Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On March 7, 28 Heisei at 2:23 PM, Sky said:

quoting problems...

While it takes a few steps, I found it relatively easy to access the site.  I searched the term "homosexuality", clicked on the first hit that came up, which was the Gospel Topic...which then did redirect me to Same Sex Attraction, but then in that article, a link to the mormonsandgays site was in the first paragraph:

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

Link to post
12 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

 

Hey Mr. McGregor.  I'm intrigued by this viewpoint that you and Scott are promoting, wondering how it squares with what we have and know. 

In the Race and the Priesthood essay it reads, "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"

Yet in the '49 1st Presidency statement it avows both of these theories, "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."

Thus, that which the Church disavowed in recent years was avowed in '49 even back to Brigham Young.  The teaching was, in BY's and the 1st Presidency in 49, clearly, black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or a curse.  And then the '49 statement also suggests those with black skin were so cursed because of their unrighteous actions in the premortal life.  Says the '49 statement, "Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."  Thus, it is claimed the curse was given to black people as a "handicap" for their poor conduct in the pre-earth world. 

How do you escape the obvious? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
16 hours 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.

 

That's fine, Scott.  But your claim here is untenable.  The whole point of the '49 statement is to address the reason for the ban.  They claimed two reasons:

1.  They are "cursed" as a consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the priesthood and the law of God. 

2.  They accept the "handicap" of black skin due to their poor conduct in the pre earth world. 

Those two reasons are, today, clearly unequivocally rejected and it has been replaced with a "well we don't know why it ever was". 

SO we clearly have prophets of the past teaching things that were not from God as if they were from God.  I dont' fault them, necessarily.  They were given the mantle to teach and drew wrong conclusions.  It happened then and it likely happens today.  Our leaders have the obstacles of human weakness and the human inability to see the big picture, if you will.  It logically causes them to draw wrong conclusions from time to time and to teach things officially that are not from God.   

Edited by stemelbow
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 4:47 PM, busybee said:

Is the same not required of those (heterosexual) who do not have the opportunity to marry? This is not a sacrifice that is unique to those who are LGBT. Unmarried heterosexuals too have to remain celibate to remain worthy members of the church if they never marry.

 

And yes, I would be willing to make that sacrifice if it were required of me.

Would you be willing to accept not only a lifetime but an eternity of no physical or emotional intimacy with another person? The difference between what is being said to the LGBT community and what you're suggesting is that they don't even have a HOPE that things can or will be different in eternity. That's a pretty massive difference.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's fine, Scott.  But your claim here is untenable.  The whole point of the '49 statement is to address the reason for the ban. 

Hey stemelbow, did you notice that this 1949 statement affirms that the priesthood one day would be given to those of African ancestry?

Where is the First Presidency statement (or any other statement from Church leaders) affirming that homosexual relationships will one day be approved and solemnized in the temples?

Isn't that your whole point in dredging this thing up? To prop up your vain hope that Church leaders will one day back down on the matter of homosexual behavior being sinful and unchaste? Is there a statement from Church leaders that even hints that this one day might happen?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would you be willing to accept not only a lifetime but an eternity of no physical or emotional intimacy with another person? The difference between what is being said to the LGBT community and what you're suggesting is that they don't even have a HOPE that things can or will be different in eternity. That's a pretty massive difference.

The hope is that in the eternities, they will have opportunity and inclination to be sealed together in a proper marital relationship with someone of the opposite sex -- just like the rest of Heavenly Father's children. That would make a "massive difference" to me if I were beset with this condition -- just as it does to many who have heterosexual attraction but no opportunity to marry in mortality.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The hope is that in the eternities, they will have opportunity and inclination to be sealed together in a proper marital relationship with someone of the opposite sex -- just like the rest of Heavenly Father's children.

 

So the hope is that they will change to be hetero? Correct? Is there a doctrine that states this will happen? If there is I'd love to see a reference. Otherwise, there is no hope.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the hope is that they will change to be hetero? Correct? Is there a doctrine that states this will happen? If there is I'd love to see a reference. Otherwise, there is no hope.

I've shown you statements to that effect, as recently as a few days ago, one from Elder Lance Wickman, agreed to by  Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in a Q and A on the  LDS Newsroom web page.

The other is on the Church's official mormonsandgays.org website.

 

I asked you to stop raising this question as though there had never been any answer given. Such a short time after the fact, it appears you are determined to ignore my request. This does not amount to good-faith discussion on your part.

Edited to add:

For the record, this amounts to a violation of the "asked and answered" policy in the message board guidelines.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've shown you statements to that effect, as recently as a few days ago, one from Elder Lance Wickman, agreed to by  Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in a Q and A on the  LDS Newsroom web page.

The other is on the Church's official mormonsandgays.org website.

 

I asked you to stop raising this question as though there had never been any answer given. Such a short time after the fact, it appears you are determined to ignore my request. This does not amount to good-faith discussion on your part.

I've never seen any statements so I'm not sure what you're referring to. When/where did you tell me these things?

ETA- is an answer in a Q & A doctrine? Elder Holland, just 2 days ago released a video where he addressed 1 question and said that they were his own thoughts and did not constitute doctrine for the church. I still haven't seen it, but assuming you're right about Wickman, should I accept his answer as doctrine? If so, why?

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the hope is that they will change to be hetero? Correct? Is there a doctrine that states this will happen? If there is I'd love to see a reference. Otherwise, there is no hope.

No doctrine.  But that's hard to nail down, as you know.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've shown you statements to that effect, as recently as a few days ago, one from Elder Lance Wickman, agreed to by  Elder Dallin H. Oaks, in a Q and A on the  LDS Newsroom web page.

The other is on the Church's official mormonsandgays.org website.

 

I asked you to stop raising this question as though there had never been any answer given. Such a short time after the fact, it appears you are determined to ignore my request. This does not amount to good-faith discussion on your part.

Edited to add:

For the record, this amounts to a violation of the "asked and answered" policy in the message board guidelines.

Are you claiming then, that this is actual church doctrine?  

Edited by ALarson
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the hope is that they will change to be hetero? Correct? Is there a doctrine that states this will happen? If there is I'd love to see a reference. Otherwise, there is no hope.

In addition to the correction of any mortal impediment we suffer, we will also be changed to put God’s way of life first, even if we admit the justness of ending up in a lesser kingdom:

“And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever; For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared…”

“Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.”

“Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.”

“Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment, that ye may not shrink with awful fear; that ye may not remember your awful guilt in perfectness, and be constrained to exclaim: Holy, holy are thy judgments, O Lord God Almighty—but I know my guilt; I transgressed thy law, and my transgressions are mine; and the devil hath obtained me, that I am a prey to his awful misery.”

By that time sexuality is about as relevant as whether or not you are a Yankee’s fan, a Republican, or a Pepper. Now if that makes you feel hopeless, therein lies the real problem.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

By that time sexuality is about as relevant as whether or not you are a Yankee’s fan, a Republican, or a Pepper. Now if that makes you feel hopeless, therein lies the real problem.

Thank you for once more blaming the victims of the Church's anti-gay policies.

Link to post
27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've never seen any statements so I'm not sure what you're referring to. When/where did you tell me these things?

 

Go here.

You said:

Quote

Has the church made any official statement saying that hom0sxuals will be cured in the next life and become hetero? I'm not aware of anything but I'm open to seeing an official position. As it is I don't see a coherent theology that includes hom0sxuals in the plan of salvation.

Quote

 

I responded:

I think this is a question that you keep raising here on this board. I answer it with documentation. Then you forget that I answered it, and you raise it again, obliging me to repeat the response I have given before.

Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else; if so, I apologize in advance. But I ask that this time you remember that I gave a response and not raise the question again, failing to take cognizance of the response I have given.

Yes, on LDS Newsroom, an official webpage of the Church, there is a Q and A interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve and Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy. In the course of that interview, there is this excerpt:

 

I then gave this quote:
 

Quote

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.


 

Later, I came back and added this:

Quote

 

Edited to add:

On the "Mormons and Gays" website, an official website of the Church, there is this:

 

Quote

We believe that with an eternal perspective, a person’s attraction to the same sex can be addressed and borne as a mortal test. It should not be viewed as a permanent condition. An eternal perspective beyond the immediacy of this life’s challenges offers hope. Though some people, including those resisting same-sex attraction, may not have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, a just God will provide them with ample opportunity to do so in the next. We can all live life in the full context of who we are, which is much broader than sexual attraction.

(Emphasis mine)

You know, HJW, it is really frustrating when you keep raising questions and don't take cognizance of responses that have been given. How many days is it going to be before you are going to do this again?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Do you have a quote calling it "doctrine"?  Or is that just your opinion after reading statements.

I showed a statement by a General Authority, a member of the seventy, with implied assent given by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a Q and A interview. This was posted on an official Church webpage, LDS Newsroom, which is the go-to source for news media and others making inquiries about the official Church position on current affairs.

I showed another statement on an official Church website, moronsandgays.org, which is the go-to source for the Church's position on matters relating to same sex attraction.

So I take it for granted that these explicit statements are doctrinal, otherwise they wouldn't be posted and allowed to remain on these official Church websites.

The statement is doctrinal as part and parcel of the doctrine of the resurrection, which states that our physical bodies will be made whole, with all imperfections and maladies removed. In the words of Alma, "not so much as a hair of their heads" will be lost.

So yes, I claim it is doctrine. If you say it isn't, prove it.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hey stemelbow, did you notice that this 1949 statement affirms that the priesthood one day would be given to those of African ancestry?

Where is the First Presidency statement (or any other statement from Church leaders) affirming that homosexual relationships will one day be approved and solemnized in the temples?

Isn't that your whole point in dredging this thing up? To prop up your vain hope that Church leaders will one day back down on the matter of homosexual behavior being sinful and unchaste? Is there a statement from Church leaders that even hints that this one day might happen?

My point was made, Scott.  It is that leaders have erred.  That even when officially proclaimed they've been wrong in the past.  There is precedence to think they could be wrong presently on something or in the future. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Go here.

You said:

I then gave this quote:
 

Later, I came back and added this:

(Emphasis mine)

You know, HJW, it is really frustrating when you keep raising questions and don't take cognizance of responses that have been given. How many days is it going to be before you are going to do this again?

 

Chill out Scott. It may be surprising but I don't see everything you post. Thanks for the response here even though you accuse me of ill will. I just chalk that up to immaturity so it's ok.

So, from what source is Wickman getting his information?  I don't see this as definitive. It again appears leaders are making statements about the eternities based on the logic of their time and culture. I agree with much of Oaks statement with a few exceptions.

Quote

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and [a spouse] and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.  What's his source on this? The logic of his time and culture? Where's the revelation?

If the brethren are going to give answers to questions (that supposedly we are to accept as doctrine) on subjects that previously have not been addressed by revelation, we need to see a revelation. Otherwise I assume it's good men, doing the best they can, but limited to their time and culture.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I showed a statement by a General Authority, a member of the seventy, with implied assent given by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a Q and A interview. This was posted on an official Church webpage, LDS Newsroom, which the go-to source for news media and others making inquiries about the official Church position on current affairs.

I showed another statement on an official Church website, moronsandgays.org, which is the go-to source for the Church's position on matters relating to same sex attraction.

So I take it for granted that these explicit statements are doctrinal, otherwise they wouldn't be posted and allowed to remain on these official Church websites.

The statement is doctrinal as part and parcel of the doctrine of the resurrection, which states that our physical bodies will be made whole, with all imperfections and maladies removed. In the words of Alma, "not so much as a hair of their heads" will be lost.

So yes, I claim it is doctrine. If you say it isn't, prove it.

I don't need to prove anything.  I was simply asking your opinion here.

I will take it from what your wrote above, that it is your opinion that all statements meeting this criteria (as you describe) is official church doctrine.  Good to know.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Chill out Scott. It may be surprising but I don't see everything you post. Thanks for the response here even though you accuse me of ill will. I just chalk that up to immaturity so it's ok.

So, from what source is Wickman getting his information?  I don't see this as definitive. It again appears leaders are making statements about the eternities based on the logic of their time and culture. I agree with much of Oaks statement with a few exceptions.

If the brethren are going to give answers to questions (that supposedly we are to accept as doctrine) on subjects that previously have not been addressed by revelation, we need to see a revelation. Otherwise I assume it's good men, doing the best they can, but limited to their time and culture.

Yes, in 50 years (or less), Scott and others will be claiming they were all just speaking as men and that none of them actually claimed these statements were official church doctrine.  

Edited by ALarson
Link to post
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If the brethren are going to give answers to questions (that supposedly we are to accept as doctrine) on subjects that previously have not been addressed by revelation, we need to see a revelation. Otherwise I assume it's good men, doing the best they can, but limited to their time and culture.

And just how exactly do you expect to "see" a revelation? 

You're supposed to get those yourself to corroborate what they tell you, with God corroborating it to you personally, rather than looking for some sort of "thus saith the Lord" statement from those who share what (they say) God told them.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By TOmNossor
      Hello!
      I enjoy reading Catholic thought and I wanted to share.  I believe the call for SSM and many other criticisms of the CoJCoLDS (primarily from those who still hold to some sense of its being “true”) is a product of lack of rigorous thought.  An emotionalism where we substitute how we feel about things for sound principles derived by seeking God with faith and reason.
      First two links:
      Article by Archbishop of Philadelphia:
      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2018/03/believe-that-you-may-understand
      Faith and Reason by JPII:
      http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
      I will admit that I have only read parts of Faith and Reason, but I hope to rectify this.
      I think the Catholic Church is in crisis partially because its highest leaders have left behind sound thinking on issues for a hoped pastoral love of all.  This is from First Things:


      More poignantly from an interview with Bishop Chaput:



      It is my opinion that there are many very concerning things coming for the Pope and the leadership around him.  I fear he has forgotten (and I think it likely that many around him have forgotten) the second half of: “Truth without love is imperious self-righteousness. Love without truth is cowardly self-indulgence.” With an organization so committed to preserving the “truth once delivered,” how (with or without God’s supernatural guidance) can such a thing happen.  How can it happen to the CoJCoLDS?
      Somebody who wrestles with issues like advocating for or against SSM will become a general authority (not me).  In my personal life, I feel the desire to embrace love without the restraining influence of truth.  In the name of love sometime not just self love, I can stray from God’s path.  As my attempt at my best self online, I feel the desire to embrace love without mentioning truth to those with whom I dialogue even though I do not face the same issues they do (I like to not speak of their sin or emphasize that I too am a sinner to eliminate or soften the truth).  How much tougher will this be for the future bishop who can clearly see the pain in those he loves and knows that speaking truth to them will make him a lone voice in a world that has ceased to care about truth.
      There are two things about the difficult and recent declaration concerning children of same sex couples.  First, is that it would be somewhat cruel to ask a child to explain the reason his/her parents have embraced a way of living out of alignment with God’s teaching.  The second is having not been cruel, those who likely believe that SSM is a wonderful institution that has blessed their lives will continue to grow and learn and progress in the church.  
      As I said in a recent thread, I think it quite possible that one day our church will embrace SSM in many and perhaps all ways.  IMO today this would be the love without truth result.  If this happens in the future, it will not be the end of the church, but too much of this love without truth could be (I have faith that God is in control and can steer away from this).  But, one of the ways God steers away from this is by calling us to THINK correctly.
      I believe that wrong thinking after Vatican II has lead to the place where the Catholic Church is today and while some of the things Pope Francis is doing may briefly increase the number of folks in the pews, I believe ultimately it will further water down truth and lead to more indifference to the things of God.
      I do not think the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS have succumbed to the thinking Pope Francis has embraced.  And I believe that the highest leaders of the CoJCoLDS receive revelation and inspiration to guide God’s church.  That being said, I have little doubt that Bishops and Stake Presidents struggle with these issues.  Without a commitment to have both TRUTH and LOVE, I think errors can happen.  As these error permeate the church AND society, there may be one day when our God (who I think is pragmatic) will recognize that it does more harm than good to continue to teach the truth in certain ways.  Someday, the pain caused by the truth and the prevalence of societies tolerant arms willing to offer an ultimately cold loveless embrace, could make it better for the church to water down the gospel in certain areas (no more United Order comes to mind).  Alternatively, if the gospel understanding of these issues is correct and discussion and dialogue helps folks to find ways to love in truth, perhaps pragmatic solution will not be required.  
      Anyway, there is great value in learning from wise folks like JPII and Arch Bishop Chaput.  I believe God is in charge.  I believe the CoJCoLDS passed through its first 200 years in a way far more remarkable than the years 33-233AD were for New Testament Christians and evidence God’s continuing inspiration and revelation for the whole body of the church.  That being said, God’s hand is occasionally the wise and intelligent council of our brothers and sisters.  The society into which President Nelson held his first press conference is hostile to God’s truths.  I believe that the church is guided by God through President Nelson, but ALL of us imbibe inappropriately of the ideas evidenced in this press conference hostility (in the name of love or in the name of self-indulgence or in the name of …but we imbibe).  May right reasoning and truth from God provide a counter force to societies pull!  
      Charity, TOm  
      P.S.  In case it is somehow veiled by what I say above, I do not think I am superior in my thinking to all others.  I offer the above because it is what seems true to me.  If it didn’t seem true to me, my best self, would find something else to embrace that I think is true.  I desire to align my beliefs with what God believes to be true!  
      This also means I want to read and discuss thoughts about the above.
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By cinepro
      First, let me say that the press conference was perhaps the first time I've ever heard President Nelson speak off-the-cuff (i.e. not reading prepared remarks), and I was not instilled with confidence.  I enjoyed listening to the first presentation where the First Presidency was introduced, but my heart sank when listening to the Press Conference afterward.
      Specifically, the first question and response, heard at 2:05:10 here:
      I listened to this driving in to work today, and I just couldn't believe it.  The question was "how do you plan to approach LGBT issues?"
      The response doesn't appear to be in the same universe as the question, other than them both being in English.  They don't mention "LGBT issues", or homosexuality, or same-sex attraction, or anything specific to the question.  They respond using highly coded and contextualized words that someone familiar with LDS doctrines might be able to interpret, but how is that the proper response in a press conference?
      My interpretation of President Nelson's and Oaks' response is that they said this:
      "Thanks Brady.  No changes expected.  Homosexual actions are still considered a sin, and members of the Church will still be expected to resist those impulses.  We also still oppose same-sex marriage.  We believe this is how God's plan works, and will lead them to happiness in the eternities even though it may be painful here on Earth.  We love and pray for all those with same-sex attractions, but there won't be any changes on this."
      Why couldn't they just say something clear and unambiguous?  Was the question that unexpected that it caught them off-guard?
       
    • By Robert F. Smith
      Elder D. Todd Christofferson “Is There a Place For Me?” online at https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/church-teachings?cid=HP_TH_24-8-2017_dPAD_fMG_xLIDyL2-2_  .
      “The diversity we find now in the Church may be just the beginning.  Frankly, I think we’ll see greater and greater diversity.  In the ancient Church there was tremendous diversity.
      “And it’s not just diversity for diversity’s sake, but the fact that people can bring different gifts and perspectives.  And the wide range of experience, backgrounds, and challenges that people face will show us what really is essential in the Gospel of Christ, and that much of the rest that’s been perhaps acquired over time is more cultural than doctrinal, can slip away, and we can really learn to be disciples.”
      This is just an excerpt of his short remarks, and other apostles also comment under the same heading.  Does this bode well for the Church?  Is it an important first step to see the difference between culture and doctrine?  Where might this eventually lead?
    • By rockpond
      The latest MormonLeak is a document containing minutes from a 2014 priesthood leadership conference in Layton, UT.
      https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2017/08/08/mormonleaks-releases-priesthood-leadership-conference-meeting-minutes/
      There is a Q&A session in which Elder Perry provides some answers that seem contradictory to the current Church position:  When asked how to deal with a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay", Elder Perry counsels them to "Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds." (quoting the document, not Elder Perry)
      In a later question about temple recommends he states that he does not believe that gay people are "born with it".  I know that the Church does not take a position on that, I just thought his statement of belief was interesting.
×
×
  • Create New...