MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree... I think that is a really good change (dropping the s).

Referring to individuals as having same-sex attraction instead of regarding them as "being gays" also takes away from the us vs. them mentality -- but you and others don't seem to think so.

 

[Daniel2]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Referring to individuals as having same-sex attraction instead of regarding them as "being gays" also takes away from the us vs. them mentality -- but you and others don't seem to think so.

 

The church's willingness and choice to use "Mormon and Gay" seems to contradict what you wrote here...  at least, so far as an insistence of exclusively "referring to individuals as 'having same-sex attraction'."

From my perspective so far as minimizing an "us vs. them" mentality when it comes to what we call one another, the most inclusive stance is to acknowledge and respect the labels that each one of us chooses as important and valuable for ourselves.  That's why, when I meet someone who self identifies by saying "I have SSA," that's the term I use when discussing their sexual attractions/identity with them, regardless of my own feelings on the matter.  I appreciate it when others do the same with me.  To me, that's the inclusive 'win/win.'

[Boanerges]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Referring to individuals as having same-sex attraction instead of regarding them as "being gays" also takes away from the us vs. them mentality -- but you and others don't seem to think so.

 

I like this part of the FAQ section on Mormon and Gay FAQ

Quote

Same-sex attraction (SSA) refers to emotional, physical, romantic, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. If you experience same-sex attraction, you may or may not choose to use a sexual orientation label to describe yourself. Either way, same-sex attraction is a technical term describing the experience without imposing a label. This website uses this term to be inclusive of people who are not comfortable using a label, not to deny the existence of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A couple of important points from the Q&A section of the new site:

Emphasis mine.

This strikes me as quite definitive.

The more definitive they make it now, the more painful when they inevitably have to walk it back. Not to mention, it's a bit of a hasty claim. How can they predict what God will reveal in the future?

 

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Referring to individuals as having same-sex attraction instead of regarding them as "being gays" also takes away from the us vs. them mentality -- but you and others don't seem to think so.

 

 

 

I agree that using "being gays" creates an us vs them mentality.  Better to say "being gay" as the new website does.  A great change!

Referring to individuals as having same-sex-attraction pathologizes their orientation and can be viewed as hurtful by many.  Further, we ought to respect their requests just as we as a church like to request how our names are used.

Edited October 25, 2016 by rockpond

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I first learned of it from him, as well, and have been checking the site over the last couple days for the change.

I also find it fascinating that Dehlin has access to such news and it's timing before it becomes widely known.  Clearly, he still has sources that are close enough to inside info that are surprising for one of his current.... status, as relating to the church.

i, too, was apprised of this and have been waiting.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not all that interesting. The leaks recently of the videos from Church headquarters demonstrates there are traitors and thieves in every organization. Dehlin, like Wikileaks, a prominent outlet for such things.

it just puts a burr in your rear end when you are not the one with the exclusive info.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Definitely too difficult for rank-and-file members right now.  Fast forward a few decades and the opposite will be true.  Rank-and-file members will have as much difficulty with the Church's position on homosexuality as they did in 1977 regarding the racist temple and priesthood ban.

Just how much difficulty did rank-and-file members have with the priesthood policy pre-1978? I know that some individuals did, but I don't think that the vast majority had a problem with it. 

I have a hard time seeing future members storming the Bastille to overturn Church doctrine and policy regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. No matter how far into the future . . .

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Just how much difficulty did rank-and-file members have with the priesthood policy pre-1978? I know that some individuals did, but I don't think that the vast majority had a problem with it. 

I have a hard time seeing future members storming the Bastille to overturn Church doctrine and policy regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. No matter how far into the future . . .

 

I'm told, by people like Scott, Mitt Romney, and others that they were all anxiously awaiting the overturning of the racist policy back in the 70's.

I don't know that I believe that was the case, rather I think it is viewed that way in hindsight.  We know people were excommunicated for lobbying in favor of removing the policy.

I imagine that within a few decades the majority of church members will find the current church policy/doctrine regarding homosexuality to be unpalatable and an embarrassment.  I also imagine that it will become a hindrance to the furthering of the work in the same way that the racist policy had become such.  And polygamy in the late 19th century.

[rockpond]

I just got an email blast from the Church.  The headline is for Elder Holland's video series on the Sabbath but the second item is a link to mormonandgay.lds.org.

So that's two emails today:  one specific to my calling and another general blast to all members.  Cool!

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm told, by people like Scott, Mitt Romney, and others that they were all anxiously awaiting the overturning of the racist policy back in the 70's.

I was delighted when it happened, but up until that moment, I was in full support of the Church leaders standing pat until a revelation from God was received. Essentially the position I hold today in hindsight.

The difference is that I don't expect any such revelation changing the Church's stance regarding any redefinition of marriage to contradict what is in "The Family: a Proclamation to the World." The very thought that such a thing would happen is odious to me.

Quote

I don't know that I believe that was the case, rather I think it is viewed that way in hindsight.  We know people were excommunicated for lobbying in favor of removing the policy.

This does not give an accurate rendition of the facts. What they did was far worse than "lobbying in favor of removing the policy." They came out in open and strident rebellion and opposition to Church leaders. They were more obnoxious than Kate Kelly, if such a thing is conceivable.

And yes, there was near-universal acclaim among the rank-and-file in the Church when the 1978 revelation was announced. Including from Dallin H. Oaks, who was president of BYU at the time and has since recounted his emotional state of happiness when he heard the news.
It is beyond irritating to me when people who were not born yet or otherwise were not around at the time claim to know better what when on than we who lived it.

Quote

 

I imagine that within a few decades the majority of church members will find the current church policy/doctrine regarding homosexuality to be unpalatable and an embarrassment.  I also imagine that it will become a hindrance to the furthering of the work in the same way that the racist policy had become such.  And polygamy in the late 19th century.

 

You might be right about that. We'll see.

But sex before marriage or sex outside of marriage has long been accepted now, for at least the past 40 years. Yet decent and faithful members of the Church still regard it as gross wickedness.

In any event, the Church won't be changing its stance. We've seen that reaffirmed today. May as well get used to it.

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just got an email blast from the Church.  The headline is for Elder Holland's video series on the Sabbath but the second item is a link to mormonandgay.lds.org.

So that's two emails today:  one specific to my calling and another general blast to all members.  Cool!

This thing was not done in a corner.

 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I imagine that within a few decades the majority of church members will find the current church policy/doctrine regarding homosexuality to be unpalatable and an embarrassment. 

When the vast majority of active members are quite conservative? Granted, there are active liberal/progressive members, but it is undeniable that the vast majority of active members are definitely not. This can make it difficult for liberal/progressive people to be comfortable at church or with the church, and they have to find their way to make their peace with this state of things. It's just the way it is. 

I have a hard time seeing future active members regarding church policy/doctrine on homosexuality to be unpalatable and an embarrassment. There are fundamental doctrinal underpinnings for it in ways that there weren't for polygamy or the priesthood ban. Or, do you see the pendulum swinging dramatically in church demographics the way that it has in society at large?

I admit, if this is the case, then all bets are off . . .  But, I can't foresee a time when liberal/progressive people with throng into the Church. Unless the Church changes its stance. Then, it will be a chicken or the egg thing as far as major doctrinal/policy change . . .

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You might be right about that. We'll see.

But sex before marriage or sex outside of marriage has long been accepted now, for at least the past 40 years. Yet decent and faithful members of the Church still regard it as gross wickedness.

In any event, the Church won't be changing its stance. We've seen that reaffirmed today. May as well get used to it.

 

 

I agree that I don't see members changing attitudes about pre/extra-marital sex.  Nor do I anticipate that happening.  And yet I do see them changing attitudes with respect to gay marriage.

38 years ago a website called "Mormon and Gay" would have been inconceivable considering the apostolic teachings and understanding of that day.  We've come a long way.

Within 38 years... one of us will be proven right.  I sincerely hope you are still around to see that day.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

The church's willingness and choice to use "Mormon and Gay" seems to contradict what you wrote here...  at least, so far as an insistence of exclusively "referring to individuals as 'having same-sex attraction'."

 

Neither I nor the Church has insisted on using "having same-sex attraction" at the exclusion of any other description.

But the phrase "same-sex attraction" occurs in the newly updated website. And I will continue to use it.

Removing the s has the effect of making nouns into adjectives. A subtle difference perhaps, but it gets away from the act of labeling a person as being something as opposed to having a certain condition, in this case same-sex attraction.

I'm in full accord with that.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This thing was not done in a corner.

 

 

I agree and never made such a claim.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither I nor the Church has insisted on using "having same-sex attraction" at the exclusion of any other description.

But the phrase "same-sex attraction" occurs in the newly updated website. And I will continue to use it.

 

I know that you will.  And you will continue to offend some with its use.  But you seem quite comfortable with that.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

When the vast majority of active members are quite conservative? Granted, there are active liberal/progressive members, but it is undeniable that the vast majority of active members are definitely not. This can make it difficult for liberal/progressive people to be comfortable at church or with the church, and they have to find their way to make their peace with this state of things. It's just the way it is. 

I have a hard time seeing future active members regarding church policy/doctrine on homosexuality to be unpalatable and an embarrassment. There are fundamental doctrinal underpinnings for it in ways that there weren't for polygamy or the priesthood ban. Or, do you see the pendulum swinging dramatically in church demographics the way that it has in society at large?

I admit, if this is the case, then all bets are off . . .  But, I can't foresee a time when liberal/progressive people with throng into the Church. Unless the Church changes its stance. Then, it will be a chicken or the egg thing as far as major doctrinal/policy change . . .

 

There were fundamental doctrinal underpinnings for the racist policy and polygamy.  It's just that history now allows us to discount those.

I don't see the demographics of the church changing.  I see a future in which conservatism accepts gay marriage.  Think of how the Democrats originally favored slavery but now have re-branded themselves as the more inclusive party.  Although in this case, I don't see either side opposing gay marriage.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I know that you will.  And you will continue to offend some with its use.  But you seem quite comfortable with that.

Is "same-sex attraction" offensive to people who are gay? I didn't realize that. Is it because it implies that it is an attraction, but that one can choose not to act on the attraction?

[Johnnie Cake]

Another example of the tail wagging the dog

...

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

38 years ago a website called "Mormon and Gay" would have been inconceivable considering the apostolic teachings and understanding of that day.  We've come a long way.

Does "Mormon and Gay" contradict Elder Bednar's statement that there are no homosexuals in the Church?  

Did he mean by that that the minute one acts on that, one is determining oneself not to be a member of the Church? I admit I'm not sure where he was going with that.

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither I nor the Church has insisted on using "having same-sex attraction" at the exclusion of any other description.

But the phrase "same-sex attraction" occurs in the newly updated website. And I will continue to use it.

Removing the s has the effect of making nouns into adjectives. A subtle difference perhaps, but it gets away from the act of labeling a person as being something as opposed to having a certain condition, in this case same-sex attraction.

I'm in full accord with that.

Which is why I will continue to describe you as an a$$

Edited October 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Is "same-sex attraction" offensive to people who are gay? I didn't realize that. Is it because it implies that it is an attraction, but that one can choose not to act on the attraction?

Many gay people have said that it is offensive.  My understanding, as I said earlier, is that it is because it pathologizes their orientation.  I think most prefer gay or lesbian.

There are definitely some who prefer SSA.  And when speaking to and of those people, we ought to try to use the term that they prefer.  For those who don't like SSA and have asked to not be referred to as SSA, we ought to similarly respect their desires.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There were fundamental doctrinal underpinnings for the racist policy and polygamy.  It's just that history now allows us to discount those.

I don't see the demographics of the church changing.  I see a future in which conservatism accepts gay marriage.  Think of how the Democrats originally favored slavery but now have re-branded themselves as the more inclusive party.  Although in this case, I don't see either side opposing gay marriage.

Only 3-10% of the Church practiced polygamy, according to Journal of Discourses talks. Historians can haggle over the specifics, but the vast majority of the Church didn't participate at all in it. While doctrinally, those who were commanded or expected to practice it were required to, it was also clear that members could be in good standing without practicing it. 

There are statements pointing to the day when the ban would be lifted, so I don't see how discontinuing polygamy or the priesthood ban are similar at all, doctrinally, to "discounting" clear and consistent doctrine on "pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." That, I think, would have a much more seismic impact on morale and enthusiasm among rank-and-file active members. I see a big difference there.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Only 3-10% of the Church practiced polygamy, according to Journal of Discourses talks. Historians can haggle over the specifics, but the vast majority of the Church didn't participate at all in it. While doctrinally, those who were commanded or expected to practice it were required to, it was also clear that members could be in good standing without practicing it. 

There are statements pointing to the day when the ban would be lifted, so I don't see how discontinuing polygamy or the priesthood ban are similar at all, doctrinally, to "discounting" clear and consistent doctrine on "pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." That, I think, would have a much more seismic impact on morale and enthusiasm among rank-and-file active members. I see a big difference there.

CFR on the 3-10% of the church practiced polygamy claim