BYU Professor comes out as gay

[_Droopy]

If he had said that he was "dealing with same sex attraction (SSA), or had a "homosexual orientation," that would have been one thing, but "coming out" as "gay" is perhaps indicative of deeper coming-to-terms with his SSA then might by thought healthy, within a gospel context.

What kind of gibberish is this? Within a gospel context, it's only healthy to come to grips with one's sexual identity at a superficial level? I suppose that matches my experience of LDS culture; I'd hardly classify it as a healthy attitude.

If you have anything of intellectual substance to add to this discussion, please feel free to do so, at any time.

"Gay" is a term of accepted core self identity,

Let's assume that using the term 'gay' to self-identify is a sign of accepting one's core self-identity. If that is true, who cares what anyone else thinks?

This isn't a discussion about Wilcox' subjective thought world, but about that subjective thought world in relation to the fundamental truths of the restored gospel.

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Wha...!?! Which part of LDS doctrine dictates the terms homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives, not nouns? Did I miss the Strunk and White sections of the Doctrine and Covenants?

As your thinking cap is apparently in the closet today, I'll spell the obvious out to you. An adjective qualifies a noun or pronoun by identifying or describing it. Hence, one may say that "John engages in homosexual behavior" or "Marsha is involved in a lesbian relationship." One can also say "John is a homosexual" and "Marsha is a lesbian."

What, from an LDS perspective, should never be done, is to use the term "homosexual," "Gay," or "lesbian" as nouns; as terms denoting a state of being, in the sense that "John is Gay" comes to mean, not that John engages in homosexual behavior, but that homosexuality is ontologically, organismically intrinsic to John.

And, if that is the case, I'd propose an addendum doctrine - that the words prophet, seer, and revelator are also adjectives that describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviours, and we should refrain from using these words to identify particular conditions or specific persons.

"Prophet, seer, and revelator" is an office within the Priesthood. It no more connotes an inherent state of being, in an deterministic, intrinsic sense, as does being a plumber. The mantel, rights, privileges, and powers attendant to any office in the Priesthood are vouchsafed, not inherent and deterministically entrenched in the person. Otherwise, the very idea that one's priesthood authority was conditioned by one's worthiness would have no meaning.

Your knowledge of LDS doctrine seems extremely light, Toronto, and no wonder that ignorance can breed contempt.

If bro. Wilcox has "come out" as "gay," then it would seem he has accepted wholly the idea of the essentialist "born that way" theory of homosexual orientation, within which homosexuality is not a complex feature of psycho-sexual development with any number of variables contributing to its ultimate manifestation, but a simple genes = homosexuality throwing up of the arms.

Huh? Isn't 'gay' always an adjective? S

For gospel and philosophcal purposes, yes, it should be so understood.

isn't Wilcox using the word 'gay' in a doctrinally correct way?

"Gay" is a statement of self identity, not a behavioral syndrome (which is what homosexuality is). "Gay" involves much more than homosexual behavior, and carries connotations of a culture, way of life, and sense of core self concept.

Homosexuality is, as Oaks correctly states, a body of "particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors." "Gay" is a designation of core self identity; an assertion that the thoughts, and feelings attendant to SSA are primary and intrinsic.

And how would Dallin Oaks know?

Indeed...

[_Runtu]

If bro. Wilcox has "come out" as "gay," then it would seem he has accepted wholly the idea of the essentialist "born that way" theory of homosexual orientation, within which homosexuality is not a complex feature of psycho-sexual development with any number of variables contributing to its ultimate manifestation, but a simple genes = homosexuality throwing up of the arms.

Does it really matter where homosexuality comes from? Whether it's something you're born with or a result of a complex set of variables, it is what it is. Most gay people I know do not consider it their "core identity" any more than you or I wrap our whole identities around heterosexuality. Homosexuality is just one aspect of who one is; the throwing up of the arms is more an acknowledgement that, however it occurred, homosexuality is not something you can wish or pray or electro-shock away. Coming out just means that you recognize that it is part of who you are, even if you choose not to act on that part of your personality.

[_Runtu]

Here's the earlier story:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5080 ... T-WSU.html

It's interesting that, officially, it's OK to have a homosexual orientation and be a member in good standing, but it's not OK to talk about it. That's kind of sad.

[Guest]

Does it really matter where homosexuality comes from?

I am not concerned where "it" "comes from." My concern is how the entire behavioral and psychological syndrome is generated for each individual across a variety of variables and conditions, some internal, others environmental, and for some, biological.

Whether it's something you're born with or a result of a complex set of variables, it is what it is.

Which is a meaningless statement. If you wish to throw up your hands and walk away from the question of homosexuality, that, of course, is your privilege.

Most gay people I know do not consider it their "core identity" any more than you or I wrap our whole identities around heterosexuality.

Which is interesting, as that concept is the basis for the Gay rights movement and its political lobbies.

Homosexuality is just one aspect of who one is; the throwing up of the arms is more an acknowledgement that, however it occurred, homosexuality is not something you can wish or pray or electro-shock away.

If it cannot be altered, by any means, then this would indicate something far more entrenched than "just another aspect of who you are." The question is more what one is at the center of one's self concept; self concept at a fundamental psychological/moral/spiritual level that is more than simply an accretion of behavior predilections. The many highly ritualized and content specific sexual fetishes and practices that exist would appear to be prima facie evidence that human sexuality, whatever its fundamental "set point" in the womb and in infancy, is fairly plastic and liable, under the pressure of our own psychological/family/environmental dynamics, to substantial molding in various directions, of which homosexuality is only one.

Coming out just means that you recognize that it is part of who you are, even if you choose not to act on that part of your personality.

which is just restating in other terms that " I am homosexual." In other words, a core self identity.

[_stemelbow]

Here's the earlier story:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5080 ... T-WSU.html

It's interesting that, officially, it's OK to have a homosexual orientation and be a member in good standing, but it's not OK to talk about it. That's kind of sad.

Why do you assume its not okay to talk about it. The story you linked suggests Matthews left on his own and had pressure to leave. I don't know if this parallels the new story.

[_Droopy]

Here's the earlier story:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5080 ... T-WSU.html

It's interesting that, officially, it's OK to have a homosexual orientation and be a member in good standing, but it's not OK to talk about it. That's kind of sad.

Uh, who said it was "OK to have a homosexual orientation?"

A CFR for GA support for that claim is in order.

[_daheshism]

The Stake Presidency and High Council over D. Michael Quinn, Mormon historian, had heard rumors that he had a gay lover. So, they scheduled a Church Court. He didn't show up. They asked him: "Can you show up at a new court we are having on such a such a time?"

Quinn replied: "Yes, I will be there!"

They said, "We can change it if you wish, just tell us what time you are available and we'll change it."

Quinn: "No, I'll be there!"

Quinn did not show up the second time, so they excommunicated him.

Quinn say: "Ah, I was NEVER excommunicated for apostasy or homosexuality. I was excommunicated for not showing up for a Church Court!"

And, indeed, he was.

Quinn later claimed he was celebate, but in FACT he had a gay lover while he was married and living with his wife and working for the Church.

YOU WILL DISCOVER that the same is true about the current man at BYU. He is LYING! All gay men do in the Church.

[_Runtu]

I am not concerned where "it" "comes from." My concern is how the entire behavioral and psychological syndrome is generated for each individual across a variety of variables and conditions, some internal, others environmental, and for some, biological.

Does that change anything? Not really. You can arrive there in a lot of ways, but it's clear it isn't something you can change about yourself.

Which is a meaningless statement. If you wish to throw up your hands and walk away from the question of homosexuality, that, of course, is your privilege.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "throwing up my hands." I recognize that there may be several factors in homosexuality, genetics being just one. Do I think a gay person can stop being gay? Nope.

Which is interesting, as that concept is the basis for the Gay rights movement and its political lobbies.

Is "conservative" your core identity? It's an aspect of my life, but it's not "me." I was talking to a dear friend yesterday who is gay and did not come out until his twenties. I didn't know he was gay until we'd worked together for several months. It isn't at the center of his existence, but it is part of who he is.

If it cannot be altered, by any means, then this would indicate something far more entrenched than "just another aspect of who you are." The question is more what one is at the center of one's self concept; self concept at a fundamental psychological/moral/spiritual level that is more than simply an accretion of behavior predilections. The many highly ritualized and content specific sexual fetishes and practices that exist would appear to be prima facie evidence that human sexuality, whatever its fundamental "set point" in the womb and in infancy, is fairly plastic and liable, under the pressure of our own psychological/family/environmental dynamics, to substantial molding in various directions, of which homosexuality is only one.

From what I know from personal study and experience, sexuality is indeed something that is molded and developed. But it can't be willed away once it is developed. Someone with a gingham dress fetish is always going to have that fetish, no matter how many times you shock their testicles.

which is just restating in other terms that " I am homosexual." In other words, a core self identity.

I am Caucasian. I am conservative. I am American. I am a Mormon. I am a heterosexual. Some of those things I can change, and some I can't. None of them is my core self-identity.

Gay people are pretty much screwed in the church because there is a specific doctrinal exclusion of homosexuality: heterosexual union is crucial to godhood, so there is no place for gay people. If the church actually were true, then it might make sense for people to engage in a futile effort to reprogram their sexuality.

[_moksha]

FACT: this gay man at BYU is NOT celebate, never was, and this will be revealed in the years to come.

An active dislike of women, plus the inside scoop on gay activities: What could this possibly mean?

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

Yes Darrick...

When I told Mormon bishops that my roommates were banging all sorts of young Mormon girls and women, they said: "You're DELUSIONAL....Mormon girls and women would NEVER DO what you are saying they do!"

Yes I have heard this story from you about 20 times. I have noted that I don't think Mormon men or women are perfect. But I also am not foolish enough to think your experience,if accurate,which I have some doubts about some of the accuracy of it, should be applied to all Mormondom.

FACT: they were banging all sorts of young Mormon women and girls.

Well you had a few scummy roommates.

When I told everybody I could that Mark Hofmann was forging documents and would "spill innocent blood" I was told by Mormon bishops and institute teachers and others: "You're DELUSTIONAL....the brethren CANNOT BE FOOLED

Darrick, I don't care. Get over it man.

FACT: they WERE fooled, over and over again for five years, and Mark Hofmann DID spill innocent blood

Yep they were.

Jason, you're just a TYPICAL "Mormon bishop"; a self-righteous CLOWN. A BOZO. A self-righteous "FOOL".

Darrick I am not a bishop any more and have some serious concerns about Mormonism. And you don't have any idea what kind of bishop I was. You are a narcissistic broken and I do believe rather insane man. You need help. I have remained quiet as you have revisted this board over and over but I am just fed up with your distortions as well as your self promition of yourself as some sort of unique prophet. You are right and everyone else are liars, fools, sinners, bozos, clowns.

I am certainly not self righteous and anyone who knows me would tell you so. But I have my baggage as well.

But I do believe you border on being if not totally psychotic.

FACT: this gay man at BYU is NOT celebate, never was, and this will be revealed in the years to come.

You could be right, you could be wrong. FACT: You don't know. It is just your opinion.