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

[Calm]

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

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

You'll frequently tumble down rabbit holes if you deliberately twist a premise.

Elder Bednar was very frankly repeating the point that the Church's language and common labels do not mesh in these cases. Of course he understands that people feel the label identifies them, yet it is a necessity to understand that we are children of God, first. If nothing that is our "label," and with it power. Labels society invents cannot take precedence to that.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Meadowchik

[stemelbow]

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? 

[stemelbow]

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 March 9, 2016 by stemelbow

[consiglieri]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

How do you escape the obvious? 

Practice makes perfect, perhaps?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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 March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

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 March 9, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

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.

[ALarson]

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 March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

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.

[consiglieri]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

Yes.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes.

 

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

[Scott Lloyd]

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 March 9, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

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. 

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes.

 

Either way, as it is, they could very well be wrong, even if their answer can be considered in some way official doctrine.

[ALarson]

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.

[ALarson]

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 March 9, 2016 by ALarson

[Ahab]

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.