harmony wrote: You've obviously never been the victim of a whispering campaign, have you?
Yes but I ignored it and my behavior spoke for itself eventually.
Unfortunately, that's rarely allowed. The church listens to the whispers. Supervisors listen to the whispers. Family members listen to the whispers. Conference planners listen to the whispers. Neighbors listen to the whispers.
Unintended consequences, maybe, but sometimes harmful nonetheless.
As, for the other thing, isn't it the case that the church only disciplines homosexual behavior and not simply same sex attraction (as they like to call it)??
As, for the other thing, isn't it the case that the church only disciplines homosexual behavior and not simply same sex attraction (as they like to call it)??
By "discipline," I'm assuming you mean something other than an ecclesiastical leader donning bondage gear and threatening a strand whip. That might not be an effective deterrent.
(hahahahahahaah)
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
As, for the other thing, isn't it the case that the church only disciplines homosexual behavior and not simply same sex attraction (as they like to call it)??
By "discipline," I'm assuming you mean something other than an ecclesiastical leader donning bondage gear and threatening a strand whip. That might not be an effective deterrent.
harmony wrote: You've obviously never been the victim of a whispering campaign, have you?
Yes but I ignored it and my behavior spoke for itself eventually.
Unfortunately, that's rarely allowed. The church listens to the whispers. Supervisors listen to the whispers. Family members listen to the whispers. Conference planners listen to the whispers. Neighbors listen to the whispers.
Unintended consequences, maybe, but sometimes harmful nonetheless.
As, for the other thing, isn't it the case that the church only disciplines homosexual behavior and not simply same sex attraction (as they like to call it)??
And you believe this? Really?
Well, yes. I am pretty sure it is the case. One reason is that my father was a Bishop and he was always "working" with the struggling gays. He never even dreamed of exing them since they were at least trying not to, well, you know. he told me they only get in trouble if they "act out".
Yep. You can confess to having all sorts of urges without being X-ed.
Tarski wrote:Well, yes. I am pretty sure it is the case. One reason is that my father was a Bishop and he was always "working" with the struggling gays. He never even dreamed of exing them since they were at least trying not to, well, you know. he told me they only get in trouble if they "act out". Yep. You can confess to having all sorts of urges without being X-ed.
Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?
Tarski wrote:Well, yes. I am pretty sure it is the case. One reason is that my father was a Bishop and he was always "working" with the struggling gays. He never even dreamed of exing them since they were at least trying not to, well, you know. he told me they only get in trouble if they "act out". Yep. You can confess to having all sorts of urges without being X-ed.
Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?
No I don't.
But he was not at BYU.
Just being gay by itself doesn't do a thing! There are gay people going to the temple right now and their bishops know they are gay (but they call it same sex attraction and treat it like a mental illness like alchoholism). They just can't have been having sex and must be striving to beat down the urge etc. I.e they must have repented. But the fact that the have these feeling is, well, just a fact. They fight it.
Can a recovering alchoholic go to the temple? Yes. They still called themselves alchoholics even if they don't drink you know.
Tarski wrote:Well, yes. I am pretty sure it is the case. One reason is that my father was a Bishop and he was always "working" with the struggling gays. He never even dreamed of exing them since they were at least trying not to, well, you know. he told me they only get in trouble if they "act out". Yep. You can confess to having all sorts of urges without being X-ed.
Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?
No I don't.
But he was not at BYU.
Well, then. There you are. Let's say you're a professor at BYU, and after many years of marriage, you decide you are gay and you want a divorce. You confess to your bishop. What do you suppose happens to your temple recommend? What do you suppose is going to happen at your next job review?
Just being gay by itself doesn't do a thing! There are gay people going to the temple right now and their bishops know they are gay (but they call it same sex attraction and treat it like a mental illness like alchoholism). They just can't have been having sex and must be striving to beat down the urge etc. I.e they must have repented. But the fact that the have these feeling is, well, just a fact. They fight it. Can a recovering alchoholic go to the temple? Yes. They still called themselves alchoholics even if they don't drink you know.
For a regular member, maybe. I doubt it, and it didn't happen that way in the one instant I am aware of personally, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Somehow I think the interpretation of the rules would be different at BYU, though.
Tarski wrote:Well, yes. I am pretty sure it is the case. One reason is that my father was a Bishop and he was always "working" with the struggling gays. He never even dreamed of exing them since they were at least trying not to, well, you know. he told me they only get in trouble if they "act out". Yep. You can confess to having all sorts of urges without being X-ed.
Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?
No I don't.
But he was not at BYU.
Well, then. There you are. Let's say you're a professor at BYU, and after many years of marriage, you decide you are gay and you want a divorce. You confess to your bishop. What do you suppose happens to your temple recommend? .
If the stated reason for divorce was the gay thing then you might be in trouble. It depends. The main thing is to not have gay sex.
What do you suppose is going to happen at your next job review?
I don't know. I don't think they take away the recommend unless you actually break a big commandment (like if you have some of that... gay sex). But I don't trust BYU on such matters so who knows.
Frankly, I would have been getting a job elsewhere if my employer was the Mormon church and I decided I was gay. I would also quit the church. But that's just me.
harmony wrote:Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?
I don't see it as even slightly "far-fetched." I know for a fact that that is indeed standard operating procedure.
Perversely, because of my adverse opinion of many of your stated positions, I must admit to admiration for your courage and persistence in hanging in with these hostile attacks on you in this forum.
I would not be surprised to find that you had been "assigned' to defend the LDS Church in this forum (and particularly in this thread), but even so, your civility, coolness under fire, and careful posts against what I would consider stinging provocations is still genuinely impressive. Your persistent, careful example is something I intend to learn from.
At the same time, I'm aware of the irony in this situation. Had you been a vocal critic over at MADB, Juliann (or one of the other Julianns or administrators) would have engineered your being permanently banned for such a bravura performance, a danger you won't face here where administration treats people much more evenhandedly.