- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My thoughts: I have read this paper by Bryce Cook. PLEASE read it also. It’s long, but worth every single minute of your time. I cannot encourage you strongly enough.
It is EVERYTHING. In all the years on the front lines working for LGBT equality and the millions of pages I’ve read on this topic, this is far and away the BEST of it all. Every single member of the church should read this. THANK YOU for this amazing labor of love, Bryce. May it change hearts and minds, and save lives. ❤
If the doctrine of the LDS Church matters to you, especially in relation to LGBT family, this is a must read. This article is a masterpiece. It is a compilation of everything I have felt in my heart but didn’t have all the resources to connect all the dots. The waters of LDS/LGBT theology have been muddied to the extent that it really does take a 60+ page article to unwind. Much like blacks and the priesthood, the temple ban had been practiced for so long,
Yes, I agree – Bryce shared this with me also. It is a very well written, very important work. You had me right up until “60+ pages”! J/K I will look at it in depth when I have time.
It is in 5 different sections that are easy enough to take in chunks. The last section contains a lot of stories. It truly is an exceptional work. I did a brief overview here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/03/19/lgbt-questions-an-essay/ hawkgrrrl wrote:
I did a brief overview here:https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/03/19/lgbt-questions-an-essay/
Thank you hawkgrrrl for that overview.
bridget_night wrote:
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I did a brief overview here:https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/03/19/lgbt-questions-an-essay/
Thank you hawkgrrrl for that overview.
Seconded. I read that first, then dove into the essay itself. Both are great at what they set out to do.
I’m not quite finished with the essay, but I notice it doesn’t say anything about priesthood when it discusses complementarianism. Sanctioned same-sex marriage pushes women having the priesthood to the fore. In a family headed by a lesbian couple, neither parent could hold it, which is bad from a believing perspective. This could be a stumbling block for a prophet seeking revelation.
Maybe Cook is hoping they won’t notice?
Reuben wrote:
I’m not quite finished with the essay, but I notice it doesn’t say anything about priesthood when it discusses complementarianism. Sanctioned same-sex marriage pushes women having the priesthood to the fore. In a family headed by a lesbian couple, neither parent could hold it, which is bad from a believing perspective. This could be a stumbling block for a prophet seeking revelation.Maybe Cook is hoping they won’t notice?
The essay is a persuasive article. No need to mention something tangential that would make the target audience even more uncomfortable with the conclusion.
Quote:This could be a stumbling block for a prophet seeking revelation.
Well, let’s see, our leaders are both homophobic and sexist, and they decide who gets the PH. They use the complementarianism to justify sexist opinions. Bringing up PH is the tail wagging the dog. Women don’t have it because the church is complementarian and the church is complementarian because women don’t have the PH. They create the need (for women to depend on men for the PH) and then they fulfill the need.
Feel free to throw rotten fruit at me but that is how I see it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
They create the need (for women to depend on men for the PH) and then they fulfill the need.
Love this!
Curious to know what you think of his decision to leave the BT out of the LGBT discussion. I think leaving that aside in such a long piece gives the impression that BT is too complicated, or will undermine the argument and needs to be avoided. But people who are opposed to his argument, or unconvinced that we can move towards acceptance will certainly bring up the other categories. Leaving it complete unaddressed is a bit of a problem, I think.
Talking about bisexuality can help bisexuals in the church, but (in my opinion) doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the discussion of homosexuality, other than a few points (like the likely source of the “it’s a choice” thought, which ironically, still isn’t really a choice for bisexuals in the way it’s usually painted) which are brought up already. Most of the hard stuff LG people go through in the church, bisexuals also go through, though sometimes to a lesser degree. It would be fun to compare and contrast experiences with gay people and other bisexuals, but that’s no longer really about FCs and the issues in the intersection of faith and sexuality. Trans issues in the church are a whole other can of worms, and should be discussed separately from LGB issues. Yes, they’re important and don’t get the attention they deserve. We just don’t need to mix them with the LGB discussions, mostly because there’s nothing to mix. Too many people mix up gender identity and orientation, thinking that being gay means that you’re more feminine, and then thinking that not following masculine or feminine stereotypes means that you’re trans. No, gender identity and orientation are orthogonal to each other. Trans issues need to be discussed, but the discussion shouldn’t be confused with LGB issues.
I think the reason that the church refuses to talk about trans issues is because there’s really nothing they can talk about without admitting that the gender the doctor assigns you at birth may not match your “spiritual” gender, which is a point that they’re strangely adamant about. Since they can’t have a dialogue without admitting that they may be wrong, they avoid the dialogue altogether.
I could see leaving the transgender issue out for now, and I should have said that above. Elder Christofferson is on record saying that it is very complicated, and something to the effect of, We don’t know enough about it yet – an encouragingly honest statement. I do think bisexuality needed to be included to be as strong a piece as it can be. Because, like homosexuality, the church
doesseem to say that we know all we need about that. It’ll be really interesting to see how this goes.
Ann wrote:
leaving that aside in such a long piece gives the impression that BT is too complicated, or will undermine the argument and needs to be avoided.
This is not meant to be flame bait.
I have a question about bisexuality that may need to be a different thread. Bisexuality is the piece I understand the least. As I understand it bisexuals are attracted to both sexes. So by choosing a single person to have a relationship with, a bisexual denies the need for the other sex they didn’t choose? Is that correct?
Sexuality seems to be is a sliding scale. On a scale of 1-10 one male may be attracted to woman at a 10 and men at a 0. Another male may be attracted to women at an 8 and men at a 2. Yet another man may be attracted to women at a 5 and men at a 5.
I guess I don’t see bisexuals fitting in any culture where long term monogamy is the norm – even if homosexuals were completely accepted. Maybe this is part of the issue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.