MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[DBMormon]

On 10/25/2016 at 11:53 AM, stemelbow said:

I don't see anything talking about the policy change.  Is there some explanation added about it?  You'd think that would be a good idea. 

not if it won't be around long

[stemelbow]

Just now, DBMormon said:

not if it won't be around long

That was my suspicion honestly.  Maybe the Church hopes to move away from the useless policy. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

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. 

You're leaving out the Proclamation, which was a necessary codification due to our times. But, the reason that homosexuality isn't addressed at length in the scriptures is because it's acceptability wasn't something that was remotely controversial enough for debate, discussion, or even questions until "relatively recently." I think that progressive/liberal Mormon attempts to capitalize on the absence of direct scriptural treatment of it as evidence that it's fine and compatible with the plan of salvation are a fool's errand. They might convince other like-minded liberals/progressives, but not people who are the sort who are overwhelmingly attracted to the fullness of the restored gospel. 

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.

No. I actually don't know *any* at all, although I know quite a few gay members in my stake, including wards I have been or am a bishop over. And my wife's uncle. None of them are married or even interested in being married. Some live within Church parameters, and others are under formal Church discipline, but not one of them is married. I see the act of getting married as a material "crossing of the Rubicon" with respect to the Church that is more flagrant than simply committing homosexual acts. I can see why the marriage aspect is deemed apostate.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

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

Meaning what, though? Tolerance and compassion, or acceptance of it as not being a law of chastity violation? I don't think you could get 50% of active Mormons even in the Bay area who think that. 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're leaving out the Proclamation, which was a necessary codification due to our times. But, the reason that homosexuality isn't addressed at length in the scriptures is because it's acceptability wasn't something that was remotely controversial enough for debate, discussion, or even questions until "relatively recently." I think that progressive/liberal Mormon attempts to capitalize on the absence of direct scriptural treatment of it as evidence that it's fine and compatible with the plan of salvation are a fool's errand. They might convince other like-minded liberals/progressives, but not people who are the sort who are overwhelmingly attracted to the fullness of the restored gospel. 

The proclamation isn't scripture, or even revelation. It's just a statement of doctrines, many of which don't originate with us. Ancient attitudes toward homosexuality are not at all consistent or monolithic. Often they were based on outdated notions of biology, or tribal custom. 

 

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

No. I actually don't know *any* at all, although I know quite a few gay members in my stake, including wards I have been or am a bishop over. And my wife's uncle. None of them are married or even interested in being married. Some live within Church parameters, and others are under formal Church discipline, but not one of them is married. I see the act of getting married as a material "crossing of the Rubicon" with respect to the Church that is more flagrant than simply committing homosexual acts. I can see why the marriage aspect is deemed apostate.

What a strange view. They could have a hundred sexual partners in a year, but settling down with one and making a commitment is somehow worse and evidence of apostasy? 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The proclamation isn't scripture, or even revelation. It's just a statement of doctrines, many of which don't originate with us. 

Not yet, it isn't. It doesn't actually need to be accepted by vote in Conference. Its issuance and how the Church has used it means that it functions as scripture and revelation. And, it's concise exposition of core doctrines are completely relevant to the question of what official Church teaching is.

Ancient attitudes toward homosexuality are not at all consistent or monolithic. Often they were based on outdated notions of biology, or tribal custom.

I'll settle for just one reference to recognized gay marriage, anywhere, anytime, before the 1990s.  

What a strange view. They could have a hundred sexual partners in a year, but settling down with one and making a commitment is somehow worse and evidence of apostasy?

You're conflating sin with apostasy. One can commit heinous sins without committing apostasy. It's the blatant, flagrant flouting of Church policy and instructions that makes it apostate.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think it would me a major shift at all. It would really be quite simple. All it requires is a law of chastity applied uniformly. No sxual relations except with a spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully married. Right now, the ban on SSM requires an asterisk next to the law of chastity to exclude SS couples.

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Meaning what, though? Tolerance and compassion, or acceptance of it as not being a law of chastity violation? I don't think you could get 50% of active Mormons even in the Bay area who think that. 

Not sure what exactly is meant by acceptance, but it does show that the needle can move rather quickly. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think it would me a major shift at all. It would really be quite simple. All it requires is a law of chastity applied uniformly. No sxual relations except with a spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully married. Right now, the ban on SSM requires an asterisk next to the law of chastity to exclude SS couples.

I think "legally and lawfully married" in LDS understanding includes the concept of God's acceptance, not just fulfilling the civil governmental requirements of a particular locale. In other words, "lawfully" in the eyes of God and the Church.

I don't think the argument, "Hey, gays can be legally married now! So, they're no longer violating the law of chastity" is very convincing at all to very many active Mormons.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not yet, it isn't. It doesn't actually need to be accepted by vote in Conference. Its issuance and how the Church has used it means that it functions as scripture and revelation. And, it's concise exposition of core doctrines are completely relevant to the question of what official Church teaching is.

It doesn't function as scripture until it's canonized. And until the church starts calling it a revelation, calling it such is premature. Although if something can be "beautified" as a revelation decades after the fact it should become clearer that revelation in the church isn't necessarily about the words of God. 

Bottom line - there is no real scriptural basis for the church's position on gays - at least not a consistent one. Maybe if they would like to tell women to keep quiet in church and start teaching that young people ought to stop getting married, then they can start appealing to Paul as an authoritative source for doctrine. Even so they'd also have to acknowledge that God turns people gay as a punishment for apostasy (Paul's belief). 

Quote

 

 

I'll settle for just one reference to recognized gay marriage, anywhere, anytime, before the 1990s.  

I can't think of one. Of course I can't think of a scriptural recognition of tweeting either. 

 

Quote

 

You're conflating sin with apostasy. One can commit heinous sins without committing apostasy. It's the blatant, flagrant flouting of Church policy and instructions that makes it apostate.

Getting married is "flagrant flouting" of church policy in a way that, say, prostitution is not? Even pedophiles aren't labeled apostates, which tells me that our priorities here are all messed up. 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Gray

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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?   

 

The new Mormon and Gay site even quotes the "glass darkly" verse.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Not sure what exactly is meant by acceptance, but it does show that the needle can move rather quickly. 

We had a youth fireside a while ago, with a panel accepting questions from the youth. One of the questions was "Why do Mormons hate gay people?" (I'm certain that the question came from one of the Norwegian foreign exchange students in our ward at the time). My answer to that was, "Would everybody who has a gay family member or friend please raise your hand?" Every hand in the room went up, including the adults.

I said, "That is the answer to the question, 'Why do Mormons hate gay people.' We don't. We all have loved ones who are gay, and they feel our love. Some people insist that teaching God's doctrines and the commandments means that we 'hate,' but that isn't true, and claiming this doesn't mean that we do." 

Every single one of the gay members I have worked with (most of whom have been disciplined by the Church) supports the Church's doctrines, commandments, and goals, even when they haven't been able to live them and may continue to violate them. They wish it were otherwise, but they understand and support the Church's stance. When asked if they find acceptance in the Church, they would enthusiastically answer "Yes!" The ones who don't formally severe ties or stop coming. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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?

 

Why would it be required to produce a statement contradicting Wickman and Oaks? The responsibility is on the person claiming doctrine to show that it deserves to be called doctrine.

Quote

May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-

“Not every statement made by a church leader – past or present – necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal though well-considered opinion but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication.

Your example sounds much more like a statement made by a single leader on a single occasion. If Wickman spoke doctrine we should expect it to be repeated by multiple people on multiple occasions. Can you provide examples?

Quote

1. Harold B. Lee 

   “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

Can we find this doctrine about human sxuality in the pre-mortal and post mortal worlds in our standard works?

Quote

BH Roberts- The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

Does the Newsroom now preempt the requirement for multiple sources and/or validation through the standard works?

Hanging your doctrinal hopes on Wickman and a couple of sentences from Oaks published on Newsroom is thin indeed.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

We had a youth fireside a while ago, with a panel accepting questions from the youth. One of the questions was "Why do Mormons hate gay people?" (I'm certain that the question came from one of the Norwegian foreign exchange students in our ward at the time). My answer to that was, "Would everybody who has a gay family member or friend please raise your hand?" Every hand in the room went up, including the adults.

I said, "That is the answer to the question, 'Why do Mormons hate gay people.' We don't. We all have loved ones who are gay, and they feel our love. Some people insist that teaching God's doctrines and the commandments means that we 'hate,' but that isn't true, and claiming this doesn't mean that we do." 

Every single one of the gay members I have worked with (most of whom have been disciplined by the Church) supports the Church's doctrines, commandments, and goals, even when they haven't been able to live them and may continue to violate them. They wish it were otherwise, but they understand and support the Church's stance. When asked if they find acceptance in the Church, they would enthusiastically answer "Yes!" The ones who don't formally severe ties or stop coming. 

You understand, though, that the people you know personally don't work as valid sample size that could tell you anything about attitudes in the church generally, right? Not to poo poo your experiences, which are meaningful as anecdotes. 

I could also tell you about my own experiences - whenever I've brought up my disagreement with the policy to select members in my ward, every single one has agreed with me that the policy is bad. That's not data either, but it's interesting. 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think "legally and lawfully married" in LDS understanding includes the concept of God's acceptance, not just fulfilling the civil governmental requirements of a particular locale. In other words, "lawfully" in the eyes of God and the Church.

I don't think the argument, "Hey, gays can be legally married now! So, they're no longer violating the law of chastity" is very convincing at all to very many active Mormons.

That's pure spin. Since when do we ever refer to anything about God's commandments being "legally and lawfully"? I'd love to see the examples you can come up with.

You're missing the point. It's not about saying, "Gee, SSM is legal now so God must now follow US Law." That's ridiculous. But what if prophets have been taught that sxual relationships are only appropriate within marriage because that's what he meant. He meant that he wants people to be married. If they are, then He approves. But we're hindered by our own cultural perceptions of what we thought He meant.

Another simple solution would be for the church to change it's official definition of the Law of Chastity.

[rockpond]

41 minutes 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. 

 

I frequently find myself pondering this point:  have I put myself into a bubble that makes me feel there are more who think like me than there actually are?

I imagine that in some respects I have.

I also think we need to factor in the ability that the church culture has to silence people who think differently than the mainstream.  Take the account of Jake and Amy Malouf, for example (see the recent MormonStories podcast).  Once they went public with their feelings, they have had tons of people come out from the shadows to confidentially tell them that they have the same doubts/concerns.  Jake even tells of a father and a son who independently contacted him expressing how alone they felt in their doubts and that they had nobody among their family or friends to talk with -- a father and a son didn't even know how each other felt because the culture encourages suppression of such things.

Regarding the policy and its impact on the majority of active members, I look at my own family -- parents and 6 adult children.  Very active, faithful family... all having married in the temple except for my youngest sister who is still single.  Dad has served as bishop and stake president.  My parents went on to serve as mission presidents and temple presidents.  My mom's first reaction to the leak was to tell us that it must be false.  But once it turned out to be real, she came out in support of it.  Of my siblings:  4 of the 6 were opposed to the new policy.  Obviously not a valid survey sample but still an interesting data point for me.

[rockpond]

1 hour 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.

Something can be authoritative for the Church without being authoritative from God.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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?

I already said the rogue thing was hyperbole. I thought I had clarified my meaning.

And I don't believe the Church puts up content on "Mormon Newsroom" that is not authoritative.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Something can be authoritative for the Church without being authoritative from God.

Well, as I've indicated before, if I have to choose, I'll trust the Church of Jesus Christ as speaking for God before I'll trust you or ALarson as speaking for God.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I already said the rogue thing was hyperbole. I thought I had clarified my meaning.

And I don't believe the Church puts up content on "Mormon Newsroom" that is not authoritative.

Authoritative is not the same as doctrine.  And as we know, past leaders and prophets have made mistakes and have also corrected past teachings or statements formerly made by church leaders.  

There is no way of knowing this will not happen in the future regarding the statements you quoted.  

.

Edited October 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

 

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

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

It depends on what time period you're talking about.

It was comparatively high during the "Mormon reformation" of the 1850s. It was much, much lower than that in the years leading up to the Manifesto.

Has anyone ever calculated an average for the entire pre-Manifesto Utah period? I don't think the data exist to make a definitive such calculation.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, as I've indicated before, if I have to choose, I'll trust the Church of Jesus Christ as speaking for God before I'll trust you or ALarson as speaking for God.

I haven't seen where either one of us is claiming to speak for God.   But, there is a pattern of leaders claiming that past leaders were "just speaking as men".  There's nothing preventing that from happening in the future (especially on this topic and some current leader's statements).  Actually, I'd pretty much count on this happening in the future.

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, as I've indicated before, if I have to choose, I'll trust the Church of Jesus Christ as speaking for God before I'll trust you or ALarson as speaking for God.

Well, you should never put your trust in ALarson nor I as speaking for God.  Obviously.

But we have been given a pattern for deciding whether the leaders of the Church are speaking for God.  I rely on that because just making a default assumption has proven faulty.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why would it be required to produce a statement contradicting Wickman and Oaks? The responsibility is on the person claiming doctrine to show that it deserves to be called doctrine.

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,

Quote

Your example sounds much more like a statement made by a single leader on a single occasion. If Wickman spoke doctrine we should expect it to be repeated by multiple people on multiple occasions. Can you provide examples?

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.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It doesn't function as scripture until it's canonized.

It functions as scripture. It isn't actually technically scripture until it is canonized.

And until the church starts calling it a revelation, calling it such is premature.

Too bad for me that President Packer's talk removed him calling it revelation, huh?  

Getting married is "flagrant flouting" of church policy in a way that, say, prostitution is not? Even pedophiles aren't labeled apostates, which tells me that our priorities here are all messed up.

You're continuing to conflate "worst sins we can possibly think of, ever" with apostasy. There are odius, heinous sins (many of them) that aren't apostasy.