Mormonsandgays

[tyler90az]

Mormon Newsroom

"In an effort to encourage understanding and civil conversation about same-sex attraction, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has launched the website “Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction." It features a number of videos from people who share real experiences from their own perspectives on a sensitive and sometimes emotionally charged topic."

http://www.mormonsandgays.com

"This same topic was discussed with all of the general authorities of the church in April of 2012." - Dallin H. oaks

"And we need to humanize this issue." - Ty

The church is trying, the church is doing, the church is succeeding! What a blessing to members and the world.

Edited December 6, 2012 by tyler90az

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The effort "to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere" is extremely commendable, and I'm very glad that the leadership is recognizing that "individuals do not choose to have such attractions" and emphasizing that we must "not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle" because "attraction to those of the same sex [...] should not be viewed as a disease or illness."

On the other hand, the ideas that "God’s law is not ours to change" and "there is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right" are based on the premise that opposing homosexuality is God's law in the first place. But as soon as we say definitively that a given understanding "is not changing", I think we've gone against the ninth Article of Faith, which teaches us to never be comfortable with our current understanding.

I have viewed or read through the transcript of every video there; while the website acknowledges that it is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of all aspects of the issue, I found it to be a rather glaring omission that the doctrinal side was simply not addressed in detail, when it seems to me that digging into the roots of our scriptures and separating what is and is not doctrine is where the answer is going to be found. I understand that we have living teachers and do not have to rely on old scriptures, but I find that those teachers are themselves often acting on their paradigmatic understanding of those old scriptures, or the cultural mores in a very specific time and place which coincide with those particular passages condemning homosexuality as illegitimate.

[media=]

Edited December 6, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[cinepro]

I have viewed or read through the transcript of every video there; while the website acknowledges that it is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of all aspects of the issue, I found it to be a rather glaring omission that the doctrinal side was simply not addressed in detail, when it seems to me that digging into the roots of our scriptures and separating what is and is not doctrine is where the answer is going to be found. I understand that we have living teachers and do not have to rely on old scriptures, but I find that those teachers are themselves often acting on their paradigmatic understanding of those old scriptures, or the cultural mores in a very specific time and place which coincide with those particular passages condemning homosexuality as illegitimate.

This is one of the disadvantages to having a Church led by modern revelation as well as the scriptures. Modern leaders may base a policy on revelation, but they can also base it on a reading of former revelation (i.e. the Scriptures), or the teachings of previous modern leaders, which also might be former revelation, or might just be fallible opinion.

But if our belief in modern revelation leads us to assume that a modern policy is based on revelation when it isn't, that is worse than a Church that believes all modern policies are man-made and is more open to examining them in the light of scripture.

[DavidB]

Its a nice direction to see the Church lead the way.

[Lamanite]

What the hell? This is all the attention this is getting? My facebook blew up 15 minutes after the Press release. Wow.

"The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters."

"But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

My two favorite quotes so far.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Buckeye]

Interesting they would name the site "mormonsandgays" instead of something with "same sex attraction." My domain registry says that domain was first created Feb. 19, 2010, but there is no archive so I can't tell if the church always owned the site or just bought it.

[Buckeye]

On the other hand, the ideas that "God’s law is not ours to change" and "there is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right" are based on the premise that opposing homosexuality is God's law in the first place. But as soon as we say definitively that a given understanding "is not changing", I think we've gone against the ninth Article of Faith, which teaches us to never be comfortable with our current understanding.

Jeremy, I just listened to the clip by Elder Oaks on the website. In my experience, he is very careful to say things with precision - probably because of his career in the law. I therefore find it interesting how he describes church doctrine on this subject:

"What we do know is that the doctrine of the church, that sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married, has not changed and is not changing."

Note that he does not say the doctrine "will never change." I take that as evidence the 9th AOF is still in effect. For another example of this, pay attention to Elder's Oaks recent conference address in which he said "we should assume" that children in gay families are harmed by the relationship. That isn't what the LGBT community wants to hear, but it is an improvement on our teachings from just a few years ago. It can now be stated that (i) the church does not know gay families cause harm, but merely assumes so, and (ii) the church does not teach that a change in doctrine accomodating homosexual relations can never happen, only that our present doctrine is not changing.

I am confident that as members of the church interact with and get to know gay people - in particular gay families - we will see the Lord's hand guiding the church on this issue. That's how prior doctrine changed as to the racial priesthood ban.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting they would name the site "mormonsandgays" instead of something with "same sex attraction."

Not all that remarkable when you consider search-engine strategy. If you are trying to attract hits to your site, you use terms that people are most likely to search on.

That's why the Church uses the term "Mormon church" on some of its websites even though it encourages its members -- and asks others -- to refer to the Church by its proper name instead of "Mormon church."

Some people imply this is hypocritical. It's not. Once one finds his way to a Church site, one is apt to encounter the request that the Church be referred to by its proper name.

As pertaining to the website under discussion, the term "gay" is used freely by those who are featured on website, so it is not strange at all that the term would be part of the URL.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

But if our belief in modern revelation leads us to assume that a modern policy is based on revelation when it isn't, that is worse than a Church that believes all modern policies are man-made and is more open to examining them in the light of scripture.

Yep.

I am confident that as members of the church interact with and get to know gay people - in particular gay families - we will see the Lord's hand guiding the church on this issue. That's how prior doctrine changed as to the racial priesthood ban.

That's my hope as well. What's frustrating for impatient folk such as myself is the amount of time it takes for the bureaucracy to get moving on these things.

Its a nice direction to see the Church lead the way.

The problem, I think, is that the Church has clearly not been leading the way for quite some time; we have been struggling, often begrudgingly, to catch up with currents that develop outside. In Joseph Smith's time -- though of course he was not untouched by the prevailing opinions of his age, as is clear from some of his early statements on blacks and women -- he was also quite often propounding ideas at the blasphemous cutting edge, ie: many worlds, a humanistic conception of a plurality of naturalistic Gods, uncreated elements and beings, non-traditional marriage and sexual practices, the radical egalitarianism and his abolitionist ideas of his later years, a more equalizing view of women, universalism, etc. Since his time, it seems like we've attempted to grasp for more mainstream respectability not by building on the unique premises and implications of our faith, but by cozying up to the current political beliefs of traditional Christians, who never wanted us in the first place and who have long been trying to resurrect a philosophy of God that died in the enlightenment.

We were given commandments in the D&C to seek learning through studying the best books. If we have to seek learning from sources outside our community, then why the constant rhetoric I hear, especially at a local level, for ensconcing ourselves away to protect us from being influenced by "the world"? We should have been leading the way in ordaining women and blacks to the Priesthood rather than catching up long after "the world" knew that such practices were unfair. We should have been leading the way in non-traditional marriages, rather than enshrining heterosexual monogamy.

Edited December 6, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Erin15]

On the other hand, the ideas that "God’s law is not ours to change" and "there is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right" are based on the premise that opposing homosexuality is God's law in the first place.

Of course, since the premise is correct, there is really no harm in them using such language. God does oppose homosexual behavior, He always has. Like any other violation of the law of chastity it is a matter that God takes very seriously.

That isn't what the LGBT community wants to hear, but it is an improvement on our teachings from just a few years ago.

From what I see nothing has changed, the church is merely re-emphasizing part of the doctrine that has always existed, which is that while God hates the sin, He loves the sinner, and his disciples should follow that example.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Have you watched the video I posted up above? I don't think your view that God opposes homosexual behavior is unambiguously demonstrable from scripture.

[Erin15]

We should have been leading the way in ordaining women...to the Priesthood rather than catching up long after "the world" knew that such practices were unfair. We should have been leading the way in non-traditional marriages, rather than enshrining heterosexual monogamy.

If we did that we would cease to be the true church.

Our mandate is to follow The Lord's will. If we were to depart from that God would reject us and our priesthood authrity would be removed.

However, if The Lord told us to do those things, we would have done them already, but up until now he has not done so, so we do not.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think that's too simplistic a paradigm to view history. What if God has been telling us to do "those things" all along, but we're unwittingly in a state of apostasy because we've ignored Him by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture to justify our stiff-neckedness? I don't think we can be complacent and just assume that all is well in Zion by throwing the burden on our explicitly-fallible leaders.

[Erin15]

Have you watched the video I posted up above? I don't think your view that God opposes homosexual behavior is unambiguously demonstrable from scripture.

I know that God opposes homosexual behavior because I have heard and read the words of modern prophets speak on this subject, and when I have prayed and fasted God confirmed to me that their words were indeed his will.

JeremyOrbe-Smith, do you have any compelling reason why I should listen to a presbyterian with no divine authority like Matthew Vines instead?

[Buckeye]

From what I see nothing has changed, the church is merely re-emphasizing part of the doctrine that has always existed, which is that while God hates the sin, He loves the sinner, and his disciples should follow that example.

The focus on love and kindness is not new, but the particulars of how we approach gay people, especially our children, has changed. No longer do we teach that homosexuality is a choice. No longer do we try to cure homosexuals through therapy or heterosexual marriage. Instead, we accept them as they are and ask them to remain celebate for life. That is quite a change. And it sets the table for eventual inclusion of homosexuals in the plan of salvation.

It's the same process as with the racial priesthood ban. Once we removed the idea that black people were responsible for the ban due to choices in the pre-existence, once we removed the idea that black people will eventually be turned white, once we simply accepted blacks as they are - well, that inevitably lead, over time, to questioning why they couldn't receive all priesthood blessings in this life even though our doctrine had said they would not receive the priesthood until all whites had a chance. Questioning lead to desires for something better. Desires lead to prayer and revelation. And the doctrine changed. No longer would blacks need to wait until all whites had a chance.

Again, I am confident that as members of the church interact with and get to know gay people - in particular gay families - we will see the Lord's hand guiding the church on this issue. We will find answers previously unknown.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Buckeye

[Erin15]

I think that's too simplistic a paradigm to view history. What if God has been telling us to do "those things" all along, but we're unwittingly in a state of apostasy because we've ignored Him by mingling the philosophies of men with scripture to justify our stiff-neckedness? I don't think we can be complacent and just assume that all is well in Zion by throwing the burden on our explicitly-fallible leaders.

Those are some fancy mental gymnastics you are pulling there, and that is a bad sign.

The situation is not complicated, it is very simple. There are two possibilities, either:

1) This is not The Lord's church, in which case it does not matter what it teaches.

or

2) This is The Lord's Church, in which case it is teaching exactly what The Lord wants it to teach. If it is The Lord's church, then we have the freedom to either be a part of it or not be a part of it, but we have no power to change it, because it is His, not ours.

...choose this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Joshua 24:15

[Erin15]

No longer do we teach that homosexuality is a choice.

Sure we do. It's just that we have often been misunderstood in the past by what that phrase means.

Having a desire to steal does not make you a theif, the choice to steal does. Having a desire to haxe sex with children does not make you a pedophile, the choice to act on those desires does. Having the desire to lie does not make you a liar, choosing to lie does. And, in this case, being attracted to the same sex does not make you homosexual, the choice to act on that attraction does.

And it sets the table for eventual inclusion of homosexuals in the plan of salvation.

That sounds like a political agenda.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think your dichotomy is false. The Lord's church is not infallible, and it's certainly "ours" in the At-one-ment in which we're to become joint-heirs among equals.

I know that God opposes homosexual behavior because I have heard and read the words of modern prophets speak on this subject, and when I have prayed and fasted God confirmed to me that their words were indeed his will.

JeremyOrbe-Smith, do you have any compelling reason why I should listen to a presbyterian with no divine authority like Matthew Vines instead?

Because our modern Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are explicitly fallible men (not women, of course, because that would be against the Creeds and the Traditions of our Fathers, which we all know to be Divinely Inspired since before the Foundation of the Earth), and they learn line upon line, precept upon precept just like the rest of us, and they will be corrected from time to time insofar as they seek out wisdom? Because the moment someone uses "authority" rather than "persuasion" as an argument, amen to their Priesthood? Because we're taught to gather all the good and true, let that truth come from whence it may lest we not come out true "Mormons"? Because although all denominations (including our own) have some error mixed with their truth, the Prophet's answer when asked whether "the Presbyterians [have] any truth" was a simple "yes"?

Edited December 6, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Buckeye]

Erin,

There are many other possibilties that those two. For instance, the church can be true and led by God, but only led within the contraints of what his weak people are willing to accept. In that paradigm, the current teachings are not the final word, but one step along the way. We know ancient Isreal was given a lesser law because they would not accept more. Christ was repeatedly quoted saying "You have heard that it was said .... but I say unto you .....", but even his teachings were not the final word. As Jeremy points out, the 9th AOF removes any doubt that the notion "we have received all revelation and there can be no further revelation" is false.

[canard78]

From what I see nothing has changed, the church is merely re-emphasizing part of the doctrine that has always existed, which is that while God hates the sin, He loves the sinner, and his disciples should follow that example.

But the emphasis is not on this and clearly there's a different tone to this website and therefore church approach.

This is not simply saying 'hate the sin, love the sinner' - it's taking sin right out of it. Someone having a same sex attraction is not a sin. So a gay person is not a sinner.

Sexual relations outside of marriage is a sin. That's quite different to sexual attraction.

As has been said in other posts, I hope this is paving the way for a change in my lifetime to married gays being welcomed into the church.

South Sea Black people were given the priesthood 20 years before African blacks (Phillipino Negritos even earlier). There was a clear process of loosening of policy initially to pave the way for the full change later.

http://www.blacklds.org/history

Edited December 6, 2012 by canard78

[pogi]

That is quite a change. And it sets the table for eventual inclusion of homosexuals in the plan of salvation.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the plan of salvation if you think that homosexuals are not already included. They are as much included as the single celibate person, like sis. Sheri Dew.

[Buckeye]

Having a desire to steal does not make you a theif, the choice to steal does. Having a desire to haxe sex with children does not make you a pedophile, the choice to act on those desires does. Having the desire to lie does not make you a liar, choosing to lie does. And, in this case, being attracted to the same sex does not make you homosexual, the choice to act on that attraction does.

I actually agree with this logic. But it doesn't go far enough. There must be a system for judging which desires are good (hugging your kids, kindess to strangers, heterosexual relations within marriage, etc.) and which desires are not (stealing, pedephilia, etc.). I'll propose the Savior's test - judge by the fruit. So stealing and pedophilia are sins because they lead to suffering, division, conflict, and all manner of ills. We experience the fruit ourselves (or do so through others actions) and therefore know the good from the evil.

The test for homosexuality is going on right now. If it is a sin, we will know because it will cause suffering, division, conflict, etc. If it is good, we will similarly know because it causes love, unity, happiness, etc. Thus, as I've said before, I am confident that as members of the church interact with and get to know gay people - in particular gay families - we will see the Lord's hand guiding the church on this issue.

[Erin15]

I think your dichotomy is false. The Lord's church is not infallible

Because our modern Prophets, Seers, and Revelators are explicitly fallible men

So, on the one hand I have the words of authorized representatives speaking through The Spirit in an official capacity whom I have recieved spiritual confirmation about the specific message on one hand, and on the other hand I have some random person on the internet telling me that I should listen to him instead.

Now, JeremyOrbe-Smith, in all candor, were you in my position, who would you listen to?

[Buckeye]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the plan of salvation if you think that homosexuals are not already included. They are as much included as the single celibate person, like sis. Sheri Dew.

You are absolutely right. I mispoke. I should have said "And it sets the table for eventual inclusion of homosexuality in the plan of salvation."

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

So, on the one hand I have the words of authorized representatives speaking through The Spirit in an official capacity whom I have recieved spiritual confirmation about the specific message on one hand, and on the other hand I have some random person on the internet telling me that I should listen to him instead.

Now, JeremyOrbe-Smith, in all candor, were you in my position, who would you listen to?

I would listen to everyone and make up my own mind based on the (possibly-paradigm-shifting) evidence each source provides rather than an appeal to authority?

Edited December 6, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith