Elder Ballard Speaks At World Congress Of Families Conference

[CV75]

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.

You are advancing the wisdom of man (support of same-sex marriage in the Church) based on that which said wisdom concludes hasn’t been revealed. This is like using 1 Nephi 15:9 as rationale when the overarching principle in verse 11 is indeed known, or like using a lack of specificity as permission to deviate from what is known (Mosiah 4:29-30). Or, as Elder Uchtdorf put it, unplugging a spotlight and then blaming the spotlight for not giving any light. So my CFR has to do with doctrine that says otherwise, because that is the claim you seem to be making. Or maybe you can rephrase what you re trying to convey.

[Daniel2]

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.

 

The crux of the challenge seems to be what standards should be used for elementary school curriculum to qualify for parental notification.

 

The courts have ruled that diversity curriculum to teach mutual respect among students despite their identifiable differences is not something that would quality for parental notification, because notification and student-removal from said classes would defeat (or, at a minimum, severely decrease the effectiveness of) the purpose of teaching mutual respect and good citizenship in a diverse society.

 

The subsequent issue, as I see it, is what compromise is even available, then.

 

Here's the compromise that I feel is appropriate:

 

In my view, teaching kids to respect everyone is key, while being able to identify (without endorsing) differences... whether those be differences of race, religion, ability/disability, cultural background, gender, and orientation.  If kids are being teased because of their religious affiliation, or because their religion believes that man/woman marriage is the only kind that is approved by God, then it's entirely appropriate for a teacher to address with her students that different religions have different beliefs about the type of marriage that God may approve of, and that it's our job as students to respect others, whether they have similar or different beliefs that we might have.  Same issue with families headed by parents of the same gender, or students who may have a boyfriend/girlfriend of the same gender.  Being able to discuss the specific examples enables students to understand and respect differences, without endorsing or teaching the inherent "rightness" or "wrongness" of any specific lifestyle/religion/race/ability/etc.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

The crux of the challenge seems to be what standards should be used for elementary school curriculum to qualify for parental notification.

 

The courts have ruled that diversity curriculum to teach mutual respect among students despite their identifiable differences is not something that would quality, because it would defeat the purpose of attempting to teach mutual respect and good citizenship in a diverse society without being able to identify the differences that make up the diversity.

 

First, i respect our legal system and believe in following the law, so i'm not going to rail against a court decision that I have no ability to change, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.  It is what it is.  Our courts have proven that they are not infallible and frequently make mistakes though, so my only issue is when someone uses a court decision to prove that something is 'good' or 'right' or 'moral' (not that you are doing that, just putting that out there).  Judges don't have the ability to affect whether or not something is 'right', they only decide whether or not something is legal.

 

Having said that, it seems pretty obvious that there are a lot of beliefs that people hold that no one would be o.k. with teaching as part of a diversity curriculum to elementary school kids regardless of whether or not some of their parents were publicly acting them out for other kids to see and judge. so let's not hide behind the idea that teaching diversity trumps all and is one of our most important goals.  It's not.  Teaching some diversity is o.k., but we all accept that there is definitely a line that shouldn't be crossed.  That we disagree on where the line is sometimes does not mean we should ignore it's existence (not that you are doing that either, but i've seen others imply that and feel it needs to be addressed).

 

Second, did the judge explain why notifying parents when some of the more controversial aspects of the diversity curriculum was being taught was not in the best interest of the families in public school?

 

Third, I don't think it's a legitimate argument that the only way to teach diversity is to teach kids they must accept every diverse belief or family structure as being equal in validity as their own.  Books such as King and King do much more than just identify the existence of SSM, for example, they presents it as an acceptable choice.  I disagree that that is the only way to teach diversity.

 

I believe that a curriculum that teaches people to respect differences they don't necessarily accept would serve our kids and our society much much better.

[Gray]

 Books such as King and King do much more than just identify the existence of SSM, for example, they presents it as an acceptable choice. 

 

That would really be the only valid approach for a public school. The reasons for gay people to not live as gay people are religious in nature, and public schools can't promote a religious view. You can't find good psychological or medical reasons to tell people that it's not acceptable. Therefore anything but the current approach would be inappropriate for public schools. 

[CV75]

The crux of the challenge seems to be what standards should be used for elementary school curriculum to qualify for parental notification.

...

The subsequent issue, as I see it, as what compromise is even available, then...

 

That would really be the only valid approach for a public school. The reasons for gay people to not live as gay people are religious in nature, and public schools can't promote a religious view. You can't find good psychological or medical reasons to tell people that it's not acceptable. Therefore anything but the current approach would be inappropriate for public schools. 

While schools don’t promote a religious view, school administrators should acknowledge that religious people have a valid voice in school policy, and so should accommodate and even encourage their participation. Had this been done, they would not have refused to seek a compromise when asked to provide advance notice for the book. I'm thinking a reevaluation of the effectiveness of the book in meeting the specific aims of the curriculum might have justified instituting an advance notification policy, or even the book's removal from the curriculum.

[bluebell]

That would really be the only valid approach for a public school. The reasons for gay people to not live as gay people are religious in nature, and public schools can't promote a religious view. You can't find good psychological or medical reasons to tell people that it's not acceptable. Therefore anything but the current approach would be inappropriate for public schools. 

 

I actually agree to a point.  It was the idea that King and King (and books like it) were neutral that I had the biggest issue with.  

[Daniel2]

I actually agree to a point.  It was the idea that King and King (and books like it) were neutral that I had the biggest issue with.  

 

I guess I still struggle with your assertion that King and King ISN'T neutral.

 

Maybe it would help if you could answer this for me:  do you believe that fairytales like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Tangled, Frozen, and The Princess and the Frog are neutral?  Are storybook versions of the above appropriate to be read?

[bluebell]

I guess I still struggle with your assertion that King and King ISN'T neutral.

Maybe it would help if you could answer this for me: do you believe that fairytales like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Tangled, Frozen, and The Princess and the Frog are neutral? Are storybook versions of the above appropriate to be read?

No, I don't believe those books are neutral either. One of the main themes of those stories is the joy that comes from the fulfillment of romantic love.

That's definitely not a neutral portrayal of heterosexual relationships.

And let me clarify. It's not the lack of neutrality that makes something appropriate for 6 year olds to be exposed to.

Edited November 4, 2015 by bluebell

[Daniel2]

No, I don't believe those books are neutral either. One of the main themes of those stories is the joy that comes from the fulfillment of romantic love.

That's definitely not a neutral portrayal of heterosexual relationships.

And let me clarify. It's not the lack of neutrality that makes something appropriate for 6 year olds to be exposed to.

 

OK... that's helpful in me understanding where you're coming from.

 

Some follow up questions:

 

Do you believe those that I mentioned to you are appropriate to be read in public American elementary schools?

[rockpond]

You are advancing the wisdom of man (support of same-sex marriage in the Church) based on that which said wisdom concludes hasn’t been revealed. This is like using 1 Nephi 15:9 as rationale when the overarching principle in verse 11 is indeed known, or like using a lack of specificity as permission to deviate from what is known (Mosiah 4:29-30). Or, as Elder Uchtdorf put it, unplugging a spotlight and then blaming the spotlight for not giving any light. So my CFR has to do with doctrine that says otherwise, because that is the claim you seem to be making. Or maybe you can rephrase what you re trying to convey.

 

There have been so many posts between my original point and now that I have not idea which comment you are referring to.  If you'd like to provide a post number, I'll go back and attempt to rephrase for you.

 

But, I assure you that I have no interest in advancing the wisdom of man over the wisdom of God if that is what you are implying.  I've never suggested such a thing.  Do I support legal recognition of gay marriage?  Yes, that's a political position that I feel is supported by both the US constitution and Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Do I pray for the day when our homosexual brothers and sisters can more fully participate in the plan of salvation?  Yes.  Do I think that someday the Lord might reveal further light and knowledge which allows the church to accept gay marriage?  Yes, I think it's possible.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

You are equivocating. Homosexuality can also refer to actions, and in fact most commonly does.

 

And the fact that homosexual acts are always sinful is unquestionably LDS doctrine, and there is no controversy on that point.

 

And that is a correct principle, which the Church will never, ever, need to disavow.

[CV75]

There have been so many posts between my original point and now that I have not idea which comment you are referring to.  If you'd like to provide a post number, I'll go back and attempt to rephrase for you.

 

But, I assure you that I have no interest in advancing the wisdom of man over the wisdom of God if that is what you are implying.  I've never suggested such a thing.  Do I support legal recognition of gay marriage?  Yes, that's a political position that I feel is supported by both the US constitution and Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Do I pray for the day when our homosexual brothers and sisters can more fully participate in the plan of salvation?  Yes.  Do I think that someday the Lord might reveal further light and knowledge which allows the church to accept gay marriage?  Yes, I think it's possible.

I am not implying your interests, only showing what your argument looks like. This is your thread, with your political stance, prayers and possibility formulation put up for discussion and even challenge. In that spirit, I am trying to tie your rationale to LDS doctrine with regards to that last item:

 

You say that you think that it is possible that someday the Lord will reveal further light and knowledge which allows the church to accept gay marriage. I consider this to be the “wisdom of man” because it is the culmination of your thoughts and opinions apart from existing doctrine on the subject which is allegedly lacking until the Lord issues an explicit ruling on gay marriage in terms that are acceptable to you.

 

I explained how that approach doesn’t really work according to the three references I mentioned. My CFR was to see what you’re using in support of that approach, that is, that the wisdom of man trumps current doctrine on the assumption that the Lord hasn’t revealed enough or in a suitable manner.

[rodheadlee]

CFR? What do your want me to reference? That God created this world or that homosexuality exists? For the LDS position on homosexuality, I'd point you to MormonsandGays.org.

In no way does that line of thinking suggest that murder is okay.

No I want you to CFR that God created a world in which homosexuality exists. He created the world but man brought homosexuality and sin into it. He created the world with Adam an Eve not Adam and Steve. It was a terrestrial kingdom until the Fall. 

[rockpond]

You are equivocating. Homosexuality can also refer to actions, and in fact most commonly does.

 

And the fact that homosexual acts are always sinful is unquestionably LDS doctrine, and there is no controversy on that point.

 

And that is a correct principle, which the Church will never, ever, need to disavow.

 

I thought that I was clear with the context in which I used homosexuality.  In any case, I clarified and now you have also clarified.

[rockpond]

No I want you to CFR that God created a world in which homosexuality exists. He created the world but man brought homosexuality and sin into it. He created the world with Adam an Eve not Adam and Steve. It was a terrestrial kingdom until the Fall. 

 

That was answered earlier, but I'll review:

 

1 - God created the world.  (Do you disagree?)

2 - Homosexuality (meaning the sexual orientation) exists in this world.

Therefore, God created a world in which homosexuality exists.  That's the statement I made.  If you want to stretch it into something else, that's fine but don't expect me to provide references for personal interpretations of others.

 

As additional support the claim you'll note that others cited Elder Holland's statement about homosexual orientation being "complex reality" for some individuals (see MormonsandGays.org).  There we have an apostle stating that homosexual orientation is a reality.  I assume that he was referring to THIS world, God's creation.  Again showing that God created a world in which homosexuality exists.

[bluebell]

OK... that's helpful in me understanding where you're coming from.

 

Some follow up questions:

 

Do you believe those that I mentioned to you are appropriate to be read in public American elementary schools?

 

They could be (probably are in most cases), but since i haven't been able to read the books i can't say for certain.

 

I don't necessarily believe that King and King (and books like it) are not acceptable for elementary school kids, but i have questions about the appropriateness of forcing them on parents without notification and the age at which they are introduced.  I know that a lot of the public school system is indoctrinating children to accept the belief system of society, and in that regard, what is appropriate for school is whatever the government says is appropriate, for good or ill.  

 

When we send our kids to public school we acknowledge that.  At the same time though, I bristle whenever the public school system begins to act like it owns my kids, and when a school refuses to notify parents that something controversial is going to happen just because it doesn't have to, what i hear the school (and the government) saying is "these are our kids, not your's."  That's not a big deal if a parent is on the same side as the school or the government, but it becomes a very big deal when they are on the opposite side.  

 

And society's belief system is pretty fickle so we'll probably all be on the opposite side at some point and therefore should be more willing to err on the side of caution.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

I've just realised how your lot justify the claim that the Church has changed its position on homosexual "orientation." By taking past statements about homosexuality, and insisting that that word "refers to one's orientation," you claim that former Church leaders were condemning homosexual "orientation" as sinful.

This is, of course, undiluted wastewater from a pig cleaning facility. The notion of "sexual orientation" is a recent cultural construct that does not inform the statements of any Church leaders prior to the current generation. All those prior statements apply to homosexual deeds, and nothing else.

[rockpond]

I've just realised how your lot justify the claim that the Church has changed its position on homosexual "orientation." By taking past statements about homosexuality, and insisting that that word "refers to one's orientation," you claim that former Church leaders were condemning homosexual "orientation" as sinful.

This is, of course, undiluted wastewater from a pig cleaning facility. The notion of "sexual orientation" is a recent cultural construct that does not inform the statements of any Church leaders prior to the current generation. All those prior statements apply to homosexual deeds, and nothing else.

 

I've not argued that the church has changed its position on homosexual acts being sinful.  I agree with you that they have not.

 

Nor have I intentionally tried to misrepresent past statements about homosexuality.  What you'll notice about past church teachings is that the differentiation between having a homosexual orientation and acting out on that orientation has only started to surface in the past couple decades.  And this is a big part of the change in church teachings and position that I often refer to...

 

As you point out, there was a time when the Brethren didn't seem to acknowledge the difference between homosexuality as an orientation and sinful acts.  But, as their teachings have come to acknowledge that difference we've seen great developments in doctrine.

[Russell C McGregor]

I've not argued that the church has changed its position on homosexual acts being sinful.  I agree with you that they have not.

 

Nor have I intentionally tried to misrepresent past statements about homosexuality.  What you'll notice about past church teachings is that the differentiation between having a homosexual orientation and acting out on that orientation has only started to surface in the past couple decades.  And this is a big part of the change in church teachings and position that I often refer to...

 

As you point out, there was a time when the Brethren didn't seem to acknowledge the difference between homosexuality as an orientation and sinful acts.  But, as their teachings have come to acknowledge that difference we've seen great developments in doctrine.

 

And you're still doing it.

 

What you'll notice about the notion of "sexual orientation" is that the very concept "has only started to surface in the past couple decades."

 

It is not the case that prior Church teachings "didn't seem to acknowledge the difference between homosexuality as an orientation and sinful acts." It is the case that "orientation" simply wasn't part of the conversation.

[jkwilliams]

And you're still doing it.

 

What you'll notice about the notion of "sexual orientation" is that the very concept "has only started to surface in the past couple decades."

 

It is not the case that prior Church teachings "didn't seem to acknowledge the difference between homosexuality as an orientation and sinful acts." It is the case that "orientation" simply wasn't part of the conversation.

I've always interpreted the repeated teaching that God didn't make gay men "that way" to refer to orientation as it is now understood. President Kimball said it was blasphemy for homosexuals to say they were born that way. I think rockpond is correct in his statement that in prior times, there was little distinction between the desire and the act. The many pamphlets suggesting that homosexuals can be "cured" deal partly with behavior but also with getting homosexuals to rid themselves of the desire and become "normal" again. I suppose one distinction seems to be that the desire is a sickness, but even then, the very notion of orientation is condemned as blasphemous. So, in practice, there wasn't much difference between the thought and the act.

Where the church has changed is in its belief that it's not a choice. Essentially, the church agrees that some people are "born that way."

Edited November 5, 2015 by jkwilliams

[rockpond]

And you're still doing it.

 

What you'll notice about the notion of "sexual orientation" is that the very concept "has only started to surface in the past couple decades."

 

It is not the case that prior Church teachings "didn't seem to acknowledge the difference between homosexuality as an orientation and sinful acts." It is the case that "orientation" simply wasn't part of the conversation.

 

The concept of sexual orientation (homosexual and heterosexual) was around as far back as the 1940's (Kinsey).  Early discussion of orientation (though not using the terms homosexual & heterosexual) goes back to the 1860's (Ulrichs).  So the concept has been around a lot longer than a couple of decades.

 

Church teachings on homosexuality (acts or orientation) seem to start in the 1960's, formalized in 1970 with the "Hope for Transgressors" pamphlet.  If you want to see the change in church teachings on homosexuality, you could start by comparing/contrasting that pamphlet with the writings on MormonsandGays.org.

[Russell C McGregor]

The concept of sexual orientation (homosexual and heterosexual) was around as far back as the 1940's (Kinsey).

Yeah, Kinsey is a wonderfully credible source. Tell us again about the mythical 10%?

Early discussion of orientation (though not using the terms homosexual & heterosexual) goes back to the 1860's (Ulrichs). So the concept has been around a lot longer than a couple of decades.

But it hasn't been in the forefront of the consciousness of decent people.

Exactly why do you think Church leaders should be listening to those who were merely crusading for immorality?

I must say, you do seem to know rather a lot about this topic. Almost as if you had a dog in the fight.

I'm finding that I'm learning a lot from our discussions on this topic. For example, I didn't know that Ulrichs pioneered the now-standard immoralist ploy of accusing their opponents of having "driven" them, or others like them, "to suicide ."

 

Church teachings on homosexuality (acts or orientation) seem to start in the 1960's, formalized in 1970 with the "Hope for Transgressors" pamphlet.  If you want to see the change in church teachings on homosexuality, you could start by comparing/contrasting that pamphlet with the writings on MormonsandGays.org.

Oh, so it's addressed to "Transgressors," is it?

I thought "transgressors" are those who commit actual sins, aren't they?

[rockpond]

Yeah, Kinsey is a wonderfully credible source. Tell us again about the mythical 10%?

But it hasn't been in the forefront of the consciousness of decent people.

Exactly why do you think Church leaders should be listening to those who were merely crusading for immorality?

I must say, you do seem to know rather a lot about this topic. Almost as if you had a dog in the fight.

I'm finding that I'm learning a lot from our discussions on this topic. For example, I didn't know that Ulrichs pioneered the now-standard immoralist ploy of accusing their opponents of having "driven" them, or others like them, "to suicide ."

 

Oh, so it's addressed to "Transgressors," is it?

I thought "transgressors" are those who commit actual sins, aren't they?

 

I didn't suggest that church leaders or anyone should be listening to (reading) Kinsey or Ulrichs.  I cited them to counter your incorrect assertion about when the general discussion of sexual orientation began.

 

And yes, I do know a lot about the topic.  I've posted on here before about why I began studying the subject... I was a YM president and had two gay young men in the priests quorum.  I felt that I needed to truly understand church teachings on the subject (this was back in the day when those teachings were far less pronounced than they are now).

 

As for having a "dog in the fight"... I think we all do.  Statistically, all of us are likely to have at least one extended family member who is gay.  And we are members of a church that has gay members.

 

Yes, transgressors are those who commit sins.  Whew, glad we got that one out of the way!