NOM

I still find myself reading the FAIR blog and other apologetic sources from time to time. Honestly, I think I'm hoping for answers that really make sense. So far, no luck. Anyway, my latest foray into the Mormon apologetic world led to me finding this:https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/11 ... eds-change.

I found this article so misleading. Basically, I read it as an accusation against all the members who just fail to understand church teachings. If the members were just more in line with the Brethren, then the suicide problem would be solved, it seems to say. I think this is bunk. The article cherry picks quotes about love and acceptance. They don't give the quotes about not letting your gay children come home or at least not letting your friends know about them.

If the church were really worried about how members treat those in the LGBT community, I would expect to hear the following in conference:
1. Never reject your children. If you kicked a child out of your home, go out immediately, find them, and do everything you can to bring them home if they are willing. You need to repent. If you have a gay child, love them. Make sure your children are not afraid to come out.

2. We want to see gay people in our meetings. It was reported to me that Elder Christofferson told bishops that, if they saw two men kissing at church, they should ignore it. I don't know if he still says this. This teaching should be publicly proclaimed at conference.

3. No member of the church should use religion as an excuse to deny LGBT persons service. Bake the cake. Take the photos. Rent the room. If you don't want to, don't blame the church.

4. Reparation therapy is wrong. It is damaging to hurt someone in this way.

I would add that the November POX (policy of exclusion, I really like that acronym) should be reversed, but it's probably too much for the leaders to admit they were so wrong. The leaders need to take responsibility for how their words led members to take actions that killed people. I won't absolve the members of the responsibility, either. The Nuremberg defense is not acceptable, but I do believe in repentance.

An apologetic is not an exercise in uncovering truth, or weighing the merits of this and that, it's a defense. The writers of FAIR don't choose what to defend, that's decided by the LDS hierarchy over time, they only choose how it will be justified. Some things are perfectly justified, so the defense is equally reasonable and valid. But when the doctrine or action is out of touch with reality, then instead of conceding an obvious point, the defense has to become as out of touch as the thing it's defending. Apologetics have no ground where they can admit any fault flaw, because that isn't the field's nature.

If you want to use FAIR as a guide for finding answers, then accept what you judge reasonable and reject what's bat shit crazy. When one of their answers are aggressively ignorant, then take that as the sign which it is, that the thing they are defending is equally wrong. Whatever it is, we can be mostly certain that FAIR is giving the best defense that exists, and if it's a terrible defense, then that tells you something.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:02 am
If you want to use FAIR as a guide for finding answers, then accept what you judge reasonable and reject what's bat shit crazy. When one of their answers are aggressively ignorant, then take that as the sign which it is, that the thing they are defending is equally wrong. Whatever it is, we can be mostly certain that FAIR is giving the best defense that exists, and if it's a terrible defense, then that tells you something.

I second that. The best and the brightest defenses on a subject speak volumes.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:02 am An apologetic is not an exercise in uncovering truth, or weighing the merits of this and that, it's a defense. The writers of FAIR don't choose what to defend, that's decided by the LDS hierarchy over time, they only choose how it will be justified. Some things are perfectly justified, so the defense is equally reasonable and valid. But when the doctrine or action is out of touch with reality, then instead of conceding an obvious point, the defense has to become as out of touch as the thing it's defending. Apologetics have no ground where they can admit any fault flaw, because that isn't the field's nature.

If you want to use FAIR as a guide for finding answers, then accept what you judge reasonable and reject what's bat shit crazy. When one of their answers are aggressively ignorant, then take that as the sign which it is, that the thing they are defending is equally wrong. Whatever it is, we can be mostly certain that FAIR is giving the best defense that exists, and if it's a terrible defense, then that tells you something.

You're right. Garbage in; garbage out. There are no good answers.

It's kind of an interesting article, in a way. It's pure apologetics, certainly.

The biggest thing it demonstrates is the gulf between the church's polite suggestions to act one way, and their dogged insistence at acting a different way. The article really shows the Church has a "do as I say, not as I do" approach. Though it's even more finessed than that, really. It's really more of a, "As long as we fervently believe you are vile sinners, but say it very politely, we want people to be nice, but definitely not too nice, and we're certainly going to fight tooth and nail for discrimination and implement exclusionary policies." Is there any surprise Church members behave poorly to the subgroups the Church labels as sinners, or even nonexistent?

The Church's position on gays and lesbians is kind of unusual. They're far from the level required to be added onto the SPLC's hate-watch list. To a fairly significant degree they're consistently anti-gay marriage, but otherwise not so much supportive of discriminating against gays. They decry gay sex on the basis that it's outside of legitimate marriage and then fight staunchly against any recognition of legitimate gay marriage. They consider gays one of the greatest enemies, make strident efforts to exclude them, and then from time to time make gestures of support. In talks they staunchly claim that gays and lesbians don't exist and then they create a website mormonandgay.lds.org. They pour millions of dollars into the Prop 8 campaign to proliferate vile falsehoods about gays and then wonder why people are upset at them, fueling their persecution complex.

Most people don't understand the Mormon Church's schizoid approach. With pretty good reason. Their attacks on gays are publicized more widely and more directly to their members than their more conciliatory and supportive messages and actions. As this apologetic article shows, there are some messages of support and inclusion, but they are contained within speeches that also include denigrating, exclusionary comments, usually denying that LGB people even exist. (As in the recent survey discussed here, where the Church asked "In your opinion, is it appropriate for church members who experience same-sex attraction to refer to themselves as gay or lesbian?")

When it comes to trans people, the Church pretty much denies they exist. And intersex people of all the various forms. Even the linked apologetic article totally ignores the existence of trans people, other than in the acronym LGBT. In the referenced talks, Church leaders, especially Oaks, make clear that they intend the PotF to ignore and deny the existence of not only sex irregularities, but also gender. To them, gender, which is a social construct, is eternal, immutable, and strictly binary.

Yeah, I think they've got a problem with their messaging. And yes, the Mormon Church is definitely a major thing in Utah that needs to change to help reduce suicides. But, you'll never find Church leaders accepting responsibility.

This was an amazing display of apologetics that uses statistics and quotes like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, rather than illumination.

What really annoyed me was a carefully selection of quotes to make apostles look like models of Christian charity, not as a bunch of old guys who are stil using rhetoric of the 1950s to defend policies of the 21st century. Quoting Dallin Oaks was a brilliant bit of chutzpah. They provide his most charitable quotes such as:

Dallin Oaks clearly wrote:Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding… All should understand that persons (and their family members) struggling with the burden of same-sex attraction are in special need of the love and encouragement that is a clear responsibility of Church members

But they entirely leave out the best known quotes:

Dallin Oaks was not being helpful when he wrote: I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

So, theory is nice, but the real world application is, in fact, terrible. Plus they insist on referring to:

• "those who are attracted to others of the same sex"
• "Of special concern to us should be those who struggle with same-sex attraction"
• "Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding"

It's like there is this concerted effort to secrectly prevent Dallin from know about mormonandgay.lds.org.

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:42 am 1. Never reject your children. If you kicked a child out of your home, go out immediately, find them, and do everything you can to bring them home if they are willing. You need to repent. If you have a gay child, love them. Make sure your children are not afraid to come out.

This would be something powerful and productive that the Church could really do. They could extend it to other issues. Don't kick kids out for not believing in the Church. For not wanting to go on a mission. There isn't anything doctrinal that would prevent them from such admonitions. But, where would they be without the oppressing doctrine of shame?

One of the referenced speeches, talks about the problem of divorce and exhorting people to do everything possible to avoid it. And yet we have pressure in the Church that if a spouse stops believing then divorce is the best thing.

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:42 am 3. No member of the church should use religion as an excuse to deny LGBT persons service. Bake the cake. Take the photos. Rent the room. If you don't want to, don't blame the church.

Really, this shouldn't be such a hard thing. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away." The Christian thing to do is pretty clear. Sadly we see so few Christians around, at least in the big churches that wrap themselves in his name. If anyone asks you bake a cake, bake them cupcakes also. If anyone asks you for flowers, give them bows also.

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:42 am 4. Reparation therapy is wrong. It is damaging to hurt someone in this way.

And admit they did something wrong? Isn't likely to happen. The Church is founded on never being wrong, never having to apologize, never contradicting what it previously did or said, all while having been constantly wrong, constantly changing, and constantly contradicting itself. But most importantly, never admitting it.

The Church had quite the program for reparative therapy. It is still led by people who were involved in or approved BYU's reparative therapy programs. There is certainly no indication they've had a change of heart.

The Church, and many of its conservative friends, still haven't given up on the idea that LGBT people can change. The Church was long supportive of Evergreen International, which attempted to change gay people. It was strongly affiliated with NARTH. From 1996 to 2011, general Church leaders spoke at every Evergreen International conference. In 2014, Evergreen International merged with North Star, which was founded by reparative therapists and heavily aligned with the practices. Church leaders have continued to be supportive. In contrast, Exodus International closed in 2013, when its president stated that he had never known of anyone who had successfully changed their orientation. They crave it to be true, but they have so little to show for it.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 1:00 pm

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:42 am 4. Reparation therapy is wrong. It is damaging to hurt someone in this way.

And admit they did something wrong? Isn't likely to happen. The Church is founded on never being wrong, never having to apologize, never contradicting what it previously did or said, all while having been constantly wrong, constantly changing, and constantly contradicting itself. But most importantly, never admitting it.

The Church had quite the program for reparative therapy. It is still led by people who were involved in or approved BYU's reparative therapy programs. There is certainly no indication they've had a change of heart.

The period of active homosexual reparative therapy at BYU was horrific. I don't suppose it is any suprise that the President of BYU at the time was Dallin H. Oaks, senior apostle and likely future prophet. I can't imagine him ever doing a news conference that was not tightly controlled since all it would take is one solid question like, "how much were you involved in reparative therapy while you were president of BYU?"

You need to remember that FAIRMormon will say anything to rationalize/defend the Church's current position. If the Church had a thing against robots, then General Authorities would come up with a slogan that said:

Hate the Robotics
But love the Robots

Fair would diligently offer support for the Brethren's claim that no one is born a robot, by listing a compendium of the unassembled parts and then claiming that list as definitive proof of the Brethren's assertion.

If the Brethren eased up on their Robotphobia, then FAIRMormon would revise their rhetoric to accommodate this change. They would urge more tolerance of robots and even suggest members not impede robotic maintenance.

moksha wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:43 am You need to remember that FAIRMormon will say anything to rationalize/defend the Church's current position. If the Church had a thing against robots, then General Authorities would come up with a slogan that said:

Hate the Robotics
But love the Robots

Fair would diligently offer support for the Brethren's claim that no one is born a robot, by listing a compendium of the unassembled parts and then claiming that list as definitive proof of the Brethren's assertion.

If the Brethren eased up on their Robotphobia, then FAIRMormon would revise their rhetoric to accommodate this change. They would urge more tolerance of robots and even suggest members not impede robotic maintenance.

Once again, Futurama has predicted the the inevitable progression of doctrine and technology.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:54 am The period of active homosexual reparative therapy at BYU was horrific. I don't suppose it is any suprise that the President of BYU at the time was Dallin H. Oaks, senior apostle and likely future prophet. I can't imagine him ever doing a news conference that was not tightly controlled since all it would take is one solid question like, "how much were you involved in reparative therapy while you were president of BYU?"

Exactly. And it's still one of Oaks' biggest obsessions. His focus on "religious freedom" is largely a front for his desire to continue criticizing LGBT folks. And discriminating against them. And avoiding any criticism for all of his comments and actions on it. The Church's approach to LGBT people is unlikely to change while Oaks is still a top leader.