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

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

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

No, I'm giving more than a casual, biased look at Elder Jensen's remarks and think I understand them. He does not say "more," he says "different," not as a synonym for "more" but to offer a more accurate perspective of what is going on. Likewise, in every instance, he uses the term "gay person," not "gay member" or "gay Mormon." The bottom line is agency: "The thing that we have to ultimately say ... is, yes, there's nature; yes, there's nurture; but there's also agency. We all have the capacity and power to choose." Recognizing the difficulty for "some" he has ministered to over the years, rather than framing it in terms of "more," he clarifies, "...we do ask for something different..."

Edited March 8, 2016 by CV75

[Sky]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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.

I haven't seen much evidence here of any poster besides myself actively trying to promote the content in mormonsandgays.org.  But perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder?      

I simply want to see more "TBM's" on this board take a more active role in that.  I'm calling them out for this - including you, Scott.    

My position is simply this:  when it comes to LGBT issues in the Church, we should be focusing at least as much of our attention (if not more) on compassion and outreach as we do to condemning the sin.  I'm not just some evil, liberal apostate trying to pressure the Church to change its doctrine.     

     

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Sky said:

I haven't seen much evidence here of any poster besides myself actively trying to promote the content in mormonsandgays.org.  But perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder?      

I simply want to see more "TBM's" on this board take a more active role in that.  I'm calling them out for this - including you, Scott.    

My position is simply this:  when it comes to LGBT issues in the Church, we should be focusing at least as much of our attention (if not more) on compassion and outreach as we do to condemning the sin.  I'm not just some evil, liberal apostate trying to pressure the Church to change its doctrine.     

     

I'm totally on board with what's in mormonsandgays.org. I have always been. I've even quoted from it here in recent days.

And I don't do a lot of "condemning the sin" in my interaction here. Mostly what I do is resist pressure from unauthorized individuals to try to steer the Church off course, or I defend efforts to resist such pressure.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

I was not around, but luckily we can access records of information. 

Well here's a start, Scott.  I'm pretty we've talked about it before:

1949 First Presidency Statement:

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)¹

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

What is doctrine according to this statement?  Well "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth".

Wouldn't be sure how you avoid it.

[Sky]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm totally on board with what's in mormonsandgays.org. I have always been.

And I don't do a lot of "condemning the sin" in my interaction here. Mostly what I do is resist pressure to try to steer the Church off course, or defend efforts to resist such pressure.

 

Seems like a battle of semantics to me (in part).  But I'm glad you are on board with mormonsandgays.org.  Not all conservative members were, especially at first.  And I still question if very many of them are fully on board or not.   

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Sky said:

I haven't seen much evidence here of any poster besides myself actively trying to promote the content in mormonsandgays.org.  But perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder?      

I simply want to see more "TBM's" on this board take a more active role in that.  I'm calling them out for this - including you, Scott.    

My position is simply this:  when it comes to LGBT issues in the Church, we should be focusing at least as much of our attention (if not more) on compassion and outreach as we do to condemning the sin.  I'm not just some evil, liberal apostate trying to pressure the Church to change its doctrine.     

     

Promoting the content of mormonandgays.org serves little to address the OPs, questions and discussions in this particular thread, and otehr threads carrying the same "tags." from many of the responses, it seems that many if not all who participate in these threads are well-informed by the site and other sources.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was not around, but luckily we can access records of information. 

Well here's a start, Scott.  I'm pretty we've talked about it before:

1949 First Presidency Statement:

 

 

What is doctrine according to this statement?  Well "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth".

Wouldn't be sure how you avoid it.

What I see here is an acknowledgement of the self-evident reality that people are born into various conditions and circumstances, that some have greater advantages than others, and that the spirit children of our Heavenly Father are so eager to receive the blessings of mortality that they are willing to assume whatever conditions they might have to deal with. This is true for everybody, not just for persons of a certain ethnicity.

The statement quite rightly acknowledges that "the details of this principle have not been made known," and it is quite obvious that the reason for the priesthood restriction was not known at the time this statement was drafted. Nor, apparently, has it been made known yet, even today.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Sky said:

Seems like a battle of semantics to me (in part).  

I can't say I know what you mean by that.

Quote

 

But I'm glad you are on board with mormonsandgays.org.  Not all conservative members were, especially at first.  And I still question if very many of them are fully on board or not.   

 

If there was or is opposition to mormonsandgays.org, I'm out of the loop on that. You'll have to take that up with the opponents, if there be any.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Promoting the content of mormonandgays.org serves little to address the OPs, questions and discussions in this particular thread, and otehr threads carrying the same "tags." from many of the responses, it seems that many if not all who participate in these threads are well-informed by the site and other sources.

Speaking of which, have we drifted afield from the thread topic?

[Sky]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If there was or is opposition to mormonsandgays.org, I'm out of the loop on that. You'll have to take that up with the opponents, if there be any.

I speak from real, lived experience as a gay/SSA member of the LDS Church, and my interactions with other people in a similar situation, if that is worth anything to you.  I can only recall the website being mentioned once in church (where I attend) in the nearly 4 years since it's been out.  I don't recall it ever being mentioned during any General Conference.  When I told my stake president about it, he wasn't fully aware of its existence.  And the website is nearly impossible to access from the main LDS.org website.  Why is that?

We can do better than this, Scott.         

Edited March 8, 2016 by Sky

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I see here is an acknowledgement of the self-evident reality that people are born into various conditions and circumstances, that some have greater advantages than others, and that the spirit children of our Heavenly Father are so eager to receive the blessings of mortality that they are willing to assume whatever conditions they might have to deal with. This is true for everybody, not just for persons of a certain ethnicity.

The statement quite rightly acknowledges that "the details of this principle have not been made known," and it is quite obvious that the reason for the priesthood restriction was not known at the time this statement was drafted. Nor, apparently, has it been made known yet, even today.

They claimed to know the doctrine about why the priesthood was restricted from black people, "Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes".  SOmehow you are reading this to say they aren't claiming to know. 

It will always be that we mortals will perceive things in a limited way.  That is not bad.  it is just what we have.  Just as they First Presidency in '49 thought they knew why the priesthood was withheld but didn't, there may be things officially sanctioned and taught by the 1st Presidency of today that is wrong, but they do not realize it.

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, Sky said:

the website is nearly impossible to access from the main LDS.org website.  Why is that?

       

A number of very helpful things are difficult to access in/from lds.org.  The entire site is organized so poorly that I've always found it easier to use google than try and find it on the web site or use the sites search box. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Sky said:

I speak from real, lived experience as a gay/SSA member of the LDS Church, and my interactions with other people in a similar situation, if that is worth anything to you.  I can only recall the website being mentioned once in church (where I attend) in the nearly 4 years since it's been out.  I don't recall it ever being mentioned during any General Conference.  When I told my stake president about it, he wasn't fully aware of its existence.  And the website is nearly impossible to access from the main LDS.org website.  Why is that?

We can do better than this, Scott.         

I agree, and I wish more people were aware of it.

Unfortunately, you can lead a person to content, but you can't make him read. I attended a lecture couple of weeks ago by Darius Gray and Margaret Young in which they mentioned that only a tiny fraction of Church members were even aware of the "Race and the Priesthood" Gospel Topics essay on lds.org, and an even smaller percentage had read it. We tend to give attention to what impacts us personally, that's the way of human nature, and there is a lot we miss.

As for accessing it from the main website, most any street-smart Internet navigator knows that you can find stuff much faster with a Google search than with a website's own navigation tree or search function. And there is always a ton of stuff vying for real-estate on that main page. I don't know what the solution is (not that anybody over there cares what I think anyway).

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Speaking of which, have we drifted afield from the thread topic?

LOL I think so! But it seems for some, same-sex issues beget priesthood ban issues beget polygamy issues -- "endless [and interbred] genealogies" having the same argument!

To enjoy a measure of happiness in Christ, those that have felt offense must forgive, and those that suppose they possess greater light must operate through the councils.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They claimed to know the doctrine about why the priesthood was restricted from black people, "Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes".  SOmehow you are reading this to say they aren't claiming to know. 

It will always be that we mortals will perceive things in a limited way.  That is not bad.  it is just what we have.  Just as they First Presidency in '49 thought they knew why the priesthood was withheld but didn't, there may be things officially sanctioned and taught by the 1st Presidency of today that is wrong, but they do not realize it.

I don't concede they say here that they know the reason for ban. That has never been revealed.

But I won't go back and forth with you on this. This is not a thread about race and the priesthood.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They claimed to know the doctrine about why the priesthood was restricted from black people, "Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes".  SOmehow you are reading this to say they aren't claiming to know. 

It will always be that we mortals will perceive things in a limited way.  That is not bad.  it is just what we have.  Just as they First Presidency in '49 thought they knew why the priesthood was withheld but didn't, there may be things officially sanctioned and taught by the 1st Presidency of today that is wrong, but they do not realize it.

I don't concede they say here that they know the reason for ban. That has never been revealed.

But I won't go back and forth with you on this. This is not a thread about race and the priesthood.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

They claimed to know the doctrine about why the priesthood was restricted from black people, "Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes".  SOmehow you are reading this to say they aren't claiming to know. 

It will always be that we mortals will perceive things in a limited way.  That is not bad.  it is just what we have.  Just as they First Presidency in '49 thought they knew why the priesthood was withheld but didn't, there may be things officially sanctioned and taught by the 1st Presidency of today that is wrong, but they do not realize it.

I don't concede they say here that they know the reason for ban. That reason has never been revealed.

But I won't go back and forth with you on this. This is not a thread about race and the priesthood.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

But we aren't supposed to be blindly obedient to our leaders.

 

Right?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

I speak from real, lived experience as a gay/SSA member of the LDS Church, and my interactions with other people in a similar situation, if that is worth anything to you.  I can only recall the website being mentioned once in church (where I attend) in the nearly 4 years since it's been out.  I don't recall it ever being mentioned during any General Conference.  When I told my stake president about it, he wasn't fully aware of its existence.  And the website is nearly impossible to access from the main LDS.org website.  Why is that?

We can do better than this, Scott.         

But when the LDS Church wants its members to know about "Meet the Mormons" coming to a theater near them, the leaders sure know how to get the word out, don't they?

[consiglieri]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede they say here that they know the reason for ban. That reason has never been revealed.

But I won't go back and forth with you on this. This is not a thread about race and the priesthood.

 

You are being thick on purpose, Scott.

Yes, the Church leaders obviously say here they know the reason for the ban. 

The fact you "don't concede" the obvious here speaks more to your mentality than the clarity of the 1949 First Presidency Statement.

But I can understand why you want to get out of this discussion as soon as possible.

The implications of the officially sanctioned rationale behind the priesthood ban is devastating to your position on the Church's current gay policy.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by consiglieri

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The implications of the officially sanctioned rationale behind the priesthood ban is devastating to your position on the Church's current gay policy.

They are not. The old “They Were Wrong Before; They Could Be Wrong Again” doctrine is too weak to work as a valid justification for opposing current Church practices.

If a saint thinks past leaders were wrong or mistaken or amiss, he will forgive and bask in the greater light and knowledge we have today. If he thinks they are wrong now, or could be wrong “again,” he will trust that the Source of his enlightenment will ensure his involvement or views in His councils as the Restoration rolls forth. If he fears they could be wrong “again,” he draws upon his faith in the Lord and sustains His servants as He requires.

In this way, he is a happy man as the old ship Zion moves forward. "I Forgave [Trusted, Had Faith]  Before; I Will Forgive [Trust, Have Faith] Again." When we forgive others, we usually find out where we were wrong (and vice versa)!

[Russell C McGregor]

8 hours 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."

That's false.

Brazenly. Clearly.

So, was it intentional?

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Whom should I believe?  President Hunter or Apostle Bednar?

A clear false dilemma.

It really was intentional, wasn't it?

Here's what Dan Peterson said about Elder Bednar's remark:

Quote

It was, I think, a response deliberately formulated in order to arrest the attention of his audience and to provoke thoughtful reflection.

Thoughtful reflection, though, doesn’t serve the agendas of ardent and intellectually dishonest polemicists.

 

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Sky said:

I speak from real, lived experience as a gay/SSA member of the LDS Church, and my interactions with other people in a similar situation, if that is worth anything to you.  I can only recall the website being mentioned once in church (where I attend) in the nearly 4 years since it's been out.  I don't recall it ever being mentioned during any General Conference.  When I told my stake president about it, he wasn't fully aware of its existence.  And the website is nearly impossible to access from the main LDS.org website.  Why is that?

Why? Because it's a conspiracy, of course!

4 hours ago, Sky said:

We can do better than this, Scott.         

I hope so.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I was not around, but luckily we can access records of information. 

Well here's a start, Scott.  I'm pretty we've talked about it before:

1949 First Presidency Statement:

 

 

What is doctrine according to this statement?  Well "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth".

Wouldn't be sure how you avoid it.

Nothing to "avoid."

It doesn't purport to offer reasons. It actually says something else, namely that the belief in a premortal existence makes all sorts of earthly inequalities explainable.

But it describes the conditions in the most general of terms.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

10 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

Let's see: you, of all people, are accusing Elder Bednar, of all people, of being "disingenuous?"

Hey, iron pot, meet silver kettle!