Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Ballard Speaks At World Congress Of Families Conference


Sky

Recommended Posts

However, I think it's a mischaracterization to suggest that any of Elder Ballard's examples we've discussed in this thread (using your words) "teach that every possible lifestyle choice is good."  King and King (as elementarily simplistic as it's plot is) doesn't advocate that gay relationships are "good" any more or less than any other prince-to-princess fairytale teaches that straight relationships "are good."  What it does do is reflect the reality that same-sex couples exist--a reality that students live in and may encounter, within their own public school and local communities.

 

Perhaps a better word would have been 'acceptable'.  I do think though that it's a distinction without a difference.

 

Such books teach that homosexual relationships are acceptable and equal to heterosexual relationships.  King and King advocates that a homosexual relationship is equal in acceptability to a heterosexual one.  It does more than just teach that same sex couples exist-it teaches that they are as acceptable as heterosexual relationships.  In a world where children are taught from a young age that heterosexual relationships are 'good', then any story that equates them with homosexual couples automatically assigns value to homosexual partnerships without having to come out and specifically say so.  

 

And if something implies value to homosexuality, then it, by definition, isn't neutral.

 

 

It seems naïve to suggest that a school should try to teach students "to get along despite their cultural differences" using only teaching materials that omit any mention or neutral representations/depictions of the observable differences that are present in the community--especially those of minority groups which are often the target of bullying and teasing. 

I don't think teaching students such skills is naive, i think it's smart!  

 

All i see on Facebook all day long are people who demand (either explicitly or by implication) that people must agree with them or the person and their beliefs are hate-filled and dangerous.  They have never been taught how to respect and honor people who believe things they don't agree with.  

 

Let's get away from the idea that acceptance is necessary before respect and kindness can be shown.  It's not true, and it's not helping society to teach our kids that.

  

Further justification for allowing teachers to read books like the three found in the lawsuit featuring the case that Elder Ballard referenced to is that given the overwhelming amount of stories depicting straight relationships or families headed by straight couples are read in public schools, then it's perfectly justifiable to read a few stories depicting gay relationships or families by straight couples.  That's especially true in communities which reflect such diversity in order to teach children tolerance and peaceful coexistence to become good citizens of their communities and our nation. Rockpond's posts seem to demonstrate this view, which I also agree with.

 

When one considers how many hundreds of picture books that are read in public school about straight relationships and families headed by straight couples, the fact that a school may read two or three books depicting gay relationships or families headed by gay couples is entirely reasonable.  In fact, a case could be made that it should be three or four per 97 books read over the entire year, given the demographics of divergent sexual orientations.

It may be reasonable, but if it's never been done before, then we can hardly fault a parent for being upset there were never given the chance to prepare for it.

Link to comment

That's false doctrine.

Heavenly Father created a paradisiacal world; sin is the result of the Fall. Thus, homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state, not of the world as God created it.

This is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

 

I agree that sin is the result of the Fall.  But, CFR that homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state and that that is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

Link to comment

Nothing in there that supports your claim that homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state and that that is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

 

Every word in it affirms that only heterosexual relationships are part of God's eternal plan.

 

And I'm not saying that to attack any of your friends.

 

Real or imaginary.

Edited by Russell C McGregor
Link to comment

Every word in it affirms that only heterosexual relationships are part of God's eternal plan.

And I'm not saying that to attack any of your friends.

Real or imaginary.

CFR that the proclamation containes the teaching that "only" (this word, specifically) heterosexual relationships are part of God's plan.

Link to comment

Every word in it affirms that only heterosexual relationships are part of God's eternal plan.

 

And I'm not saying that to attack any of your friends.

 

Real or imaginary.

 

Daniel is correct... It doesn't say "only".  That is an important detail and will, in the future, become more important when the Church is working its way out of past teachings that it needs to disavow.

 

The proclamation does, however, state that heterosexual relationships are ordained of God.  That is quite a different position than what you stated earlier.  The CFR on your statement that "homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state and that that is non-controversial LDS doctrine." has not yet been satisfied.

Link to comment

CFR that the proclamation containes the teaching that "only" (this word, specifically) heterosexual relationships are part of God's plan.

I suggest you read it. It's only (there's that word again) one page long.

No, it doesn't use the word "only." What it does is describe the Lord's plan regarding family and gender in terms that leave no room for alternatives. The word "the" is both singular and exclusive; expressions like "the one and only" are essentially redundant and are used for emphasis.

Link to comment

I suggest you read it. It's only (there's that word again) one page long.

No, it doesn't use the word "only." What it does is describe the Lord's plan regarding family and gender in terms that leave no room for alternatives. The word "the" is both singular and exclusive; expressions like "the one and only" are essentially redundant and are used for emphasis.

 

(Bold added by me)

 

I've read it.  Multiple times.  Maybe you should read it again and cite the part that your statement (bolded portion) refers to.

 

You keep having to backpedal from your original statement.  And you still haven't satisfied the CFR.

Link to comment

Daniel is correct... It doesn't say "only".  That is an important detail and will, in the future, become more important when the Church is working its way out of past teachings that it needs to disavow.

The Church teaches correct principles. There are no "past teachings that it needs to disavow."

To hold that the Church's moral teachings are wrong is to hold an apostate position.

Please note that this is not an attack on any person, nor a questioning of anyone's faithfulness. It merely describes a position.

 

The proclamation does, however, state that heterosexual relationships are ordained of God.  That is quite a different position than what you stated earlier.  The CFR on your statement that "homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state and that that is non-controversial LDS doctrine." has not yet been satisfied.

Actually it has been.

To call for references, and then reflexively deny what the reference given plainly states, is to argue in bad faith.

Believing Latter-day Saints regard the Proclamation on the Family as defining the Lord's plan for families. Everything outside of that is ipso facto an artefact of this fallen world.

That's what we believe. Didn't you know that?

Link to comment

The Church teaches correct principles. There are no "past teachings that it needs to disavow."

To hold that the Church's moral teachings are wrong is to hold an apostate position.

Please note that this is not an attack on any person, nor a questioning of anyone's faithfulness. It merely describes a position.

 

Actually it has been.

To call for references, and then reflexively deny what the reference given plainly states, is to argue in bad faith.

Believing Latter-day Saints regard the Proclamation on the Family as defining the Lord's plan for families. Everything outside of that is ipso facto an artefact of this fallen world.

That's what we believe. Didn't you know that?

 

You've provided no support for this:  "Everything outside of that is ipso facto an artefact of this fallen world."

 

And the official position of the Church is that we don't know the cause of individuals' homosexual attraction.  Therefore, we can't attribute that to the "fallen world".

 

Regarding your claim that there are no past teachings that the Church needs to disavow, I'd give you this quote from LDS.org, Race and The Priesthood essay:  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

 

You'll note that those were all past teachings by our prophets and apostles.

Link to comment

You've provided no support for this:  "Everything outside of that is ipso facto an artefact of this fallen world."

Clearly you don't understand LDS doctrine.

Whatever is in the world that God did not ordain is a manifestation of its fallen state.

 

And the official position of the Church is that we don't know the cause of individuals' homosexual attraction.  Therefore, we can't attribute that to the "fallen world".

That's a leap. You might as well say that just because the specific cause of a given disease isn't known, then it isn't a disease at all.

 

Regarding your claim that there are no past teachings that the Church needs to disavow, I'd give you this quote from LDS.org, Race and The Priesthood essay:  "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

 

You'll note that those were all past teachings by our prophets and apostles.

If ever you learn to read in context, you might notice the word "moral" in the very next sentence.

I was talking, of course, about moral teachings.

And here's another fact for you: while anti-Mormons of various descriptions have tried to consciously misrepresent the notions you mentioned as having doctrinal force, the fact remains that we always knew that they were "theories," i.e. speculative a posteriori attempts to explain the Priesthood ban.

Link to comment

Clearly you don't understand LDS doctrine.

Whatever is in the world that God did not ordain is a manifestation of its fallen state.

 

That's a leap. You might as well say that just because the specific cause of a given disease isn't known, then it isn't a disease at all.

 

If ever you learn to read in context, you might notice the word "moral" in the very next sentence.

I was talking, of course, about moral teachings.

And here's another fact for you: while anti-Mormons of various descriptions have tried to consciously misrepresent the notions you mentioned as having doctrinal force, the fact remains that we always knew that they were "theories," i.e. speculative a posteriori attempts to explain the Priesthood ban.

 

They were teachings by prophets and apostles, taught repeatedly over decades, in their official capacities.  And they've been disavowed.

 

You keep saying this:  "Whatever is in the world that God did not ordain is a manifestation of its fallen state."  But haven't provided support.  Further, knowing that God ordains heterosexual unions is not the same as knowing that He does not ordain homosexual unions.  That remains an unknown until He reveals something.

Link to comment

Further, knowing that God ordains heterosexual unions is not the same as knowing that He does not ordain homosexual unions.  That remains an unknown until He reveals something.

It appears that no fault can be found in Elder Ballard's position, so his detractors now undermine his church's teachings. CFR that the unknown is the basis for prophetic teachings on any subject, and in this case, their teachings about homosexual unions.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment

It appears that no fault can be found in Elder Ballard's position, so his detractors now undermine his church's teachings. CFR that the unknown is the basis for prophetic teachings on any subject, and in this case, their teachings about homosexual unions.

I'm not sure who you are referring to as I am not a detractor of Elder Ballard's. In other posts and threads I've commented on what I loved about his talk. I did see some things that didn't make sense to me and asked other for their opinions on them.

Regarding your CFR. I have not made such a claim.

The unknown is not the basis for prophetic teachings.

Link to comment

I agree that sin is the result of the Fall.  But, CFR that homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state and that that is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

 

Since you keep complaining that I haven't answered the CFR, I refer you back to the first sentence of your reply.

 

Since sin is the result of the Fall, and since all homosexual acts are inherently sinful, it inevitably follows, by straightforward syllogistic reasoning, that homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state.

 

 And that is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

Link to comment

That's false doctrine.

Heavenly Father created a paradisiacal world; sin is the result of the Fall. Thus, homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state, not of the world as God created it.

This is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

 

I have to disagree with you, Russell.

 

Homosexuality is found among several species of animals at rates similar to that found in humans.  

 

So, unless you want to argue that after the Fall animals magically turned gay, then ok.  But I'd be interested to see the scriptural basis for that.

Edited by sethpayne
Link to comment

 

Perhaps a better word would have been 'acceptable'.  I do think though that it's a distinction without a difference.

 

Such books teach that homosexual relationships are acceptable and equal to heterosexual relationships.  King and King advocates that a homosexual relationship is equal in acceptability to a heterosexual one.  It does more than just teach that same sex couples exist-it teaches that they are as acceptable as heterosexual relationships.  In a world where children are taught from a young age that heterosexual relationships are 'good', then any story that equates them with homosexual couples automatically assigns value to homosexual partnerships without having to come out and specifically say so.  

 

 

That is because homosexual relationships are acceptable and equal to heterosexual relationships in the United States.  Stories read to children in school teaching that principle is the reality in the world they and you live in.  Why would parent approval be needed or sought for something that was legal and equal to heterosexual marriages in every community in the United States.

 

It has always been the job of parents whose religious beliefs differ from world view to teach their children those religious values.  It is not the responsibility of the school to teach religious principles nor would we want them too.  I certainly would not want my children being taught that blood transfusions were a sin or that saying the Pledge of Allegiance was against God's commandments.

Link to comment

Elder Holland has stated: (note that he did not say that homosexuality is the result of living in a fallen world)

 

"As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life. But knowing why you feel as you do isn’t as important as knowing you have not transgressed. If your life is in harmony with the commandments, then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement."

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

Link to comment

Since you keep complaining that I haven't answered the CFR, I refer you back to the first sentence of your reply.

Since sin is the result of the Fall, and since all homosexual acts are inherently sinful, it inevitably follows, by straightforward syllogistic reasoning, that homosexuality is a condition of the world in its fallen state.

And that is non-controversial LDS doctrine.

Homosexuality (which refers to one's orientation) is not the same as homosexual acts. And having a homosexual orientation is not a sin. And that is LDS doctrine.

Link to comment

Homosexuality (which refers to one's orientation) is not the same as homosexual acts. And having a homosexual orientation is not a sin. And that is LDS doctrine.

 

From the church's website:

 

"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."

 

Thus, contrary to what some people have said, the church says:

 

1. Same-sex attraction itself is not a sin.

2. Individuals do not choose to have such attractions.

3. The church reaches out to gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in love and understanding.

Link to comment

I'm not sure who you are referring to as I am not a detractor of Elder Ballard's. In other posts and threads I've commented on what I loved about his talk. I did see some things that didn't make sense to me and asked other for their opinions on them.

Regarding your CFR. I have not made such a claim.

The unknown is not the basis for prophetic teachings.

OK – please clarify what you said in #114. I took from it that you are saying that knowing what God has ordained is not the same as knowing what He has not ordained and which remains unknown until He reveals it. In this case, you seem to be claiming that we know that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman, but we do not know that He does not ordain same-sex marriage, and that this will remain unknown until He spells it out more explicitly.

 

Of course the two are not the same, but I think He has been clear about His eternal refusal of same sex marriage.

 

But to rephrase my CFR, please cite the Gospel teaching(s) that we are to advance the wisdom of man on a subject above that wisdom which God has revealed through His prophets on that same subject (in this case, marriage) in those instances where He has not been as explicit as the wisdom of man requires of Him.

Link to comment

That is because homosexual relationships are acceptable and equal to heterosexual relationships in the United States.  Stories read to children in school teaching that principle is the reality in the world they and you live in.  Why would parent approval be needed or sought for something that was legal and equal to heterosexual marriages in every community in the United States.

 

It has always been the job of parents whose religious beliefs differ from world view to teach their children those religious values.  It is not the responsibility of the school to teach religious principles nor would we want them too.  I certainly would not want my children being taught that blood transfusions were a sin or that saying the Pledge of Allegiance was against God's commandments.

 

I think we can all agree that whether or not something is legal should not be the measuring stick for whether or not it should be embraced in elementary schools without parental notification.

Link to comment

OK – please clarify what you said in #114. I took from it that you are saying that knowing what God has ordained is not the same as knowing what He has not ordained and which remains unknown until He reveals it. In this case, you seem to be claiming that we know that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman, but we do not know that He does not ordain same-sex marriage, and that this will remain unknown until He spells it out more explicitly.

Of course the two are not the same, but I think He has been clear about His eternal refusal of same sex marriage.

But to rephrase my CFR, please cite the Gospel teaching(s) that we are to advance the wisdom of man on a subject above that wisdom which God has revealed through His prophets on that same subject (in this case, marriage) in those instances where He has not been as explicit as the wisdom of man requires of Him.

Your first paragraph is an accurate summary of what I was saying. Your third paragraph is asking for a CFR of a claim I did not make and don't agree with.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...