MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think it's because those who enter into a gay marriage, know they are not able to procreate "between" them.  So, of course those sacred powers are "only" able to "to be employed" between "man and woman".  

That's the point of the Church stance, though. Because this sacred power is to be employed only between man and woman, uses outside of this are a perversion and are harmful to the plan of salvation itself. This also includes masturbation, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc. It isn't just homosexuality.

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

That's the point of the Church stance, though. Because this sacred power is to be employed only between man and woman, uses outside of this are a perversion and are harmful to the plan of salvation itself. This also includes masturbation, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc. It isn't just homosexuality.

 

That's fine, but if authored by God it wasn't very good at detailing that.  We'd have to read it into it. 

One can be homosexual and also not masturbate, fornicate, commit adultery and patronize pornography.  In other words one can read the passage from Potf and not see homosexuality in it if one wants. 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it's because those who enter into a gay marriage, know they are not able to procreate "between" them.  So, of course those sacred powers are "only" able to "to be employed" between "man and woman".  

It's interesting that you felt the need to insert the word "able." For people who are trying to use syntactical precision, on the one hand, to argue for exceptions and wiggle room, to notably deviate from the precise language on the other when it works against them, is telling. 

The PotF says that the "sacred powers of procreation" are "to be employed." Not "able to be employed." There is a very specific reason why no modal verb was used there: it is talking about divine approval and Church allowance. Not cases where people otherwise excluded in the document have an exception because they can't technically do it. 

The other thing that hasn't been discussed, other than me pasting it, is the part about children being "entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony [and don't let anyone say that gay marriage fits the bill, here --- it is plain as day that it is the marriage of the child's actual parents that is actually meant here] and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." The Church is equally, or more, concerned with children being raised outside of authorized channels because of gay marriage or non-marriage --- and gay marriage and gay lifestyle are 100% incompatible with this. Which is one reason for the November policy.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think anyone on this board's life is strongly impacted by what we discuss here?

Absolutely. Not all, obviously, but anyone, yes.

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think most of us are here to exchange different ideas and trying to at least understand different points of view.

Great--is that what you meant by a repeating loop?

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

But some subjects have a much more consensus than other subjects in both groups.  

What is the respective consensus of the two groups (interesting that you should manage your social life that way) you associate with on the Church's use of the term "same-sex attraction?"

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's interesting that you felt the need to insert the word "able." For people who are trying to use syntactical precision, on the one hand, to argue for exceptions and wiggle room, to notably deviate from the precise language on the other when it works against them, is telling. 

The PotF says that the "sacred powers of procreation" are "to be employed." Not "able to be employed." There is a very specific reason why no modal verb was used there: it is talking about divine approval and Church allowance. Not cases where people otherwise excluded in the document have an exception because they can't technically do it. 

The other thing that hasn't been discussed, other than me pasting it, is the part about children being "entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony [and don't let anyone say that gay marriage fits the bill, here --- it is plain as day that it is the marriage of the child's actual parents that is actually meant here] and to be reared by a father and mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." The Church is equally, or more, concerned with children being raised outside of authorized channels because of gay marriage or non-marriage --- and gay marriage and gay lifestyle are 100% incompatible with this. Which is one reason for the November policy.

 

You'll note that I didn't and don't need to add the modal verb in there.  I take it as it is written.

FYI - The November policy doesn't prevent children from being raised by gay parents.  It prevents children of gay parents from being fully involved in the church.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you honestly, "honor bright," think that the reaction and transition among active Church members to sweeping law of chastity changes would be equivalent to the reaction and transition in 1978? 

Not sure what "honor bright" means.

The reaction isn't about sweeping law of chastity changes. It's about equal treatment for all people. It's about allowing gay members to have hope for a happy family life. It's about providing some kind of doctrinal basis for gays in the plan of salvation. It's about acknowledging lack of revelation on this topic. It's about truly loving gay people and accepting them as equals in the church.

I think this is already changing rather dramatically. In my estimation the church's treatment of gays is less palatable to church members today than just five years ago. Things are changing. I don't know how far changes will go but as I've stated before, it is not hard to envision a time where all people are treated equally and the law of chastity is enforced equally--namely limiting sxual relations to marriage. The end. No other qualifications needed.

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's fine, but if authored by God it wasn't very good at detailing that.  We'd have to read it into it. 

One can be homosexual and also not masturbate, fornicate, commit adultery and patronize pornography.  In other words one can read the passage from Potf and not see homosexuality in it if one wants. 

We're not talking about people with homosexual tendencies who are keeping the commandments and standards (and there are many people in this boat). And the PotF isn't addressing them, either. Incidentally, I think that's why the Church goes out of its way to coin the "SSA" phrase: because there are members who are gay by inclination, but don't act on it and don't want to label themselves gay, with all that implies. I see where those on this thread are coming from who find this to be offensive, but I also don't think the Church is purposely trying to stick a thumb in people's eye, either. 

For people who aren't seeking to wrest the language to leave a loophole where homosexual behavior is permissible, it isn't really possible to not see homosexuality in that. I think HappyJack agrees with that, too, right?

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's the point of the Church stance, though. Because this sacred power is to be employed only between man and woman, uses outside of this are a perversion and are harmful to the plan of salvation itself. This also includes masturbation, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc. It isn't just homosexuality.

I don't see where you can say that the proclamation addressed gay marriage or homosexuality.  IMO, it did not (at least not specifically).  The proclamation does specify that the sacred powers of procreation are only to be employed between a husband and wife, lawfully wedded  

Quote

We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You'll note that I didn't and don't need to add the modal verb in there.  I take it as it is written.

That was directed at ALarson, and you indicated that his response should be regarded as yours.

FYI - The November policy doesn't prevent children from being raised by gay parents.  It prevents children of gay parents from being fully involved in the church.

Of course. There's no police state round-up being recommended, and the Church is aware that children are raised by gay parents. The reason for the policy is because the Church wants it made clear that this state of things is not good and is not endorsed or supported by the Church. 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not sure what "honor bright" means.

It's an expression B.H. Roberts used, along the lines of "cross your heart," in a context of "be honest, now." 

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's interesting that you felt the need to insert the word "able."...

The PotF says that the "sacred powers of procreation" are "to be employed." Not "able to be employed." 

And, that's not how I used the word "able".  Read my post again to see my intent with using that word.

(Hint:  I think we know that two men or two women are not physically "able" to procreate together.  That is how I used the word "able".)

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

I think it's obvious that the proclamation was intended to promote heterosexual marriage and traditional gender roles (including gender stereotypes) to the exclusion of everything else, even if it does talk around homosexuality. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Gray

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't see where you can say that the proclamation addressed gay marriage or homosexuality.  IMO, it did not (at least not specifically).  

So, do you think it addresses it tangentially, or indirectly? Or, not at all? Truthfully?

The proclamation does specify that the sacred powers of procreation are only to be employed between a husband and wife, lawfully wedded

And why does it say that? Because it actually meant "being able to physically conceive a child should only be done between a husband and wife, lawfully wedded. Unless other people like gay couples, unmarried straight couples, or infertile people want to have a child, and then they can use other people's gametes that have been extracted and preserved. Then, it's okay for the sacred powers of procreation to be used by a couple to provide a means for them to have a child, even though they aren't a husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded?" 

Where and how does the proclamation address gay marriage or homosexuality?

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

That takes care of the T part of LGBT.

THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife

The essential role of our potential for parenthood as husband and wife. The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is important and still in force. The "scared powers of procreation" (which HappyJack pointed out denotes sex, not just only those instances when a child is conceived) are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed

This is all essential to the plan. Our eternal identity and purpose, and creating life in this life according to that plan.

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity

You really don't see gay marriage or homosexuality addressed anywhere in this?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

That was directed at ALarson, and you indicated that his response should be regarded as yours.

 

 

Of course. There's no police state round-up being recommended, and the Church is aware that children are raised by gay parents. The reason for the policy is because the Church wants it made clear that this state of things is not good and is not endorsed or supported by the Church. 

 

No, I didn't say that ALarson's response should be regarded as mine.  You are incorrect.  Kindly edit to remove the false claim.

I didn't say there was a "police state round-up" so that's a strawman.  If the reason for the policy is because the Church wants it made clear that it is "not good" or "not endorsed" why didn't they just publish that in one of the numerous forums at their disposal rather than placing it in a handbook that only a small percentage of us can access?

Again, I take what they have written, as they have written it which is to say that children of gay parents may not fully participate in the church.  They may attend but they cannot participate in salvific rites, certain blessings, temple ordinance, nor hold the priesthood.  That's what they declared through the policy.  I don't need to re-interpret what they did as having some other reason - as you have done.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it's obvious that the proclamation was intended to promote heterosexual marriage and traditional gender roles (including gender stereotypes) to the exclusion of everything else, even if it does talk around homosexuality. 

I think it's sad that the Proclamation was even necessary.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

So, do you think it addresses it tangentially, or indirectly? Or, not at all? Truthfully?

 

 

And why does it say that? Because it actually meant "being able to physically conceive a child should only be done between a husband and wife, lawfully wedded. Unless other people like gay couples, unmarried straight couples, or infertile people want to have a child, and then they can use other people's gametes that have been extracted and preserved. Then, it's okay for the sacred powers of procreation to be used by a couple to provide a means for them to have a child, even though they aren't a husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded?" 

Where and how does the proclamation address gay marriage or homosexuality?

 

That takes care of the T part of LGBT.

 

The essential role of our potential for parenthood as husband and wife. The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is important and still in force. The "scared powers of procreation" (which HappyJack pointed out denotes sex, not just only those instances when a child is conceived) are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

 

 

This is all essential to the plan. Our eternal identity and purpose, and creating life in this life according to that plan.

 

You really don't see gay marriage or homosexuality addressed anywhere in this?

Lots of questions!

Let me just say that I do not believe the proclamation addressed gay marriage or homosexuality.  You can believe there are inferences where it is specifying that procreation should be between a man and woman who are lawfully wed.  But IMO, that is referring to keeping sexual relations (and having children if desired) within a marriage.  

Edited October 27, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely. Not all, obviously, but anyone, yes.

Great--is that what you meant by a repeating loop?

What is the respective consensus of the two groups (interesting that you should manage your social life that way) you associate with on the Church's use of the term "same-sex attraction?"

The repeating loop I was referring to was whether the church is going to accept gay marriage.  To me it is a moot point and one that will only be played out over time.  I think I stated that quite clearly in the post you were referring to.

I didn't mean to imply that I keep my straight friends separate from my gay friends.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Either group could care less what the others sexual orientation is.  When my friends get together, no one is counting the number of gay couples there and the number of straight couples there.  It simply doesn't matter.  Living in San Francisco is really a testament that people of a very diverse racial, religious and sexual orientation can coexist quite nicely. It is part of what makes my life more rich.  

 

What I was stating is that in both groups, there is great consensus on most issues.  There isn't a great divide between how gay people feel and how straight people feel.  I think that point is often overlooked.  When people talk about issues concerning the gay community, the majority of all Americans have a common consensus with many of the things that we discuss on this board.  It is often Mormons that are in disagreement with BOTH groups.  

Thanks for asking for clarification.  I certainly did not want to give you the wrong impression on something that is actually so important in my life.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's sad that the Proclamation was even necessary.

It's not necessary

 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I didn't say that ALarson's response should be regarded as mine.  You are incorrect.  Kindly edit to remove the false claim.

You said:  "ALarson explained my thoughts on that just fine," rather than respond yourself. Is that a false claim?

I didn't say there was a "police state round-up" so that's a strawman.

No, it's hyperbole with a little humor. You said, "The November policy doesn't prevent children from being raised by gay parents." I guess using a Captain Obvious meme wouldn't have been well-received either, huh?  

Again, I take what they have written, as they have written it which is to say that children of gay parents may not fully participate in the church.  They may attend but they cannot participate in salvific rites, certain blessings, temple ordinance, nor hold the priesthood.  That's what they declared through the policy.  I don't need to re-interpret what they did as having some other reason - as you have done.

Where did I do that?

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, rongo said:

You said:  "ALarson explained my thoughts on that just fine," rather than respond yourself. Is that a false claim?

 

that was my line you just quoted, not rockpond's.  And that which I said that about was pretty clear.  I did not suggest all that ALarson has said works for me, although I'll admit I find myself agreeing with him often. 

Anyway, just thought I'd point out you got this mixed up.  My line, not rockpond's. 

 

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not sure what "honor bright" means.

The reaction isn't about sweeping law of chastity changes. It's about equal treatment for all people. It's about allowing gay members to have hope for a happy family life. It's about providing some kind of doctrinal basis for gays in the plan of salvation. It's about acknowledging lack of revelation on this topic. It's about truly loving gay people and accepting them as equals in the church.

I think this is already changing rather dramatically. In my estimation the church's treatment of gays is less palatable to church members today than just five years ago. Things are changing. I don't know how far changes will go but as I've stated before, it is not hard to envision a time where all people are treated equally and the law of chastity is enforced equally--namely limiting sxual relations to marriage. The end. No other qualifications needed.

I have often said that Prop 8 did more to change the attitudes of the public in favor of gay marriage than any other single issue. Because of Prop 8, people started hearing both sides of the gay marriage issue, and the vast majority of Americans came to the conclusion that gay citizens deserve the exact same rights as every other citizen to be legally married to the person they love.  That happened not as a result of the court decision, but because of the public discussion of Prop 8.  The church did not intend that to happen, but it did.

I feel the same way about the October policy.  There is probably nothing that the church has done to change the hearts of it's members in supporting gays who wish to be involved in the church then the October policy.  Like you, I have seen a dramatic shift in the number of members that are willing to speak out about the unfairness of this policy and how gays are treated in the church.  The church did not intend that to happen, but it is happening.  

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's not necessary

Comments of members indicate otherwise.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Let me just say that I do not believe the proclamation addressed gay marriage or homosexuality.  You can believe there are inferences where it is specifying that procreation should be between a man and woman who are lawfully wed.  But IMO, that is referring to keeping sexual relations (and having children if desired) within a marriage.  

I'm guessing that you don't really think that any of the Q15 in 1995 (or now) had in mind children in any marriage --- gay or straight. But, maybe, just maybe, this can be used as an escape clause in the future when the Church needs to abandon ship? 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I think that has been explained to you numerous times. I know you don't care whether it is offensive or not. Neither does the church. So go ahead. It makes you feel you are doing what the church wants you to do and that is all that matters to you.

I am sure the church will continue using offensive language directed at the gay community.  It is not the most offensive word they throw around to the gay community.

I've already explained that my concern is for those people beset with same-sex attraction who don't want to be lumped with those who act it out.

I notice you have not denied that your intent is to keep the lines blurred between those two categories. As I said, ideologically driven. It is always so with political correctness.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

that was my line you just quoted, not rockpond's.  And that which I said that about was pretty clear.  I did not suggest all that ALarson has said works for me, although I'll admit I find myself agreeing with him often. 

Anyway, just thought I'd point out you got this mixed up.  My line, not rockpond's. 

Oh, I mixed you two up in quoting! Sorry stemelbow and rockpond! It wasn't on purpose.