Dallin H. Oaks talk

[Midwest LDS]

I agree the two aren't equal. But to me, somone identifying as homosexual is the same as someone identifying as a porn addict or an alcoholic (not in severity of sin just in categorizing the sin). Especially in the church if they are struggling to keep morally clean, I look at it more as them telling me their weakness than the pride that comes from non members.

[Anddenex]

55 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not believe that identifying as "heterosexual" is equivalent to identifying as "homosexual". I believe the attempt to qualify the two as the same is a great part of the great lie that is perpetuated about homosexuality. There is, plainly speaking, in my opinion, nothing wholesome and proper about homosexuality. I do not believe that one can have wholesome lust-less homosexual thoughts, whereas I do believe one can have wholesome lust-less heterosexual thoughts. An example of this might be in the idea for the desire a boy might have to hold a girl's hand, which can be entirely wholesome. Applying the same idea to homosexual men and there is nothing wholesome about it. It is, simply, not equivalent -- despite what "the world" would have us think.

Thank you; however, this doesn't answer the question proposed, and the question does not attempt to qualify the two as the same. To identify as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) or other women (hetero).

We are identifying a person who would identify themselves as "homosexual" in comparison to one who identifies as "heterosexual." We agree there is a difference between a boy/man who is pursuing a woman (hetero) and even holds hands (who is single), vs. a boy/man who is pursuing a man (homo) and eventually holds hands. The latter is contrary to the will of God, the first is not.

A man who identifies as "homosexual" (he recognizes his attraction to men and does not "act") is not the same as one who identifies as "homosexual" (recognizes his attraction and does "act") as he pursues his interests. These are not the same, and to do so demeans a brother or sister that should not be reprimanded when they are indeed controlling their attraction the same as a hetero who controls their actions within the bounds the Lord has set.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Thank you; however, this doesn't answer the question proposed, and the question does not attempt to qualify the two as the same. To identify as "homosexual" or "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) or other women (hetero).

We are identifying a person who would identify themselves as "homosexual" in comparison to one who identifies as "heterosexual." We agree there is a difference between a boy/man who is pursuing a woman (hetero) and even holds hands (who is single), vs. a boy/man who is pursuing a man (homo) and eventually holds hands. The latter is contrary to the will of God, the first is not.

A man who identifies as "homosexual" (he recognizes his attraction to men and does not "act") is not the same as one who identifies as "homosexual" (recognizes his attraction and does "act") as he pursues his interests. These are not the same, and to do so demeans a brother or sister that should not be reprimanded when they are indeed controlling their attraction the same as a hetero who controls their actions within the bounds the Lord has set.

 

The difference in my mind is this: There is appropriate heterosexual action even outside the bounds of marriage. The plain fact is that -sexual, homo or hetero, is sexual in nature. It's end is, ultimately, sex. A man holding a woman's hand on a date is a sexually based act, but an appropriate one. The determination and desire to hold hands, kiss, hug, dance with, etc., are all sexual in nature, but all conditionally appropriate outside the bounds of marriage for someone courting. The thoughts and desires behind doing these things, therefore, are also sexual in nature, and appropriately so, as long as they do not extend beyond these acts themselves in any detail. (By "detail" I mean that a man courting a woman may, in my opinion, reasonably, have the idea of making love to her someday come into his head without it being a lustful thought, something he does not dwell on or consider in any detail, etc., something he puts aside understanding that to dwell on it would be inappropriate.)

The point being, heterosexuality is wholesome. It is a wholesome, healthy, appropriate, righteous thing. It can be made unwholesome, unhealthy and unrighteous by misuse. But it, in and of itself, is a good thing.

Homosexuality has none of these characteristics. It is never wholesome, never healthy, and never appropriate.

To treat resistance to heterosexual behavior and thought the same as resistance to homosexual behavior and thought is invalid. It is not. One is a good thing that may be misused. The other is a corrupt thing.

The comparison I make is not a comparison of active homosexuality to repressed homosexuality. They are, indeed, different, and to call them the same would be unjust. But that does not mean that repressed homosexuality is equivalent to wholesome appropriate expressions and control of heterosexuality, or even that it is in any way equivalent to repressions of heterosexuality. There is no legitimate comparison of something that, at it's core, is right and good and something that, at it's core, is evil and corrupt.

I don't condemn the idea of repressing homosexuality or argue that someone so engaged is unworthy of great praise. What I do claim is that this state may be concurrently worthy of praise and also worthy of concern. What I reject is the idea that a suggestion that someone who struggles with SSA should strive to overcome it is equal to the exhortation that an active homosexual stop sinning. But that's how it gets treated. The two are not the same, as you have said, and therefore the exhortation to change is not the same either. But the fact that having SSA but not acting on it is not equivalent to acting on it, and therefore shouldn't be categorized at the same level of impropriety, does not mean that having SSA is proper, or that once one chooses to not act on the characteristic that all is over and done with on the path to our perfection.

[The Folk Prophet]

59 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

 To identify as "homosexual" .. does not automatically equate with "lust" for other men (homo) .

I disagree.

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

To identify as ... "heterosexual" does not automatically equate with "lust" for other women (hetero).

I agree.

[Anddenex]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But the fact that having SSA but not acting on it is not equivalent to acting on it, and therefore shouldn't be categorized at the same level of impropriety, does not mean that having SSA is proper, or that once one chooses to not act on the characteristic that all is over and done with on the path to our perfection.

Agreed; and this is where the world seeks to say, "You are beautiful the way you are." SSA is not beautiful, and SSA is contrary to the will of God. OSA is beautiful, and is not contrary to the will of God.

We find disagreement (and that is OK) with regard to one who identifies as "homosexual" automatically resulting in "lust"; however, we may also be defining then "homosexual" differently then. I don't see any difference, personally, with someone recognizing they have SSA (they thus have identified themselves as homosexual) and thus they can say, "Although, I don't no lust."

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Anddenex said:

We find disagreement (and that is OK) with regard to one who identifies as "homosexual" automatically resulting in "lust"; however, we may also be defining then "homosexual" differently then.

Probably defining "lust" differently.

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Probably defining "lust" differently.

That could be more accurate.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Anddenex said:

That could be more accurate.

Let me clarify. As I have explained, I do not believe there is such a thing as wholesome homosexuality. The key, in my mind, to lust being lust is wholesomeness. I do not "lust" after my wife because my desires are wholesome. Since all homosexual desire is unwholesome, it is therefore, per my view, lust.

[zil]

@The Folk Prophet, it sounds like you're saying experiencing the temptation alone makes them guilty of sin - no matter how much they resist and fight the temptation, no matter how much they don't want it, its mere existence is sin.

By this definition, every one of us is sinning when we experience any temptation.  Regardless of whether we give in or reject it, we have sinned.  Most of us don't go looking for temptations, they just come.  The idea that their arrival constitutes sin just seems as wrong as can be (and I think scriptures prove the idea is wrong).  I see no hope in such a world.

But if that's not what you're saying, then whatever you are saying isn't clear.  Or if you're saying only some temptations constitute sin and others don't, well, that's highly irrational.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, zil said:

@The Folk Prophet, it sounds like you're saying experiencing the temptation alone makes them guilty of sin

No.

3 minutes ago, zil said:

no matter how much they resist and fight the temptation, no matter how much they don't want it, its mere existence is sin.

Things are more complex than the current worldly narrative would have us believe.

I do not believe for one second that having "temptations" makes one homosexual or that anyone who has every had a thought of curiosity or what-have-you makes one a homosexual. The entire world-view on this matter is a lie. It is not reality in any regard.

We are not defined by our temptations nor do we become the things we have been tempted by.

I am not a thief because I had a thought once that life would be so much easier if I was less honest and didn't declare some-such on my tax returns.

In order to get to a state where one IS something or another one must needs have crossed well beyond mere "temptation". I do not believe anyone would or should, having a passing thought or interest or curiosity here or there concerning any sexual matter, determine accordingly that they are therefore that thing. The idea is ridiculous. 

Understanding that something might bring us pleasure and turning away from the potential of that pleasure in favor of what we know and believe to be right would never define us, even in our own minds, and leave us characterized by the understanding that we might enjoy that thing.

We often use Christ as the example in this regard. Let's think about that. Christ was offered things. He turned them down. Do we believe that secretly He was pining for those things? Do we believe in his deepest heart He really wanted what Satan was offering, but merely suppressed acting on it? Isn't Christ's example clear indication that stalwartly not desiring that which is put before us is right. Did Jesus really want to worship Satan for the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, but he just didn't act on it?

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we define desire as strictly equivalent with temptation, and I have no qualms with generally stating that when we desire something that is wrong that we have need to repent.

20 minutes ago, zil said:

and I think scriptures prove the idea is wrong. 

Do share.

 

[Anddenex]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do share.

I think it fair to @zil to share "scripture" reference in context, "The idea that their arrival constitutes sin just seems as wrong as can be (and I think scriptures prove the idea is wrong).  I see no hope in such a world."

The context/question, "Do we sin the moment we experience temptation"? The New Testament gives evidence that believing "temptation" is equivalent to "sin" is wrong, by the scriptures specifying that with every "temptation" there is a way out. Your example of Christ experiencing "temptation" (which isn't sinning) is another example.

In light of context, and scripture, zil is definitely correct. Which I don't believe you disagree with.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Anddenex

[estradling75]

In the scriptures God gave the command Thou Shall not kill.  Seems pretty cut and dried doesn't it.   Then he commanded the Israelites to totally destroy those in the promised land killing men, women, and children.  Was God talking out both sides of his mouth?  Were Moses and Joshua confused or failing as prophets and leaders when they gave those command?  Did Nephi disobey God when he Killed Laban?  Or was God talking out both sides of his mouth?

The Scriptures clearly teach that God's ways are not our ways, so it is not uncommon or unexpected  from time to time that we can't follow God's logic or reasons.  And by default the instructions he might give through his appointed leaders.  The Question is how do we respond?  Do we acknowledge that it is our limitation and our failure to understand God that results in our confusion... Or do we declare that God' through is appointed leaders are talking out both sides of his mouth, or that his appointed leaders are fallen and incompetent? 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do share.

You did it yourself - Christ was tempted - ala https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.22?lang=eng&clang=eng#p21 - if Christ was sinless, and was tempted, then experiencing temptation cannot be a sin.

What you say in your latest post makes sense.  I agree with it.  A lot of it is your personal definition of various terms, and without your latest post, it seriously looks like you're equating temptation with sin.  With your latest post, it's clear you're not.

Therefore, I would caution you (and all of us) to consider the words used and the potential audience.  If I can misunderstand what you mean and find it suggests no reason for hope (which is no problem for me, because I understand the truth and reason for hope, and don't suffer from the temptations under discussion), imagine what someone, especially a very young someone, in the midst of such trials might think, and the despair which might result.  We often hear of teens committing suicide over their despair about these temptations.  I have no idea what the numbers are, and I recognize that every situation is different, but I think it doesn't hurt us to be very careful in our words so that we reduce despair and give hope.

Frankly, I think this is exactly what the Church's language in regards to these issues is designed to do - bring people in where they can be ministered to - rather than push them farther away.  I'm in the camp of people who sees no change in doctrine or teachings, only changes in how we interact with others.

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, zil said:

Therefore, I would caution you (and all of us) to consider the words used and the potential audience.  If I can misunderstand what you mean and find it suggests no reason for hope (which is no problem for me, because I understand the truth and reason for hope, and don't suffer from the temptations under discussion), imagine what someone, especially a very young someone, in the midst of such trials might think, and the despair which might result.  We often hear of teens committing suicide over their despair about these temptations.  I have no idea what the numbers are, and I recognize that every situation is different, but I think it doesn't hurt us to be very careful in our words so that we reduce despair and give hope.

The message of hope is plain. Christ atoned for our sins if we turn to Him and repent.

We are all sinners. We all have to repent -- constantly -- without the Atonement we are all doomed.

And suicide is a serious issue that stems from things much deeper than awareness of one's sins and imperfections. I do not see any value in responding to the problem by addressing what is not the problem instead of addressing the problem itself. Suicide is not a problem of declarations that certain behavior is sinful -- whatever that stated behavior is. In other words...let's just say for example that I did believe that having temptations was sinful. The implication that my belief or statement to that end would cause suicide is egregiously fallacious and dangerous! It perpetuates the idea that suicidal reactions are appropriate responses to others having a different view of morality than you. By that logic, any statement of belief concerning sin that differs from my own, particularly related to activities I engage in, would run the risk of making me suicidal as well. Someone stating that my drinking Dr. Pepper and believing that my doing so is a flat-out sin against the word of wisdom doesn't send me into a depressed spiral or anything like unto it -- because I am emotionally and mentally stable. When people scream at me how sinful and evil I am for my beliefs it doesn't cause me to want to end it all.

In short the, "be careful what you say because you may be causing suicide" is wrong. Suicidal tendencies are a serious emotional and mental problem and they need to be addressed individual internally through therapeutic, medicinal and other means, etc., not through a recommendation that the outside world alter itself to exclude any particular views and comments that offend the emotionally and mentally unstable.

Edited October 3, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The message of hope is plain. Christ atoned for our sins if we turn to Him and repent.

There was none of that in your prior posts, was my point.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

There was none of that in your prior posts, was my point.

True. Because that wasn't the conversation being had or the question at hand.

[SpiritDragon]

40 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not believe for one second that having "temptations" makes one homosexual or that anyone who has every had a thought of curiosity or what-have-you makes one a homosexual. The entire world-view on this matter is a lie. It is not reality in any regard.

We are not defined by our temptations nor do we become the things we have been tempted by.

I am not a thief because I had a thought once that life would be so much easier if I was less honest and didn't declare some-such on my tax returns.

I have a better understanding of your reasoning and stance because of this explanation and I appreciate that perspective. 

I think perhaps the view I take differs from yours in that I have no problem identifying struggles, they don't have to define people, but the struggles are real. For instance does it not seem likely that some people just have a stronger tendency toward theft than others, even if they never act on it? Clearly they are not a thief until they actually take that which isn't theirs. From my perspective someone struggling with SSA is not a homosexual, but they apparently struggle with homosexual tendencies. 

I don't identify porn addicts as perverts, although sometimes they likely are, but I would suggest they have a weakness for pornography. So I agree that people need not be defined by their weakness, but I disagree that their is no distinction between SSA and homosexuality (not that you have said this, but it seems implied - please clarify)

 

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I have a better understanding of your reasoning and stance because of this explanation and I appreciate that perspective. 

I think perhaps the view I take differs from yours in that I have no problem identifying struggles, they don't have to define people, but the struggles are real. For instance does it not seem likely that some people just have a stronger tendency toward theft than others, even if they never act on it? Clearly they are not a thief until they actually take that which isn't theirs. From my perspective someone struggling with SSA is not a homosexual, but they apparently struggle with homosexual tendencies. 

I don't have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is the idea that someone who has a tendency toward theft has no need to change simply because they've never stolen anything.

31 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

 but I disagree that their is no distinction between SSA and homosexuality (not that you have said this, but it seems implied - please clarify)

There's some ambiguity concerning these words, which I believe is part of Satan's tactic to confuse everyone on the matter with half truths. My perspective -- SSA is a term the church coined (or at least use) to try and differentiate between those who engage in the act and those who do not. But at it's core neither it nor homosexuality are very clearly defined. Basically you are if you say you are and that's about it. So saying there is or is not a distinction between the two is a matter of how one defines one or the other.

It's a bit off subject -- but since you asked -- I don't believe that sexual preference has any difference to any other preference, in that there are natural inclinations, choices, determinations, culture, experience, etc., etc., that all play into the matter. This much is plain -- preferences change, can change, and are changeable.

I believe every individual ever born has the potential to be homosexual and every individual ever born has the potential to be heterosexual. I believe our entire understanding of sex and sexuality is learned. (That does not imply that all had choice in the matter -- some of the things we learn we do so beyond our control.)

I do not believe that homosexuality or heterosexuality or bestiality or pedophilia or shoe fetishes or S&M or any other proclivities and tastes are immutable. I believe that the idea that these things are immutable, we are who we are, cannot change, and we're all just stuck with whatever thorn in our side happens to be there, no questions ask, so just give up and be who you are, is THE big lie of homosexuality and any other sexuality state.

As to your question, directly, however, no -- I do not believe there is a distinction between SSA and homosexuality (as a characteristic rather than as an act). But I do not begrudge someone else defining their meanings differently because there is no hard and concrete universally understood definition of them.

What I do claim is that homosexuality is about SEXUALITY and so if one is defining SSA as a non-sexual attraction then they're not even playing in the same arena as I am, discussion-wise.

Edited October 3, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What I do claim is that homosexuality is about SEXUALITY and so if one is defining SSA as a non-sexual attraction then they're not even playing in the same arena as I am, discussion-wise.

Bingo.

[SpiritDragon]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is the idea that someone who has a tendency toward theft has no need to change simply because they've never stolen anything.

There's some ambiguity concerning these words, which I believe is part of Satan's tactic to confuse everyone on the matter with half truths. My perspective -- SSA is a term the church coined (or at least use) to try and differentiate between those who engage in the act and those who do not. But at it's core neither it nor homosexuality are very clearly defined. Basically you are if you say you are and that's about it. So saying there is or is not a distinction between the two is a matter of how one defines one or the other.

It's a bit off subject -- but since you asked -- I don't believe that sexual preference has any difference to any other preference, in that there are natural inclinations, choices, determinations, culture, experience, etc., etc., that all play into the matter. This much is plain -- preferences change, can change, and are changeable.

I believe every individual ever born has the potential to be homosexual and every individual ever born has the potential to be heterosexual. I believe our entire understanding of sex and sexuality is learned. (That does not imply that all had choice in the matter -- some of the things we learn we do so beyond our control.)

I do not believe that homosexuality or heterosexuality or bestiality or pedophilia or shoe fetishes or S&M or any other proclivities and tastes are immutable. I believe that the idea that these things are immutable, we are who we are, cannot change, and we're all just stuck with whatever thorn in our side happens to be there, no questions ask, so just give up and be who you are, is THE big lie of homosexuality and any other sexuality state.

As to your question, directly, however, no -- I do not believe there is a distinction between SSA and homosexuality (as a characteristic rather than as an act). But I do not begrudge someone else defining their meanings differently because there is no hard and concrete universally understood definition of them.

What I do claim is that homosexuality is about SEXUALITY and so if one is defining SSA as a non-sexual attraction then they're not even playing in the same arena as I am, discussion-wise.

Thanks for taking the time to better explain your position. I agree that specific weaknesses are not immutable, however, I think sometimes for some people they won't be overcome entirely in this life. This is not an excuse not to try, simply a realization that the promise that weak things will be made strong does not necessarily happen in this life, just as the command to be perfect cannot be fully realized in this life. This is also not to suggest that those who are not working on repentance and continual improvement will receive these blessings eventually. Again, thanks for clarifying.

[JoCa]

On 10/3/2017 at 12:18 AM, Midwest LDS said:

I reject the idea that the church has "lost ground" anywhere. As Latter Day Saints don't we believe that we are led by prophets and apostles of God? President Eyring's talk in the Priesthood session was all about having faith that God still leads us through his chosen leaders, even though they are imperfect. 

 “It takes faith to believe that the resurrected Lord is watching over the daily details of His kingdom. It takes faith to believe that He calls imperfect people into positions of trust. It takes faith to believe that He knows the people He calls perfectly, both their capacities and their potential, and so makes no mistakes in His calls.”

Don't you believe that Christ leads his church? Honestly, it bothers me that you are so fervently criticizing Elder Ballard. I loved his talk and felt inspired by his prophetic counsel to love God by loving our fellow man. It's hard for me to understand how your constant and sustained critcism of our divinly called leaders does anything helpful. I know God is still in charge of His church no matter what we perceive His apostles' weaknesses are. Plus do you really have so little faith in our leaders that you truly believe the First Presdency would allow something to be spoken in General Conference that was not the mind and will of God without stopping or correcting what was said? I think it's innapropriate to nit pick the words spoken by our Savior's servants. After all, don't forget D and C 1:38 

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

??? I'm not nitpicking.  I reject your condemnation of me; that's fine if you do condemn me . . .no skin off my back, I just reject it. I absolutely have faith in God, His Son and in fallible men who He has called. 

I sustain the leaders too . . .I have long ago learned in life that sustaining does not mean I have to agree with everything that is said. Nitpicking means: To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details.  What is insignificant to you might not be insignificant to me; I do not, have not listened to conference with the intent to find fault. I listen with the intent to learn what God would have me do in my life.  

I reject the bolded premise in your text.  It wasn't that long ago that Elder Packer said something verbally in GC regarding homosexuality and yet that sentence was not present in the printed edition.  Certainly if an Apostle went way, way of the rails they would correct.  But I do not believe in the least bit that every Apostle's talk is scrubbed or approved by the First Presidency-that is attributing a level of oversight and overreach that I think is highly unlikely. And having been involved in leadership positions in organizations, it is attributing such a childish notion to leadership that I wholly reject it.  And absolutely no, I do not believe in the least bit that every word or every phrase spoken in GC is the mind, and the Will of God. The Church itself says this . ..we've had plenty of talks about the fallibility and mistakes that leaders make over the past several Conferences.  I go back to again what are the levels of Authority for judging the correctness of ones words- whether they be a Prophet,Apostle,Stake President, Bishop, lay person, etc. .  #1) Canonized Scriptures #2) Joint Proclamations made by the 1st Presidency and the 12, #3) Proclamations made by the 1st Presidency #4) words of the Prophet #5) words of the Apostles #6) words by other GAs #7) a preference for modern over ancient.  When someone in GC speaks, I am to judge their words based on known doctrine and scriptures . . .if it doesn't align with that then I am to do some serious thinking.

Three talks impacted me . . .I loved Elder Oaks, and the 70 talk about hard things.  I severely disliked this phrasing in Elder Ballards talk .. . I liked the overall message.  The rest were good.  I dislike the terminology that Elder Ballard used . . .I really do. I don't think he is less of an Apostle at all.  But we are commanded to take the words of the GC, study them out, test them.  I do not see how I can apply any modern usage to the term that Elder Ballard used.  When he says we should eliminate prejudice I can agree, when he says including "sexism" . . .I honestly have no clue what he is talking about.  

In today's modern usage, simply holding the door open for a woman by a male is sexism and chauvinistic.  Simply believing that a man's place is in the workforce and a woman's place is in the home is sexism (i.e. The Proclamation on the Family).  Using the term "mankind" is sexism, etc. etc. etc. Is is seriously advocating that we should eliminate these things?

 If he is that I'll just say he is dead wrong and I totally disagree. If he is saying that we shouldn't look down upon another because of their sex then I agree.  If he is saying that men shouldn't catcall women-totally agree.  But that is more a cultural thing vs. sexism.  I got plenty of cat-calls as a missionary in a foreign land, but never in the US.  If he is saying men shouldn't be making rude comments about the physical nature of women, I totally agree.  But that to me isn't sexism that's being a jerk and not being a gentleman.  And at one point I worked as a waiter . .. I got plenty of rude comments from women.  Did I make like a victim and say "oh that's so sexist!!!" No, I just said, they were being jerks . . .but in general they tipped better so I didn't mind it too much!!!

If he is referring to things like the "gender pay gap" . .. it's totally false. The free market eliminates it.  Men, women, black, white it doesn't matter, the employers objective is to pay as little as possible to get the job done and the employees objective is to get as much money to do the job.  If you are paid less than you think you are worth, it's pretty simple go get a competing offer!  It's happened plenty of times in my life and I'm sure it will happen again. But I don't claim "sexism!" no, I just go get a better offer.  Simple solution rather than playing the victim.  Funny how the feminists never make claims about how there is "sexism" in the logging industry or in the construction industry. Because those are jobs that aren't prestigious jobs . .. but they will nash their teeth about STEM fields . ..why b/c it's a prestigious job.

So when an Apostle starts talking about "sexism, racism, nationalism", he is starting to wade into some really loaded areas where there are a lot of different opinions and a lot of different meanings.  And in general how those terms are used by modern culture, they are completely loaded terms used by the Left. So yeah, I severely disagree with the usage of the terms without defining what he means by using those terms.  Because I honestly don't know how he is using those terms.

There is IMO an easier way of saying the above paragraphs without saying "sexism", it's saying men should be gentlemen and women should be ladies.  The old-school values of being a gentleman and being a lady eliminates any of the crass, rude behavior towards women and men.  Sexism is a catch-all phrase in today's society for anything that could possibly be construed as treating men and women differently and that's why I dislike his terms.  To me, it means don't be a jerk, be a gentleman . . . but to another sexism means something completely different as in the Church is sexist (and according to modern usage it is!!).

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by JoCa

[Midwest LDS]

On 10/2/2017 at 6:24 PM, JoCa said:

find it a little disingenuous in Elder Ballard's talk when

 

On 10/2/2017 at 6:24 PM, JoCa said:

Which again goes back to what I've said before . . .the Church is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and leaves things unclear.  One Apostle proclaims The Proclamation is divine another Apostle proclaims sexism is bad . .yet clearly the Church does not have pure equality (the worlds definition) for men and women

I don't have a problem with legitimate questions about what an apostle means when he says something. Questions are the beginning of wisdom after all, and I didn't have a problem with that statement. My issue has to do with your statements that the church is talking out of both sides its mouth and that Elder Ballard is being disingenuous. Both of those statements imply that you believe the Church and Elder Ballard are lying to us. I reject that idea. Our leaders are imperfect, but God would never allow them to lead the church astray, as you are implying by your previous comments quoted above. If you didn't mean to imply that the church is lying to us or trying to mislead us, than I am sorry for misreading your quote, but that is the impression I got from your statements. 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[Midwest LDS]

@JoCa I frequently agree with you in other areas and I can understand some of your confusion as to what Elder Ballard said. My impression from his talk is that we as members of the church need to stop trying to feel superior to others for any reason, and look at everyone as brothers and sisters equal in the eyes of the Lord. Not equal in responsibilities but equal in His love.

[estradling75]

When I get confused by something the scriptures say, or the apostles, or the church, or God I do not assume it is because they are lying or being disingenuous.  Because I have Faith in Christ and faith that he has called his leaders and is guiding them and his church.  Thus all the messages are going to be in harmony even if I struggle with it.  Like the whole don't kill/utterly destroy example I gave earlier.   Of course the world changing the definitions and terms doesn't help matter but that is not on the Church or God.

So lets take an -ism, Sexism for example.  The world uses it in many ways and is trying to remove any differences between the sexes, but unless they are totally rabid they will know that some sexual discrimination is necessary and good.  For example if your are a guy you do not want your doctor to try to give you a pap smear, if you are a girl you do not want your doctor to try to check your prostate.  (To be fair even if you are the right sex you probably do not want those thing but that is a tangent)... When this is pointed out all most everyone (who is not beyond reason) will refine their definition to someone acting out of Pride, or Hate or Fear to persecute someone else.  No one wants to be told they are inferior because of their sex, no one wants to be attacked and hurt because of their sex.

This holds true to all the other -isms too.  Their are some legit differences based on Race and Nationality, but most of the time they are not relevant and the related -ism is based on Pride, Hate or Fear.  The simple fact is that the Lord has always condemn Pride, Hate, and Fear (With very few Godly exceptions.)

So lets break this down on the Churches actions and responses.  When the church had the priesthood ban it was based on what was at the time a legitimate understanding of the differences of the Races.  It was by racist in the sense that it made a difference based on race.  However the priesthood ban did not give anyone a free pass to act based on Pride, or Hate or Fear toward different races which is racism in the most commonly understood sense.  Although being flawed mortals some do anyways.

When the church leaders talk about being subject to laws, and being actively engaged in the political, and social activities of the nation the members are in.  It of course is going to mean different things in different countries. It is nationalist in the sense that it is different based on nations . The USA is not the same and England, which is not the same as New Zealand, which is not the same a Brazil, which is not the same as Canada, etc..  The church wants the saints in those countries (and all the others) to be active in the political life of their nation.  But that does not give the members ad free pass to act based on Pride, or Hate or Fear toward different nationalities which is nationalism in the most commonly understood sense. Although being flawed mortals some do anyways.

When the church talks about men and women (say the proclamation of the Family or other things) they acknowledge different roles and functions based on sex. This is sexism in the sense that they are differences based on sex.  Men and Women have different Roles in the church.  But this does not give its members a free passed to act based on Pride, or Hate or Fear toward members of the different sex which is sexism in its most commonly understood sense. Although being flawed mortals some do anyways.

When Elder Ballard condemned sexism, racism, nationalism, etc. a member could either see the harmony of the message that the Church has always had regarding acting on Pride, Hate and Fear no matter what -ism they might hide behind.  Or they can accept the lie the world is trying to shove down our throats that there is no difference, and demand that Elder Ballard is wrong or that the rest of the church is wrong.  I am sure everyone here can judge between those two options and decide which one is based on and strengthens faith and which one can weaken faith and can lead to a falling away.

 

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, Midwest LDS said:

@JoCa I frequently agree with you in other areas and I can understand some of your confusion as to what Elder Ballard said. My impression from his talk is that we as members of the church need to stop trying to feel superior to others for any reason, and look at everyone as brothers and sisters equal in the eyes of the Lord. Not equal in responsibilities but equal in His love.

Where I go with the Church speaking out of both sides is that IMO the modern church over the last 10 years has become overly concerned with the fear of Man and the perception of the world. And let me be clear, just because I believe that does not in any way shape or form mean I'm falling away or apostate, etc. etc. etc.  God is not a God of confusion . . .yet there is confusion.

SSA:https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/protestantism/mormon/mormon-homosexuality

All one needs to do is just read what the Church said 15 years ago vs. today.

"There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior. However, such thoughts and feelings, regardless of their causes can and should be overcome and sinful behavior should be eliminated."

I 100% agree with the quoted statement. Pray tell when was the last time that was publicly stated.  When?  I would love to know. I say that b/c honestly I would love for someone to show me b/c it would help me out quite a bit.

Today, the Church's position is it's totally cool to be homosexual as long as you don't act.  The Church has websites for Overcoming Pornography, for Overcoming addiction, etc.  But for overcoming homosexuality?  No, not in the least bit. It's called mormonandgays (i.e. how to be mormon and homosexual at the same time). Quite honestly, I pray to God none of my children ever have this issue b/c I wouldn't want them being taught by the Church on how to get out of it in today's modern teaching-the gospel of Jesus Christ by the scriptures yes; modern day teaching no.

You don't think that's confusing?  The Church has changed it's position on it.  In 1999 would the Church have put out a statement about LoveLoud? .  . . I don't think so . . .absolutely out of the question.  It would have never even considered it.  The Church today is IMO very much concerned with it's "public image', and in some ways more-so than teaching pure truth.  Look at mormonandgays that's about public image.  The Mackinton story video, about public image.  It's about PR.  God to my knowledge in the scriptures was never about PR.

The GC is a world-wide message; news reports pick up on it, CNBC, etc.  The messages are world-wide.  When an Apostle says we need to eliminate sexism and it's reported through news articles most people are not going to say "oh I'm a member of the Church it means this or it means xyz"

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/lovevslust.pdf

"May I speak first for a moment of words and relate them to my theme. There is magic in words properly used. Some people use them accurately, others sloppily. Words are a means of communicating, and faulty signals give wrong impressions. Disorder and misunderstandings are the results. Words underlie our whole life and are the tools of our business, the expressions of our affections, and the records of our progress. Words cause hearts to throb and tears to flow in sympathy. Words can be sincere or hypocritical. Many of us are destitute of words and, consequently, are clumsy with our speech, which sometimes becomes but babble. It was Paul who said: “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” Spencer W. Kimball

Right from a Prophet of God.

So please excuse my frustration and dislike when the men who I sustain as Apostles do not do so.  I expect men that I sustain as Apostles/Prophets of God to be clear, concise, direct.  And quite honestly, I didn't get that from Elder Ballard.  I get a "well what exactly do you mean?" Just because I sustain them as Apostles, Seers and Revelators doesn't mean I can't be displeased with how they are presenting the message . . .b/c quite honestly over the last several years lack of clarity and conciseness, is causing a lot more problems than not.  If you are not seeing this in the Church then you aren't paying attention.

Yeah, so I am getting ticked b/c the clarity I get in the modern fallen world where wickedness is more pronounced, more prevalent, more in your face than probably at any other time in history (excepting some really wicked cultures), is to "love everyone".  Yeah well telling me to "love everyone" doesn't do me much good in teaching and raising my children in this fallen world.  It doesn't do me much good in navigating how to keep myself from sin and on the straight and narrow to tell me "just love everyone".  Great, now what.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by JoCa