sigh… apathy is setting in

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

See http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=33 and http://justin.justyntime.com/blog/?p=36. These were written at the beginning of my crisis of faith (I think the difference in my writing, views, and opinions will probably knock your socks off).

Wow 😯 …wow.

Yep, that’s about the response I expected.

asha wrote:

I actually found your posts very interesting, and especially enjoyed the second one where you started to become more open to considering the other side of the issue. I could sense your growing discomfort with the position you were struggling to keep. I have suffered the same sort of cognitive dissonance regarding homosexuality/SSM when I was striving to be a TBM.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

asha wrote:

I agree (and disagree) with a lot of what you wrote.

Me too

asha wrote:

The only point I take issue with is the notion that SSM is not a civil rights issue. I think it is.

Let me explain a bit. I still don’t think it is a civil rights issue. I do agree with virtually everything you said, including the easily drawn parallel to blacks, the lack of freedom (although agency is present), and the intense feeling in society of them not being normal. I empathize greatly with this which is one reason I have changed my opinion. Let me explain the civil rights thing.

I largely agree with the libertarian perspectives. From that perspective I am interested in protecting rights, and allowing freedom. From a legal standpoint (according to my research, although I’m not a lawyer), most places, other than CA, do not consider homosexuality to be a protected class. That is, homosexuality is not an immutable trait, like skin color (except for Michael Jackson 😯 ). We cannot be in the business of giving protected class status to preferences. At the end of the day, the decision to engage in sex is a choice, race is not. From a legal standpoint it is irresponsible, I believe, to give protected class status to homosexuals. Every criminal lawyer in the country is licking his chops at this. All of sudden predispositions, or even propositional attitudes could be given “protected class” status. Because of this, IMHO, the miscegenation suits don’t apply, although there are similarities.

I am all in favor of homosexuals having equal rights, and they should not be discriminated against. We should do everything in our power to dispell the myth that they have some sort of disease, and aren’t normal. As I said, I’m not for SSM, nor against. I don’t want my marriage to be recognized by the gov’t either. I want a civil contract for me, and everyone, and let religions and society work out the various details of marriage according to the dictates of their conscience. Keep in mind, also, that marriage is absolutely not a right. It is a word signifying a relationship. In the gov’t sense (which is the only sense prop 8 cared about) it is a term for a legal contract. Hence, the easy extension to simply removing from the gov’t realm.

I hope I’m being clear. I am very sympathetic, and yes, I believe some people are predisposed to homosexuality, just like I am predisposed to be an NT archetype. In my mind, the line between gov’t and legality vs. culture is very clear. Gov’t has a role to play,

asha wrote:

I don’t know if you still feel this way, but you argue in your blog that gays can choose whether or not to act upon their feelings. What kind of a choice is this? To live as god created you or to suppress your true nature?

Absolutely, I agree 100%, this is no choice at all, especially in our current culture. Once again, I separate the legal aspect (not a civil rights issue) from the social/cultural aspect. There is no place in our culture for the bigoted attitudes many have towards gays. Legally, however, we just can’t go about giving protected class status to anything other than an immutable trait. And since having sex, by definition, is (mutable?) a choice, legally all we can (or should be able to do IMHO) is protect their rights.

asha wrote:

Probably a third alternative would be more appealing: you would embrace your true nature as someone who is attracted to the opposite sex and work to try to get that lifestyle recognized as socially acceptable with all the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by the community as a whole.

Absolutely. I don’t fault them at all, and they absolutely should have equal rights, and we have an obligation to protect them.

[Anonymous]

@hawkgrrrl

Brilliant post. Expressed my sentiments exactly!!

[Anonymous]

Ray wrote:

Seriously, as much as it seems otherwise at times, comprehensive Mormonism is WAY less fear-based when it comes to eternity than pretty much any other Christian sect. I mean, seriously, saying that the worst anyone is going to get except the most evil losers will be so much better than this life that it is unimaginable as a fear tactic? Saying religious affiliation really doesn’t matter in the end, but that instead it’s how you live what you know that will form the basis for your eternal reward? Not quite standard hellfire and damnation level rhetoric.

Yes, I agree. This one thing I like about Mormonism. Although, I will caveat this with mentioning that to a Mormon (at least to this Mormon), anything other than highest degree of CK is not really acceptable. We don’t teach hell, fire, and damnation to those outside the church, but to the members everything is geared towards only accepting exaltation. Sometimes this creates a complex of “other kingdoms are okay for others, but for Mormons CK is the only way to go.”

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Seriously, as much as it seems otherwise at times, comprehensive Mormonism is WAY less fear-based when it comes to eternity than pretty much any other Christian sect.

I guess we’ve had very different experiences, Ray. Fear was, by far, the most used motivator by my TBM parents and most of my church leaders, teachers, etc. my whole life till my mission. My MP was fantastic. Never used fear, only love. Always. As an adult, I used to think that mainstream Christian churches were so “soft”, it was all about grace and Christ’s love and everyone’s going to be saved, etc. My son’s have gone to “Bible camp” at a local church the last few summers and this was reinforced. NO talk about hell, or the devil, or any of that.

And since I’ve resigned, fear is the ONLY tactic my in-laws use on my DW. I guess, like jmb, I’ve surrounded myself with this framework. Probably because of fear in my previous life. I went to Stake conf. last sunday and the topic of all the talks was joy in the journey. Although there were some good moments (especially the SP at the end) almost all of the talks were centered on obedience. Obedience is the only way for joy to be possible in the journey. Lots of talk about how horrible the world has become, how the end is surely near, etc., etc. But if you’re obedient, you need not fear. Really???? Really??? Obviously, no one’s perfect so what you’re really trying to say is, “RUN FOR THE HILLS, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE SINNERS”.

Sorry about the hyperbole, I’d love to agree with you, Ray, but my experience has been different. (And limited, admittedly )

[Anonymous]

Don’t get me wrong jmb, I really appreciate your take on this, and I am not entirely sure that I don’t agree with you. I was not always as hardline about this issue as I seem to be now… I think I am to a certain point lashing out in response to all the narrow-minded ignorance and sometimes even bigotry that I have heard lately in my ward here from people who have never even met a gay person before. I am just fed up with a lot of what I have been hearing recently, so part of me feels like I need to defend the issue to what could be perceived as an extreme. I do also have some personal baggage here as one of my very closest friends when I was a teenager was homosexual, and also the sweetest kindest person you can imagine. He was a good friend. He died when I was 19, just 2 years before I joined the church. I always wondered how disappointed in me he would have been with my decision to join the church… I have always sort of felt like I was betraying him. 😥 I guess that probably has a lot to do with why I get a bit worked up on this issue.

jmb275 wrote:

That is, homosexuality is not an immutable trait, like skin color (except for Michael Jackson ). We cannot be in the business of giving protected class status to preferences. At the end of the day, the decision to engage in sex is a choice, race is not. From a legal standpoint it is irresponsible, I believe, to give protected class status to homosexuals.

You very well might be right on this… I certainly had a few bi-sexual friends in university for whom sexual preference was definitely a choice. However, there seems to be a lot of compelling evidence now showing that for many people homosexuality is biological. For those people, their sexual orientation is not a choice, but I can still appreciate your point that they would still have a choice whether or not to be sexually active. I can also see your point that the legal implications could be crazy.

jmb275 wrote:

@hawkgrrrl

Brilliant post. Expressed my sentiments exactly!!

I want to second that.

I can’t stand it when organizations and govts hold people hostage with fear. As a non-American, I have to say that this really seems to be a big thing in the U.S. Please don’t send me a whole bunch of replies accusing me of being anti-American, I am not! I have many American friends whom I love dearly, and I think you have a great country… it is just that George W really scared me… We are issuing an orange alert: BE VIGILANT! But, continue to go about your everyday activities like everything is normal! Or, how ’bout : Weapons of mass-destruction!!! 😯 Your media seems to behave quite differently from ours as well, sensationalizing everything. Day after day it would drive me nuts. I am not saying my govt doesn’t have its flaws… don’t even get me started. Fear-mongering just really gets my back up.

I agree with Ray that the LDS church is pretty good about not using fear as a control tactic when compared to other religions/churches. However, I have heard many TBMs talk with great fear about the possibility of their kids not staying in the church, like it would be the end of the world or something. Once I said something to the effect of , “Well as long as they are living healthy, happy, responsible, and moral lives, why would it really matter if they decided to leave the church?” the two women I was speaking to looked at me as though I was completely out of my mind, and one of them answered, “Oh, I would just be heart-broken!” 🙄

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Have you ever heard these types of fearful statements:

– Mormons will never be accepted in society. X, Y, or Z group would never let that happen. (Shared enemies, persecution complex)

– If the gays can marry, churches will be forced to allow gay marriage in the temple. The church will be forced to let gays adopt through LDS social services. (Worst case scenarios, persecution complex, shared enemies)

– The world is going to hell in a handbasket. It’s getting even less and less safe to raise kids in such a wicked world. (Worst case scenarios, persecution complex, us against the world)

– Kids today must have been super-duper valiant to be able to withstand Satan’s power in the world today. (Self-aggrandizement, us against the world, fear)

– Illegal aliens have no interest in learning English. They want to take over, fly their flags, take our jobs, and not pay taxes. They don’t want to become Americans. I want to order my Big Mac in English. (shared enemies, worst case scenario, fear of personal loss)

I for one have heard all of these before… like you I am just getting better at tuning it out. There also seems to be a great fear in the church that if you leave your life will be miserable and unhappy. I have heard this over and over again, and I am sure many of you have too. So-and-so left the church and is now a druggie or alcoholic, blah blah blah. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

I for one have heard all of these before… like you I am just getting better at tuning it out. There also seems to be a great fear in the church that if you leave your life will be miserable and unhappy.

I don’t know if this is appropriate to say but… if you want a counter example:

Since I resigned last year, I’ve felt more peace, joy, contentment, happiness, intimacy, and love than I did in the previous 12 years of TBM, temple marriage-dom combined. It probably has nothing to do with the church , but that’s been my experience thus far.

[Anonymous]

asha wrote:

Don’t get me wrong jmb, I really appreciate your take on this, and I am not entirely sure that I don’t agree with you. I was not always as hardline about this issue as I seem to be now… I think I am to a certain point lashing out in response to all the narrow-minded ignorance and sometimes even bigotry that I have heard lately in my ward here from people who have never even met a gay person before. I am just fed up with a lot of what I have been hearing recently, so part of me feels like I need to defend the issue to what could be perceived as an extreme.

I hear you. I think we agree more than disagree. Like I said, I separate the legal standpoint and the cultural one. Culturally, I agree with you 100%, but from a legal, gov’t standpoint, I believe we have to adhere to the letter of the law. Anything else isn’t fair, and we end up in the situation we’re in now, trying to protect, and enforce equality. Equality can never be enforced, especially at the cultural level.

asha wrote:

You very well might be right on this… I certainly had a few bi-sexual friends in university for whom sexual preference was definitely a choice. However, there seems to be a lot of compelling evidence now showing that for many people homosexuality is biological. For those people, their sexual orientation is not a choice, but I can still appreciate your point that they would still have a choice whether or not to be sexually active. I can also see your point that the legal implications could be crazy.

That’s right. I’m not in any way implying that homosexuality preference is merely a choice. I have believed it is a predisposition (biological) for a long time. But, yes, engaging in sex is still a choice, as is the lifestyle, and so from a legal standpoint we have to make that distinction I think. Doesn’t make it okay to treat them like they can just turn it off and be “normal.” As you said, it’s hardly a choice. We just have to distinguish immutable characteristics, from mutable ones. Imagine if we made a similar argument for pedophiles. Lawyers trying to make their case that the person was biologically inclined to do something and hence couldn’t help it. I know there are other issues at play here (forcefully taking someone’s right away, etc.) but the premise of defending someone’s actions based on biological predisposition is not acceptable from a legal standpoint. Legally, I think we have to draw the line. That’s why blacks and civil rights are different than the gay movement although there are similarities. One more example. In CA homosexuals fall under protected class. Imagine if you’re an employer and you have an employee. You don’t know if he/she is gay (since the employer can’t ask, and there are no obvious signals like skin color). You fire this employee because he/she did a poor job. That employee can take you to court claiming discrimination. Now all of a sudden the court has to figure out if you fired the employee because they were homosexual, and whether or that employee is even homosexual. How is it even possible? What if the employer was innocent? Would it be obvious? What if the person made up the homosexual story just to sue? Legally, the implications are very messy.

We also need to separate the issues here. One is about protected class status, and the other is about SSM. I’m not in favor of SSM merely because I’m not in favor of the gov’t regulating personal relationships. We either need to let everyone get married, or no one get married from a gov’t perspective. My solution would be to let no one get married (only civil contracts). I’m not in favor of granting protected class status for reasons I’ve described. Culturally, however, I am very much in your camp, and think the biggest problem with homosexuality is the bigotry with which so many treat them.

asha wrote:

I can’t stand it when organizations and govts hold people hostage with fear. As a non-American, I have to say that this really seems to be a big thing in the U.S. Please don’t send me a whole bunch of replies accusing me of being anti-American, I am not!

How dare you, you anti-American… Seriously, though anti-American? Hardly. If that’s anti-American then I would be in the same boat, and I work for the gov’t, and have gov’t clearance!! We do use fear-mongering, especially in the media. You’re right. I agree.

[Anonymous]

swimordie wrote:

asha wrote:

I for one have heard all of these before… like you I am just getting better at tuning it out. There also seems to be a great fear in the church that if you leave your life will be miserable and unhappy.

I don’t know if this is appropriate to say but… if you want a counter example:

Since I resigned last year, I’ve felt more peace, joy, contentment, happiness, intimacy, and love than I did in the previous 12 years of TBM, temple marriage-dom combined. It probably has nothing to do with the church , but that’s been my experience thus far.

Good thought swimordie. I am in the same boat. At this point I am happier, love more, have a better home life, and marriage. But I also agree with you that this probably has little to do with the church. More like me making major steps to be a better person.

[Anonymous]

My wife hasn’t formally resigned from the Church, but she has left in all other ways. She feels happier and more at peace too. I think in a lot of ways she needed to take that step in her life. I don’t know if she will ever be at a point of believing again, but it seems to be her path.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

It is SO hard for many people to truly give up the idea that they know what’s best for everyone else.

My faith transition has been a humbling blessing in this way because I no longer assumed I was qualified to even guess that I knew what was best. Now I can emphatically throw up my hands and say things like, “ I don’t know how to advise you on this – but I love you and I want to spend time brain-storming with you if that would be helpful. I know a few general things about stress/anxiety/self-care and I have a mental checklist of very, very, very basic things to review if things are really, really bad (when did you eat/drink/move around/hug someone or something)…Or I can share a few of my experiences that might help you… or what can I do that would help you the most?”

Old Timer wrote:

It’s a Stage 3 element, and I think it generally is one of the last elements that gets ditched before someone moves fully into Stage 5. I think as we talk of any topic relative to the Church that we simply have to keep in mind that “my way is not others’ way”. If we can’t do that, if we hold onto the idea that those who do or see or believe or act differently than we do are wrong, or less informed, or less enlightened, or any other pejorative judgment, then we are doing to them exactly what they do to us that causes us to complain.

For example, there is NO guarantee that our intellectual and spiritual and emotional struggles have ANYTHING to do with the afterlife or our end result. There is no guarantee that those who appear to us to float blissfully along in life, attending meetings without any doubts or concerns or angst, doing what they are asked to do, never turning down a calling, etc. aren’t actually better off in the long-run. Maybe they spend their time serving others, while we spend our time obsessing on the internet. Maybe they truly consecrate their lives to God, while we can’t quite let ourselves do that – and maybe that gets rewarded somehow. Maybe God appreciates and rewards that type of dedication. MAYBE NOT, but maybe. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe.

The point is that we don’t know for sure, so we need to try to let go of our own self-righteousness and allow others to be whoever they are – loving and accepting them for who they are, not who we want them to be. We talk of how we want that from them; we need to be willing to give them that first – even if it never is returned to us by them.

Amen. My personal goal is that everyone who comes into my path is loved for who they are, and inspired/encouraged into making choices THEMSELVES to be a better version of themselves. I am not responsible for their choices, but I can listen and do my best to set up a nurturing/strengthening environment for them while they are around me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Amen. My personal goal is that everyone who comes into my path is loved for who they are, and inspired/encouraged into making choices THEMSELVES to be a better version of themselves. I am not responsible for their choices, but I can listen and do my best to set up a nurturing/strengthening environment for them while they are around me.

There is a woman in my ward who is working to spread this type of thing. I don’t believe she has had a faith transition. She did move from a very conservative area to our more liberal area. She is meeting and working with lots of personalities she has not previously met. That may influence her.

In our ward she is SS teacher. Every week she tells those kids, “I love you just like you are. If you were to walk in here next week, wearing shorts and being pregnant, I would still love you and want you here. I need you.”

A few weeks ago, the message arrived home for those kids. No one is pregnant, but one of the students felt like crap about themselves (I don’t have or need to know the details). As the parent was trying to console or help the teen, the teen said, “I am calling Sister Sunday School Teacher. She always says she wants us no matter what. Today I am no matter what. She is the only person that will love me.”

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Quote:

Amen. My personal goal is that everyone who comes into my path is loved for who they are, and inspired/encouraged into making choices THEMSELVES to be a better version of themselves. I am not responsible for their choices, but I can listen and do my best to set up a nurturing/strengthening environment for them while they are around me.

There is a woman in my ward who is working to spread this type of thing. I don’t believe she has had a faith transition. She did move from a very conservative area to our more liberal area. She is meeting and working with lots of personalities she has not previously met. That may influence her.

In our ward she is SS teacher. Every week she tells those kids, “I love you just like you are. If you were to walk in here next week, wearing shorts and being pregnant, I would still love you and want you here. I need you.”

A few weeks ago, the message arrived home for those kids. No one is pregnant, but one of the students felt like crap about themselves (I don’t have or need to know the details). As the parent was trying to console or help the teen, the teen said, “I am calling Sister Sunday School Teacher. She always says she wants us no matter what. Today I am no matter what. She is the only person that will love me.”

Wow – Thank you!

[Author]

Posts