Mormonsandgays

[Scott Lloyd]

One thing that does seem consistent across time is an acknowledgement by the prophets and apostles that not all has been revealed regarding this matter.

No less consistent is the teaching that homosexual behavior (as opposed to mere attraction) is a grave sin. I know of nothing to suggest that this doctrine will ever change, and I know of much to indicate that it won't.

Moreover, I see potential danger in that one who might otherwise be motivated to resist temptation and lead a chaste life may succumb to such temptation because he has been led to believe that the Church might someday "come around" on this matter.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

No less consistent is the teaching that homosexual behavior (as opposed to mere attraction) is a grave sin. I know of nothing to suggest that this doctrine will ever change, and I know of much to indicate that it won't.

I know there are many who have said that it will never change but our track record in making such pronouncements is littered with retractions...

The practice of polygamy will never end...

Blacks will never be permitted to hold the priesthood...

Different races will never be allowed to intermarry in the temple...

Moreover, I see potential danger in that one who might otherwise be motivated to resist temptation and lead a chaste life may succumb to such temptation because he has been led to believe that the Church might someday "come around" on this matter.

True, there is a danger in that. I also believe there is danger in muzzling the Lord with restrictions on what he may and may not reveal as the restoration continues to unfold. That is the warning that I take from 2 Nephi 29.

Then again, I'm sure I differ from you because if one of my children happens to be gay (they are all pre-pubescent right now), I would encourage them to follow the Law of Chastity as I believe it is defined. I would want them to avoid sexual relations until they are married and would happily accompany them to one of the states where such marriage is now legal.

[Scott Lloyd]

I know there are many who have said that it will never change but our track record in making such pronouncements is littered with retractions...

The practice of polygamy will never end...

That was never the doctrine. And I believe it was Rongo who last week made an excellent post about how certain of the early Brethren, including Brigham Young, entertained the possibility that it would end.

Blacks will never be permitted to hold the priesthood...

No one authoritatively made that claim. On the contrary, there was the assurance that sometime in God's eternal plan, they would hold the priesthood. That promise was cited in Official Declaration 2, the announcement of the change, which is now part of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Different races will never be allowed to intermarry in the temple...

I don't know of any authoritative statements to that effect. Can you cite something?

True, there is a danger in that. I also believe there is danger in muzzling the Lord with restrictions on what he may and may not reveal as the restoration continues to unfold. That is the warning that I take from 2 Nephi 29.

I'm only alluding to what prophets and apostles have stated, as recently as in the new website. I reject the claim that it is "muzzling the Lord" to do so. The far greater danger, in this instance, is contradicting the apostles and prophets.

Then again, I'm sure I differ from you because if one of my children happens to be gay (they are all pre-pubescent right now), I would encourage them to follow the Law of Chastity as I believe it is defined. I would want them to avoid sexual relations until they are married and would happily accompany them to one of the states where such marriage is now legal.

So in other words, you are redefining the Law of Chastity contrary to how the Lord and his prophets define it. Or am I misunderstanding the portions of your statement that I have bolded?

Edited December 10, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The Church has taught a message of compassion for many years, and in recent years has issued news releases on "civil dialogue", yet that instruction seems largely lost on the members.

I think that is an overstatement. There may be a subset of members who haven't been paying attention and they may be quite vocal...but still in a minority; in my experience over the last 40 years beginning with my own family with me growing up in the San Fran area, most members have.

The website, IMO, is as much for nonmembers who do not understand the Church's position as encouragement of members, both those who have not been listening and to further encourage those who have.

[rockpond]

That was never the doctrine. And I believe it was Rongo who last week made an excellent post about how certain of the early Brethren, including Brigham Young, entertained the possibility that it would end.

Statements were made to both effects. And yes, Brigham Young was certainly known to have waffled on the issue.

No one authoritatively made that claim. On the contrary, there was the assurance that sometime in God's eternal plan, they would hold the priesthood. That promise was cited in Official Declaration 2, the announcement of the change, which is now part of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Most statements that I am aware of alluded to a millenial timeframe for Blacks and the priesthood. It obviously happened well ahead of schedule.

I don't know of any authoritative statements to that effect. Can you cite something?

You don't have to believe me. You can choose to look into it or not. Authoritative is an extremely fuzzy term in this context. We could also debate the authoritativeness of the statements proclaiming that gay marriage will never be okay in God's eyes. It's a subject for another thread (or two).

I'm only alluding to what prophets and apostles have stated, as recently as in the new website. I reject the claim that it is "muzzling the Lord" to do so. The far greater danger, in this instance, is contradicting the apostles and prophets.

How is it *not* muzzling the Lord to say that he will never reveal something? I agree that there is danger in contradicting the apostles/prophets when they provide the revealed word of the Lord on the matter. I am not aware of that happening... yet.

So in other words, you are redefining the Law of Chastity contrary to how the Lord and his prophets define it. Or am I misunderstanding the portions of your statement that I have bolded?

The Law of Chastity is defined as "no sexual relations with anyone other than your legally & lawfully wedded spouse." That's the definition I'm using.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that is an overstatement. There may be a subset of members who haven't been paying attention and they may be quite vocal...but still in a minority; in my experience over the last 40 years beginning with my own family with me growing up in the San Fran area, most members have.

The website, IMO, is as much for nonmembers who do not understand the Church's position as encouragement of members, both those who have not been listening and to further encourage those who have.

That is my impression as well. I haven't explored the entire site yet, but I haven't seen anything in the way of chastisement, either for gays or for the rank-and-file Church members. On the contrary, the tone seems to be comfort, help, outreach and inclusion.

[Calm]

Rock pond, when someone is asked to back up a claim with sources, they are required to do so by board rules or retract their claims. Telling someone to do the research when they made the claim is not acceptable and may result in banning if repeated (based on observing mods' past responses).

[rockpond]

Rock pond, when someone is asked to back up a claim with sources, they are required to do so by board rules or retract their claims. Telling someone to do the research when they made the claim is not acceptable and may result in banning if repeated (based on observing mods' past responses).

I apologize. I wasn't trying to be rude, I just didn't want to derail the thread. Here is a source for that comment:

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

[Calm]

I apologize. I wasn't trying to be rude, I just didn't want to derail the thread. Here is a source for that comment:

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 10:110

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

Granting that BY was talking about marriage and not about the rape of black slaves by white owners which would unfortunately have been a more common occurrence at that time or most likely in my view both, this says nothing about any of the other many "races" intermarrying, including nonAfrican black races, with whites or each other.

The CFR (call for references still stands).

Edited December 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Granting that BY was talking about marriage and not about the rape of black slaves by white owners which would unfortunately have been a more common occurrence at that time or most likely in my view both, this says nothing about any of the other many "races" intermarrying, including nonAfrican black races, with whites or each other.

The CFR (call for references still stands).

I'll retract and clarify then that it was just that Blacks & Whites were said to never be able to intermarry. Although, I believe that policy was carried much further as there was a time when, for example, Japanese weren't allowed to marry whites. Cheiko Okazaki once made reference to that although I don't have the specific quote.

However, your red herring does not change my point that there have been numerous "this will never change" type statements that have now been set aside.

[Calm]

I'll retract and clarify then that it was just that Blacks & Whites were said to never be able to intermarry. Although, I believe that policy was carried much further as there was a time when, for example, Japanese weren't allowed to marry whites. Cheiko Okazaki once made reference to that although I don't have the specific quote.

However, your red herring does not change my point that there have been numerous "this will never change" type statements that have now been set aside.

Requiring someone to be precise in their claims and accusations is not a red herring.

And if you keep throwing out claims without support as you did again in this post, you may run into problems. Better to adapt to the board culture of generally providing sources as you make a claim especially if it is an uncommon one.

Edited December 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[DavidB]

Requiring someone to be precise in their claims and accusations is not a red herring.

And if you keep throwing out claims without support as you did again in this post, you may run into problems. Better to adapt to the board culture of generally providing sources as you make a claim especially if it is an uncommon one.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Board moderator for MDDB?

This is off-topic dogpiling. You are out of the thread. A moderator's comments look like this <-----

[rockpond]

Requiring someone to be precise in their claims and accusations is not a red herring.

And if you keep throwing out claims without support as you did again in this post, you may run into problems. Better to adapt to the board culture of generally providing sources as you make a claim especially if it is an uncommon one.

Agreed, asking for the reference was not a red herring. Arguing that it was just black/white races, not all races was completely tangential to the matter being discussed.

But I am new here so maybe you can help me understand the rules... Why is it inappropriate for me to express my belief that a policy was applied to all races based on something I read by Sister Okazaki but it is okay for you to express your belief that Brigham Young may have been talking about slave rape without citing a reference? Neither of us were stating facts, right?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll retract and clarify then that it was just that Blacks & Whites were said to never be able to intermarry. Although, I believe that policy was carried much further as there was a time when, for example, Japanese weren't allowed to marry whites. Cheiko Okazaki once made reference to that although I don't have the specific quote.

However, your red herring does not change my point that there have been numerous "this will never change" type statements that have now been set aside.

A point that has not been substantiated.

[rockpond]

A point that has not been substantiated.

How was it not substantiated? I provided three examples. I didn't think that you were questioning the others. And I'm confused as to why I'm being asked to cite a reference for everything I say. I haven't seen Scott Lloyd, nor Calmoriah, cite references in our discussion today?

But, to clear the air, here are references for my other statements. I'll hold to the standard if the two of you will as well.

Heber C. Kimball, Deseret News, November 7, 1855

“The principle of plurality of wives never will be done away...”

Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 166

“If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird... Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel... and finally give up our religion altogether.... We just can’t do that....”

George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 20, p. 276

“If plural marriage be divine, as the Latter-day Saints say it is, no power on earth can suppress it, unless you crush and destroy the entire people.”

Brigham Young JD, Vol.7, Pg.290 - Pg.291

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

[Calm]

Agreed, asking for the reference was not a red herring. Arguing that it was just black/white races, not all races was completely tangential to the matter being discussed.

But I am new here so maybe you can help me understand the rules... Why is it inappropriate for me to express my belief that a policy was applied to all races based on something I read by Sister Okazaki but it is okay for you to express your belief that Brigham Young may have been talking about slave rape without citing a reference? Neither of us were stating facts, right?

I am not saying you have to post any CFR for an opinion....as long as you don't post it without the qualifying info of an opinion. I am only referring to things you posted as facts without support, such as your claim of something that was said by someone. Edited December 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Just out of curiosity, are you a Board moderator for MDDB?

No, thank goodness. Feel free to ignore anything I say. Edited December 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Because I make it clear it is my opinion while you wrote it as a fact.

I did not write it as fact. I expressed it as my belief -- the same as you.

When you are asked for a reference you are expected to give it or leave the thread. It doesn't require more than a CFR (call for references). There is a difference between opinions and unsupported accusations. You need to read the board rules before you post again because you are derailing with your arguing.

[Calm]

I did not write it as fact. I expressed it as my belief -- the same as you.

Is this not stated as a fact:

Cheiko Okazaki once made reference to that although I don't have the specific quote.

[rockpond]

Is this not stated as a fact:

Did I not also clearly state that I couldn't back it up? I think my statement that I didn't have the quote is an implicit acknowledgement that you are free to disregard because I am unable to back it up.

What I can't figure out is why this only goes one direction? What about Scott who has now claimed that I failed to substantiate my point. Something he stated unequivocally as fact. When are you going to call him out for his lack of references?

You've derailed the thread under the guise of wanting to make sure that the rules are followed. And yet you only bother attacking the guy on one side of the debate. Interesting.

[canard78]

I did not write it as fact. I expressed it as my belief -- the same as you.

Rockpond, while I'm inclined to agree that some statements of the past suggest there was a belief among the early church leaders of the 'ever be so' or longer time frame than actualised, I also appreciate MDDB's attention to rigour and details. On most other pro and counter-mormon forums/blogs, poster can say anything they like without substantiation. It isn't so here. That's and advantage for all parties.

Also, the LoC is no sexual relations outside of marriage. But the new website clearly states the LDS definition of marriage is b/n man and woman. While that could one day change, it hasn't and according to the brethren definition today, a gay married man is still breaking the LoC.

[Calm]

I will stop making suggestions and just let the mods handle it. You know the policy now, so you can hash it out with them if you care to on my, Scott's, your own or anyone else's posts.

Add-on: mods have shown up so I really should be quiet on the matter now (see post above in red)

Edited December 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[rockpond]

Rockpond, while I'm inclined to agree that some statements of the past suggest there was a belief among the early church leaders of the 'ever be so' or longer time frame than actualised, I also appreciate MDDB's attention to rigour and details. On most other pro and counter-mormon forums/blogs, poster can say anything they like without substantiation. It isn't so here. That's and advantage for all parties.

I agree and have now provided sources for all my statements. But, I also feel that you have to leave a certain amount of room for civil discussion. An over reliance on referencing every sentence will turn all the posts into bibliographies.

Also, the LoC is no sexual relations outside of marriage. But the new website clearly states the LDS definition of marriage is b/n man and woman. While that could one day change, it hasn't and according to the brethren definition today, a gay married man is still breaking the LoC.

Yes, the LDS definition of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman. But, as far as I can tell, that appears to be a policy decision not a doctrinal revelation. And, as we've seen, policies are subject to change.

[pogi]

Did anybody listen to Radio West today with Doug Farizio? I was only able to catch a minute of it, but he was addressing this very issue, sounded interesting.

From Radio West website:

Last week, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints launched a website that explores its position on "same-sex attraction." Some in the LGBT community see it as a baby step in the right direction: it calls for love and compassion, it asks Mormon families to support their LGBT sons and daughters and it invites gays and lesbians to remain in the church as long as they're not "yielding" to their sexuality. Monday, we invite you to react to the website and share what you think it means for Mormons and the LGBT community.

[rockpond]

A point that has not been substantiated.

CFR!

I have provided all the references that I've been asked for. I didn't ever intend to derail this thread -- I was just responding to Calmoriah.

In any case, if you are going to say that I have not substantiated my claims, after I've provided references for all of them, please provide your sources for saying that I have not substantiated my point rather than just stating it.