MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

 

I think even 38 years ago, Church leaders would have admitted people of homosexual orientation into the Church or allowed them to remain in it, so long as they agreed not to act on that orientation, just the same as today.

That is the nutshell message of mormonandgay.org. So I don't know that things have changed all that much, other than a softening of some of the rhetoric that might have been employed back then.

[JLHPROF]

6 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.

You're probably right.
If the history of the gospel shows anything it's that the longer we are removed from the time of restoration, the further from truth and correct principle we will end up.
It's an unavoidable downward spiral due to our fallen condition.

Fortunately, unlike the previous dispensations where things were allowed to reach a point of nothing left to save necessitating a new restoration, this time we have been promised that God will stop us before we go over that particular cliff.

[rongo]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I'll have to look at my notes when I get home tonight. But, I'm happy to look them up . . .  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So I don't know that things have changed all that much, other than a softening of some of the rhetoric that might have been employed back then.

The problem with softening of rhetoric is people think that gives them wiggle room on principle.
Sometimes bluntness is the best policy.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Really?
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html
Historian Tom Alexander says:

At present, perhaps the best estimates of the number of polygamous families among late-nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints range between 20 and 30 percent. Nevertheless, studies of individual communities show a wide variation in the incidence of plurality. Using 1880 census data, geographer Lowell C. “Ben” Bennion found the lowest percentage of polygamous families—5 percent—in Davis County’s south Weber and the highest—67 percent—in Orderville. He found 15 percent in Springville. In a study of St. George, historian Larry Logue found nearly 30 percent of the families polygamous in 1870 and 33 percent in 1880. (Alexander’s centennial history of Utah, quoted in Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity, 65 and 192)

[Johnnie Cake]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Really?
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html
Historian Tom Alexander says:

At present, perhaps the best estimates of the number of polygamous families among late-nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints range between 20 and 30 percent. Nevertheless, studies of individual communities show a wide variation in the incidence of plurality. Using 1880 census data, geographer Lowell C. “Ben” Bennion found the lowest percentage of polygamous families—5 percent—in Davis County’s south Weber and the highest—67 percent—in Orderville. He found 15 percent in Springville. In a study of St. George, historian Larry Logue found nearly 30 percent of the families polygamous in 1870 and 33 percent in 1880. (Alexander’s centennial history of Utah, quoted in Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity, 65 and 192)

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

 

Acording to historians...it engulfed more like 20-30 % 

Quote

In the 19th century or the Principle by modern fundamentalist practitioners of polygamy) was taught by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) for more than half of the 19th century,^[1] and practiced publicly from 1852 to 1890 by between 20 and 30 percent of Latter-day Saint families.^[2][3]

Flake, Kathleen (2004). The Politics of American Religious Identity. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 65, 192. ISBN 0807855014. 

^ Jump up to: a b c d e Embry, Jessie L. (1994), "Polygamy", in Powell, Allan Kent, Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN 0874804256, OCLC 30473917

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

 

I'll just say this:  the main event that made me realize that church doctrine regarding homosexuality was not the product of revelation was when I spent hours compiling all of the past apostolic and prophetic teachings into one document (I was YM Pres at the time with a couple gay young men in our ward... so I was seeking to really understand the matter).

After reading through that document, there was so much confusion and contradiction that I realized it was just the philosophies of men.

[rockpond]

8 minutes 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.

 

I've responded numerous times in the past to statements like these but I don't wish to derail this thread.  Let's stay on topic.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think even 38 years ago, Church leaders would have admitted people of homosexual orientation into the Church or allowed them to remain in it, so long as they agreed not to act on that orientation, just the same as today.

That is the nutshell message of mormonandgay.org. So I don't know that things have changed all that much, other than a softening of some of the rhetoric that might have been employed back then.

 

Yes and no:  38 years ago the Brethren didn't even accept the concept of homosexual orientation.  Your statement above is revisionist in that it applies today's understanding to what was happening back then.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You're probably right.
If the history of the gospel shows anything it's that the longer we are removed from the time of restoration, the further from truth and correct principle we will end up.
It's an unavoidable downward spiral due to our fallen condition.

 

Or, as was stated in this last general conference, the restoration continues to unfold.  Perhaps we're getting closer to the full truth.  And perhaps it will take another 38 years.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The problem with softening of rhetoric is people think that gives them wiggle room on principle.
Sometimes bluntness is the best policy.

 

I think they tried bluntness with the November policy.

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes and no:  38 years ago the Brethren didn't even accept the concept of homosexual orientation.  Your statement above is revisionist in that it applies today's understanding to what was happening back then.

38 years ago church leaders were promising gay men that if they marry, then they will magically become straight.  They certainly walked that back unless than 38 years didn't they.  Just kind of unfortunate for those gay men that believed those leaders knew the will of God concerning gays.  Not much has changed.  No apology from those leaders that made such false promised.  

I fully expect the same thing to happen before Scott's countdown ends.  Until that happens, most gay men will simply leave the church and find someone to share a full and happy life with.  When the biggest change in the new web site is the dropping of an S, not much is really changing.  I honestly don't expect it to.  It is just the way Mormons treat gays.  You live with it or your leave.  More than 70% of gay men simply leave the church.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't know why gays want special pass in indulging in sexual behavior. I'm a single 31 year old and I have to remain celibate while I'm still single. If I never find the right woman in life to marry I will have to go through my whole life celibate and not indulging in any sexual satisfaction.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to think of this as anything other than a PR moved aimed at appeasing the darn LGBT and allies. It actually kind of ticks me off because it comes across as totally disingenuous. Earlier this month they had a full general conference to address important issues where the vast majority of active members would be exposed to this information. Perhaps I missed it when they addressed LGBT issues.

Sounds like they're darned if they do, and darned if they don't, HappyJack.  For some it's all or nothing, and only total acceptance of active homosexuality inside the LDS Church will mollify them.  No concern with tolerance for differing belief systems at all, because only one belief system is the correct one.  What goes around comes around.

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church comes out with a stinker of a policy. It is later called "revelation". Elder Bednar says there are "no homosxual members of the church". etc. etc. Updating this website is a pathetic attempt to look loving and inclusive when we all know that gays are not welcome. If they are married, they are apostate. Their children cannot fully participate in saving ordinances. Until the church removes the policy and apologizes I don't care much about how they try to spin their approach to look like love and acceptance.

Is it loving and inclusive to take statements such as Bednar's out of context?  Who's playing the PR game now?

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

38 years ago church leaders were promising gay men that if they marry, then they will magically become straight.  They certainly walked that back unless than 38 years didn't they.  Just kind of unfortunate for those gay men that believed those leaders knew the will of God concerning gays.  Not much has changed.  No apology from those leaders that made such false promised.  

I fully expect the same thing to happen before Scott's countdown ends.  Until that happens, most gay men will simply leave the church and find someone to share a full and happy life with.  When the biggest change in the new web site is the dropping of an S, not much is really changing.  I honestly don't expect it to.  It is just the way Mormons treat gays.  You live with it or your leave.  More than 70% of gay men simply leave the church.

What I like most about modern life in the West is that we all have the right to be wrong, with free choice as the key.  Modern civilized life is like one grand smorgasbord of wonderful and interesting choices.  You don't need to be Forrest Gump with a box of chocolates in order to see the value in variegated life experience.  The Mormons say that the purpose of life here is to gain experience.  Makes sense to me that perfection is not required.  Just that we all do the best we can and reflect on it from time to time.  It's an eternal journey, which won't necessarily make complete sense until we have left this mortal coil.  One day you and I will be able to look back on all this with a new perspective.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What I like most about modern life in the West is that we all have the right to be wrong, with free choice as the key.  Modern civilized life is like one grand smorgasbord of wonderful and interesting choices.  You don't need to be Forrest Gump with a box of chocolates in order to see the value in variegated life experience.  The Mormons say that the purpose of life here is to gain experience.  Makes sense to me that perfection is not required.  Just that we all do the best we can and reflect on it from time to time.  It's an eternal journey, which won't necessarily make complete sense until we have left this mortal coil.  One day you and I will be able to look back on all this with a new perspective.

We do live in amazing times.  And, like you, I highly value the experience that life has given me.  We only got one life.  There is no dress rehearsal.  Thanks for your comment.

[Gray]

3 hours 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 . . .

Racism was still semi-acceptable in the 70s, at least in some circles. Imagine the impact on the church if the priesthood ban still applied to black people today. 

[Gray]

2 hours 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 . . .

Conservatives are increasingly more accepting of gays too. There was even a gay speaker at Trump's event when he officially became the GOP candidate.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

Suppose, for instance, that one man of every ten among these "Mormons" is a polygamist, are there any more than that? If there are I do not know it. I have never taken the census, but in the range of my personal acquaintance, as I have scanned them I think that there are not one-tenth of the men in this Territory who have attained their majority who are polygamists. And we will say there are 150,000 people in the Territory, how many of them are men? If we apply the same rule of ascertaining this that we do to other communities —and it will not apply to ours because our children are in excess; but as it is, we will apply the same rule and divide 150,000 by five; how many does it leave? Thirty thousand. We will say there are thirty thousand men in Utah Territory who have attained their majority, and one-tenth of this number are polygamists, What do we have left? Three thousand men. (George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1878. Journal of Discourses 20:4)

 

Now, gentlemen it is not polygamy What do you care about polygamy? What does our nation care about polygamy? What do the sectarians care about polygamy? Bless your souls, nothing. But nine percent of these Mormons may be polygamists. Dreadful!  (Wilford Woodruff, June 12, 1881. Journal of Discourses 22:174)

 

 They call it bigamy. What is a bigamist? A man who marries one wife promising to be true to her, and afterwards representing himself as an honorable man, marries another one and deceives both of them. He is a breaker of covenants. A polygamist does not do that. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon did not perpetrate such infamies. Nor do we. Bigamy is an institution of a perverted Christianity and not ours. We make covenants with our wives, and we will be true to them and they to us in time and in eternity. Supposing, I say, we were to preach this doctrine to the world, and tell them what David and Abraham and the Patriarchs did, and they were to say we accept it; could we administer in it? No, and they could not enter into this thing. There are only a few in Utah associated with this matter, comparatively, and those none but the most honorable, pure and virtuous, yet our nation has seen fit to condemn everybody, the non-polygamists as well as the polygamists, because the non-polygamists happen to live in the same place as the polygamists. Thus nine-tenths are proscribed for what the other tenth are alleged to have done. (John Taylor, August 20, 1882. Journal of Discourses 23:241)

------

I figure the ones practicing it, and presiding over the Church during that era (during the witch hunts and federal persecution) ought to have had a better handle on the numbers than modern people trying to extrapolate, project, and sample. Without being there.  

[Gray]

2 hours 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.

3-10% of the men, maybe. I think the women are discounted from that figure. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't know why gays want special pass in indulging in sexual behavior. I'm a single 31 year old and I have to remain celibate while I'm still single. If I never find the right woman in life to marry I will have to go through my whole life celibate and not indulging in any sexual satisfaction.

To make it fair, if you do find the right women you and she should agree to go your separate ways. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Conservatives are increasingly more accepting of gays too. There was even a gay speaker at Trump's event when he officially became the GOP candidate.

Acceptance of gays isn't the issue. We're talking about a complete reversal on doctrine about the law of chastity. 

I can (and do) accept gays without conceding that they are in violation of the law of chastity. Same with fornicators/adulterers. 

By far, there are more heterosexuals who receive formal church discipline than homosexuals. And we accept and love each one. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

3-10% of the men, maybe. I think the women are discounted from that figure. 

That's a good point. The men may have had only the men involved with polygamy in mind. It's still a far cry from the 50% figures that people today claim. Most (>1/2) of the Church was not involved with polygamy.

[VideoGameJunkie]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

To make it fair, if you do find the right women you and she should agree to go your separate ways. 

Odds are I'll have to live a celibate life so they should get used to it too.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's hard to think of this as anything other than a PR moved aimed at appeasing the darn LGBT and allies. It actually kind of ticks me off because it comes across as totally disingenuous. Earlier this month they had a full general conference to address important issues where the vast majority of active members would be exposed to this information. Perhaps I missed it when they addressed LGBT issues.

The church comes out with a stinker of a policy. It is later called "revelation". Elder Bednar says there are "no homosxual members of the church". etc. etc. Updating this website is a pathetic attempt to look loving and inclusive when we all know that gays are not welcome. If they are married, they are apostate. Their children cannot fully participate in saving ordinances. Until the church removes the policy and apologizes I don't care much about how they try to spin their approach to look like love and acceptance.

The new website was one of the featured stories in the local T.V. news this evening.  There were a lot of positive comments.  However, one of the criticisms was that it did not mention the policy at all.  IMO, this site would be a good forum for the church to add some clarity about the policy.  After all, most people who visit this site already know about the policy.  To not discuss it is a mistake in my opinion.