MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[rockpond]

3 hours 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.

I'm not aware of gay Mormons asking for a special pass. 

As has been pointed out, to make your example a good match you would have to add that if you find the right woman you would have to choose between your church membership and her. 

[guerreiro9]

 

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not aware of gay Mormons asking for a special pass.

Yes, we should all behave in the manner they do.  There is this commandment that I am capable of keeping, but I don't want to, so I'm going to organize protests against the Church until they change it.  But I'm not asking for special treatment...

-guerreiro9

[Tacenda]

I think the church understands that they need to be more accepting, especially with the high suicide rate amongst the LGBT's out there. I personally know of a few that have taken their lives.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

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.

I agree...It is like a huge elephant in the room.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

 

Yes, we should all behave in the manner they do.  There is this commandment that I am capable of keeping, but I don't want to, so I'm going to organize protests against the Church until they change it.  But I'm not asking for special treatment...

-guerreiro9

Please tell me where and when gay Mormons have organized protests against the church asking that the church change a commandment.  

This sounds like a strawman. 

[stemelbow]

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

No... I think this site represents the "outreach" side of the discussion.  Trying to help those who are gay and want to stay, offering resources to leaders and loved ones, clarifying church doctrine, and sharing stories (which is really important for those who feel alone).

Since the policy was never meant to go public, I don't think it will ever make an appearance here.

What I do wish is that they would put a link to this new page on the main page of LDS.org.

I was thinking further explanation on the policy would be to "help those who are gay and want to stay, offering resources to leaders and loved ones, clarifying church doctrine, and sharing stories (which is really important for those who feel alone)" 

I dont' know maybe they realize as much as I, that the policy is really doing nothing but contradicting such intentions. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

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

It's really a very minor matter, we're just holding on tightly to the traditions we've inherited from other churches.  The doctrine about gay marriage isn't really scriptural - not in a defensible way. And it's relatively recent. The doctrine about the priesthood ban had far more scriptural and historical (historical within the history of this church) support than the current thinking on gays.

 

12 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Heterosexuals aren't defined as apostates for the sin of getting married.

 

[stemelbow]

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

Quote

We may not know precisely why some people feel attracted to others of the same sex, but for some it is a complex reality and part of the human experience.

I feel like there's always more for us to learn and understand.  I'd say that we may not know why may tell us we may not know much at all about it.  Maybe God has a bigger brighter plan than we imagine. 

THis is why, largely, I part with the Church on this issue.  Seeing as we don't know, it's quite possible we are wrong. If wrong, it's a shame we pretend to have the answers. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I was thinking further explanation on the policy would be to "help those who are gay and want to stay, offering resources to leaders and loved ones, clarifying church doctrine, and sharing stories (which is really important for those who feel alone)" 

I dont' know maybe they realize as much as I, that the policy is really doing nothing but contradicting such intentions. 

 

I think your second statement above nails it... there just isn't a way to explain it in the context of "outreach".

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

I feel like there's always more for us to learn and understand.  I'd say that we may not know why may tell us we may not know much at all about it.  Maybe God has a bigger brighter plan than we imagine. 

THis is why, largely, I part with the Church on this issue.  Seeing as we don't know, it's quite possible we are wrong. If wrong, it's a shame we pretend to have the answers. 

 

Yes, certainly some irony there that the website acknowledges that there are things about homosexuality that "we may not know" and yet they simultaneously claim that  we do know the current doctrine won't change.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 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 . . .

I think you may want to study this issue a little more closely. There were clear doctrinal underpinnings to both polygamy and the priesthood ban. It's difficult to understand your claim that there wasn't.

Church demographics have changed dramatically over the years. Prior to the 50's there was a fairly even split between democrat/republican (although both were much more conservative than modern republicans). Benson was a huge mover and shaker in pushing the political sensibilities to the right when he made statements in the 70's about how a good member, if they understood their religion, would never be a democrat. Those kinds of things moved the needle. Today, in a vastly conservative church, I think we are witnessing a seismic shift in the way people are already viewing social issues like SSM. I was a Limbaugh/Hannity fan boy for many years. Ultra conservative. But in just a couple of short years that has changed. Time will tell, but like Rockpond I'll be shocked if there isn't significant movement within the membership towards more liberal ideas. It's already happened in the past and happening again on this topic.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours 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.

I don't know about the first part. Much of the rhetoric 38 was pretty damning of hmosxuality. I think the mere attraction was viewed as more of a choice and rebellion, not just the behavior.

I agree with the last statement that nothing has changed. The change to the website is merely putting lipstick on the pig. It's good that they are more attuned to the PR nightmare their past rhetoric has created, but they're really only softening the words. The meaning is still the same. That's why this website is such a disappointment.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours 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.

Come on VGJ. Give this a little thought. What is different between you as a single man who has the opportunity to date and seek out a companion with whom you might marry and live with happily ever after, and the gay person who will NEVER have the opportunity to date and seek out a companion with whom they might marry and live with happily ever after?

The law of chastity is not treated equally with regard to hetero and homo couples but even worse than that, the gay person in the church is stripped of all hope for a meaningful relationship that brings joy to life.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on VGJ. Give this a little thought. What is different between you as a single man who has the opportunity to date and seek out a companion with whom you might marry and live with happily ever after, and the gay person who will NEVER have the opportunity to date and seek out a companion with whom they might marry and live with happily ever after?

The law of chastity is not treated equally with regard to hetero and homo couples but even worse than that, the gay person in the church is stripped of all hope for a meaningful relationship that brings joy to life.

 

Further, VGJ could spend the rest of his life dating girls and always remain a member in good standing.  Why should VGJ get a "special pass" to indulge in dating those who he is attracted to when gay and lesbian members of the church don't have that privilege?

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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

They are darned as long as they act like hypocrites. Don't tell a person they are loved and welcome while simultaneously supporting a policy that excommunicates them for apostasy and prevents their children from receiving saving ordinances until they disavow the parent's SSM. If the church wants to be the church of the policy, they should own that and stop pretending like they are trying to be inclusive and loving. They're not. If they want to be inclusive and loving, there are some things the church needs to repent of, including the policy. But they can't have it both ways because it's dishonest and unethical.

How is quoting Bednar not "inclusive"? That statement literally makes no sense. Also, I've seen Bednar's entire answer on the question he was asked. Please explain how it was taken out of context. I suspect you will assign your definition of what you "think" he was trying to say or what you "think" his intention was. You're welcome to your opinion but I see no evidence of his comment being out of context within the whole of his answer. 

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, certainly some irony there that the website acknowledges that there are things about homosexuality that "we may not know" and yet they simultaneously claim that  we do know the current doctrine won't change.

Like I stated earlier, this illustrates extreme hubris and makes it difficult to take them seriously on this issue.

Quote

Gray - Heterosexuals aren't defined as apostates for the sin of getting married.

Exactly. The only want I can make any sense out of the apostasy label for SSM couples but not promiscuous relationships with many partners, is the church leaders view SSM as an act of rebellion as if the only reason they are getting married is to stick it to the church and thumb their noses at the leaders. This simply illustrates how little they understand the motivations for those entering SSM. Church leaders seem incapable of comprehending that SSM couples are merely seeking the same kind of joyful life every other human being does. It's the life the church teaches but then excludes gay members from. "Grow up. Get married. Have a family. Unless you're gay."

Utter foolishness.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know about the first part. Much of the rhetoric 38 was pretty damning of hmosxuality. I think the mere attraction was viewed as more of a choice and rebellion, not just the behavior.

 

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that people in the past were excommunicated or otherwise disciplined in the Church merely for having the tendency but not acting on it.

Quote

I agree with the last statement that nothing has changed. The change to the website is merely putting lipstick on the pig. It's good that they are more attuned to the PR nightmare their past rhetoric has created, but they're really only softening the words. The meaning is still the same. That's why this website is such a disappointment.

I'm ready to conclude that nothing short of total capitulation on this issue -- in effect calling evil good -- is going to be viewed by you as anything other than "a disappointment."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours 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.

There is truth in this.

When the Church gave its support to public policy safeguarding rights of housing and employment, and when the Church called for kindness and love in dealing with people with same sex attraction, I do believe many people read this as a gradual capitulation on principle. As a result, when news of the handbook policy emerged last November, they perceived that their hopes were dashed and they reacted with anger and hostility. I continue to believe that, under the surface, this had less to do with any impact the policy might have on children and more to do with the clear indication that the Church was not caving in on gay marriage, gradually or otherwise, now or at any time in the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours 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.

I believe you're making things up as you go along.

Thirty-eight years ago the AIDS epidemic had already begun. Homosexuality was a public issue many years before then, one that was recognized by Church leaders.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

I feel like there's always more for us to learn and understand.  I'd say that we may not know why may tell us we may not know much at all about it.  Maybe God has a bigger brighter plan than we imagine. 

THis is why, largely, I part with the Church on this issue.  Seeing as we don't know, it's quite possible we are wrong. If wrong, it's a shame we pretend to have the answers. 

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, certainly some irony there that the website acknowledges that there are things about homosexuality that "we may not know" and yet they simultaneously claim that  we do know the current doctrine won't change.

You both are right.  Church leaders are just speculating on the role of those of us that are gay play in the plan of salvation.  As Rockpond pointed out, the website acknowledges that they just don't know.  Elder Nelson believes that President Monson received a revelation, something that evidently President Monson and everyone else that was there is unaware of since President Monson and none of the others present didn't even mention anything about this last conference.  So why not open up speculation to everyone else instead of pretending that church leaders have some understanding of the will of God concerning his gay children.  What is currently called doctrine is actually just speculation rooted in tradition and prejudice.  (sound familiar)

I will go first.  Scriptures and statements by Joseph Smith tell us that the gods created the earth.  Adam/Michael, Joseph Smith, Christ, and others were involved in the creative process.  No women are mentioned So it is my belief that gay couples will be assigned the task of preparing worlds for all the children created by the opposite sex gods.  They  are going to be too busy procreating anyway.  And everyone knows that gays are way more creative and imaginative than straights.  

And when I am preparing your worlds, I will not forget those that have been kind and supportive to gay members.  You guys are going to get amazing worlds like you can't even imagine presently.  For Scott, I am thinking something like a world with a huge clock on it.  Every 40,000 years it blows up and he has to start populating it all over again.  I am taking requests if anyone of you want to get a head start.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe you're making things up as you go along.

Thirty-eight years ago the AIDS epidemic had already begun. Homosexuality was a public issue many years before then, one that was recognized by Church leaders.

 

If you read carefully you'll note that I said they didn't accept the "concept of homosexual orientation".  I didn't say that they didn't recognize homosexuality.  Important difference and relevant to what I wrote.

I'd encourage you to go back and read the addresses and articles from the FP, Q12, and other general authorities as well as church publications prior to the 80's on the subject.  I have.  They present a different understanding than what is taught in the Church today.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Come on VGJ. Give this a little thought. What is different between you as a single man who has the opportunity to date and seek out a companion with whom you might marry and live with happily ever after, and the gay person who will NEVER have the opportunity to date and seek out a companion with whom they might marry and live with happily ever after?

The law of chastity is not treated equally with regard to hetero and homo couples but even worse than that, the gay person in the church is stripped of all hope for a meaningful relationship that brings joy to life.

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Further, VGJ could spend the rest of his life dating girls and always remain a member in good standing.  Why should VGJ get a "special pass" to indulge in dating those who he is attracted to when gay and lesbian members of the church don't have that privilege?

This matter is treated in the Q&A interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman on "Mormon Newsroom" on lds.org:
 

Quote

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.

We live in a very self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of us begins to think that way, it might be well to look beyond ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering more, than someone else?

I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If you read carefully you'll note that I said they didn't accept the "concept of homosexual orientation".  I didn't say that they didn't recognize homosexuality.  Important difference and relevant to what I wrote.

I'd encourage you to go back and read the addresses and articles from the FP, Q12, and other general authorities as well as church publications prior to the 80's on the subject.  I have.  They present a different understanding than what is taught in the Church today.

Apparently you are applying some esoteric definition of "concept of homosexual orientation" that I'm not privy to.

 

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

This matter is treated in the Q&A interview with Elders Oaks and Wickman on "Mormon Newsroom" on lds.org:
 

 

Being gay is not a disease.  Not the same at all.  I am a functioning human being perfectly able to marry and enjoy a fruitful and happy life.  Elder Wickman's answer is insulting and does nothing to answer the question.

Some people are born with black skins and are unable to marry in the temple.  But others can not marry in the temple as well because of disease.  So see, it is fair.

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is truth in this.

When the Church gave its support to public policy safeguarding rights of housing and employment, and when the Church called for kindness and love in dealing with people with same sex attraction, I do believe many people read this as a gradual capitulation on principle. As a result, when news of the handbook policy emerged last November, they perceived that their hopes were dashed and they reacted with anger and hostility. I continue to believe that, under the surface, this had less to do with any impact the policy might have on children and more to do with the clear indication that the Church was not caving in on gay marriage, gradually or otherwise, now or at any time in the future.

 

I'll take a stab at re-writing your paragraph above in a way that more closely represents the attitudes of those that I know:

When the Church gave its support to public policy safeguarding rights of housing and employment, and when the Church called for kindness and love in dealing with LGBT people, I do believe many people read this as the church becoming more Christlike.  As a result, when news of the handbook policy was leaked last November, they perceived that their hopes of the Church becoming more aligned with the teachings of Christ were dealt a serious blow and they reacted with frustration and grief.

There.  Fixed it.