Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Article on LDS Views on LBGQt- What do you think?


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Here's the Fundamentalist Christian view.:

Sex without any regard for GOD's divine purpose is inherently evil. How is that for brevity?

Not sure how much regard should be a factor, so I'd say that's a little too brief.

The line between regard and behavior is at the crux of the issue, I think.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

God should be at the center of everything . That is biblical.

And yet God said that man would leave his father and mother (referring to Adam's father and mother) to be one with his wife.  But yeah I'm sure God still wants to be involved with us, somehow.

Link to comment

Yes, this is a long paper.  To those of you who have an interest in,or willingness to learn more about the church's stances on this issue, it will be quite interesting.  

"

Do we really have absolute doctrinal certainty that God’s will for His children who are born with a homosexual orientation is lifelong celibacy without the emotional, physical and spiritual attachment of someone they are naturally attracted to and can fall in love with?Are we so certain of God’s will on this subject that we are willing to accept as consequences: depression and personal anguish to the point of suicide in some cases, and loss of faith in God and the church in the majority of cases?Are we as a church rightfully resisting societal acceptance of homosexuality, or are we simply holding to past traditions and internal biases that are causing severe harm to gay people, as we previously did with the blacks and the priesthood? Is it possible that society is moving in the right direction, as it generally has over the ages on so many other social issues?

In addition to believing that God can provide an answer, any serious consideration of such admittedly difficult questions requires godlike empathy, humility and courage. President Kimball’s experience leading up to the 1978 revelation provides a near perfect model of these traits. Once black people became more than an abstract doctrinal issue to him, and he came to know and understand them as real people, he developed a godlike empathy for them.[51] It wasn’t until he obtained that empathy, and was humble enough to admit the church could be wrong, that he even had the capacity to actually question the church’s position and to begin studying the issue and petitioning the Lord for more understanding. As President Hinckley said of President Kimball:

Here was a little man, filled with love, able to reach out to people . . . He was not the first to worry about the priesthood question, but he had the compassion to pursue it and a boldness that allowed him to act, to get the revelation.[52]

Reflecting back on those times, President Kimball recalled his personal struggle:

Day after day, and especially on Saturdays and Sundays when there were no organizations [sessions] in the temple, I went there when I could be alone.

I was very humble . . . I was searching for this . . . I wanted to be sure. . . .

I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.[53]

Despite years of prophetic precedent and the statements of so many past leaders, he had the courage to question, and even greater courage to begin talking to his fellow brethren of the Twelve and First Presidency about his questioning, which ultimately paved the way for the confirming spirit of revelation and unanimous acceptance by the quorum.

Not only was the Spirit working on President Kimball, but it was also working on many faithful members of the church who knew in their hearts long before 1978 that the church’s position was not of God. How did they know? An oft-cited example for testing prophetic pronouncements is this statement from President J. Reuben Clark:

I say it illustrates a principle – that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’

How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.[54]

Link to comment

Truthfully,  I have changed from having a more traditional and condemning view of homosexuality, to one more aligned with the writer of the article.  This change was spurred through friendships with wonderful gay people and an increased awareness of the problems of the issue, as well as prayer and study.  I think it quite telling that the great volume of scripture that was revealed for our day, never says a word against homosexuality.  My association with gay people has not in anyway affected the fact that I am straight, so it has not been contagious, as once commonly implied in comments from church leaders.  

It would be interesting to note how many of you here, who condemn committed and faithful homosexual relationships, have a close personal relationship with someone who is gay?  I don't mean just that you know someone from work, or maybe one of your cousins whom you may have a cordial extended family relationship with; but someone you talk to on a personal level, and affiliate in an unrequired way.

Edited by jcake
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, jcake said:

Truthfully,  I have changed from having a more traditional and condemning view of homosexuality, to one more aligned with the writer of the article.  This change was spurred through friendships with wonderful gay people and an increased awareness of the problems of the issue, as well as prayer and study.  I think it quite telling that the great volume of scripture that was revealed for our day, never says a word against homosexuality.  My association with gay people has not in anyway affected the fact that I am straight, so it has not been contagious, as once commonly implied in comments from church leaders.  

It would be interesting to note how many of you here, who condemn committed and faithful homosexual relationships, have a close personal relationship with someone who is gay?  I don't mean just that you know someone from work, or maybe one of your cousins whom you may have a cordial extended family relationship with; but someone you talk to on a personal level, and affiliate in an unrequired way  (Such as workplace or school)?

I guess I missed all those "comments" from church leaders implying that homosexuality is can be caught like the common cold.  But I am sure you can provide them for me, right? I am curious to read them in their original source and context.

Link to comment

Here are some of the comments comparing former and current church teachings regarding homosexuality.  Do you see changes in what church leaders are teaching?  If not, please explain.

Past Position Present Position
Is it a Choice?
“Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that ‘God made them that way.’ This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?” (Kimball, TMOF)

 

“There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just ‘that way’ and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life.” (Packer, Oct 1976 Gen Conf)

“Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sep 2015, also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”)

 

“While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments.” (mormonandgay.org, “Church Teachings”)

“Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault…”       (Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995)

What Causes Homosexuality?
“Parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality…” (Victor L. Brown Jr., “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975)

 

“Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.”    (J. Richard Clarke, Apr 1977 Gen Conf)

“If children have a happy family experience they will not want to be homosexual, which I am sure is an acquired addiction, just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way. But I do not believe this is true.” (Hartman Rector, Jr., Apr 1981Gen Conf, transcribed from audio)

“Don’t blame yourself for your child’s same-sex attraction. This is no one’s fault. Blame is neither necessary nor helpful.” (mormonandgay.org “Ten Tips for Parents”)

 

“We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)

[The church deleted significant portions of Hartman Rector’s talk in all text versions, including the passage shown here.]

“What is more, [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality.” (Kimball, TMOF)

 

“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. “   (Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks on Morality,” Ensign, Nov 1980)

“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006; also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”)
“Every form of homosexuality is sin. Pornography is one of the approaches to that transgression.” (Kimball, “God Will Not Be Mocked”, Ensign, Nov 1974)

 

“’A normal 12- or 13-year-old boy or girl exposed to pornographic literature could develop into a homosexual’” (Victor L. Brown, April 1970 Gen Conf)

[Note: none of the recent church resources or talks on homosexuality mentions masturbation or pornography as a cause. As quoted above, the church takes no position on cause, leaving that to the scientific/medical realm.]

 

“Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say?” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)

Is it Curable?
“Curable and Forgivable – With Effort. After consideration of the evil aspects, the ugliness and prevalence of the evil of homosexuality, the glorious thing to remember is that it is curable and forgivable…Certainly it can be overcome…”   (Kimball, TMOF) “…a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.” (mormonandgay.org FAQ)

 

“I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change–no one assumed it would.” (Holland, Oct 2015 Gen Conf)

“And while the number of divorces causes us to fear and admit it partly to be true, the principle of marriage is right. Some have changed their desires and yearnings and have convinced themselves that they are different and have no desire toward the opposite sex. … But let this individual repent of his perversion, force himself to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex, and this normal pattern can become natural again.” (Kimball, TMOF) “President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed [marriage] to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: ‘Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.’” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)
Difference Between Being Homosexual and ‘Acting on It’
“This perversion [homosexuality] is defined as sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex…” (Kimball, TMOF) “…same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is…” (Holland, “Helping those who Struggle with Same-gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 2007)
Link to comment
14 hours ago, jcake said:

Here is what I consider to be an excellent article on the LDS view of homosexuality:  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

I think this is on the money, what do you think of it?

jcake

I read the full article. I generally agree with his approach and conclusions. Like you, I've changed my views to support SSM due to watching SS families and seeing God's approval and support of them. These families are inherently good in the same ways that my heterosexual-married family is good. Christ commands us to judge righteously and to do so by judging the fruit of each tree. In my honest judgement, these marriages are good, are ordained of God, and I hope they will eventually be accepted by the church. At the same time, I appreciate how difficult a change this will be for our leaders and membership, and I try to be careful in not casting stones at them (especially those in my own family). 

I'm very interested in how this article is received in the church and curious to see whether the brother faces any disciplinary action. He is not expressly calling for a change of doctrine, but he does clearly claim (and shows support) that doctrinal mistakes have been made in the past (e.g., racial priesthood ban) and expresses hope that SS marriages will be approved by the church. IMO, that's not an impermissible statement to make, but I expect that some leaders would see this as crossing the line.

More than anything, I hope that honest dialogue like this article can open a space where members can speak about their experiences and judgments without fear. Progress will never be made when there is contention.

PS - for those interested in a shorter read, there is a summary of the article on BCC: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/03/19/lgbt-questions-an-essay/#comments

Link to comment
10 hours ago, jcake said:

Here are some of the comments comparing former and current church teachings regarding homosexuality.  Do you see changes in what church leaders are teaching?  If not, please explain.

Past Position Present Position
Is it a Choice?
“Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that ‘God made them that way.’ This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?” (Kimball, TMOF)

 

“There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just ‘that way’ and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life.” (Packer, Oct 1976 Gen Conf)

“Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sep 2015, also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”)

 

“While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments.” (mormonandgay.org, “Church Teachings”)

“Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault…”       (Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995)

What Causes Homosexuality?
“Parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality…” (Victor L. Brown Jr., “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975)

 

“Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.”    (J. Richard Clarke, Apr 1977 Gen Conf)

“If children have a happy family experience they will not want to be homosexual, which I am sure is an acquired addiction, just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way. But I do not believe this is true.” (Hartman Rector, Jr., Apr 1981Gen Conf, transcribed from audio)

“Don’t blame yourself for your child’s same-sex attraction. This is no one’s fault. Blame is neither necessary nor helpful.” (mormonandgay.org “Ten Tips for Parents”)

 

“We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)

[The church deleted significant portions of Hartman Rector’s talk in all text versions, including the passage shown here.]

“What is more, [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality.” (Kimball, TMOF)

 

“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. “   (Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks on Morality,” Ensign, Nov 1980)

“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006; also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”)
“Every form of homosexuality is sin. Pornography is one of the approaches to that transgression.” (Kimball, “God Will Not Be Mocked”, Ensign, Nov 1974)

 

“’A normal 12- or 13-year-old boy or girl exposed to pornographic literature could develop into a homosexual’” (Victor L. Brown, April 1970 Gen Conf)

[Note: none of the recent church resources or talks on homosexuality mentions masturbation or pornography as a cause. As quoted above, the church takes no position on cause, leaving that to the scientific/medical realm.]

 

“Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say?” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)

Is it Curable?
“Curable and Forgivable – With Effort. After consideration of the evil aspects, the ugliness and prevalence of the evil of homosexuality, the glorious thing to remember is that it is curable and forgivable…Certainly it can be overcome…”   (Kimball, TMOF) “…a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.” (mormonandgay.org FAQ)

 

“I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change–no one assumed it would.” (Holland, Oct 2015 Gen Conf)

“And while the number of divorces causes us to fear and admit it partly to be true, the principle of marriage is right. Some have changed their desires and yearnings and have convinced themselves that they are different and have no desire toward the opposite sex. … But let this individual repent of his perversion, force himself to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex, and this normal pattern can become natural again.” (Kimball, TMOF) “President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed [marriage] to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: ‘Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.’” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)
Difference Between Being Homosexual and ‘Acting on It’
“This perversion [homosexuality] is defined as sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex…” (Kimball, TMOF) “…same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is…” (Holland, “Helping those who Struggle with Same-gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 2007)

In my view the column describing the "past position" is the correct one.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Alan said:

In my view the column describing the "past position" is the correct one.

I'm honestly curious as to why you believe this. Have you personally seen the "past position" statements to prove correct? For example, have you seen boys choose to be gay because they lacked proper affection from their fathers? Or have you known people who identified as gay or lesbian successfully undergo a change or orientation? What do you make of all those who say they do not choose their orientation?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Alan said:

In my view the column describing the "past position" is the correct one.

This is a good example of how we all pick and choose what/how/when/who we listen and accept teachings of prophets, seers, and revelators. I've had this discussion with my father and it strikes me that he is just as unwilling to follow current leadership in certain issues (like this and the essays) as I am on different issues. Yet he is the orthodox one and I'm not. Go figure. I think it's more a matter of confirmation bias in finding scriptures or statements from leaders that support our own personal position.

We all pick and choose.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Here's the Fundamentalist Christian view.:

Sex without any regard for GOD's divine purpose is inherently evil. How is that for brevity?

Fundamentalism has no spiritual or intellectual life. It's a dead end. 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment

There are a lot of good things about someone having the ability to truly love people of the same sex, and even to regard them, or at least some of them, as being sexually attractive. But, well, I think I will leave it at that for now.

Link to comment

 

13 hours ago, jcake said:

Here are some of the comments comparing former and current church teachings regarding homosexuality.  Do you see changes in what church leaders are teaching?  If not, please explain.

Past Position Present Position
Is it a Choice?
“Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that ‘God made them that way.’ This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’?” (Kimball, TMOF)

 

“There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just ‘that way’ and can only yield to those desires. That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life.” (Packer, Oct 1976 Gen Conf)

“Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.” (Ballard, “The Lord Needs You Now,” Ensign, Sep 2015, also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”)

 

“While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments.” (mormonandgay.org, “Church Teachings”)

“Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault…”       (Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, October 1995)

What Causes Homosexuality?
“Parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality…” (Victor L. Brown Jr., “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975)

 

“Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.”    (J. Richard Clarke, Apr 1977 Gen Conf)

“If children have a happy family experience they will not want to be homosexual, which I am sure is an acquired addiction, just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way. But I do not believe this is true.” (Hartman Rector, Jr., Apr 1981Gen Conf, transcribed from audio)

“Don’t blame yourself for your child’s same-sex attraction. This is no one’s fault. Blame is neither necessary nor helpful.” (mormonandgay.org “Ten Tips for Parents”)

 

“We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)

[The church deleted significant portions of Hartman Rector’s talk in all text versions, including the passage shown here.]

“What is more, [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality.” (Kimball, TMOF)

 

“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. “   (Kimball, “President Kimball Speaks on Morality,” Ensign, Nov 1980)

“The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions – whether nature or nurture – those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006; also cited in mormonandgay. org, “Church Teachings”)
“Every form of homosexuality is sin. Pornography is one of the approaches to that transgression.” (Kimball, “God Will Not Be Mocked”, Ensign, Nov 1974)

 

“’A normal 12- or 13-year-old boy or girl exposed to pornographic literature could develop into a homosexual’” (Victor L. Brown, April 1970 Gen Conf)

[Note: none of the recent church resources or talks on homosexuality mentions masturbation or pornography as a cause. As quoted above, the church takes no position on cause, leaving that to the scientific/medical realm.]

 

“Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say?” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)

Is it Curable?
“Curable and Forgivable – With Effort. After consideration of the evil aspects, the ugliness and prevalence of the evil of homosexuality, the glorious thing to remember is that it is curable and forgivable…Certainly it can be overcome…”   (Kimball, TMOF) “…a change in attraction should not be expected or demanded as an outcome by parents or leaders.” (mormonandgay.org FAQ)

 

“I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change–no one assumed it would.” (Holland, Oct 2015 Gen Conf)

“And while the number of divorces causes us to fear and admit it partly to be true, the principle of marriage is right. Some have changed their desires and yearnings and have convinced themselves that they are different and have no desire toward the opposite sex. … But let this individual repent of his perversion, force himself to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex, and this normal pattern can become natural again.” (Kimball, TMOF) “President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed [marriage] to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: ‘Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.’” (Oaks/Wickman interview, 2006)
Difference Between Being Homosexual and ‘Acting on It’
“This perversion [homosexuality] is defined as sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex…” (Kimball, TMOF) “…same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is…” (Holland, “Helping those who Struggle with Same-gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 2007)

I think most of the older generation in the church identifies more with the left column than the right.  When they hear the more recent quotes from the rights side, it is in one ear and out the other.  Confirmation bias in action.

I have a gay cousin that came out to his family when he was about 20 in the early 80s.  His father was told by leaders that it was his fault because he didn't have a good relationship with his son.  Like most gay members he left the church.  I look back and feel really bad about how the whole family treated him.  He was forbidden from coming to family reunions.  Things have changed quite a bit and I would have to credit the church a little bit for the changes listed above.

I believe that if another column were added to this chart in another 40 years, the changes between now and the future will be at least as great as the difference between the two existing columns, probably greater.  It is just sad that positive change is so slow in the church, especially when there are so many people being hurt every day.

I think it is a good example of how major shifts happen in the church.  The leaders provide two contradictory messages.  The older generation listen to the old message and the younger generation only hear the new message.  Both ways of thinking exist at the same time for decades.  As the older generation dies off, the old message fades away and the new one takes over.  

I have seen this happen with topics like birth control, women working outside the home, blacks and the Temple/Priesthood, etc.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a good example of how we all pick and choose what/how/when/who we listen and accept teachings of prophets, seers, and revelators. I've had this discussion with my father and it strikes me that he is just as unwilling to follow current leadership in certain issues (like this and the essays) as I am on different issues. Yet he is the orthodox one and I'm not. Go figure. I think it's more a matter of confirmation bias in finding scriptures or statements from leaders that support our own personal position.

We all pick and choose.

While I appreciate your comments, I do not think they are correct in this case.

There is clearly some drift occurring in church doctrine and teachings at the present time. In my view the leadership are trying very hard not to offend the PC brigade and are saying what they need to say to remain, for the most part, under the radar. This is not without historical precedent. The result is that church members are using these statements to develop their own teachings and passing them off as endorsed by the church. They are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

I think the church leadership know there is going to be an almighty fight on this issue and they're just trying to hold it off for as long as possible. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Alan said:

While I appreciate your comments, I do not think they are correct in this case.

There is clearly some drift occurring in church doctrine and teachings at the present time. In my view the leadership are trying very hard not to offend the PC brigade and are saying what they need to say to remain, for the most part, under the radar. This is not without historical precedent. The result is that church members are using these statements to develop their own teachings and passing them off as endorsed by the church. They are teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

I think the church leadership know there is going to be an almighty fight on this issue and they're just trying to hold it off for as long as possible. 

If doctrinal drift is occurring it's under the watchful eye of the prophets. I've seen this argument often, that the leaders are really just in PR mode but that ...wink, wink... we all know what they really think and mean so we can ignore what they are actually saying on topic X. I'm simply pointing out that that theory is just as cynical, or even more, than others who don't trust what the leaders are saying. In both cases, there is a lack of trust that the leaders are leading and saying what they mean, or even what God would have them say.  This is a problem.

I'll just point out that the duplicity of PR centered teachings (as you describe) is very similar to the way church leaders were dishonest about the practice of polygamy and later the manifestos. Members have long chosen to believe that leaders aren't being honest about God's real program because of PR. All this philosophy does is make church leaders look weak and unprincipled.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen this argument often, that the leaders are really just in PR mode but that ...wink, wink... we all know what they really think and mean so we can ignore what they are actually saying on topic X.

Yep... My bishop actually said this to me (in all seriousness) just 3-4 years ago regarding the disavowal of the priesthood/temple ban.  He said that he knows that the prophet and apostles still stand by reasoning that blacks were less valiant in the preexistence.  And that they are only denying the "less valiant" theory now because they are forced to be "politically correct".

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...