A Ward's Embrace to a Gay Couple

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, waveslider said:

Well I remember a time when there weren't that many gay, mental health professionals and being gay was actually considered a mental disorder. Now that we have enough gay mental health professionals, it is considered absolutely normal, if not programmed into the their DNA and therefore not a lifestyle choice anymore, but some kind of robotic pre-programmed instinct that can't even be changed by choice. The people who run this particular site are, in their own words, " B4U-ACT is a collaborative effort of mental health professionals and people who are attracted to children or adolescents....." So what happens when enough mental health professionals are those who are attracted to children? The here and now is dynamic, and never stays the same here and now as before, but instead becomes once upon a time.

That is perhaps the most bigoted statement I've ever heard.

[halconero]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

He worded it a lot differently than that, and I can't find any mention of animal worship, such as a white dog. I think you're conflating that with other "white" or "yellow" dog quotes . . .

What Joseph Smith said was "The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 268-269). Elder McConkie said that this isolated quote needs to be contextualized with everything else that Joseph Smith and others taught about the Millennium:

"Taken together, these concepts mean that wickedness that is telestial in nature . . . carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature --- all such shall cease [at the 2nd Coming]. Those who so live must be destroyed" (The Millennial Messiah, 651-652). He goes on to say that "wicked" and "heathen" must be understood to mean "non-celestial" but still acceptable --- not what those words normally connote for us. Then he discusses how those who remain but refrain from the ordinances of the gospel can be considered to be "wicked" and "heathen" in that sense.

Joseph Fielding Smith said about this in particular, in the footnote for this passage in TPJS: "The prophet's statement that there will be wicked men on the earth during the Millennium has caused considerable confusion in the minds of many who have read in the scriptures in many places that when Christ comes the earth shall be cleansed from its wickedness and that the wicked shall not stand, but shall be consumed . . . in using the term 'wicked men' . . . the prophet did so in the same sense in which the Lord uses it in the eighty-forth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, 49-53. The Lord in this scripture speaks of those who have not received the gospel as being under the bondage of sin, and hence, 'wicked.' However, many of these people are honorable, clean living men . . . The inhabitants of the terrestrial order will remain on the earth during the Millennium, and this class are without the gospel ordinances. See D&C 76:73-76."

Sorry, my apologies. It was Brigham Young with the White Dog thing, and Hindu temples, and ally myriad forms of worship:

"They will ask, "If I bow the knee and confess that he is that Saviour, the Christ, to the glory of the Father, will you let me go home and be a Presbyterian?" "Yes." "And not persecute me?" "Never." "Won't you let me go home and belong to the Greek Church?" "Yes." "Will you allow me to be a Friend Quaker, or a Shaking Quaker?" "O yes, anything you wish to be, but remember that you must not persecute your neighbors, but must mind your own business, and let your neighbors alone, and let them worship the sun, moon, a white dog, or anything else they please, being mindful that every knee has got to bow and every tongue confess. When you have paid this tribute to the Most High, who created you and preserves you, you may then go and worship what you please, or do what you please, if you do not infringe upon your neighbors..."

"Jehovah has decreed and plainly foretold the establishment of his kingdom upon this earth; and it will prove to me a shield to the ordinances of his house, in the endowments, and in all the gifts and graces of the Spirit of God with which the Priesthood, so to speak, is clothed. The municipal laws of that kingdom are designed for the protection of all classes of people in their legitimate rights; and were it now in its fulness upon the earth, and the New Jerusalem built upon this continent, which is the land of Zion, and Latter-day Saints would not alone enjoy its blessings, but all denominations and communities would be alike protected in their rights, whether they worshipped the Supreme Author of our existence, or the sun, or the moon, or, as do some of our aborigines, a white dog; and none will be permitted to infringe upon their neighbours, though every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. The Hindoos would have the privilege of erecting their temples and of worshipping as they pleased; but they would not be permitted to compel other worshippers to conform to their mode of worship, nor to burn their companions upon the funeral pyre; for that would interfere with individual rights."

[halconero]

I don't want to derail Valentinus' thread further. I apologize for how I've done that so far.

With regards to our duty as members, judgement is left to the lord, but charity is left to us. Nobody is arguing here that the Church violates its commandments, its common judges in Israel, standards for callings, or whatever. It is wonderful that this ward treated this couple as they have.

Recently I was reviewing the recent convert list in our ward, and saw someone new whose records popped up into the ward. I looked this person up on facebook and saw them covered in tattoos and piercings. I remember saying "Oh dear," out loud. No, it wasn't because of the piercings/tatts. That doesn't bother me. It's because a few of our ward leaders are quite uptight with regards to things like this, and I knew it would be just a matter of time before someone said something hurtful.

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

I wonder if you see the irony in your first sentence.

One thing to note, in response, is that Nick & Spencer are deemed apostate and excommunication is required by their priesthood leaders.  The other (hetero) situations that you described do not fall under that same definition and requirement.

Excommunication for gay couples is mandatory, but not for straight fornicators?  Are you serious?  Hetero couples living in sin are just as subject to church discipline.  Whether either are disciplined or not depends upon many factors.  Activity-level, for a start.  There are any number of inactive members living with partners they're not married to in my ward that the bishop does not see fit to invite to a disciplinary council.

There are a few situations that call for a mandatory disciplinary council.  These are enumerated in Handbook 1.  I don't believe the case of Nick and Spencer falls into one of those.  If you know otherwise, you could perhaps show this.  As to apostasy, "living in sin" is not, by definition in the Handbook, apostasy.  Unless I'm very much mistaken.

As to the article, I am uncomfortable with the idea of a gay couple being called to the front of the congregation and being given what very nearly amounts to an official indulgence for their sinful behavior.  Letting the matter pass without public censure, under the circumstances, I could see.  Virtually celebrating it?  I cannot.  You think this would be appropriate for a hetero couple who were cohabiting without benefit of marriage, too?  I can see it now -- Jack and Jill get invited to a disciplinary council because they've been carrying on under the covers without the bonds of matrimony, and what could the bishop say if they were to bring up Nick & Spencer being honored in front of the ward for what amounts to the same behavior?  We're treading on some very thin ice here, people.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is perhaps the most bigoted statement I've ever heard.

So speaking the truth is bigoted? So what's the alternative lie and deny the truth, or tell the truth and be called a bigot?

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Were you able to find the quote you were looking for, per your self-made CFR?

I think that the quotes I provided answer my self-imposed CFR (that serious sins won't be committed by terrestrial, millennial people). With many CFRs, your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. Not available in all 50 states.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Sorry, my apologies. It was Brigham Young with the White Dog thing, and Hindu temples, and ally myriad forms of worship:

"They will ask, "If I bow the knee and confess that he is that Saviour, the Christ, to the glory of the Father, will you let me go home and be a Presbyterian?" "Yes." "And not persecute me?" "Never." "Won't you let me go home and belong to the Greek Church?" "Yes." "Will you allow me to be a Friend Quaker, or a Shaking Quaker?" "O yes, anything you wish to be, but remember that you must not persecute your neighbors, but must mind your own business, and let your neighbors alone, and let them worship the sun, moon, a white dog, or anything else they please, being mindful that every knee has got to bow and every tongue confess. When you have paid this tribute to the Most High, who created you and preserves you, you may then go and worship what you please, or do what you please, if you do not infringe upon your neighbors..."

"Jehovah has decreed and plainly foretold the establishment of his kingdom upon this earth; and it will prove to me a shield to the ordinances of his house, in the endowments, and in all the gifts and graces of the Spirit of God with which the Priesthood, so to speak, is clothed. The municipal laws of that kingdom are designed for the protection of all classes of people in their legitimate rights; and were it now in its fulness upon the earth, and the New Jerusalem built upon this continent, which is the land of Zion, and Latter-day Saints would not alone enjoy its blessings, but all denominations and communities would be alike protected in their rights, whether they worshipped the Supreme Author of our existence, or the sun, or the moon, or, as do some of our aborigines, a white dog; and none will be permitted to infringe upon their neighbours, though every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. The Hindoos would have the privilege of erecting their temples and of worshipping as they pleased; but they would not be permitted to compel other worshippers to conform to their mode of worship, nor to burn their companions upon the funeral pyre; for that would interfere with individual rights."

He doesn't state that this will be the state of things in the Millennium. Yes, he does reference "the establishment of his kingdom upon this earth," but he and contemporaries saw themselves as representing that at the time. He was saying that LDS government and governance would not impose or proscribe other views, and would in fact protect religious freedom of other views, and he uses Brigham-esque hyperbole to drive the point home (Wilford Woodruff preferred using a "yellow dog" in making similar points).

His reference to New Jerusalem is interesting, because leaders and scriptures refer to it as straddling the pre-and post 2nd Coming time period. Hence, not millennial reign.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, waveslider said:

Well I remember a time when there weren't that many gay, mental health professionals and being gay was actually considered a mental disorder. Now that we have enough gay mental health professionals, it is considered absolutely normal, if not programmed into the their DNA and therefore not a lifestyle choice anymore, but some kind of robotic pre-programmed instinct that can't even be changed by choice. The people who run this particular site are, in their own words, " B4U-ACT is a collaborative effort of mental health professionals and people who are attracted to children or adolescents....." So what happens when enough mental health professionals are those who are attracted to children? The here and now is dynamic, and never stays the same here and now as before, but instead becomes once upon a time.

What makes an atypical characteristic a disorder or an illness? Is left-handedness some kind of illness? Maybe it would be if there was some kind of harm attached to being left-handed (there isn't). 

That's why homosexuality is not some kind of disorder or illness. It's a benign variation that occurs in about 3% of the population, not unlike left-handedness or red hair. 

You bring up pedophilia, which is a lazy and offensive comparison. But ignoring that, why is pedophilia a disorder? Simply put, it's not benign, and leads to the victimization of children. 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Gray

[waveslider]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

What makes an atypical characteristic a disorder or an illness? Is left-handedness some kind of illness? Maybe it would be if there was some kind of harm attached to being left-handed (there isn't). 

That's why homosexuality is not some kind of disorder or illness. It's a benign variation that occurs in about 3% of the population, not unlike left-handedness or red hair. 

You bring up pedophilia, which is a lazy and offensive comparison. But ignoring that, why is pedophilia a disorder? Simply put, it's not benign, and leads to the victimization of children. 

 

None the less, as recently as the 70s being gay was considered a mental disorder: http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

" According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness.  Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable.  Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis.  There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated.  And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.  (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)"

[thesometimesaint]

47 minutes ago, waveslider said:

So speaking the truth is bigoted? So what's the alternative lie and deny the truth, or tell the truth and be called a bigot?

The truth isn't bigoted but you are. IE;  At one time people believed mental illness was a sign of devil possession. Science has other idea's now.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, waveslider said:

Well I remember a time when there weren't that many gay, mental health professionals and being gay was actually considered a mental disorder. Now that we have enough gay mental health professionals, it is considered absolutely normal, if not programmed into the their DNA and therefore not a lifestyle choice anymore, but some kind of robotic pre-programmed instinct that can't even be changed by choice. The people who run this particular site are, in their own words, " B4U-ACT is a collaborative effort of mental health professionals and people who are attracted to children or adolescents....." So what happens when enough mental health professionals are those who are attracted to children? The here and now is dynamic, and never stays the same here and now as before, but instead becomes once upon a time.

Just so I'm clear, is it your feeling that actions between two consenting homosexual adults are equivalent to actions between an adult and a minor?  If so, is it your contention that people should be punished by society for homosexual actions in the same way child abuse is punished?

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The truth isn't bigoted but you are. IE;  At one time people believed mental illness was a sign of devil possession. Science has other idea's now.

Science has theories on the topic, nothing more. It is insulting that someone tries to lump Homosexuality to child rape. The scripture, OT, NT and the Church to which we belong make it clear that engaging in Homosexual acts is a sin. That is not bigoted, but truth from God, who will judge us all. Also, this site is a place for debate and for what others believe. Within the rules, others should be able to express their views without being shot down. I have a Homosexual child who do not require I abandon my beliefs and our Church. I will also be attending her wedding and "giving her away". I will do this because I love and cherish her, not because I agree with her choice. I also have a niece who is Gay and married a woman while still pregnant. This woman calls herself "fluid", also there are those who are bi-sexual...can't have it anyway you like. 

[Chaos]

Thread closed by request. I will assume that anyone comparing gays to child molesters or any other defamatory analogy hasn't been around long enough to know better. Then they will be thread banned or board banned.