Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

What is irrelevant, is how these statements from the Prophet came about.  His statements are clear regarding church doctrine at that time and are in writing.  Why does it matter who requested the information or how it was requested?

 

Yes, I also stated the same in my previous post (maybe you missed it because it was an edit).

It should not just have been regarded as such only by the one asking the questions.  It was a statement by the Prophet.  Are you saying that his answer would have been different under different circumstances?  

The same regard would be given by most church members today, if Pres. Monson made a statement (in writing or otherwise) regarding anything that he clearly states is current church doctrine.

Do you believe that a written statement by Pres. Monson would not be relevant just because it was in response to a member's questions?

President Smith’s letter is clear. So what? Nelson’s letter is clear. So what? They are not confusing. Their clarity has nothing to do with where either writer was coming from. Nelson was coming from a reliance on what he believed was a moral sociology. Smith was coming from a reliance on what he believed was good revelation. Since the days of their exchange, there has been no confirmatory revelation on Nelson’s writings, but there has been confirmatory revelation about changing past policy and an improvement in Church-sanctioned doctrinal scholarship. Both before and after the ban, the Church’s position never held the sociological basis that Nelson’s did.

Why wouldn’t I quote President Monson? I’m not following what you think I’m saying about the content of President Smith’s letters.  Nelson was having a fit because he hadn’t felt the need to confront the doctrine before, and didn’t like that anyone of import outside of Ferron believed what President Smith was teaching.

As far as answering questions, Nelson was answering Meek’s, which he asked in carrying out his assignment from the First Presidency presumably in the best way he knew how. So I’m not sure what the big deal is about that.

You're focusing on prophetic pronouncements by letter reflecting Church doctrine. They do, all things considered. So what? I'm focusing on Nelson's approach versus the Church's, where councils and revelation drive the Church's decisions along a particular process over time, not individuals interjecting their pet peeve (no matter how "meritorious"). It seems to me that Nelson did not understand this and settled with simply pushing his position and justifying himself.

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And, also of note in these letters... There is no mention of this doctrine being a temporary condition.  No hints at termination or expiration.  No comments about waiting for the day when all races would be welcome.

Such assurances are present and clear in other statements made by Church leaders over the years. The absence of such a statement in a single source is not probative.

Can you show a single statement from any general Church leader even hinting that homosexual behavior will one day be accepted, that its forbiddance is temporary, or that same sex attraction will continue beyond mortality?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You are correct.  The letter from the FP to Bro. Nelson is hardly written as a casual conversation between two acquaintances.  The FP uses the following terminology: "doctrine of the Church", "revelations of the Lord", "God's rule", "sanction of the Church", "our testimony", "principles of the Gospel", and "revealed word of God".

The letter from the Secretary to the FP warns Bro. Nelson of setting himself up against doctrines taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and those who followed him in that office.

And, also of note in these letters... There is no mention of this doctrine being a temporary condition.  No hints at termination or expiration.  No comments about waiting for the day when all races would be welcome.

All very good points.  It's odd how members here seem to want to disregard how direct these statements were and how within 30 years, church doctrine completely changed regarding the statements made by the Prophet back then.  There is no reason the same thing won't be said in 30 years about the statements and policy regarding SSM today. Change in the church's policies (and even doctrine) has been and most likely always will be a constant thing.  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Such assurances are present and clear in other statements made by Church leaders over the years. The absence of such a statement in a single source is not probative.

Can you show a single statement from any general Church leader even hinting that homosexual behavior will one day be accepted, that its forbiddance is temporary, or that same sex attraction will continue beyond mortality?

Didn't say it was probative, just interesting.

And no, you know that I can't.  What is demonstrated by this is that doctrine changes... even that doctrine which was described in the very strong and declarative terms used by the First Presidency in the Lowry Nelson letter.

Understanding evolves.  Further light and knowledge comes.  Revelation is distilled.

Link to comment

Wow.  When I read these letters, my stomach did an upchuck..then my heart stopped..when I began to breathe again, I found a greater light and knowledge.

I feel in my own heart..that I have done the right thing.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Didn't say it was probative, just interesting.

And no, you know that I can't.  What is demonstrated by this is that doctrine changes... even that doctrine which was described in the very strong and declarative terms used by the First Presidency in the Lowry Nelson letter.

Understanding evolves.  Further light and knowledge comes.  Revelation is distilled.

Ironic that such credence is given to private and rather obscure correspondence, yet there is such airy dismissal of official, authoritative, and public sources that I cite, such as LDS Newsroom and mormonsandgays.org relative to whether same-sex attraction is a condition that will be present beyond mortality.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Wow.  When I read these letters, my stomach did an upchuck..then my heart stopped..when I began to breathe again, I found a greater light and knowledge.

I feel in my own heart..that I have done the right thing.

Most people look for validation of their own past actions and seize upon it when they feel they've found it. It's human nature.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Most people look for validation of their own past actions and seize upon it when they feel they've found it. It's human nature.

 

I am not looking for validation.  It keeps finding me.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ironic that such credence is given to private and rather obscure correspondence, yet there is such blithe dismissal of official and authoritative sources that I cite, such as LDS Newsroom and mormonsandgays.org relative to whether same-sex attraction is a condition that will be present beyond mortality.

I haven't dismissed those statements at all, Scott.  Please read carefully as you continue to miss the point.  I understand the current church position.  I also understand, from our own detailed history, how such positions change.

It isn't about the vague statements from church leaders that someday in this dispensation blacks would be allowed in the temple and be ordained to the priesthood, nor is it about Brigham Young's failed prophecy as to when it would happen.  It's about all the statements they made that have been disavowed and are considered incorrect (even repugnant) now.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I haven't dismissed those statements at all, Scott.  Please read carefully as you continue to miss the point.  I understand the current church position.  I also understand, from our own detailed history, how such positions change.

It isn't about the vague statements from church leaders that someday in this dispensation blacks would be allowed in the temple and be ordained to the priesthood, nor is it about Brigham Young's failed prophecy as to when it would happen.  It's about all the statements they made that have been disavowed and are considered incorrect (even repugnant) now.

It's about people so desperate to offer an explanation for something that was inexplicable that they engaged in over-claiming. That is not the case with the Church's doctrines and teachings pertaining to the law of chastity and the divine nature of marriage and the family unit, which makes no allowance for aberrant sexual relationships.

By contrast, I don't believe there ever was a unanimous and definitive Church position as to the reasons behind the priesthood ban other than the consensus that they were unknown.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. -- Paul Simon

 

There is a difference between giving up... and knowing when you have had enough.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

You are correct.  The letter from the FP to Bro. Nelson is hardly written as a casual conversation between two acquaintances.  The FP uses the following terminology: "doctrine of the Church", "revelations of the Lord", "God's rule", "sanction of the Church", "our testimony", "principles of the Gospel", and "revealed word of God".

The letter from the Secretary to the FP warns Bro. Nelson of setting himself up against doctrines taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith and those who followed him in that office.

And, also of note in these letters... There is no mention of this doctrine being a temporary condition.  No hints at termination or expiration.  No comments about waiting for the day when all races would be welcome.

You two are carping on the wrong point! I haven't said any of the things you are refuting. Why are you sidestepping my actual points about Nelson's letters not representing or conveying the kind of light and knowledge that moves the Church forward by council and revelation?

Link to comment

There are very similar things between the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and SSM.  Both just feel wrong to so many members.  Even before the ban was lifted, members were struggling to rectify the church's doctrine and their own spiritual confirmations.  Both seem to have their origins in long held prejudices that changed over time as people moved away from discriminating.  Both have had definitive statements that what the church leaders was Gods will.

Whether the church EVER changes it's position on SSM is pure speculation.  But no one can state as a fact that no change will ever come.  (well maybe except Scott)  In the mean time many gay members are being lost.  

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All very good points.  It's odd how members here seem to want to disregard how direct these statements were and how within 30 years, church doctrine completely changed regarding the statements made by the Prophet back then.  There is no reason the same thing won't be said in 30 years about the statements and policy regarding SSM today. Change in the church's policies (and even doctrine) has been and most likely always will be a constant thing.  

Straw man. Look at what I actually regarded and wrote. Those who would persist in "sharing" their conflicting "light and knowledge" as Nelson did are not engaged in or helping the council and revelatory processes. They have nothing to do with it and only serve as a distraction from the kingdom (most narrowly to themselves, and in a broader way as they blab about their project, to as many as suffer them an ear).

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's about all the statements they made that have been disavowed and are considered incorrect (even repugnant) now.

You are clearly missing the point about a) personal revelation, b) personal "revelation" and c) a prophet's revelation; and about popular ideas, advances in academia, groupthink and insipred unanimity.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, rockpond said:
33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ironic that such credence is given to private and rather obscure correspondence, yet there is such airy dismissal of official, authoritative, and public sources that I cite, such as LDS Newsroom and mormonsandgays.org relative to whether same-sex attraction is a condition that will be present beyond mortality.

 

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I haven't dismissed those statements at all, Scott. 

I think it was Mr. Wagon who did that. And ALarson.

 

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Straw man. Look at what I actually regarded and wrote. Those who would persist in "sharing" their conflicting "light and knowledge" as Nelson did are not engaged in or helping the council and revelatory processes. They have nothing to do with it and only serve as a distraction from the kingdom (most narrowly to themselves, and in a broader way as they blab about their project, to as many as suffer them an ear).

Not at all.

We have a letter from the Prophet.  He stated things very clearly and plainly.  If you want to try to qualify that or make it seem unimportant (because of who the person was asking the questions), go ahead and try.  It does not change what the Prophet stated.  It also does not change the fact that the doctrine was changed years later.  

And, it does not change the fact that doctrine could change again.  Will it?  We don't know, but a good indicator is to look at the history of how doctrine has evolved and changed over the years.

.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are very similar things between the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and SSM.  Both just feel wrong to so many members.  Even before the ban was lifted, members were struggling to rectify the church's doctrine and their own spiritual confirmations.  Both seem to have their origins in long held prejudices that changed over time as people moved away from discriminating.  Both have had definitive statements that what the church leaders was Gods will.

Whether the church EVER changes it's position on SSM is pure speculation.  But no one can state as a fact that no change will ever come.  (well maybe except Scott)  In the mean time many gay members are being lost.  

You're in the stage of denial with your idea that same sex sexual relations is not a sin.

It is, though, even though you may continue to deny that it is a sin.

Even when 2 people of the same sex are "married" to each other, it is still a sin for them to have sexual relations with each other or with anyone else who is of the same sex.

Once you get over the stage of denial you are in then you can get on with the other stages of grief that you need to experience. 

Look up the 7 stages of grief if you don't know what I mean by the other stages of grief that you need to experience.

It's doing you no good at all to think or hope that God will ever approve of same sex sexual relations.  That is something that never is going to happen.

It's still okay to consider the same sex as being sexually attractive,  though.  Both sexes are sexually attractive.  But that doesn't mean it is good for 2 people of the same sex to have sexual relations with each other.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're in the stage of denial with your idea that same sex sexual relations is not a sin.

It is, though, even though you may continue to deny that it is a sin.

Even when 2 people of the same sex are "married" to each other, it is still a sin for them to have sexual relations with each other or with anyone else who is of the same sex.

Once you get over the stage of denial you are in then you can get on with the other stages of grief that you need to experience. 

Look up the 7 stages of grief if you don't know what I mean by the other stages of grief that you need to experience.

It's doing you no good at all to think or hope that God will ever approve of same sex sexual relations.  That is something that never is going to happen.

It's still okay to consider the same sex as being sexually attractive,  though.  Both sexes are sexually attractive.  But that doesn't mean it is good for 2 people of the same sex to have sexual relations with each other.

I agree.  The Church teachings are clear.  If you wish to be LDS, follow the teachings.  If a person does not wish to follow the teachings, find a church that suits your beliefs.  a lot of folks do that.  I prefer to alter my beliefs to fit God....but there are those who will always make God fit their beliefs.

Edited by CountryBoy
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You're in the stage of denial with your idea that same sex sexual relations is not a sin.

It is, though, even though you may continue to deny that it is a sin.

Even when 2 people of the same sex are "married" to each other, it is still a sin for them to have sexual relations with each other or with anyone else who is of the same sex.

Once you get over the stage of denial you are in then you can get on with the other stages of grief that you need to experience. 

Look up the 7 stages of grief if you don't know what I mean by the other stages of grief that you need to experience.

It's doing you no good at all to think or hope that God will ever approve of same sex sexual relations.  That is something that never is going to happen.

It's still okay to consider the same sex as being sexually attractive,  though.  Both sexes are sexually attractive.  But that doesn't mean it is good for 2 people of the same sex to have sexual relations with each other.

What makes you think I am in a stage of denial?  I have never said it was not a sin.  And I have never said that the church should change it's policy on SSM.  Love too hear why you think I am in denial.  What a curious thing to say.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, california boy said:

What makes you think I am in a stage of denial?  I have never said it was not a sin.  And I have never said that the church should change it's policy on SSM.  Love too hear why you think I am in denial.  What a curious thing to say.

Do you think it is a sin?

Do you think the Church should change its policy on SSM?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Thank you, Russell, for giving the lie to the LDS faux doctrine that members are encouraged to receive revelation as to whether what their leaders teach is true.

I couldn't have made the point better myself.  ;)

Nice work!

So your claim to be in receipt of revelation was really just a ruse to try to bait a board member into saying something you wanted her/him to say? Interesting. Do you by any chance have a spare six onties of silver that I can borrow?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
4 hours ago, ALarson said:

All very good points.  It's odd how members here seem to want to disregard how direct these statements were and how within 30 years, church doctrine completely changed regarding the statements made by the Prophet back then.  There is no reason the same thing won't be said in 30 years about the statements and policy regarding SSM today. 

Well, unless there is no such change.  That would be a "reason."

But the thing I don't get is this preoccupation about what might happen in the future.  What's the point of that, I wonder?  It's not like any of us are claiming to have received inspiration about how the Church will treat same-sex marriage in the future, so all we are doing, really, is arguing over whose sheer speculation is going to happen.  What's the value in that?

Moreover, I wish to emphasize two points here: First, I am open to the theoretical possibility that the Church will reverse course and embrace or endorse or tolerate same-sex marriage.  I think such a possibility is exceedingly low, but I am open to it.  

Second, that theoretical possibility of what the Church might do in the future does not, I think, excuse the Saints from sustaining the Brethren in the here and now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

IWell, unless there is no such change.  That would be a "reason."

But the thing I don't get is this preoccupation about what might happen in the future.  What's the point of that, I wonder?  It's not like any of us are claiming to have received inspiration about how the Church will treat same-sex marriage in the future, so all we are doing, really, is arguing over whose sheer speculation is going to happen.  What's the value in that?

Moreover, I wish to emphasize two points here: First, I am open to the theoretical possibility that the Church will reverse course and embrace or endorse or tolerate same-sex marriage.  I think such a possibility is exceedingly low, but I am open to it.  

Second, that theoretical possibility of what the Church might do in the future does not, I think, excuse the Saints from sustaining the Brethren in the here and now.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't see how you could even be open to the possibility. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...