MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

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.

In the interview posted on "Mormon Newsroom," Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman were very clear on the notion that homosexuality might exist in the afterlife. They very clearly said no:
 

Quote

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

By way of reminder, content on "Mormon Newsroom" is primarily for the benefit of news media who inquire about the official Church position on this or that matter.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

 

It's not esoteric.  And you could be privy to it if you'd so choose.

[rockpond]

13 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:
 

 

 

The Church has not prevented, through policy or doctrinal pronouncements, Elder Wickman's daughter from dating or marrying.  So it isn't an appropriate example.

It's also hurtful.

[Rain]

12 hours 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.

I don't think so.  We really don't know much about God, but I don't see the doctrine that He exists changing. 

John the revelator is shown about the world. Maybe, I'm wrong but I don't think he was shown EVERYTHING. He may not have been shown the physical, emotional and mental struggles I have with food addiction, but he does get at least a glimpse of the end times. I don't think it is too much of a stretch for a prophet to know if a doctrine won't change even if he doesn't know everything concerning it.  

Edited October 27, 2016 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Yet another example of someone using the word "Christlike" in a way that ignores the fact that Christ has given commandments and requires obedience to law.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Some people's definition of Christlike is purely imaginary.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

 

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Church has not prevented, through policy or doctrinal pronouncements, Elder Wickman's daughter from dating or marrying.  So it isn't an appropriate example.

It's also hurtful.

I think those who have not rejected the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding homosexuality -- including that it is a condition that did not exist before or that will exist after mortality -- might view his comments as compassionate and engendering hope.

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't think so.  We really don't know much about God, but I don't see the doctrine that He exists changing. 

John the revelator is shown about the world. Maybe, I'm wrong but I don't think he was shown EVERYTHING. He may not have been shown the physical, emotional and mental struggles I have with food addiction, but he does get at least a glimpse of the end times. I don't think it is too much of a stretch for a prophet to know I'd a doctrine won't change even if he doesn't know everything concerning it.  

 

 

We do know much about God, we just don't know everything.  But our entire faith is rooted in the idea that He will continue to exist forever.  So, I don't see this as an apt comparison.

I'm not sure how your John the Revelator comparison applies.

I think that a prophet CAN know that a doctrine won't change, if such information is given to him.  Is the "won't change" declaration based on revelation or solely on our current understanding?  It seems to be the latter.

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the interview posted on "Mormon Newsroom," Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman were very clear on the notion that homosexuality might exist in the afterlife. They very clearly said no:

Were they speaking as men or as prophets?  Both have been wrong in the past and have also changed their minds over time.  No one knows if this will happen regarding their statements and policies. (Except maybe God)

Edited October 26, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yet another example of someone using the word "Christlike" in a way that ignores the fact that Christ has given commandments and requires obedience to law.

Nope.  I don't ignore that at all.  Not for a moment.  And I still stand by my rewrite of your paragraph.

 

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the interview posted on "Mormon Newsroom," Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman were very clear on the notion that homosexuality might exist in the afterlife. They very clearly said no:
 

By way of reminder, content on "Mormon Newsroom" is primarily for the benefit of news media who inquire about the official Church position on this or that matter.

And they got this opinion from where exactly?  Revelation?  Nope, they never claimed that.  They are just making this up because certainly they aren't claiming their attitudes came from God.  So why not let others make up the role of gays in the plan of salvation?  You are relying completely on the philosophy of men for your answers.  They haven't claimed otherwise have they

Edited October 26, 2016 by california boy

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

For those who have not rejected the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding homosexuality, I think his comments would be compassionate and would engender hope.

 

 

As Josh's video on the afterlife demonstrates, hope is based in faith, not on having your sexual orientation compared to a disability.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Were they speaking as men or as prophets?  Both have been wrong in the past and have also changed their minds over time.  No one knows if this will happen regarding their statements and policies. (Except maybe God)

 

I don't see anywhere on the site where they claim to have received revelation on the matter.

[california boy]

 

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

For those who have not rejected the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding homosexuality, I think his comments would be compassionate and would engender hope.

 

Tell me why you think his comments are compassionate.  

 

Do you think telling a black person that because they happened to be born with the wrong color skin, he can't marry in the temple.  But others can't marry in the temple either because they are handicapped would be compassionate?

Edited October 26, 2016 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Were they speaking as men or as prophets?  Both have been wrong in the past and have also changed their minds over time.  No one knows if this will happen regarding their statements and policies. (Except maybe God)

"Mormon Newsroom" is intended to convey the official, authoritative position of the Church on various matters to news media and to others who want to know it. The thought that this is just an instance of General Authorities going rogue and expressing their personal opinion is untenable.

Edited to add:

Can you cite even one instance of Church leaders speaking authoritatively about this question and contradicting what Elders Wickman and Oaks have said here?

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Mormon Newsroom" is intended to convey the official, authoritative position of the Church on various matters to news media and to others who want to know it. The thought that this is just an instance of General Authorities going rogue and expressing their personal opinion is untenable.

Edited to add:

Can you cite even one instance of Church leaders speaking authoritatively about this question and contradicting what Elders Wickman and Oaks have said here?

 

 

Strawman warning:  That wasn't what ALarson said.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Mormon Newsroom" is intended to convey the official, authoritative position of the Church on various matters to news media and to others who want to know it. The thought that this is just an instance of General Authorities going rogue and expressing their personal opinion is untenable.

"Going rogue"?  Now, that's not what I said, was it?

(Just saw rockpond's post expressing the same thing! )

.

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Tell me why you think his comments are compassionate.  

 

 

You have to recognize that I have in mind those who have not already rejected the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ regarding homosexual behavior and have not already concluded, contrary to those teachings, that there is anything wholesome or righteous about it.

For such a person, I would think comments such as Elder Wickman's -- recognizing the struggle it is for someone who embraces the doctrines of the Church and wants to do what's right, and expressing the assurance that the person can receive all of God's blessings if he remains faithful -- would indeed be compassionate and hopeful.

And the Church does not forbid people with black skins from temple marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

"Going rogue"?  Now, that's not what I said, was it?

(Just saw rockpond's post expressing the same thing! )

.

 

That was my hyperbole. But you did hint that what they said was not authoritative. I stand by my rejection of that notion.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That was my hyperbole. But you did hint that what they said was not authoritative. I stand by my rejection of that notion.

No, I did not even "hint' that these leaders had gone "rogue".  That came entirely from you.

Do you believe that church leaders and prophets are infallible?

[rongo]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

The doctrine about gay marriage isn't really scriptural - not in a defensible way. And it's relatively recent.

This is something where the opposing sides are completely unable to see where the other one is coming from. And it's not from lack of trying on both sides. 

The thought that homosexuality itself isn't sinful is what is relatively recent. And gay marriage didn't even exist, even among cultures where homosexuality was countenanced.

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.

Partially agree, but only because the "current thinking on gays" is so culturally-embedded as to not need scriptural support. That this is even debated today to any extent would have been bewildering to anyone from the last 6,000 years.

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

Neither are homosexuals, except for the literal handful of homosexuals in the Church who get married. It's clear to me that both the gay marriage=apostasy clause and the policy on children are both shots across the bow --- burning the ships on the shore --- and not addressing existing problems in the Church. The numbers affected are so small as to be non-existent. For the very few who are married, and haven't left the Church or already been excommunicated, they are defined as apostate, but this is a very small number.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is something where the opposing sides are completely unable to see where the other one is coming from. And it's not from lack of trying on both sides. 

The thought that homosexuality itself isn't sinful is what is relatively recent. And gay marriage didn't even exist, even among cultures where homosexuality was countenanced.

There have been various viewpoints about homosexuality over the years. In any case, scriptural support for what has become orthodoxy is very weak. All we have are relics of the law of Moses, and teachings from Paul, whose teachings are only selectively accepted in the church today. Absolutely nothing on the topic exists in the BOM, D&C or POGP. 

On the other hand, the priesthood ban seems to have pretty direct support if you take a literal reading of the POGP combined with what people believed about the origins of Africans. 

 

Quote

 

Neither are homosexuals, except for the literal handful of homosexuals in the Church who get married. It's clear to me that both the gay marriage=apostasy clause and the policy on children are both shots across the bow --- burning the ships on the shore --- and not addressing existing problems in the Church. The numbers affected are so small as to be non-existent. For the very few who are married, and haven't left the Church or already been excommunicated, they are defined as apostate, but this is a very small number.

Do you know how many gay members of the church are getting married? Neither do I, but I know some have been excommunicated for it, on charges of apostasy. 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Gray

[rongo]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I'm of course not claiming that there weren't doctrinal underpinnings for polygamy or the ban. What I meant was that the seismic shift required to "de-criminalize" homosexuality in Church doctrine is larger by an exponential factor than it was for polygamy or the ban. 

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.

Maybe we can get Scott to make a countdown clock for this (time will tell), but I don't see this at all. I think liberal/progressive Mormons extrapolate their experience within their own bubbles onto the Church. The vast majority of active members (including their youth) are not open at all to seismic shifts on the acceptability of homosexuality. In my observation. 

[Gray]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

 I think liberal/progressive Mormons extrapolate their experience within their own bubbles onto the Church. The vast majority of active members (including their youth) are not open at all to seismic shifts on the acceptability of homosexuality. In my observation. 

http://religionnews.com/2015/11/03/mormons-50-more-likely-to-accept-homosexuality-than-in-2007-says-new-pew-study/

 

Quote

Mormons 50% more likely to accept homosexuality than in 2007, says new Pew study

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the interview posted on "Mormon Newsroom," Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman were very clear on the notion that homosexuality might exist in the afterlife. They very clearly said no:
 

By way of reminder, content on "Mormon Newsroom" is primarily for the benefit of news media who inquire about the official Church position on this or that matter.

I believe that's the problem.  In one sense, "we don't know why" but yet some have pretended to know what it is like before and after this life.  Sounds like guesswork.  We all see through a glass darkly.  There's been no revelation telling us about the eternal state of sexuality at all.  It very well may be a mortal inclination and we may feel no sexuality at all after this life.  But who knows?