Is There A Difference Between The Teachings Of Barb Young And Denver Snuffer?

[thesometimesaint]

It is a simple fact that the Church has evolved on the issue of homosexuality. While still considering homosexual acts to be a sin. We no longer consider homosexual temptation itself to be a sin. Moreover; There was a time not that long ago that violence against homosexuals was considered appropriate for Church members. That all types discriminatory laws against homosexuals were in place, even in Utah, regarding employment, housing, medical decisions, and survivors rights/benefits as examples. That being said I don't foresee a time when SSM will become acceptable to the Church.

[bluebell]

It is a simple fact that the Church has evolved on the issue of homosexuality. While still considering homosexual acts to be a sin. We no longer consider homosexual temptation itself to be a sin. Moreover; There was a time not that long ago that violence against homosexuals was considered appropriate for Church members. That all types discriminatory laws against homosexuals were in place, even in Utah, regarding employment, housing, medical decisions, and survivors rights/benefits as examples. That being said I don't foresee a time when SSM will become acceptable to the Church.

Can I see the references for how the church used to teach that homosexual temptations were a sin and that violence against gays was appropriate?

I've never heard that before.

[Buzzard]

So what part of Affirmations statement do you disagree with?  Do you think that God's gay children are not part of the plan of salvation?

 

Do you think that orientation and identity can be changed?

 

 

Has there been a revelation from God to his modern prophet about the question of gay marriage??  We certainly have revelation on straight marriage,   Is it not possible for God to reveal His will on gay marriage?  So far, the brethren have just been using their best  understanding on this subject.  But, as in times past, that is not necessarily the will of God.

Did you see the part I bolded? All of God's children are loved and part of the Plan of Salvation, gay or straight doesn't enter into it. But to say that their "relationships"-I'm assuming a sexual component-are compatible with the Plan show a misunderstanding at best and a rejection at worst of the entire point of the Plan. 

Every son and daughter of God has a place in the kingdom, but ONLY marriages between a man and a woman (or sometimes women, but that's another subject) can be sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise. I submit that any honest reading of the scriptures and pronouncements of modern prophets and apostles will show that God has manifestly revealed his will on the subject, and that those waiting for God to change his mind on this commandment that they personally have a problem with might find their wait to be long and futile. 

I would ask you, what makes you think that the leadership of the church have just been "using their best understanding" on so delicate a subject? Do you really think that literally the core principle, the very essence of the Great Plan of Happiness would be treated so lightly?

[Buzzard]

Can I see the references for how the church used to teach that homosexual temptations were a sin and that violence against gays was appropriate?

I've never heard that before.

I'm guessing he is referring to the story told by Boyd K. Packer about the missionary who punched his companion for coming on to him or groping him in his sleep, I forget the salacious details, and was told by Elder Packer that he needed a good punch, and it wouldn't have been appropriate for an apostle to administer it. I guess that qualifies as an endorsement of violence against gays in some peoples minds. BTW, I am as harmless a fuzzball as they come, rarely get mad, but if one of my missionary companions had made an open pass at me, I might, as a 19 year old young man, been tempted to administer the laying on of hands. 

[Mark Beesley]

A textbook example of ad hominem attack.

 

While I have no great love for the Tribune I don't readily see anything about this particular piece to find fault with.

 

I do wonder what Barb Young means by "evolving" in the quoted remark, but perhaps that is as explicit as she chose to be on this occasion. As BCSpace indicated there is some coyness that is apparent here.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is the Deseret News report of the same event.

 

I think it is more thorough and informative than the Trib piece, but I don't perceive that the Trib story is untrustworthy.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at, but it's not important.

[LordUther]

He's talking about a talk given by Elder Packer(?) where he talks about a missionary who's companion made a pass at him at the missionary floored him, Packer then congratulates the missionary and says he's glad he did it because it would be inappropriate for an apostle to do so and then counsels that you should protect yourselves whatever way seems appropriate. Many have taken it to mean that Packer was advocating violence against homosexuals. Actually the church is de-evolving regards homosexuality, it only became excommunicatable offence in the 60's. Presiding Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith was released from office for having several gay dalliances and moved to Hawaii to deal with the issue in the 40's. An apostle under George Albert Smith (& I can't remember the reference) stated when asked what to do with someone who had homosexual tendencies "that up until we have removed them from office, nothing more." It seems the church is actually reverting to it's pre 1960's standpoint. 

 

During the 60's Elder Spencer W Kimball was tasked with investigating homosexuality and unfortunately he went to the APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) who's view back then was barbaric by todays standards, SWK came back with some very distorted opinions and explains his harshness in MoF. This seems to have heavily influenced the church's standpoint for the next 40-50years.

[bluebell]

Got it.  Thanks!

[Vance]

It is a simple fact that the Church has evolved on the issue of homosexuality. While still considering homosexual acts to be a sin. We no longer consider homosexual temptation itself to be a sin.

I don't think "The Church" (as in the official position) has changed at all.

 

What if we swap out a few words in you statement as see what happens.

 

"While still considering homosexual adulterous acts to be a sin. We no longer consider homosexual temptation itself to be a sin."

 

Nah, I don't think "The Church" has changed at all.

[california boy]

Did you see the part I bolded? All of God's children are loved and part of the Plan of Salvation, gay or straight doesn't enter into it. But to say that their "relationships"-I'm assuming a sexual component-are compatible with the Plan show a misunderstanding at best and a rejection at worst of the entire point of the Plan. 

Every son and daughter of God has a place in the kingdom, but ONLY marriages between a man and a woman (or sometimes women, but that's another subject) can be sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise. I submit that any honest reading of the scriptures and pronouncements of modern prophets and apostles will show that God has manifestly revealed his will on the subject, and that those waiting for God to change his mind on this commandment that they personally have a problem with might find their wait to be long and futile. 

I would ask you, what makes you think that the leadership of the church have just been "using their best understanding" on so delicate a subject? Do you really think that literally the core principle, the very essence of the Great Plan of Happiness would be treated so lightly?

I did see the part you bolded.  I also saw the other part of Affermation statements that you posted which is why I asked questions about those as well.  Have you decided not to answer those questions I asked?  Or can you at least tell us why you posted the other two statements which you seemed to disagree with?

 

Well my post answered your question you ask of me.  As far as I know, there has been no revelation from God concerning gay marriage.  Perhaps you can point to such revelation if you feel one has taken place.

 

You stated that ever son and daugher of God has a place in the kingdom.  Can you tell me what place God's gay children have in His kingdom?  Is it impossible for them to obtain exaltation unless they are straight?

[BCSpace]

I think she's far more coy than Snuffer, but the message is the same. Do you realize that for a repenting homosexual, attendance/association with a conference such as this would be considered a step backwards in the process?

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

 

Yes it is.  For example (and besides TR question #7 which you seem to have referenced):

 

 

In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

 

Etc.

[BCSpace]

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

 

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

 

Amen.

 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

 

"We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation

    

We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                         

    

I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much.

 

Hence the TR question.

[BCSpace]

You stated that ever son and daughter of God has a place in the kingdom.  Can you tell me what place God's gay children have in His kingdom?  Is it impossible for them to obtain exaltation unless they are straight?

 

One could certainly quibble over the actual process of having children in the eternities, but my own expectation, if homosexuality turns out to be inborn, is that such an aberration would be corrected in the resurrection.  Otherwise, if not inborn, one might merely have to repent.

[Calm]

During the 60's Elder Spencer W Kimball was tasked with investigating homosexuality and unfortunately he went to the APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) who's view back then was barbaric by todays standards, SWK came back with some very distorted opinions and explains his harshness in MoF. This seems to have heavily influenced the church's standpoint for the next 40-50years.

Good observation.

[slamarwi]

It is a simple fact that the Church has evolved on the issue of homosexuality. While still considering homosexual acts to be a sin. We no longer consider homosexual temptation itself to be a sin. Moreover; There was a time not that long ago that violence against homosexuals was considered appropriate for Church members. That all types discriminatory laws against homosexuals were in place, even in Utah, regarding employment, housing, medical decisions, and survivors rights/benefits as examples. That being said I don't foresee a time when SSM will become acceptable to the Church.

 

I don't believe the church has ever considered violence an appropriate measure to combat homosexuals or homosexuality. Also, there may have been and likely still are, laws on the books that are less than fair to same sex couples. That would be true for all states, not just Utah.

 

Also, in response to thesometimessaint, the church has never taught that temptation was considered a sin. 

[foster]

Bcspace you seem prone to paint with board unforgiven, unrelenting, and unmerciful brush.  What appears to be your personal standard for the Temple Recommend question (curious as to why you did not post it here), is that: No one, under any circumstance, for any reason whatsoever, may every be in agreement with a person or group opposed to the Church. 

 

Yet, the Church, will align itself with groups opposed to the Church in a common cause. How many joint statements has the Church signed with other Faiths? How many of those Faiths would be opposed to the Church? So if we are to take your broad brush as the standard for the Church, is the Church violating Temple Recommend question 7 when it agrees on a common cause, with those who are otherwise adversaries to the Church?

[california boy]

One could certainly quibble over the actual process of having children in the eternities, but my own expectation, if homosexuality turns out to be inborn, is that such an aberration would be corrected in the resurrection.  Otherwise, if not inborn, one might merely have to repent.

So what you are saying is that the only path for God's gay children for exaltation is if they choose in the next life to spend eternity with a woman having children, something they were unable or unwilling to do in this life.  If a gay member chooses to spend his entire earth life celibate rather than be with a woman, what makes you think they are looking forward to spending eternity married to a woman?

 

Whoopee.  I can hardly wait.  It is this very reason why I choose to leave the church.  I have absolutely no interest in spending eternity with a woman.  So there is absolutely no exaltation possible for me no matter how much I follow the church teachings.  It makes being celibate pointless doesn't it.

[thesometimesaint]

Can I see the references for how the church used to teach that homosexual temptations were a sin and that violence against gays was appropriate?

I've never heard that before.

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/09/evolving-lds-views-on-homosexuality/

[LordUther]

 

In addition to filling your garden with positive influences, you must also avoid any influence that can harm your spirituality. One of these adverse influences is obsession with or concentration on same-gender thoughts and feelings. It is not helpful to flaunthomosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive,righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which mayeventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because ourties to them can be eternal.

 

https://www.lds.org/...ildren?lang=eng

 

This is advice for good living and is not in respect to the repentance process, and is no different in principle to the advice that would be given to a straight person who had had LoC problems. Not listening would not affect my repentance, though it may unnecessarily place temptation in my path.

[Kenngo1969]

I know I'm going to get killed for this, but so be it: A statement of a single apostle does not Church doctrine make.

[Vance]

So what you are saying is that the only path for God's gay children for exaltation is if they choose in the next life to spend eternity with a woman having children, something they were unable or unwilling to do in this life.  If a gay member chooses to spend his entire earth life celibate rather than be with a woman, what makes you think they are looking forward to spending eternity married to a woman?

 

Whoopee.  I can hardly wait.  It is this very reason why I choose to leave the church.  I have absolutely no interest in spending eternity with a woman.  So there is absolutely no exaltation possible for me no matter how much I follow the church teachings.  It makes being celibate pointless doesn't it.

I gather that you feel that sexual activity (of a certain type) is the ONLY important part of an eternal relationship then.

 

I think you are missing something.

[california boy]

I gather that you feel that sexual activity (of a certain type) is the ONLY important part of an eternal relationship then.

 

I think you are missing something.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEX.  How can you possibly reduce a relationship between two people that are in love to simply about sex.  What an ignorant comment to make.  You certainly must not be married.  And you certainly will be in for a big surprise if you think marriage is just a legal way to have sex.  If you are married, I have the upmost sympathy for your wife if your relationship with her is simply so you can have your "certain type of sexual activity."

[rpn]

 

If a gay member chooses to spend his entire earth life celibate rather than be with a woman, what makes you think they are looking forward to spending eternity married to a woman?

 

Whoopee.  I can hardly wait.  It is this very reason why I choose to leave the church.  I have absolutely no interest in spending eternity with a woman.  So there is absolutely no exaltation possible for me no matter how much I follow the church teachings.  It makes being celibate pointless doesn't it.

Only if one gets stuck in earthly perspective (which plenty of us do, whatever our sexual orientation).   Heavenly Father loves us.  He does.  Whatever our personal experiences or thoughts or knowledge of carnel or mortal or earthly things, our purpose is to learn how to control our bodies and desires to submit to His will and His plan which is perfect and which we are told is better than anything we experience here.  Neither He nor His plan forces us into anything.   And we know that He doesn't hold us accountable for things that we cannot do.  So I'm thinking that there will be a way to heal and a disposition that will allow all faithful and repentant souls to have all that He has.  

 

(My personal belief is that one of the reasons He opposes gay marriage on earth is that it will make it harder for those who engage in such relationships on earth to handle the eternities and He would  not wish any more pain or hurt on souls who came to earth with that struggle.)

[Sleeper Cell]

I'm guessing he is referring to the story told by Boyd K. Packer about the missionary who punched his companion for coming on to him or groping him in his sleep, I forget the salacious details, and was told by Elder Packer that he needed a good punch, and it wouldn't have been appropriate for an apostle to administer it. I guess that qualifies as an endorsement of violence against gays in some peoples minds. 

Sounds more like an endorsement of violence as an appropriate response to sexual assault. Had the victim been female, would anybody have criticized Elder Packer for saying that the perpetrator needed a good punch?

[Buzzard]

I did see the part you bolded.  I also saw the other part of Affermation statements that you posted which is why I asked questions about those as well.  Have you decided not to answer those questions I asked?  Or can you at least tell us why you posted the other two statements which you seemed to disagree with?

 

Well my post answered your question you ask of me.  As far as I know, there has been no revelation from God concerning gay marriage.  Perhaps you can point to such revelation if you feel one has taken place.

 

You stated that ever son and daugher of God has a place in the kingdom.  Can you tell me what place God's gay children have in His kingdom?  Is it impossible for them to obtain exaltation unless they are straight?

 

 

 

You may or may not consider it revelation-perhaps you are demanding canonization in the D&C-but the Declaration on the Family in 1996 was pretty forthright: : "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.".

As for the prospects of exaltation, any virtuous son or daughter of God can enter into his kingdom. Since the only acceptable sexual relations are within heterosexual marriage, if for whatever reason one does not enter into such a marriage, remaining virtuous (a term I prefer to celibacy) is a requirement for that reward. It's actually pretty easy to understand.  

[Buzzard]

Sounds more like an endorsement of violence as an appropriate response to sexual assault. Had the victim been female, would anybody have criticized Elder Packer for saying that the perpetrator needed a good punch?

No, it was merely an story told to make a point about defending your virtue. If I was asleep and felt a hand under my covers, my rejoinder would not be polite and might very well be violent. If you read the story, the details are not spelled out, but Elder Packer heard enough that in his opinion, physical defense was justified. 

Unless you are of the opinion that sexual assault is no big deal, of course.