "policy", but a direct commandment from God.

An older David O. McKay was the prophet in the early 1970s, and - according to inside reports well after his death - kept asking - and re-asking - about the ban, which was changed in 1978, under Spencer Kimball.

I was part of the young generation in the mid 70s that asked repeatedly about *why* blacks got the fate they did, based on being black. The answers for some of us were unsatisfactory, at the time.

Many of the youth today are in the same place, on LGBT issues.

Following the announcement of the "clarified policy" to not allow baptisms of children in gay marriage households until they're 18, the fourteen year old "caboose" - from one of the two families on my street that each have multiple kids who've come out of the closet - announced she was going to stop going to church, she couldn't be a part of an organization that treats her older brother, his husband, and their small child (from a previous failed marriage attempt) as second class citizens.

Now past the half-century mark, I can see the mosaic of time is much bigger than any of our immediate reactions and current thinking.

[Ma'ake]

I get that BYU has a big stadium, but I don't get how that can save the other teams of the Big12. How does it benefit them? I'm open to the idea of stadium size being meaningful, but I don't see why yet.

Since politics, theology and football have collided here, I guess it's OK to discuss multiple angles in the same thread.

Multiple issues involved in the Big-12 expansion:

Cash grab vs Long term stability - if the Big-12 is trying to prepare for surviving the anticipated next realignment, then GOR, TV market size, projected fanbased / stadium size, and "conference respectability", seem like important factors.

Houston's potential is pretty big. We have angst about Utah's best high school kids leaving Utah - Houston is one of the biggest football talent farms in the nation. It would probably hurt Utah more if UH is invited, than BYU, based strictly on recruiting footprint.

Inviting BYU for football only and ignoring the geography concerns of current members diminishes the "conference reputation" aspect and suggests its a cash grab. (If the GOR is increased, that counters that perception, somewhat.)

If Texas is pushing UH, while Oklahoma has settled on Cinci, as a compromise, these choices suggest the Big-12 goliaths want a strong, respectable Big12, by the time the TV contracts come up again. It's a longer term investment. Increased GOR would signal they're really serious about trying to survive.

It would be interesting if the concerns about football's head injury issue have come up, as a longer term concern. This would boost the opinions of Kansas, ISU and the other schools, and would strongly dampen the football-only addition option.

Lots of issues to balance...unless it's a cash grab.

[UTEopia]

I am talking more about trying to punish a person (or an entity) in his/her livelihood or other personal endeavors because of personal beliefs and related actions like voting, political donations, choice of religion. Slavery in the US was about treating human beings as property, so I don't think the analogy is sound. That was much more than simply a matter of conscience. LGBT rights raise much more subtle issues.



You don't think that southern slaveholders viewed the northern abolitionists as trying to harm their livelihood because of their belief in the moral correctness of slavery? They viewed it as an attack on their entire way of life. While you might see the LGBT issues as more subtle, those in the LGBT community view it as an attack on who they are and their way of life.

[Ma'ake]

You don't think that southern slaveholders viewed the northern abolitionists as trying to harm their livelihood because of their belief in the moral correctness of slavery? They viewed it as an attack on their entire way of life. While you might see the LGBT issues as more subtle, those in the LGBT community view it as an attack on who they are and their way of life.

So true. Historically, and especially in the South, slavery was viewed as Biblically supported, the will of God. The Abolitionists really didn't have much of a counter argument.

The Yankees were wrong, intended to destroy the Southern way of life, and they were against God.

Today, LGBT feel things like reparative therapy, gays like Christofferson's brother who are fighting their own tendencies, and the push for religious liberty to allow discrimination, as being personal attacks on who they are, as individuals.

[sancho]

Houston's potential is pretty big. We have angst about Utah's best high school kids leaving Utah - Houston is one of the biggest football talent farms in the nation. It would probably hurt Utah more if UH is invited, than BYU, based strictly on recruiting footprint.


You often say things that make sense. This is not one of those times. BYU getting in is orders of magnitude worse for us than any other team.



Lots of issues to balance...unless it's a cash grab.

How can it be anything but a cash grab? That's one thing everyone agrees on. Every team under consideration waters the conference down.

[Rocker Ute]

Today, LGBT feel things like reparative therapy, gays like Christofferson's brother who are fighting their own tendencies, and the push for religious liberty to allow discrimination, as being personal attacks on who they are, as individuals.

Tom Christofferson is fighting his own tendencies? Unless there has been a recent change he remains with his partner, but also goes to LDS church meetings.

I'm hoping you are just misinformed about him, but too often it seems that when people don't fit the mold of even 'outsider' viewpoints they get shunned or they are portrayed as attackers of the specific norm. In this case a gay man (and his partner) attending Mormon church meetings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UTEopia]

Tom Christofferson is fighting his own tendencies? Unless there has been a recent change he remains with his partner, but also goes to LDS church meetings.

I'm hoping you are just misinformed about him, but too often it seems that when people don't fit the mold of even 'outsider' viewpoints they get shunned or they are portrayed as attackers of the specific norm. In this case a gay man (and his partner) attending Mormon church meetings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought I read somewhere that he chose to leave his partner and resume his activity in the LDS Church because he could not stay with him and do so.

[LA Ute]

You don't think that southern slaveholders viewed the northern abolitionists as trying to harm their livelihood because of their belief in the moral correctness of slavery? They viewed it as an attack on their entire way of life. While you might see the LGBT issues as more subtle, those in the LGBT community view it as an attack on who they are and their way of life.

This is a tough subject. I don't think owning a person as property is the same as believing a person's lifestyle choices are not in accordance with God's will. (We Mormons think a lot of things are in that category. That does not mean sinners -- a category that includes all of us -- are bad people.) Ultimately all I am hoping for (and I am not sure my hopes will be realized) is the right to hold certain beliefs without being excommunicated from polite society and facing constant pressure -- beyond simple debate -- to keep quiet about my beliefs or to change them. It's a delicate balance for a civil society to achieve.

[mpfunk]

I know, I’m supposedly trolling. But maybe, in context to this particular thread, we should talk about this for a minute. Consider the following ‘what if’ for a moment; what if the LGBT groups had written a different type of letter. For example: “Hey, Big12. We see you are considering adding BYU to your league. It’s obvious we disagree greatly with the policies of an LDS church sponsored private school—specifically, their honor code and the potential hypocrisy in its enforcement on LGBT individuals who attend the school, or who could be on campus for a sporting event. Considering the LDS church's past willingness to come to the table to talk about these issues (see: landmark LGBT state of Utah legislation), this could be a great opportunity to start a sincere dialogue about BYU's policies. This could be the best way to possibly affect significant change that is to the best benefit of LGBT students and student athletes, starting with the newest member of the Big12. We would very much like to be a part of the dialogue, which could not only bring about change on BYU’s campus, but have far reaching effects on many other campuses across the country.”

Instead the groups advocated for the presidents to shun BYU. Because obviously, that works so well.
That legislation support was nothing. It was a PR move with little, if any, substance. The LDS church has not been willing to come to the table to discuss this stuff in any meaningful way.

The push against homosexual marriage and the policy speak much louder than PR to hide this stuff.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

You often say things that make sense. This is not one of those times. BYU getting in is orders of magnitude worse for us than any other team.

I get this point of view. It's basically a derivative, a fear, that despite Utah's PAC-12 success, it really only happened because BYU was held out of being in a P5 conference. Between Utah and BYU, it's a zero sum game, and our success in football can only occur if BYU is held down.

I guess I've grown beyond that. I think the two programs are more like Arizona and Arizona State. If one succeeds, the other isn't doomed.

I can't tell how much this anxiety is based on the unspoken social pecking order within LDS church congregations and families, because I don't go to church. (When I was about 30, I told my cousins the longer I stay away from church, the happier I am, the clearer my thinking becomes, and their reaction was fear... for me, tragedy that I was going to suffer so much, they wouldn't see me in the CK. I think if I said it now, there would be some muted reactions along the same lines, tempered by age, but the concern might be more along the lines of 'why can't we get good people to come to church?'. These are just minor hunches, without much meaning or thought. And off topic, except we're in that thread.)

Back to more important things, for me, the Utes have grown up. Fewer Utes care what happens with BYU, since we're in a different league, where we've had success and we're establishing respectable rivalries with the other schools, all of whom we've beaten, in 5 years.

Our recruiting overlap with BYU has decreased over time, as well. A solid majority of our athletes would have no interest in going to BYU. We definitely have some overlap among Polynesian recruits, LBs and TEs, but the fear that losing Sitake to Oregon State mostly amounted to nothing. We have more Polynesian talent than ever, and the DLine is so stacked we lose Stevie Tuikovalatu to USC as a graduate transfer, and nobody even notices.

Unless we have some kind of crazy collapse, the momentum we've built, the strength of our program, would suggest that if we're 3-5 recruits a year go to BYU, we just have to reinvest in getting players from elsewhere, like our heavy recruiting grounds like Houston (Scalley's area), the rest of Texas, keep mining FLorida for more recruits, keep making inroads in California, and don't ignore our own state.



How can it be anything but a cash grab? That's one thing everyone agrees on. Every team under consideration waters the conference down.[/QUOTE]

[sancho]

I get this point of view. It's basically a derivative, a fear, that despite Utah's PAC-12 success, it really only happened because BYU was held out of being in a P5 conference. Between Utah and BYU, it's a zero sum game, and our success in football can only occur if BYU is held down.

No. I, like you, believe Utah can succeed either way. But we are more closely tied to BYU than to Houston by far. You suggested the opposite, which just isn't true.

[Ma'ake]

No. I, like you, believe Utah can succeed either way. But we are more closely tied to BYU than to Houston by far. You suggested the opposite, which just isn't true.

EDIT - I had a longer response written out, but it was really just a longer elaboration on my point, with a recruiting story for example, and some other points, but in the Twitter age, the response was War and Peace, so I deleted it. I'm trying harder not to be *that* guy. :)

You could very well be right.

[sancho]

EDIT - I had a longer response written out, but it was really just a longer elaboration on my point, with a recruiting story for example, and some other points, but in the Twitter age, the response was War and Peace, so I deleted it. I'm trying harder not to be *that* guy. :)

You could very well be right.

I got the long response as an email, and we are on the same page.