Why would any LGBT person want to be a member of the COJCOLDS?

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

Compare that with an investigator with SSA.  What does the Church have to offer them?

As a zone leader, I interviewed for baptism a man who for 12 years had identified as 'gay' and who had been very sexually active during that time. He had a very good answer to your question, but I'm not sure I can even share it in this forum.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You mean like when Elder Bednar said there are no homosexual members of the Church?

Elder Bednar just erased your friend out of existence . . . at least as a Church member.

How hard would it have been for Elder Bednar to drop the posturing and semantics and just answer the question with, "We as Mormons need to do everything possible to make everybody feel welcome in our church, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Or is that just too obvious?

 

Exactly. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not mistaken.

You are no doubt mistaken about many things, as we all are.  SOme day you will probably be granted the privilege of seeing clearly and understand that your old self was greatly mistaken.  We'll all have a bit of a laugh at our own follies, I'm guessing. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The policy update -- revelatory and inspired as it was -- was necessary to maintain boundaries in a world that is loping off into ungodliness in many ways. Perhaps the hurt feelings were inevitable if that was to happen.

Again, no one can change the laws and commandments of God, especially not anointed prophets and apostles.

Ah but they have so changed them.  As it was there was a time when prophets and apostles told the people that they knew the reason for the priesthood ban.  Now-a-days we say they were wrong.  They tried, with human weakness and the inability to see clearly as the culprit, to change the laws and commandments of God, in this case.  We should forever be aware that human weakness extends to our prophets and apostles and not pretend they do not err.  They surely do.  And as it's been they have erred in big ways.  I can't hold it against them because I am no better. 

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

You mean like when Elder Bednar said there are no homosexual members of the Church?

Elder Bednar just erased your friend out of existence . . . at least as a Church member.

How hard would it have been for Elder Bednar to drop the posturing and semantics and just answer the question with, "We as Mormons need to do everything possible to make everybody feel welcome in our church, regardless of their sexual orientation."

Or is that just too obvious?

 

That's disingenuous.  Elder Bednar was saying these labels do not exist in the Church. Of course, people do.

There are many individuals in the Church who reject such labels while having similarities in every other way. There are also people in ss relationships who reject those labels as well.

[Storm Rider]

35 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's disingenuous.  Elder Bednar was saying these labels do not exist in the Church. Of course, people do.

There are many individuals in the Church who reject such labels while having similarities in every other way. There are also people in ss relationships who reject those labels as well.

Consig is not stupid and he knows what Elder Bednar meant.  He is taking his words out of context on purpose.  Trolls do that kind of thing; they are not interested in discussion or exchange of ideas.  There was a reason he was banned before and it is that time again.  

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's disingenuous.  Elder Bednar was saying these labels do not exist in the Church. Of course, people do.

There are many individuals in the Church who reject such labels while having similarities in every other way. There are also people in ss relationships who reject those labels as well.

I believe Elder Bednar was being disingenuous in completely redefining a commonly understood word to suit his personal agenda.

Taking his comments in context, it appears Elder Bednar redefined the word "homosexual" to mean not just a person who experiences same sex attraction, but who acts on that attraction.

It is because Elder Bednar chose to create this forced and exclusive definition of the word "homosexual" that he allowed himself to say the morally reprehensible and intellectually confusing, "There are no homosexual members of the church." 

But Elder Bednar is inconsistent.  If he defines "homosexuals" as those who act on same sex attraction, he must also define "heterosexuals" as those who act on opposite sex attraction.

To be consistent, Elder Bednar would have to say that most of the youth and YSA are not "heterosexual members of the church," because they have not acted on their attractions.

In fact, Elder Bednar would have to say that following the Law of Chastity is designed to prevent there from being "heterosexual members of the church."

Until they are married, of course.

If all goes according to plan, heterosexuals should spring into existence full blown on the wedding night.

And absent weddings for those with same sex attractions, there will indeed be "no homosexual members of the church."

Welcome to wonderland.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I believe Elder Bednar was being disingenuous in completely redefining a commonly understood word...

“This is the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of marrieds or singles or any other group or individual. The gospel we preach is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which encompasses all the saving ordinances and covenants necessary to save and exalt every individual who is willing to accept Christ and keep the commandments that he and our Father in Heaven have given.” -- President Hunter! From “The Church Is for All People,” Ensign, June 1989, 77

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-16-marriage-an-eternal-partnership?lang=eng

 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Sky said:

I think Elder Marlin K. Jensen hit the nail on the head with this:  (see: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html).  But he is now an emeritus member of the Seventy and a Democrat after all, so what does he know!?  

"And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing."

"We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we've been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It's very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don't have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard -- in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard -- on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it's a wonderful life. If you don't, it could be very difficult. …"

 

 

 

I believe the Church leadership of late -- Elder Jensen included -- have been as loving and inclusive as they possibly can within the parameters of the laws and commandments of God, which they cannot change. Indeed, to pretend to do so does not do anyone any good and, hence, in the long run, is not being kind to anyone.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

You are no doubt mistaken about many things, as we all are.  SOme day you will probably be granted the privilege of seeing clearly and understand that your old self was greatly mistaken.  We'll all have a bit of a laugh at our own follies, I'm guessing. 

I am not mistaken on the point you contradicted me on, which is that the Church is being as inclusive as it can within the confines of the laws and commandments of God.

[Rivers]

Why would an LGBT person want to join the church?

Why would somebody want to join the Catholic ministry or be a nun?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ah but they have so changed them.  As it was there was a time when prophets and apostles told the people that they knew the reason for the priesthood ban.  Now-a-days we say they were wrong.  They tried, with human weakness and the inability to see clearly as the culprit, to change the laws and commandments of God, in this case.  We should forever be aware that human weakness extends to our prophets and apostles and not pretend they do not err.  They surely do.  And as it's been they have erred in big ways.  I can't hold it against them because I am no better. 

Some individuals erred in past years by doing what Elder Ballard recently characterized as "over-claiming." That is, they tried to offer explanations in the absence of direct revelation and, in so doing, they perhaps made a difficult matter worse.

But they did not err in declining to act in lifting the restriction before they received clear revelation from God to do so. That President Kimball spent years praying for a revelation and did not receive it until June 1978, tells me that the answer to the question of whether the restriction should be lifted was "no." It followed the pattern that has been taught over and over again:  a stupor of thought (in this case, a collective stupor of thought among the Brethren) is to be interpreted as a "no" answer.

In any event, the above happened generations ago. What is before us today is the matter of anointed prophets and apostles of God expressing with unanimity and certainty His mind and will and resisting pressure to make changes in defiance of His mind and will.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

“This is the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of marrieds or singles or any other group or individual. The gospel we preach is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which encompasses all the saving ordinances and covenants necessary to save and exalt every individual who is willing to accept Christ and keep the commandments that he and our Father in Heaven have given.” -- President Hunter! From “The Church Is for All People,” Ensign, June 1989, 77

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-16-marriage-an-eternal-partnership?lang=eng

 

If the Church is indeed "for all people," as President Hunter claimed, that would include homosexuals.

But Elder Bednar has contradicted President Hunter on this point, saying "there are no homosexual members of the Church."

Whom should I believe?  President Hunter or Apostle Bednar?

 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Sky said:

I think Elder Marlin K. Jensen hit the nail on the head with this:  (see: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html).  But he is now an emeritus member of the Seventy and a Democrat after all, so what does he know!?  

"And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing."

"We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we've been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It's very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don't have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard -- in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard -- on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it's a wonderful life. If you don't, it could be very difficult. …"

Yes, he hit the nail on the head.

He says we ask for something different, not something more. In principle, this goes for any situation and circumstance.

He is pointing out the principle that hope for justification is diminished when one is truly committed to a way of life that is different from that which is sanctioned by the Church, both culturally and in doctrine.

He says it could be very difficult to be different (which is the case within any culture), hence our need to be even more charitable and overreaching in a sense.

He speaks of commitment to a way of life in heart and mind: Zion is a way of life also, and we have a choice.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

If the Church is indeed "for all people," as President Hunter claimed, that would include homosexuals.

But Elder Bednar has contradicted President Hunter on this point, saying "there are no homosexual members of the Church."

Whom should I believe?  President Hunter or Apostle Bednar?

Odd... they are saying the same thing:

Hunter:

“This is the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of …any other group or individual.”

Bednar:

“…in this question [a] word … was used to describe or label a member of the Church.  It’s an inaccurate label.  We are sons and daughters of God."

"There are many members of the Church who may have some manifestation of [a challenge that can be labeled].  They honor their covenants.  They keep the commandments.  They are worthy, they can receive the blessings of the Temple, and they can serve in the Church."

"The purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior’s Church, is to assist people…”

So believe them both and repent!

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by CV75

[Ahab]

The solution is simple in theory even if sometimes difficult to implement. And it's the same solution for everybody in principle even if or when people are in different circumstances. 

Just stop doing what you should not be doing and do your very best to overcome any temptations to do what you should not do again.  Doing only what you should be doing instead. 

Doing things that aren't good to do is hard to do only if or when you want to do what you should not be doing.  

Otherwise you should be very very happy to be doing only what you should be doing. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am not mistaken on the point you contradicted me on, which is that the Church is being as inclusive as it can within the confines of the laws and commandments of God.

I tend to think the opposite, there is plenty of room for improvement in this area in particular. 

[Sky]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the Church leadership of late -- Elder Jensen included -- have been as loving and inclusive as they possibly can within the parameters of the laws and commandments of God, which they cannot change. Indeed, to pretend to do so does not do anyone any good and, hence, in the long run, is not being kind to anyone.

 

 

Well, Elder Jensen also once said this when speaking to the Oakland California Stake, referring to the legacy of Prop 8:  

"To the full extent of my capacity, I say that I am sorry…I know that very many good people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better of us."   http://religiondispatches.org/mormon-leader-im-sorry-for-hurtful-legacy-of-prop-8/

Instead of condemning them and harping on the laws and commandments of God in a holier-than-thou sort of way, he acknowledged their pain and empathized with them.  What a concept.  A General Authority did that, no less!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

Well, Elder Jensen also once said this when speaking to the Oakland California Stake, referring to the legacy of Prop 8:  

"To the full extent of my capacity, I say that I am sorry…I know that very many good people have been deeply hurt, and I know that the Lord expects better of us."   http://religiondispatches.org/mormon-leader-im-sorry-for-hurtful-legacy-of-prop-8/

Instead of condemning them and harping on the laws and commandments of God in a holier-than-thou sort of way, he acknowledged their pain and empathized with them.  What a concept.  A General Authority did that, no less!

 

It's not a question of condemning others in a holier-than-thou sort of way. (I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ or its leaders doing that, and it's unrighteous judgement to imply that they are.)

It's a matter of resistance to pressure to alter the laws and commandments of God to suit the whims of a capricious society.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, he hit the nail on the head.

He says we ask for something different, not something more. In principle, this goes for any situation and circumstance.

He is pointing out the principle that hope for justification is diminished when one is truly committed to a way of life that is different from that which is sanctioned by the Church, both culturally and in doctrine.

He says it could be very difficult to be different (which is the case within any culture), hence our need to be even more charitable and overreaching in a sense.

He speaks of commitment to a way of life in heart and mind: Zion is a way of life also, and we have a choice.

 

Are you really suggesting that something more is not expected of gay Mormons, in order to remain in good standing with the Church?  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Some individuals erred in past years by doing what Elder Ballard recently characterized as "over-claiming." That is, they tried to offer explanations in the absence of direct revelation. But they did not err in declining to act in lifting the restriction before they received clear revelation from God to do so.

 

Either way, proclaiming officially doctrines that were not true as true, whether in ignorance or not, is the problem.  We know not how often that has happen and how frequently it will happen going forward. 

This is not a bad thing, it is reality.  A reality we have to live with and deal with.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I tend to think the opposite, there is plenty of room for improvement in this area in particular. 

While you are entitled to your opinion, I am not bound by it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Either way, proclaiming officially doctrines that were not true as true, whether in ignorance or not, is the problem. 

Is "proclaiming official doctrines that were not true as true" really what happened? That's not what I remember (though I do remember individual expression of opinion), and I was born in 1954 and was well into my young adulthood by 1978. And throughout my life, I have always been active in the Church. I repeat, I don't remember any definitive or authoritative statement about the reason for the pre-1978 restriction, only that it was in conformance with the will of God for the time being.

Where were you during that time?

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a question of condemning others in a holier-than-thou sort of way. (I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ or its leaders doing that, and it's unrighteous judgement to imply that they are.)

It's a matter of resistance to pressure to alter the laws and commandments of God to suit the whims of a fickle society.

Well, many times that's how it comes across, whether intended or not.  And I wasn't referring to the leaders of the Church, so much as I was to certain posters on this board and the general Church membership...  

We can harp on the commandments of God all day long.  We can use the Law of Chastity as a baseball bat to beat people up that don't meet our expectations.  Will that get them to do what we want them to do?  Most likely not.   

I don't argue that homosexual activity is considered a sin according to our understanding of God's laws.  I know that.  

I'm asking for greater compassion and outreach than we now have, and that's something that our leaders have called on us to do, as outlined in mormonsandgays.org.  How we treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters matters, too.

D&C 121: 42-43 -

"By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile" -

"Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards and increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;"

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Sky said:

Well, many times that's how it comes across, whether intended or not.  And I wasn't referring to the leaders of the Church, so much as I was to certain posters on this board and the general Church membership...  

We can harp on the commandments of God all day long.  We can use the Law of Chastity as a baseball bat to beat people up that don't meet our expectations.  Will that get them to do what we want them to do?  Most likely not.   

I don't argue that homosexual activity is considered a sin according to our understanding of God's laws.  I know that.  

I'm asking for greater compassion and outreach than we now have, and that's something that our leaders have called on us to do, as outlined in mormonsandgays.org.  How we treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters matters, too.

D&C 121: 42-43 -

"By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile" -

"Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards and increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;"

 

 

I haven't seen anyone here arguing against being compassionate within the parameters of the laws and commandments of God, or taking exception to the content in mormonsandgays.org. (Perhaps someone did; I don't claim to have read everything here exhaustively.)

But speaking or writing in open opposition to the position of the Church or its leaders -- even if one does it anonymously -- goes quite beyond the pale.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd