How are we to take D. Michael Quinn's writings?

[_The Nehor]

I disagree. For one thing, Quinn never treats sexuality---or homosexuality---in the kind of reductive manner that his critics wished he did. He (apparently) subscribes to the VERY un-LDS notion that sexuality occurs on a kind of sliding scale, and that everyone is "gay" or "straight" based on this "sliding scale." To elucidate a bit: in sociology, researchers have a somewhat difficult time measuring gay populations, since it is difficult just what, exactly, defines homosexuality. E.g., are you a homosexual only if you self-identify as gay? What if you are in a heterosexual marriage, but you enjoy gay sex? Are you therefore a homosexual? What if you experimented with same-sex behavior during your younger years? Are you a homosexual? Etc.

My feeling is that Quinn is far more attuned to these kind of nuanced differences---differences which seem by and large to have sailed right over the heads of these mostly conservative critics. What I mean is, I don't recall Quinn ever writing, "Joseph Smith was homosexual"; rather, he qualified it by saying "Joseph Smith tolerated some kinds of homosocial/homosexual behavior." Of course, if you think that sharing a bed with a man, or clasping another man in a passionate embrace automatically makes you "gay," then you no doubt would assume that's what Quinn was arguing.

Have you read the sermon? The references you make are from one Joseph was giving on why he wanted to be buried near his friends and relatives so that on the day when they arose they could arise and embrace in joy. If you see a man embracing a man in the excitement of the resurrection being part of the sliding scale of homosexuality then.....wow.

[_Gazelam]

I disagree. For one thing, Quinn never treats sexuality---or homosexuality---in the kind of reductive manner that his critics wished he did. He (apparently) subscribes to the VERY un-LDS notion that sexuality occurs on a kind of sliding scale, and that everyone is "gay" or "straight" based on this "sliding scale." To elucidate a bit: in sociology, researchers have a somewhat difficult time measuring gay populations, since it is difficult just what, exactly, defines homosexuality. E.g., are you a homosexual only if you self-identify as gay? What if you are in a heterosexual marriage, but you enjoy gay sex? Are you therefore a homosexual? What if you experimented with same-sex behavior during your younger years? Are you a homosexual? Etc.

What the h***? A sliding scale? Crimeny, I'd respond to this, only I don't think its proper for the Celestial board.

[_CaliforniaKid]

What the h***? A sliding scale? Crimeny, I'd respond to this, only I don't think its proper for the Celestial board.

Cogs,

When your knee stops jerking, maybe you can explain what you find so offensive about the notion that people's sexual orientation falls on a sliding scale.

-CK

[_Daniel Peterson]

Anybody interested in the FARMS Review articles should read them, and anybody unwilling to read them would probably be well advised to withhold comment on them.

Seems reasonable.

[Physics Guy]

Anybody interested in the FARMS Review articles should read them, and anybody unwilling to read them would probably be well advised to withhold comment on them.

Seems reasonable.

You certainly didn't see any use in that dictum when you commented on the Dawkins book. Besides, this is just more of your typical evasion. Tell us what you think of Quinn directly, or stay the h*** out of the discussion.

[_Mister Scratch]

Have you read the sermon? The references you make are from one Joseph was giving on why he wanted to be buried near his friends and relatives so that on the day when they arose they could arise and embrace in joy. If you see a man embracing a man in the excitement of the resurrection being part of the sliding scale of homosexuality then.....wow.

Nehor,

I'm not sure what you're talking about.... Certainly, there are those in the Church who see *any* passionate embracing between men as belonging towards one end of the "sliding scale of [homo]sexuality." I'm not really sure what you're getting at in your post. You seem not to have understood anything I said.

[_Mister Scratch]

I disagree. For one thing, Quinn never treats sexuality---or homosexuality---in the kind of reductive manner that his critics wished he did. He (apparently) subscribes to the VERY un-LDS notion that sexuality occurs on a kind of sliding scale, and that everyone is "gay" or "straight" based on this "sliding scale." To elucidate a bit: in sociology, researchers have a somewhat difficult time measuring gay populations, since it is difficult just what, exactly, defines homosexuality. E.g., are you a homosexual only if you self-identify as gay? What if you are in a heterosexual marriage, but you enjoy gay sex? Are you therefore a homosexual? What if you experimented with same-sex behavior during your younger years? Are you a homosexual? Etc.

What the h***? A sliding scale? Crimeny, I'd respond to this, only I don't think its proper for the Celestial board.

Oh? Would you care to offer up an unflinching and permanent definition of homosexuality for us Gaz? Please, I am waiting patiently for you to enlighten me.

[_The Nehor]

Have you read the sermon? The references you make are from one Joseph was giving on why he wanted to be buried near his friends and relatives so that on the day when they arose they could arise and embrace in joy. If you see a man embracing a man in the excitement of the resurrection being part of the sliding scale of homosexuality then.....wow.

Nehor,

I'm not sure what you're talking about.... Certainly, there are those in the Church who see *any* passionate embracing between men as belonging towards one end of the "sliding scale of [homo]sexuality." I'm not really sure what you're getting at in your post. You seem not to have understood anything I said.

A passionate embrace is one filled with passion. Passion does not denote sexual attraction....at all. I've passionately embraced friends I haven't seen for a while or my brother when I haven't seen him for a while. To read any support at all for homosexual activity in Joseph's sermon would bring into question the person's sanity. I've read it, never once did it cross my mind that it could mean such a thing. The only way I think the passage could even be noticed is if the person doing the reading is desperately looking for homosexual references in everything they read.

The Homosexual passage from the History of the Church:

"I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection, let me strike hands with my father, and cry, "My father," and he will say "My son, my son," as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of our graves.

And may we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace and renew their conversation.

Would you think it strange if I relate what I have seen in vision in relation to this interesting theme? Those who have died in Jesus Christ may expect to enter into all that fruition of joy when they come forth, which they possessed or anticipated here.

So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They took each other by the hand and said to each other, "My father, my son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister." And when the voice calls for the dead to arise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me."

From this Quinn reads homosexual attraction. Anyone else read it that way?

[_Mister Scratch]

Have you read the sermon? The references you make are from one Joseph was giving on why he wanted to be buried near his friends and relatives so that on the day when they arose they could arise and embrace in joy. If you see a man embracing a man in the excitement of the resurrection being part of the sliding scale of homosexuality then.....wow.

Nehor,

I'm not sure what you're talking about.... Certainly, there are those in the Church who see *any* passionate embracing between men as belonging towards one end of the "sliding scale of [homo]sexuality." I'm not really sure what you're getting at in your post. You seem not to have understood anything I said.

A passionate embrace is one filled with passion. Passion does not denote sexual attraction....at all.

YES. And that is precisely Quinn's point. The problem is that the institutional Church seems to reject these kinds of feelings. Does it not?

I've passionately embraced friends I haven't seen for a while or my brother when I haven't seen him for a while. To read any support at all for homosexual activity in Joseph's sermon would bring into question the person's sanity. I've read it, never once did it cross my mind that it could mean such a thing. The only way I think the passage could even be noticed is if the person doing the reading is desperately looking for homosexual references in everything they read.

Let me ask you this: When would it cross over into "homosexual" meaning, as you say? What is the difference? How would we tell? Who gets to decide?

The Homosexual passage from the History of the Church:

"I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection, let me strike hands with my father, and cry, "My father," and he will say "My son, my son," as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of our graves.

And may we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace and renew their conversation.

Would you think it strange if I relate what I have seen in vision in relation to this interesting theme? Those who have died in Jesus Christ may expect to enter into all that fruition of joy when they come forth, which they possessed or anticipated here.

So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They took each other by the hand and said to each other, "My father, my son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister." And when the voice calls for the dead to arise, suppose I am laid by the side of my father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace them and they me."

From this Quinn reads homosexual attraction. Anyone else read it that way?

As I recall, Quinn does not read "homosexual" attraction into this passage. (If anything, the final portion of the speech you've quoted is orgiastic in nature---i.e., with multiple people "embracing". And by the way: I think you neatly overlook the fact that "embrace" was often a euphimism for "sex".)

[_The Nehor]

Then what you are saying is that Quinn's papers on homosexuality are really about how men loving men in a non-sexual manner is prohibited by the Church. Wow, that would be a radical interpretation of Quinn.

The Church DOES NOT reject those kinds of feelings. Most Priesthood blessings I've been involved in end with hugs all around....including if the recipient is male. I'm not sure where you are going here.