26 thoughts on “A great post on Mormon Women Stand

  1. Haven’t had a chance to read the MWS post, but there are some congregations where members openly decry the requirement that individuals be sexually pure to be eligible to serve a mission. “So what if a fellow has ‘done’ a few girls, that shouldn’t disqualify him from serving a mission, like all his peers.”

    Not exactly a quote from a ward I visited, but close.

    Another concomitant teaching was that it is evil to discipline children. Therefore the parents of well-behaved children were openly suspected of being abusive. Temple recommends were denied. The parent was forbidden to talk with the primary teachers instructing their children.

    Luckily, God loves all of us. We are so creative in coming up with new and improved ways of breaking with His will that it’s a really great thing that he’s omniscient and omnipotent. Mere mortals wouldn’t be able to cope.

  2. It appears that someone cleverly hacked (essentially removed) that post.

    Do you suppose that some clever hacker, or someone employed at the hosting company, disagreed with the content?

    PS, one doesn’t take down just one post, for “site maintenance”. Site maintenance for a run-of-the-mill web site (as opposed to a multi server mega site) means taking down the whole domain.

  3. Looks like the post is back up now.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if someone took it down if they disagreed with the content. The left is known for shouting down speakers and generally disrupting and censoring speech that they don’t agree with.

  4. The author of that post is right–embracing LGBT-related sin is increasingly accepted in LDS communities.

    I know of a ward in Texas where the bishop’s teenage child is receiving hormone treatments in preparation for a gender change surgery, something that is grounds for discipline according to the church handbook. Apparently, people in the ward don’t think this is a problem. One otherwise faithful, active member said, “The church will have to accept it after it’s done.”

  5. Just throwing this out there because I don’t have an answer, but why do you think many LDS members are becoming more and more accepting of LGBT-related sin? Serious question. It baffles me to no end that otherwise good members can be deceived so easily. Anyone want to write a blog post on this?

  6. TV and movies place us powerfully into the fictional universe portrayed by the writer. Rather than learn about life from real lived lives, we learn from the wishful fantasies of the avant-garde writers.

    For another example of how TV and movies transform our “normal,” consider the size of American homes. Homes have been moderately standard in size for centuries. Then TV happened, where the camera POV was outside of the depicted space. And homes have continued to grow as larger and larger sets are used to depict the ever-growing normal.

  7. James,

    I think that it is because so many of us want to be loved by the world. We crave the acceptance of a world that has been at war with God’s plan since its introduction.

    An interesting phenomenon that seems hard to overcome, even though the scriptures are full of warnings and counsel regarding it. Which is likely why the scriptures are full of warnings and counsel…

  8. Going back to TV and movies, each new offering attempts to be better and more unique than the last. And it is no secret that the LGBTQIA crowd has actively been either writing scripts to celebrate their hoped-for future or actively badgering more traditional writers to include LGBTQIA individuals under the mantra that LGBTQIA is the new Black.

    But the other interesting thing I see is how the shows that really tug at the viewer’s emotions tend to be shows that depict a family in peril, where the point of the story arc is to resolve the peril. At times the family in peril is the “family” of the group (e.g., NCIS team), but even in shows where there is a work cohort that considers one another as family, the episodes often explicitly deal with peril to family members of the individual players.

    So where we see a corruption because LGBTQIA is ubiquitous, I would argue that the preciousness of family has evolved in popular thought as well. And of course when these two collide, we have marriage for everyone, whether or not it has any possibility of biological production of children from the two married individuals.

  9. I appreciate the feedback, Meg and Mike. I still think there’s something more to this issue than what you’ve mentioned. Let me see if I can give you a similar example.

    The Ordain Women movement in the LDS world has largely fizzled. They had a couple of good years when Kate Kelly was running things and staged a couple of protests that got some good coverage but the acceptance of female priesthood ordination hasn’t really gotten the same traction as supporting SSM pushing for LDS recognition of same sex relationships/marriages. Why is that? Seriously I can’t figure this one out.

  10. @ James Stone

    From CS Lewis’ last published article: “When I was a youngster, all the progressive people were saying, “Why all this prudery? Let us treat sex just as we treat all our other impulses.” I was simple-minded enough to believe they meant what they said. I have since discovered that they meant exactly the opposite. They meant that sex was to be treated as no other impulse in our nature has ever been treated by civilized people. All the others, we admit, have to be bridled. Absolute obedience to your instinct for self-preservation is what we call cowardice; to your acquisitive impulse, avarice. Even sleep must be resisted if you’re a sentry. But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned provided that the object aimed at is “four bare legs in a bed.”

    “It is like having a morality in which stealing fruit is considered wrong—unless you steal nectarines.

    “And if you protest against this view you are usually met with chatter about the legitimacy and beauty and sanctity of “sex” and accused of harboring some Puritan prejudice against it as something disreputable or shameful. I deny the charge. Foam-born Venus … golden Aphrodite … Our Lady of Cyprus… I never breathed a word against you. If I object to boys who steal my nectarines, must I be supposed to disapprove of nectarines in general? Or even of boys in general? It might, you know, be stealing that I disapproved of.

    “The real situation is skillfully concealed by saying that the question of Mr. A’s “right” to desert his wife is one of “sexual morality.” Robbing an orchard is not an offense against some special morality called “fruit morality.” It is an offense against honesty. Mr. A’s action is an offense against good faith (to solemn promises), against gratitude (toward one to whom he was deeply indebted) and against common humanity.

    “Our sexual impulses are thus being put in a position of preposterous privilege. The sexual motive is taken to condone all sorts of behavior which, if it had any other end in view, would be condemned as merciless, treacherous and unjust.

    Now though I see no good reason for giving sex this privilege, I think I see a strong cause. It is this…”

    I’ll let you look up the rest, since this comment is overly long. https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-7/great-divide.html?type=issuePrev&number=11&id=3370

  11. Another angle here is balancing the morally/eternally correct thing with the secularly correct thing. It is easy to start to think that you have to look the other way at SSM because it’s legal. SSM being legal doesn’t make it correct any more than alcohol being legal makes indulging okay. But we live in a growing culture of winning and losing tribes, where politics is considered the only battlefield; “losers” are increasingly expected to submit silently to the will of the “winners”, and further advocacy against legal vice is derided as bigotry. Nobody likes being called a bigot.

  12. There are quite a few secular and psychological reasons to oppose the “gay is okay” agenda. There are a lot of inconvenient truths about homosexual lifestyle and politics that are not getting covered by major media, and even conservative outlets. Those things are just too politically incorrect.

    The whole “born that way” issue is misdirection. Psychologists have long known that people can be abused, or seduced, or groomed, or even “made gay” by certain dysfunctional family dynamics.

    But I don’t think even that’s the major push. By the time the media reports on it, a whole new generation will have bought into “pro-choice” and “fluid” sexuality. Because, surprise-surprise, if “there’s nothing wrong with homosexual acts” then there’s nothing wrong with _choosing_ to do homosexual acts. TV and movies even show role models and “the cool people” doing it.

    Of course the “choosing” argument is currently falling on the deaf ears of the grown ups because the official narrative has been that _only_ people who are born gay actually do gay. But, that has been a lie all along. The new generation won’t be restrained by that. There is now a new paradigm forming.

    That generation will be at least 20% gay/bisexual, and birth rates will further plummet, pretty much guaranteeing the decline of the west, marking a point of no return.

    In other words, younger = gayer. Evidence here:

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3576041/Quarter-straight-young-women-admit-having-sex-fling-HALF-believe-gender-isn-t-fixed-thanks-celebrities-open-experiences.html

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160602_Study__More_Americans_are_having_gay_sex.html

  13. Bookslinger,
    While I believe these numbers are high, I think there is an obvious trend. It isn’t hard to find gay activists now using the word “choice” in reference to their sexual orientation.

    I do believe that for a good number of homosexuals, their sexual orientation is not a choice. But for many youth, a choice is now there. We are entering a different era and the ramifications for LDS youth are extreme.

  14. When something becomes legalized (think alcohol, nicotine, etc.) mankind will find ways to abuse it unchecked and misuse it to such extremes that it eventually becomes a pervasive social problem. No one can pretend that only the abusers themselves are the affected. In cause of American deaths, nicotine is the killer king (400,000 per year), and alcohol is a distant second (about 100,000). “Broad is the gate…that leadeth to destruction.”

    SSM is uncharted territory that we do not fully understand the ramifications of this social “experiment,” except what prophets have told us would result in individual, societal, and national calamities. Now a legalized option available to society, aside from the initial euphoria of freedom, as this legalized “abuse” increases there will be intended/unintended negative consequences.

    As we have seen in the last few decades (as a long string of events collaborated toward gays becoming a protected class), Church members inevitably have grappled with same sex relations within their families–spouses, children, friends, etc–many who they firmly believe are born gay (and in some cases, they might be), leading them to support the lifestyle of their loved ones, rather than lovingly call them to repentance. Christ taught, “Whosoever loves father, mother, brother or sister more than me is not worthy of me.”

    The OW movement had its moment in the limelight, but, unlike the gay issue, it wasn’t a direct affront to families, to identities, and to relationships. In effect, because the gay issue is so emotionally charged, if we are not careful and diligent, we may be among the deceived elect who are spiritually blinded to the warnings/teachings of our apostles and prophets.

  15. I am profoundly uncomfortable with trusting government institutions to adjudicate moral questions. “Legalizing” a thing is not in fact a sign of social acceptance. It should be the default.

  16. ‘ “Legalizing” a thing is not in fact a sign of social acceptance. It should be the default. ‘

    But legalizing isn’t the only thing being done. Though “it’s legal” is a perfectly good “excuse” for anyone wishing to do something. Gov’t sanctioned and recognized SSM, is equivalent to gov’t approval.

    The acceptability/approval of homosexual acts is also being taught in schools, not just in sex/health classes (where every form of intercourse/sex is explained and taught, etc.) , but also as homosexual characters appear in all sorts of textbooks, stories and examples. English class is a common place to insert all sorts of “programming” via examples of papers and essays.

    Then there is the depiction in mass media. So many gay characters appear in tv and films now, that young (under age 30) viewers think 25% (rather than 2 to 4%) of the population is homosexual.

    All k-12 textbooks that feature families or couples have been, or are being re-written to include same-sex couples. Dick and Jane and their friends are not just from diverse ethnicities now, but some are “differently abled”, some have single parents, and some have two mommies, and some have two daddies.

    I may have misinterpreted your whole comment. The antecedent and the object of your last sentence are unclear. What should be the default what?

  17. Thanks for the answers to my questions, everyone. It’s given me some things to ponder. Overall, I agree that we’re entering uncharted waters and the whole thing has made me MORE grateful for the modern-day prophets and apostles who lead and guide the church.

  18. I’m a little surprised that no one mentioned the, obvious to me, fact that Satan is alive and well, waging war for the hearts of mankind. I’ve long believed that just as the Savior has prophets and apostles on earth, so does Satan. I remember Pres. Hinckley saying something about his concern that the saints were adopting too much of the worldly attitudes and activities. There are many factors leading to the current status of attitudes in the church, but these seem to me to be the primary ones. Thanks for all the great comments ahead of this one.

  19. Hi James,

    I’m not sure I saw the answer to your question about why we are embracing SSM and LGBTQIA when we shrugged off Ordain Women.

    Very few people want to be Mormon. Therefore it is a much smaller group who want to be female priesthood holders within the Mormon faith tradition.

    On the other hand, the SSM and LGTBQIA movement is a global phenomenon powered by social correctness and the constant refrain of a large percentage of media outlets. I dare say SSM and LGBTQIA gets airtime orders of magnitude more times than Mormonism gets airtime. So by definition, SSM and LGBTQIA get even more airtime than the tiny Mormon segment that wanted women to hold priesthood.

  20. Legalization should be the default position on pretty much everything. If behavior X does not actively harm another person or another person’s property, then we as a society need to be very careful about making X illegal. Because making it illegal doesn’t halt the behavior–it just piles additional problems on top of it. It changes the focus of the conversation to that of “just penalties” and who is empowered to punish whom, rather than actually talking about the behavior itself.

    Consider SSM. A terrible idea? Yes. But if we (the societal we) make it illegal, then what? It won’t stop. Do we fine those who attempt it? Imprison them if they persist? Seize their assets?

    How can we calmly talk about the real problems inherent in the practice when there are guys-with-guns who can be used by one side or the other to force their opponents to conform?

  21. Mormontarian:
    “Legalization should be the default position on pretty much everything. If behavior X does not actively harm another person or another person’s property, then we as a society need to be very careful about making X illegal. Because making it illegal doesn’t halt the behavior–it just piles additional problems on top of it.”

    Ah… You’re using static analysis, not dynamic analysis. As soon as one thing changes, a cascade of other things change _over time_, (unintended consequences), usually taking .5 to 1 generations to manifest or become obvious. Static analysis only looks at immediate and one-step influences.

    Changing the legality of anything _does_ affect upcoming and future generations, ie, requiring dynamic analysis. The younger and future generations will see it through a totally different social lens than those who grew up in the old paradigm.

    I avoided trying marijuana in high school because it was illegal, even though all the cool kids were smoking it. I did try tobacco and I started drinking alcohol in high school, as they were not totally illegal, just age prohibited. I thought I was being “grown up.” The total illegality of pot (ie, “not even for grown ups”) was the only thing that kept me from it.

    Well, Lo and behold, the stats now show that kids who try pot are 26 times more likely to move on to harder drugs than kids who don’t. Ok, is that causation or correlation? Well, _very strong_ correlation does imply a causative effect.

    Meg Stout once threw out a figure that for 20% of the population, homophobic social stigma was the only thing preventing them from experimenting with same-sex sex; ie, they weren’t 100% hetero nor 100% gay. (See the 3 “evidence” links in a previous comment.) whatever the figure is, the idea of some people being “soft coded” as opposed to “hard coded” is not new. Psych professionals have long known it.

    Prison administrators estimate that 80-some percent of male inmates engage in prison sex, where, essentially, there is little to no “social stigma” against same-sex sex. (I don’t remember reading a stat for female inmates.)

    Regardless of what the actual figure is (those who would experiment if there were no social stigma) the number is NON-ZERO for the overall population at large.

    Removng the social stigma is what SSM does for the next generation. K-12 textbooks have been rewritten to include SSM couples. Only now in Massachusetts is there any way of telling how that is turning out.

    What effect is sexual experimenting going to have? Is there an “imprinting” effect of one’s first sexual experience? In the vast majority of cases, an emphatic yes. Look up Dr. Miriam Grossman on Youtube and listen.

    So among those teenage experimenters, if they experiment with same sex first, could they falsely self-identify as gay? If their more experienced partner “pushes the right buttons” what effect will those endorphins have? What might the newbie conclude?

    What if your overweight pimply 16 year old son or grandon can’t find any chicks to take his virginity, but one of his 17 year old bisexual friends, says, “Yo, bro, I can help you out” ?

    Remember there is/will be no stigma or homophobia in that generation. No closed gate or hurdle that requires -extra effort- to get around. It will be an open door, with plenty of “cool kids” and celebrities appearing to be having fun across the threshhold.

    Oh, and remember that they have been teaching @n@l sex in high school health class for years now. Same instructions for MM and MF, no? It seems popular among the young… Remember that disgusting frat boy slogan in the news during that college rape epidemic controversy? “No means yes. Yes means @n@l.”

    The sexual revolution is not over. We can expect that all the cultural pressure tactics that were brought to bear during the heterosexual phase of the sexual revolution (and we have a 50 year track record) _are_ and _will be_ brought to bear on the homosexual/bisexual phase of the revolution. The enemy is NOT going to give up.

    Without stigma, without homophobia, the enemy has nearly double the opportunity for pressure and temptation. (Just look at all those super cooooool, hip, rich, beautiful people on TV who are openly bi or gay.)

    So just as you have always had to warn your teen daughters of the male teenage heterosexual hormone-driven Lotharios who want to take advantage of them…. , and for the past 20 years had to warn your teenage sons of the loose girls who want to trip them up…. NOW you also have to warn the girls about the girls, and the boys about the boys.

    Is your child’s same-sex friend a platonic buddy, or an “experienced” gay/bi friend who will “help” your child “discover” their “true sexuality”.

    You don’t want your kid to hang with gay/bi friends? Oh, you homophobic bigot, you!

    All the old slogans from the first phase of the sexual revolution can be recycled (these go back to the 60’s) to the new dimension: “If it feels good, do it.” “Don’t knock it ’till ya try it.” “A hole is a hole.”

    Screwtape is rejoicing.

  22. tl;dr:

    Since the media has lied to us about the sexual revolution (how did all that pre-marital, extra-marital, swinging, divorce, abortion, escorts, OOW births, porn, welfarism, single moms, absent dads, STDs, etc work out? ) for 50 years now, why should we believe ANYTHING they, the media, are telling us about the “homosexual revolution”?

    The results are in. We see the results of the sexual revolution. But no one in media actually ADMITS it.

    After 50 years of LIES about heterosexual sex, now…, NOW they are telling the truth about homosexual/bisexual sex?

  23. Bookslinger – The “IA” stands for “Inter/intra-sexual and Asexual. In fact, I’ve seen the letterstring go “LGBTQIIGQGFAPPK” (or other strings) for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intrasexual, Intersexual, GenderQueer, GenderFluid, Asexual, Polygamist, Polyamorous, Kinky” – basically everything but straight, monogamy. A lot of places use LGBT+ now to avoid missing some crucial letter and thus offending a particular demographic and to allow for further letters as of yet unrecognized.

  24. Bookslinger, I am in fact using dynamic analysis. Just not the way you are, because I’m approaching the problem from the other direction. Allowing a secular government the power to regulate morality *ensures* that sooner or later it will outlaw yours. Because your tribe isn’t always going to be in charge. And the consequences of making a thing illegal run well into the heinous.

    Let’s say your hypothetical pimply 17 year-old who can’t get a girlfriend blunders into a same-sex experience. Yes, that’s unfortunate. Yes, that kid needs some help. Yes, that kid needs some good advice and a point in the direction of the Atonement. But suppose that kid’s partner–the very willing partner–is only 14. In a lot of places, that’s statutory rape. Suppose they’re guys and there’s some sex of the backdoor variety. In a number of jurisdictions, that’s flat out illegal no matter who’s doing it. The 14 year-old’s parents find out, overreact (maybe), and call the cops.

    Now the 17-year old gets threatened with prison, and in panic takes the plea deal that registers him as a sex offender for life. He’ll never get to go to college. He’ll have an exponentially harder time finding a job. And a place to live. And a church to attend. And someday if he manages to somehow meet a woman after all and decides he wants a family? Better keep the probation officer on the ol’ Christmas card list.

    The law, such as it is, leads to some of the most hidebound static thinking imaginable, because we all like to believe that if it’s illegal people just magically won’t do it. But if something’s going to get made illegal, the dynamic thinking needs to get exercised to consider what happens when somebody does it anyway. And the justice system in too many places seizes on crimes of morality to absolutely destroy people.

    We wave a magic wand and make it illegal for gay people to marry. What happens when somebody does it anyway? Who has even committed a crime? The couple? The officiator? The supporting organization that produced the officiator? And what’s the punishment?

    And what happens when somebody with radically different values takes control of that system and reverses it? Who becomes the criminal then?

  25. Mormontarian, uhhhhh, no…., you’re not using dynamic analysis. The dynamic analysis I’m talking about is how changes in society and events affect attitudes that change the decision-making of younger observers, such that in the aggregate the younger people make different calculations and decisions than the people who went before them.

    For a good treatise on dynamic analysis and creeping margins see:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120420204152/http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

    You’re actually using the old argument “we might as well make it legal, because they’re going to do it anyway.”

    At this point, govt sanctioned SSM in the US won’t go away until the 2nd Coming. I don’t think the Supreme Court will reverse itself, or a Constitutional amendment is possible.

    What I am pointing out is the real purpose of SSM is not SSM. (One activist was caught on video admitting one purpose was to destroy marriage.) the real purpose of SSM is to influence upcoming and future generations to be more gay and bi.

    That last statement is really hard for most people to grasp, because most people mistakenly think homosexuality/bisexuality is always and only in-born.

    A gay actor once said “why would anyone choose to be gay with all the homophobia?” But that reveals the underlying agenda: if you remove homophobia, and present youth with gay/bi role models, and “celebrate” gay/bi, then those youth can choose which way to swing way too early.

    It doesn’t have to be universal. But it will be statistically enough to affect family formation and birth rate, which in turn have a cascade affect on society.

  26. Bookslinger, what exactly is it you think I’m disagreeing with you about?

Comments are closed.