MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If the only thing that has ever been authoritatively stated by Church leaders on the question is that homosexuality is a temporary condition limited to mortality, it can safely be concluded that is the authoritative position.

But go ahead and produce a statement -- any statement -- from a  prophet or apostle in the Church to the extent that homosexuality will continue after death. I'm quite confident you can't or you would have done so by now,

Its placement on the official Church website in a section where news media and others are directed to go when they want to find the official Church position on public issues says a great deal.

*Every time someone accesses the website and finds that content, it amounts to a reiteration of it, especially if the one accessing it quotes in mass media, which visitors are not only allowed but encouraged to do.

You and others are looking rather desperate in your efforts to marginalize authoritative Church teaching.

Based on the placement on the church's website it would be reasonable to assume that other church leaders are aware of the statement...yet no one has repeated the doctrinal claim, nor has any revelation ever been produced. I provided quotes by church leaders to back up my position that doctrine is defined in certain ways and has a threshold to meet. You discount that and instead share your own opinion about what you think qualifies as doctrine. The problem is your opinion doesn't match the statements of leaders.

*That is an absolutely absurd statement. By the same logic, every crazy statement made by a church leader that has been included in a church publication like a magazine or lesson manual, proves that statement is doctrine because every time someone reads it in the manual or magazine it's a reiteration. You may want to think about the repercussions of this philosophy before spout this nonsense. By your made up standard (in opposition to the church's standard exemplified in the quotes I shared), the following are just a couple of pure doctrines that will not change because it was included in a church publication.

Polygamy

Blood atonement

Adam God doctrine

ban on interracial marriage

ban on blacks receiving the priesthood and temple ordinances

(We won't even get into prophetic statements about inhabitants on the moon and sun)

Out of curiosity, would the Journal of Discourses be considered an official church publication? Whether or not it was directly published by the church here's a quote about the Journal of Discourses by a member of the First Presidency.

Quote

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number (issue) as it comes forth.

President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.

So by Scott's logic everything in the journal of discourses is doctrine. Does anyone really want to accept that standard?

Edited October 27, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[kllindley]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definition is a matter separate and apart from whether they are reasonable and make good sense -- which they do.
 

The opposition I have encountered is over  use of the term at all, not just use of it in reference to a specific individual.

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've made no such insistence.  

My question here is if Scott would honor individual requests. 

And if I say something that makes you feel invalidated, I would appreciate it if you would let me know. 

It has been very clear that Scott was willing to use the terms gay and lesbian to refer to specific individuals who choose to so identify. 

The backlash he continues to receive is for using the phrase that not only the Church uses, but it also used in scientific literature to describe the very real phenomenon of attractions which often do not align with identity. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

It has been very clear that Scott was willing to use the terms gay and lesbian to refer to specific individuals who choose to so identify. 

The backlash he continues to receive is for using the phrase that not only the Church uses, but it also used in scientific literature to describe the very real phenomenon of attractions which often do not align with identity. 

Can we move beyond this point? It has been contentious and is not moving the discussion forward.

While I tend to agree with CaliforniaBoy in the terms that are generally acceptable in society, I also have to recognize that not everyone with SSA wants to be identified as gay. Since SSA is a term used by the church, it seems understandable that church members would adopt the same language. I'd like to see the language change, and I think it is a little bit, but assigning terrible motives to a person because they use the church term doesn't seem very helpful.

Seriously, let's move on. Much more troublesome than Scott's usage of a term is his utter lack of logic in declaring what is and isn't doctrine. (See my post above)

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I have to say I am a bit surprised at you defending this offensive expression. If a black persons told you he had no problem you calling him the n word would that give you or the church a signal that it is ok to call all blacks the n word?  Of course not

have you ever heard a gay group use the terms SSA?  Have you ever seen the press use the term SSA when referring to a gay person? Have you ever heard a politician use the term SSAwhen referring to a gay person?   Actually have you ever heard anyone besides a handful of religious groups use the term SSA when referring to gay people?  Now can you really make the case that gay people might want to be referred to as having SSA?

what you do know is that a lot of gays are offended by that term because they don't consider being gay as some kind of condition   So which term do you really feel is offensive to most gays?

 

 

I chose not to take offense at your unveiled attacks on me. See how easy that is? 

Because you and a handful of ex-religious gays have created a narrative where a benign statement of fact has been transformed into an offensive insult, does not make it so. You continue to speak for the "gay community" which we are told is diverse, yet apparently all have the same opinions when convenient.

CB you are actually the one behind the times here. Now that marriage equality is settled, researchers are actually starting to investigate the reality of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Mainstream researchers and it is widely accepted that identity is not directly correlated with attraction.  

Yet some (a subset of the 1.7 % of self identified gays and lesbians) are still stuck in a mentality where they interpret everything and anything from a perspective of outraged, persecuted victims.  This does nothing to advance our cause. 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You and others fail to recognize the difference between ascertaining the physical, biological or emotional causes of homosexuality (something they are not qualified to do) and teaching sacred, doctrinal truth (something they are qualified to do).

You fail to recognize that by not knowing about it they really shouldn't be so definitive.  If they have reliable means to know we should be made aware.  But that hasn't happened at all.  They just assure us by saying they know because they say so.  We aren't children to be treated like we don't count.  That to me is a problem. 

[kllindley]

On 10/25/2016 at 3:08 PM, rockpond said:

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.

It does not pathologize. It accurately describes. It is a technical term used outside of the Church in academic research as well.  It is used to be inclusive of experiences and not as an identity. Please show me any reference on the new site that uses it as an identity rather than a description of an experience. (Not counting where  individuals choose to adopt that add their own identity.)

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, kllindley said:

You want him to stop using the phrase same-sex attraction. But that is the best term for the thousands of us who live happily in the Church and don't identify as gay.  How is that respectful? 

Are you offended if someone refers to you as someone who is gay?  I ask that in all sincerity as I do not know your history here or your situation.

If someone is gay but does not act on those feelings or attractions, aren't they still gay?  Again, I mean no offense by asking you this as I'd like to hear what your feelings are here.

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You fail to recognize that by not knowing about it they really shouldn't be so definitive.  If they have reliable means to know we should be made aware.  But that hasn't happened at all.  They just assure us by saying they know because they say so.  We aren't children to be treated like we don't count.  That to me is a problem. 

They assert that they know the same way they testify of the atonement, Christ's resurrection, the existence of God, and his love for us. That you choose not to accept their testimony, or other personal testimonies of individual LGBT/SSA members  is of course your choice. But it seems silly that you'd come here and try to impose a foreign epistemology on church members. Silly and disrespectful.

 

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Seriously, let's move on. Much more troublesome than Scott's usage of a term is his utter lack of logic in declaring what is and isn't doctrine. (See my post above)

Ditto.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Seriously, let's move on. Much more troublesome than Scott's usage of a term is his utter lack of logic in declaring what is and isn't doctrine. (See my post above)

Agreed.  He still hasn't answered the last question I asked him either.

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you offended if someone refers to you as someone who is gay?  I ask that in all sincerity as I do not know your history here or your situation.

If someone is gay but does not act on those feelings or attractions, aren't they still gay?  Again, I mean no offense by asking you this as I'd like to hear what your feelings are here.

I choose not to be offended but it is inaccurate and invalidating. The reality (APA approved :)is that sexual attraction and orientation are distant from identity which is chosen. Gay is a chosen identity, a recent cultural creation. Sexual orientation is a pattern of sexual and romantic attractions and feelings which are completely unchosen. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

They assert that they know the same way they testify of the atonement, Christ's resurrection, the existence of God, and his love for us. That you choose not to accept their testimony, or other personal testimonies of individual LGBT/SSA members  is of course your choice. But it seems silly that you'd come here and try to impose a foreign epistemology on church members. Silly and disrespectful.

 

Ditto.

Hi Kllindley.  if they know by revelation, then all I'd ask is for us to see that revelation.  The atonement is attested for throughout scripture.  There's nothing but revelation to see regarding it.  But like the priesthood ban it seems we're assured of something for which we have no revelation.  Luckily in time we all realized the priesthood ban's explanations were, though told to us to be revelation direct commandments from God and all that, were not true, were made up and yet were said in absolute terms to be from God.  This feels similar to me and I'm not willing to just be jerked around like that.  I consider it a travesty that leaders were out there preaching untruths and truths for all those years regarding the priesthood ban.  I can understand how it happened, after all we all see through a glass darkly, even leaders fo the Church as Paul, an apostle, did. 

Thanks.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

By how it's quoted and used (extensively). By it's conspicuous inclusion in things like the Duty to God book, Personal Progress book, etc. That it hangs in most active LDS homes. 

You could say the same thing, though, about popular C.S. Lewis quotes, or that "footprints" thing. 

 

Quote

 

Only in an orthodoxy tradition, not an orthopraxis one like ours. Even with heterodox views, it is the continued preaching of them that constitutes apostasy within Mormonism, not the mere holding of the views. In our church, apostasy has always been about outward opposition to and attack of the Church, not "beliefs." 

Again, if it's not about beliefs, then it's not actually apostasy, if we care what that word means. And per the church, members are allowed to publicly support gay marriage, so it's not about "preaching" either. It's just about singling gay people out for punishment. 

 

Quote

Given the Church's "all in" campaign on Prop 8 (which Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom told a special meeting of bishops and stake presidencies in 2009 was directly commanded by God, and that it would precede continuing erosion on the issue) and subsequent teachings and actions, the act of marrying against the express teachings and commandments of the Church is a public and outward defiant act against the Church. I believe that it was added to specific apostasy definitions because the purpose of the policy is to make it crystal clear that gay marriage is not and never will be acceptable in the Church. Personally and directly acting against that openly defies this stance. That the Church "burned the ships on the shore" and identified this as a "hill to die on" makes me highly skeptical that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al.'s sources are correct when they say that this policy will be removed a short time after its (admittedly ham-handed) rolling-out.

A regrettable mistake on the church's part, the political views of church leaders with religion. 

 

Quote

 

See above. The point isn't to suddenly label any and all sins, great and small, as apostasy. That isn't the point at all of the policy.

Yes, the point appears to be to marginalize gay people and their families and discourage them from attending church, probably in the hopes of avoiding "infecting" other members with empathy for gay people. The fastest way to change support for gay marriage in the church is for church members to actually have contact with gay families and realize there is nothing wrong with them. 

 

Quote

 

I admit that that is inconsistent. Elder Christofferson's spelling out of this during the reaction to the leaked policy seemed very much PR-driven, to me. I have had a liberal (but active) member meet with me and discuss whether he is temple-worthy because he supports gay marriage on social media. 

If the Brethren said that public, vocal support of gay marriage, and not gay marriage alone, constitutes apostasy, would you be gone in that instant? Or, would you change your behavior to remain in good standing in the Church?

 

I would not violate my conscience just to maintain membership in a church, even a church that is important to me. That would be immoral. Abinadi stood up for what he believed too - that's a good Mormon teaching right there. I would continue to vocally support gay marriage. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Gray

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hi Kllindley.  if they know by revelation, then all I'd ask is for us to see that revelation.  The atonement is attested for throughout scripture.  There's nothing but revelation to see regarding it.  But like the priesthood ban it seems we're assured of something for which we have no revelation.  Luckily in time we all realized the priesthood ban's explanations were, though told to us to be revelation direct commandments from God and all that, were not true, were made up and yet were said in absolute terms to be from God.  This feels similar to me and I'm not willing to just be jerked around like that.  I consider it a travesty that leaders were out there preaching untruths and truths for all those years regarding the priesthood ban.  I can understand how it happened, after all we all see through a glass darkly, even leaders fo the Church as Paul, an apostle, did. 

Thanks.

To clarify, I am talking about Revelation as described by the brethren. I think the Proclamation on the Family is about as clear as can be. I also believe the revelation does not always happen through canonized scripture. I understand and accept that for some, like you, anything short of canonize scripture will be insufficient. My sincere question is if such a revelation  was introduced as canonized scripture, would you accept it as the word of God?

[Gray]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I have to say I am a bit surprised at you defending this offensive expression. If a black persons told you he had no problem you calling him the n word would that give you or the church a signal that it is ok to call all blacks the n word?  Of course not

have you ever heard a gay group use the terms SSA?  Have you ever seen the press use the term SSA when referring to a gay person? Have you ever heard a politician use the term SSAwhen referring to a gay person?   Actually have you ever heard anyone besides a handful of religious groups use the term SSA when referring to gay people?  Now can you really make the case that gay people might want to be referred to as having SSA?

what you do know is that a lot of gays are offended by that term because they don't consider being gay as some kind of condition   So which term do you really feel is offensive to most gays?

 

 

As someone afflicted with opposite sex attraction, I hope that everyone will acknowledge my medical condition and refer to me and people like me as OSA persons. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would not violate my conscience just to maintain membership in a church, even a church that is important to me. That would be immoral. Abinadi stood up for what he believed too - that's a good Mormon teaching right there. I would continue to vocally support gay marriage. 

So you’re equating your support of the covenant wherein “God himself should come down among the children of men” with that of a civil contract, and that you would prefer martyrdom to recalling either? That is not a very Mormon teaching!

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

To clarify, I am talking about Revelation as described by the brethren. I think the Proclamation on the Family is about as clear as can be. I also believe the revelation does not always happen through canonized scripture. I understand and accept that for some, like you, anything short of canonize scripture will be insufficient. My sincere question is if such a revelation  was introduced as canonized scripture, would you accept it as the word of God?

No.  I think you have me wrong.  I'm not saying canonized scripture is necessary.  The proclamation on the Family does not address homosexuality at all.  It does not take into account exceptions.  As we're told there are always exceptions to general rules.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So you’re equating your support of the covenant wherein “God himself should come down among the children of men” with that of a civil contract, and that you would prefer martyrdom to recalling either? That is not a very Mormon teaching!

 

I'm not sure I followed what you were trying to say here. I don't know what the covenant you're referring to is, or how I compared it to a civil contract. I'm talking about standing up for what is right, even in the face of strong institutional opposition. 

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

You could say the same thing, though, about popular C.S. Lewis quotes, or that "footprints" thing.  

No! Only "Buttprints in the sand" is in the accepted canon!  

http://www.wowzone.com/butt.htm

[CV75]

Just now, Gray said:

I'm not sure I followed what you were trying to say here. I don't know what the covenant you're referring to is, or how I compared it to a civil contract. I'm talking about standing up for what is right, even in the face of strong institutional opposition. 

LOL

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I have a couple of homosexual friends who have told me they prefer the term same sex attraction when discussing motivation or behaviour.  Same sex attraction is a behaviour, not a person.  I would use it in the same way I would use teenage attraction, romantic affection, senior sex, etc.

I have had friends who told me they find being called "black" highly offensive as it means they are being identified by the colour of their skin which isn't even black at all, while the individual I talk to next tells me she calls herself black and she wants her friends to use that term.  My memory being what it is, unless I am around a person a lot, I no longer am able to retain which preferences go with which people on pretty much any topic unfortunately.  Makes me avoid some topics or at least keep quiet until I can pick up some hints.pl

I generally develop habits of speech from those who I am around the most and the first homosexual who mentioned a preference preferred "same sex attraction" (iirc he said it didn't carry the baggage the other words did, he was an academic type; perhaps he doesn'tfeel that way anymore, but I am no longer in contact with him) as well as some lesbians back a number of years that felt ignored by gay and homosexual iabels and didn't like to be lumped into those terms or ignored and I saw "same sex" as gender neutral and able to be respectful of their wish to be included under a nonmale label.  I didn't realize it was an issue till much later (don't get out as much as I used to and no longer live or even visit San Francisco where these kinds of discussions were more common when I lived there andwere devoid of religious context for the most part), especially given I saw quite a bit of use of "same sex marriage" by gay and lesbian activists.  Why is same sex marriage acceptable to so many and apparently not same sex attraction? (serious question)

 

Ok let me try a different approach.  I think that you will acknowledge that SSA is pretty much a Mormon term and the only other people that also use that term are a few other religious groups.  So what if the Mormon church decided that they didn't want to call females women any longer.  Instead they wanted to use the term non-man to distinguish them from men in the church  The church felt that by doing so, it helped clarify that women should always be subject to their husbands and remind them who held the priesthood.  There would be those women in the church that would not have any problem with the term.  They wouldn't feel it was offensive.  Perhaps a few other people in other religions would pick up on the term because they feel the Bible makes women subservient to men as well.  So now every time you hear a leader in the church refer to woman they called them non-man.  In their talks, on the church's web pages, in the publications etc.  The church even puts up a web site.  They tell women how loved and welcome they are in the church, but reminds them that they are beneath men and they use the term as a term of love to distinguish them from those that hold the priesthood

How do you think women outside the church would view this new term.  Do you  think that a vast majority of them would be offended?  Do you think that a lot of them would feel that when the church used the term it was putting women subservient under men and second class citizens.  Do you think the media and women groups would start using a term that they viewed as offensive and demeaning?  Would it matter if there were some women in the Mormon church who were comfortable with the term to the vast majority of women out there?  And while you might not be offended by the usage of the word yourself, would you be offended if people still used the word woman to describe your gender? One word is neutral to almost every woman, the other is offensive to the vast majority of women.  

That is the best I can do.  If you still don't understand why the term SSA is so offensive to most gays especially outside the church, then so be it.

[rongo]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Luckily in time we all realized the priesthood ban's explanations were, though told to us to be revelation direct commandments from God and all that, were not true, were made up and yet were said in absolute terms to be from God. 

Aren't you being at least just as inappropriately certain with the above as you claim the "other side" is with their views on the ban? 

"Were not true," "were made up," etc.

By the way, I have really enjoyed the discussion in this thread, and I hope that's what others are taking away as well. I can't stand the phrase "agree to disagree," but it has it's place, and I enjoy the discussion here among people who aren't (probably) ever going to see eye-to-eye. Things are worth discussing, even if the chance of agreement is nil. 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

No! Only "Buttprints in the sand" is in the accepted canon!  

http://www.wowzone.com/butt.htm

I believe!

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Aren't you being at least just as inappropriately certain with the above as you claim the "other side" is with their views on the ban? 

"Were not true," "were made up," etc.

I guess.  But I thought that's what we've been told.  The explanations of the passed were not true, no?  If they were not true, yet spoken as if true, then we have a problem, no? 

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

By the way, I have really enjoyed the discussion in this thread, and I hope that's what others are taking away as well. I can't stand the phrase "agree to disagree," but it has it's place, and I enjoy the discussion here among people who aren't (probably) ever going to see eye-to-eye. Things are worth discussing, even if the chance of agreement is nil. 

Good.  I agree.

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

LOL

No offense CV75, but I frequently have a difficult time following your arguments. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

It has been very clear that Scott was willing to use the terms gay and lesbian to refer to specific individuals who choose to so identify. 

The backlash he continues to receive is for using the phrase that not only the Church uses, but it also used in scientific literature to describe the very real phenomenon of attractions which often do not align with identity. 

 

 

Has it been very clear that Scott is willing to use the terms gay and lesbian?  I haven't seen that anywhere.  You'll also notice that I asked him a question twice and he has avoided answering. 

Can you cite the scientific literature that uses the term SSA?  I'm not aware of that.

Edited October 27, 2016 by rockpond