Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, I say that in the case of bisexuals, there may well be some validity to some of these earlier statements.

These were instructions regarding what to advise or how to help cure homosexual members of the church (nothing was mentioned about bisexuals).  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

These were instructions regarding what to advise or how to help cure homosexual members of the church (nothing was mentioned about bisexuals).  

But that's my point: Many people who identify as homosexual (or "gay" in today's parlance) may in fact be bi-sexual. In which case, some of the past counsel may have some validity.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, please do so.  But let's keep in mind that "CFR" is a "Call for References."  So I'm not looking for hearsay recollections.  I am looking for the actual statements from the Church and its leaders.

Here is more information on where these quotes came from:

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors )

 

Quote

You are entitled to special inspiration for every case but if you find some cases extra difficult and you feel that additional assistance and suggestions are necessary, feel free to contact the brethren who have been appointed to assist in this important phase of the church work - President Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen.

 

And, another quote from this document regarding advising gay members to marry the opposite sex:

  
Quote

Convince the individual that proper marriage and family life is the only thing to save this confused world and if men waste their seed and fail to sire children and rear them in righteousness in the true family life, certainly the race will disappear.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But that's my point: Many people who identify as homosexual (or "gay" in today's parlance) my in fact be bi-sexual. In which case, some of the past counsel may have some validity.

Possibly (don't know about it being "many").   However, this doesn't change the fact that these used to be the teachings regarding how local leaders should help homosexual members.  These teachings have changed (which is a good thing).

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wonder why overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics isn't causing similar problems regarding the missionary age change policy.

I haven't noticed much "overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics" about the missionary age change policy.

In any event, perhaps the reason is that those affected by that policy are not a social grouping that is prominent and popular on social media, in pop culture, and as a near-constant topic of social commentary and discourse.

Regular LDS teenagers who are considering missionary service, like the children of polygamous households who are considering getting baptized, are just not convenient enough talking points which critics can weaponize against the Church.

Weakening and disparaging and undermining the LDS Church is the objective.  "Overheated and caustic rhetoric from critics" about, well, pretty much any topic that taps into the apparent zeitgeist prevailing in popular culture, is simply the means to that end. 

I genuinely question the sincerity and good faith of critics and opponents of the Church who resort to such "overheated and caustic rhetoric."  I question these things because these are the same folks who despise the Church and its teachings, and thefore would not seem to have a legitimate basis for complaining about people not joining it.  I question these things because these critics apparently don't give two figs about the children from polygamous families who have faced a similar policy for years.  I question these things because critics like to position themselves as being concerned about the welfare of children, and yet they then proceed to move heaven and earth to alienate those children from the LDS Church, and to publish declarations that the LDS Church hates their parents (thanks, again, to Brother Bear for his timely example of that sort of thing!).  Both the parents and their children are encountering this "overheated and caustic rhetoric," and are understandably perturbed thereby.  So I attribute much of the emotional pain and aggravation these folks face to the critics and opponents who have been screaming about it, and using "overheated and caustic rhetoric" about it, and instilling and maintaining and inflaming fear and suspicion and anger in children.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, but we have leaders and living Prophets who receive revelation directly from God.  So shouldn't they have had the truth revealed to them and not followed what the secular beliefs were at that time if they were incorrect?

 

So I guess you could say that President Monson ought to tell us how nuclear fusion works because if we had it, world-wide suffering would reduce and it would be easier to do missionary work.  

It is really too bad that many critics and many members believe in juke-box revelation.  Put a coin in and get a revelation on any topic.

It doesn't work that way.  In the NT Jesus taught that whatever the apostles decided would be ratified by the Holy Spirit.   In the Reed Smoot hearings, President Joseph F. Smith testified that revelation isn't necessarily Jesus appearing to a prophet and stating some holy principle (although, certainly, that has happened and will happen); instead, they make a decision under the influence of the holy spirit which ratifies their choices. .  Those who have served in bishoprics and stake presidencies knows how it works; the apostles do it the same way.  Thus, they are not charged with knowing all about science. 

And, further, perhaps Freud was right, that homosexuality is a sexual deviation.  I don't know.  I don't care.  We don't know.   We don't care.   The Church doesn't care.  I have a short fuse and sometimes a hot temper.   It is wrong.  Was I born that way or is it simply my choice?   Everybody on my mother's side tends to be hot-tempered and tend to rush to judgment.   My three-time mission president grandfather had a white hot temper.  Am I let off the hook because of that when I spout off to somebody at Church for backing into my car?  Or for taking a swing at somebody?  The Church only focuses upon the grace of God and commandment keeping.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've done all of the above.  I provided numerous quotes and references in answer to your CFR (none were "hearsay recollections", so I'm not sure where that accusation came from).

 

Ok.  Let me know if you're still having trouble looking up the document and I'll see if I can find another site where it's been published.  You really should read it in it's entirety as it will provide many other quotes on this topic regarding what used to be taught and advised by our leaders.

I'm good.  Thank you very much!

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

So I guess you could say that President Monson ought to tell us how nuclear fusion works because if we had it, world-wide suffering would reduce and it would be easier to do missionary work.  

It is really too bad that many critics and many members believe in juke-box revelation.  Put a coin in and get a revelation on any topic.

It doesn't work that way.  In the NT Jesus taught that whatever the apostles decided would be ratified by the Holy Spirit.   In the Reed Smoot hearings, President Smith testified that revelation isn't necessarily Jesus appearing to a prophet and stating some holy principle; instead, the make a decision under the influence of the holy spirit which ratifies their choices. .  Those who have served in bishoprics and stake presidencies knows how it works; the apostles do it the same way.  Thus, they are not charged with knowing all about science. 

And, further, perhaps Freud was right, that homosexuality is a sexual deviation.  I don't know.  I don't care.  We don't know.   We don't care.   The Church doesn't care.  The Church only focuses upon the grace of God and commandment keeping.

Truth should be revealed to our living Prophet.  I think we don't disagree about that.  All of your rhetoric above doesn't change that belief.

Prophets are also not infallible (I hope we agree on that as well).  

Leaders and Prophets have made mistakes in the past regarding their beliefs and teachings, therefore the same could be taking place today.  Each of us needs to pray and receive personal guidance and inspiration as well.  Many have done that about this policy and believe it's incorrect and will be corrected in the future.

Time will tell if this takes place or if future leaders continue to believe it is the right thing to do regarding those in a SSM and their children.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly (don't know about it being "many").   However, this doesn't change the fact that these used to be the teachings regarding how local leaders should help homosexual members.  These teachings have changed (which is a good thing).

I'm saying that it's not uncommon to regard anyone who manifests homosexual tendencies, whether bisexual or not, as being homosexual or gay. Ergo, some of the counsel you have been citing could have had application back then in some cases and might today as well.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'll just go back to my family member, who I know does not pay the least bit of attention to critics and opponents of the church. The conflict and pain in his family came from the policy causing custody and child-rearing agreements to be revisited.

Yes, I can see how that can arise.

Quote

It seems odd to suggest that changed circumstances leading to family conflict are attributable solely to the overheated and caustic rhetoric of enemies of the church.

Not "solely," no.  Predominantly, yes.

Quote

Do you think the posters here who have talked about the pain and conflict in their families are simply responding to outside attacks on the church?

I think the atmosphere of discussion about this topic is heavily influenced by the near-constant stream of "overheated and caustic rhetoric {about the policy by} enemies of the church."

By way of evidence, I once again point to the generalized lack of "overheated and caustic rhetoric {about the policy by} enemies of the church" regarding the Church's policy affecting children from polygamous families.  That policy has been quietly and effectively administered for nearly a century.  No great swells of public outrage and acrimony about it.  No crises of faith about it.  No turning on and publicly finding fault with the Brethren.  No publicized resignations from the Church about it.  Just . . . local leaders and members quietly working with individuals and their individual circumstances.  That is not to say there are no challenges with the older policy.  However, those challenges have not been exacerbated and inflamed by "overheated and caustic rhetoric {about the policy by} enemies of the church."

It sure would be nice if the critics and the opponents (and the members of the Church) just eased up and let the policy proceed.  No need to make things worse by alienating children from a community of faith to which they have ties, or about which they may have an interest.  Reconciling seemingly conflicting loyalties to a religious group on one hand and, on the other, to one's parents is hard enough without going online and being told over and over and over about how awful that religious group is, how much they hate your parents, how that religious group enjoys "giving the middle finger to the gay community" (again, props to Brother Bear for his timely contribution!) and so on.

The children of gay couples need to be loved and supported by as many people as possible to the fullest extent possible.  They should not be used as pawns in the Culture Wars.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Truth should be revealed to our living Prophet.  I think we don't disagree about that.  All of your rhetoric above doesn't change that belief.

Prophets are also not infallible (I hope we agree on that as well).  

Leaders and Prophets have made mistakes in the past regarding their beliefs and teachings, therefore the same could be taking place today.  Each of us need to pray and receive personal guidance and inspiration as well.  Many have done that about this policy and believe it's incorrect and will be corrected in the future.

Time will tell if this takes place or if future leaders continue to believe it is the right thing to do regarding those in a SSM and their children.

Bob Crockett is quite right in saying that revelation does not come on demand, nor should we expect that it would.

I'm amazed that you, having served in ward leadership, don't comprehend that.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Truth should be revealed to our living Prophet.  I think we don't disagree about that.  All of your rhetoric above doesn't change that belief.

Prophets are also not infallible (I hope we agree on that as well).  

Leaders and Prophets have made mistakes in the past regarding their beliefs and teachings, therefore the same could be taking place today.  Each of us needs to pray and receive personal guidance and inspiration as well.  Many have done that about this policy and believe it's incorrect and will be corrected in the future.

Time will tell if this takes place or if future leaders continue to believe it is the right thing to do regarding those in a SSM and their children.

And thus the false reasoning that because church leaders have made mistakes in the past, the policy since the 1920s excluding some children from marriage must be wrong.  

Rather, one could ask --- why is this 1920s era policy a "mistake?"  By some scriptural standard?  Or is it your (collective you, not you personally) own value system dictated by finger-pointers and mockers?  I think we should go mock the Hassid for their weird costumes and mock the Pope for his Byzantine dress.  Let's mock the Pope for his stand against capital punishment. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Bob Crockett is quite right in saying that revelation does not come on demand, nor should we expect that it would.

I'm amazed that you, having served in ward leadership, don't comprehend that.

Well, since I never made that claim (that "revelation does not come on demand"), I'm not sure why you believe I "don't comprehend that".  

Don't make assumptions about me based on statements I never made.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And thus the false reasoning that because church leaders have made mistakes in the past, the policy since the 1920s excluding some children from marriage must be wrong.  

I never used the word "must".  I am simply stating how many feel about this policy and how many have hope that it will be removed in the future

Once again....time will tell....

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
Just now, ALarson said:

Well, since I never made that claim (that "revelation does not come on demand"), I'm not sure why you believe I "don't comprehend that".  

Don't make assumptions about me based on statements I never made.

I'm just puzzled by your complaint on how the prophet doesn't get revelation on this or that matter as he (according to your supposition) ought to.

Link to comment
Just now, ALarson said:

I never used the word "must".  I am simply stating how many feel about this policy and how many have hope that it will be removed in the future.

Once again....time will tell....

According to Dehlin and Reel, it was supposed to have  happened this year.

We have two months left in the year. Time is running out.

 

Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Yes, I can see how that can arise.

Not "solely," no.  Predominantly, yes.

I think the atmosphere of discussion about this topic is heavily influenced by the near-constant stream of "overheated and caustic rhetoric {about the policy by} enemies of the church."

By way of evidence, I once again point to the generalized lack of "overheated and caustic rhetoric {about the policy by} enemies of the church" regarding the Church's policy affecting children from polygamous families.  That policy has been quietly and effectively administered for nearly a century.  No great swells of public outrage and acrimony about it.  No crises of faith about it.  No turning on and publicly finding fault with the Brethren.  No publicized resignations from the Church about it.  Just . . . local leaders and members quietly working with individuals and their individual circumstances.  That is not to say there are no challenges with the older policy.  However, those challenges have not been exacerbated and enflamed and made worse by "overheated and caustic rhetoric {about the policy by} enemies of the church."

It sure would be nice if the critics and the opponents (and the members of the Church) just eased up and let the policy proceed.  No need to make things worse by alienating children from a community of faith to which they have ties, or about which they may have an interest.  Reconciling seemingly conflicting loyalties to a religious group on one hand and, on the other, to one's parents is hard enough without going online and being told over and over and over about how awful that religious group is, how much they hate your parents, how that religious group enjoys "giving the middle finger to the gay community," and so on.

The children of gay couples need to be loved and supported by as many people as possible to the fullest extent possible.  They should not be used as pawns in the Culture Wars.

Thanks,

-Smac

As others have said, the reason this strikes home to so many is that most of us have gay family members or friends, many of whom are affected by the policy. I don't know any polygamists, and I wasn't aware of the policy regarding them, but I've said before I disagree with that policy too, even though I think it's not analogous to the situation with gay families. I've said why I disagree with the policy, and I've tried hard to give rational arguments that are not based on emotion. I think the horse has been dead a while, so time for me to stop beating it.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Time will tell if this takes place or if future leaders continue to believe it is the right thing to do regarding those in a SSM and their children.

Meanwhile, I think the Latter-day Saints should give them the benefit of the doubt.  And ease up on corrosive rhetoric that, sooner or later, ends up being read or heard by children, and who will be awfully confused by the spectacle of self-selected members of the Lord's Church professing, on the one hand, to value and sustain living prophets, seers, and revelators, and yet on the other hand publicly slander and demean those men and their decisions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I think the Latter-day Saints should give them the benefit of the doubt.  And ease up on corrosive rhetoric that, sooner or later, ends up being read or heard by children, and who will be awfully confused by the spectacle of self-selected members of the Lord's Church professing, on the one hand, to value and sustain living prophets, seers, and revelators, and yet on the other hand publicly slander and demean those men and their decisions.

Thanks,

-Smac

As a parent, I would be very nervous and guarded about finding myself in that unhappy position.

The first lesson our children receive from us ought to be the example we set.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Here are a few:

 

Your quotes support the claim that leaders taught that "Homosexuality can be cured"  This is different from your claim that leaders stated "Gays could be cured."

Likewise, the quote from President Kimball does not suggest that "gay should fix their homosexuality by marrying the same sex."  If anything he suggest that members can overcome homosexuality leading to a marriage to the opposite sex.  He clearly speaks about moving that romantic interest gradually in total propriety.  That's a long stretch from "get married it will cure you."    (Though I freely admit that some local leaders may have given that misguided counsel.)

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And thus the false reasoning that because church leaders have made mistakes in the past, the policy since the 1920s excluding some children from marriage must be wrong.  

Wouldn't it equally be false reasoning to assume the opposite stance - that because church leaders have received revelation in that past, that this must be (even if one says so)? 

I don't see ALarson as making that assumption however.  I think what ALarson is saying is that the only way to know for sure is to pray about it.  I think any Mormon should agree with that, that is what we have been taught to do after all. 

This is not something that can be settled by debate. 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm just puzzled by your complaint on how the prophet doesn't get revelation on this or that matter as he (according to your supposition) ought to.

Once again, not what I stated.   Please read what I actually post and stop misrepresenting me and twisting my words.

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

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