MormonsandGays.org is updated...

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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. 

Of course. I'm sure (for myself) that my anecdotal experience more accurately reflects the views of the body of active Church members as a whole than those who claim that there is an imminent groundswell of seismic change coming.

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. (emphasis added)

But what would happen if you branched outside of these select members?  I'm kidding. Your anecdotal experience is valid, too. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Do you honestly think, as B.H. Roberts used to say, "honor bright," that the Brethren who transmitted the temple definition had in mind "corresponding with legal governmental definitions of marriage, no matter what changes happen --- we just have to accept that" when the law of chastity was defined as "legally and lawfully married?" 

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

I don't think that's simple at all. I think it would rip the Church apart and leave an impotent shell behind if that happened.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There's been no revelation telling us about the eternal state of sexuality at all.

And there is good reason, I think, and that is, each child of God is invited to adopt the doctrine of Christ as revealed, which he will find provides a more abundant life than any mere mortal capacity and experience.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It very well may be a mortal inclination and we may feel no sexuality at all after this life.  But who knows?   

And if so, sexuality really doesn’t matter, but adopting the long view that is made possible through the doctrine of Christ does.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

Again, your anecdotal experiences are just as valid as mine are --- and more influential for you, too, because they are yours. 

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.

We're all guilty of this, I think. But, we're not all equal in how much our sense of things actually squares with the reality (despite our perceptions).

The rule of thumb I use is active LDS. I think there's a huge oversampling of sympathy for gay marriage among inactive or disengaged LDS. But it's the active LDS who are in the pews and paying the tithing. 

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

Does it really though? In what way?

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

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

It's probably for the best

 

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

The problem here is that getting married has nothing to do with what the word apostasy means. Apostasy is about beliefs. Getting married as a gay person is functionally no different from any other thing that the church considers sinful. Apostasy is the renunciation of orthodox belief. Labeling gay couples as apostates is nonsensical, and makes the word "apostasy" meaningless. What's to say then that smoking isn't apostasy, or working on Sunday? If anything sinful, apart from beliefs, is fair game, then anything can count as apostasy. 

And weirdly, you're allowed to advocate for gay marriage, and not be considered apostate. So the word has become meaningless. 

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't seen where either one of us is claiming to speak for God.  

Well I'm glad we cleared that up, then. Because the Church of Jesus Christ does claim to speak for God, and when it does so, I reject the contentions of those who contradict it.

Quote

But, there is a pattern of leaders claiming that past leaders were "just speaking as men".  

Not speaking as men in official Church platforms or venues such as lds.org.

 

Quote

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.

I'd say you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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?   

You and others fail to recognize the difference between ascertaining the physical, biological or emotional causes of homosexuality (something they are not qualified to do) and teaching sacred, doctrinal truth (something they are qualified to do).

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Again, your anecdotal experiences are just as valid as mine are --- and more influential for you, too, because they are yours. 

We're all guilty of this, I think. But, we're not all equal in how much our sense of things actually squares with the reality (despite our perceptions).

The rule of thumb I use is active LDS. I think there's a huge oversampling of sympathy for gay marriage among inactive or disengaged LDS. But it's the active LDS who are in the pews and paying the tithing. 

 

 

I think the inactive and disengaged tend to be more public and vocal... because they can be without retribution. So I agree with your oversampling conclusion.

But, I think you also need to account for the "undersampling" among active and engaged (in the pews, paying tithing) LDS who hold those same sympathies for gay marriage but cannot or will not speak out publicly because of the negative consequences.

As I've engaged in some of the online communities I have been fascinated to see who happens to be in there with me, sharing many of my views:  old high school friends, past ward members, kids I taught in church (now adults), my old EQ pres, other bishopric/high council members from my stake, the current RS president in my ward.  The list goes on.

Edited October 26, 2016 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the inactive and disengaged tend to be more public and vocal... because they can be without retribution. So I agree with your oversampling conclusion.

But, I think you also need to account for the "undersampling" among active and engaged (in the pews, paying tithing) LDS who hold those same sympathies for gay marriage but cannot or will not speak out publicly because of the negative consequences.

As I've engaged in some of the online communities I have been fascinated to see who happens to be in there with me and shares my view:  old high school friends, past ward members, kids I taught in church (now adults), my old EQ pres, other bishopric/high council members from my stake, the current RS president in my ward.  The list goes on.

Such individuals are apt to be self-selected -- like those in Dehlin's infamous "survey." I'm guessing those who are in full support of the Brethren tend to be quieter in the secular sphere. I suppose I'm something of an outlier in that respect.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Such individuals are apt to be self-selected -- like those in Dehlin's infamous "survey." I'm guessing those who are in full support of the Brethren tend to be quieter. I suppose I'm something of an outlier in that respect.

 

What are you referring to?  Self-selected?

I was explaining that while the inactive and disengaged may be oversampled (per Rongo's point).

The active and engaged are likely to be undersampled because the possible negative consequences tend to keep them/us hidden.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

But what would happen if you branched outside of these select members?  I'm kidding. Your anecdotal experience is valid, too. 

It's a fair question. "...to select members of my ward" has confirmation bias written all over it.

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not speaking as men in official Church platforms or venues such as lds.org.

 

All the past Prophets and leaders who now have been contradicted or corrected on different topics, were not officially speaking for the church?

Brigham Young wasn't speaking with authority regarding the Adam/God doctrine he taught and the teachings he made sure were included in the temple endowment?

,

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What are you referring to?  Self-selected?

I was explaining that while the inactive and disengaged may be oversampled (per Rongo's point).

The active and engaged are likely to be undersampled because the possible negative consequences tend to keep them/us hidden.

I'm referring to your statement that you've encountered a lot of your past acquaintances in "online communities" who agree with you. I'm saying you are less apt to encounter in "online communities" those of your past acquaintance who disagree with you, as those who fully support the Brethren tend to be quieter about it in the secular sphere than those who don't fully support the Brethren.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

All the past Prophets and leaders who now have been contradicted or corrected on different topics, were not officially speaking for the church?

Brigham Young wasn't speaking with authority regarding the Adam/God doctrine he taught and the teachings he made sure were included in the temple endowment?

,

 

Well, if you have to reach clear back to the Brigham Young period to substantiate your claim, its weakness is apparent.

And I can cite solid documentation of Brigham's Adam-God dogma being contradicted in its day and ultimately being officially disavowed in the Church

Can you cite even one instance of a prophet, apostle or General Authority contradicting the statement that the Church's doctrine on homosexual behavior will not change?

Edited October 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm referring to your statement that you've encountered a lot of your past acquaintances in "online communities" who agree with you. I'm saying you are less apt to encounter in "online communities" those of your past acquaintance who disagree with you, as those who fully support the Brethren tend to be quieter about it in the secular sphere than those who don't fully support the Brethren.

 

Yes, basically the corollary to what I said.  But thanks for clarifying.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, if you have to reach clear back to the Brigham Young period to substantiate your claim, its weakness is apparent.

That's only one example of many (but I'm sure you knew that).

Are you seriously claiming that because Brigham Young was a prophet from the past ("clear back"), that he spoke with less authority?

If so, then following that logic, those leaders in the future will be able to speak with more authority than those today, correct?

Edited October 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's only one example of many (but I'm sure you knew that).

I assume you picked the best one you can think of.

Quote

Are you seriously claiming that because Brigham Young was a prophet from the past ("clear back"), that he spoke with less authority?

Are you saying you can't find a compelling example rom the 20th -- much less the 21st -- century to support your point?

 

[rongo]

51 minutes ago, Gray said:

Does [the PotF] really [function as scripture] though? In what way?

By how it's quoted and used (extensively). By it's conspicuous inclusion in things like the Duty to God book, Personal Progress book, etc. That it hangs in most active LDS homes. 

The problem here is that getting married has nothing to do with what the word apostasy means. Apostasy is about beliefs.

Only in an orthodoxy tradition, not an orthopraxis one like ours. Even with heterodox views, it is the continued preaching of them that constitutes apostasy within Mormonism, not the mere holding of the views. In our church, apostasy has always been about outward opposition to and attack of the Church, not "beliefs." 

Given the Church's "all in" campaign on Prop 8 (which Elder Perry and Elder Halstrom told a special meeting of bishops and stake presidencies in 2009 was directly commanded by God, and that it would precede continuing erosion on the issue) and subsequent teachings and actions, the act of marrying against the express teachings and commandments of the Church is a public and outward defiant act against the Church. I believe that it was added to specific apostasy definitions because the purpose of the policy is to make it crystal clear that gay marriage is not and never will be acceptable in the Church. Personally and directly acting against that openly defies this stance. That the Church "burned the ships on the shore" and identified this as a "hill to die on" makes me highly skeptical that Bill Reel, John Dehlin, et. al.'s sources are correct when they say that this policy will be removed a short time after its (admittedly ham-handed) rolling-out.

Getting married as a gay person is functionally no different from any other thing that the church considers sinful. Apostasy is the renunciation of orthodox belief. Labeling gay couples as apostates is nonsensical, and makes the word "apostasy" meaningless. What's to say then that smoking isn't apostasy, or working on Sunday? If anything sinful, apart from beliefs, is fair game, then anything can count as apostasy.

See above. The point isn't to suddenly label any and all sins, great and small, as apostasy. That isn't the point at all of the policy.

And weirdly, you're allowed to advocate for gay marriage, and not be considered apostate. So the word has become meaningless.

I admit that that is inconsistent. Elder Christofferson's spelling out of this during the reaction to the leaked policy seemed very much PR-driven, to me. I have had a liberal (but active) member meet with me and discuss whether he is temple-worthy because he supports gay marriage on social media. 

If the Brethren said that public, vocal support of gay marriage, and not gay marriage alone, constitutes apostasy, would you be gone in that instant? Or, would you change your behavior to remain in good standing in the Church?

 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assume you picked the best one you can think of.

oh, never make assumptions like that  

I just picked one of several to use as an example.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you saying you can't find a compelling example rom the 20th -- much less the 21st -- century to support your point?

Nice dodge.  How about you answer my question?

Here it is again:

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you seriously claiming that because Brigham Young was a prophet from the past ("clear back"), that he spoke with less authority?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I have been denounced -- and in one post called a vile name -- on this thread because of my intention to continue using the very serviceable term same-sex attraction.

I note that the phrase is used as the title of the newly updated "Gospel Topics" essay on lds.org, "Same Sex Attraction".

The essay gives solid reasoning for using the term:

Quote

 

Same-sex attraction refers to emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. The experience of same-sex attraction is not the same for everyone. Some people may feel exclusively attracted to the same gender, while others may feel attracted to both genders.

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual behavior. People who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual can make and keep covenants with God and fully and worthily participate in the Church. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

 

So the phrase is useful in drawing a very important distinction between those who merely feel sexually attracted to others of the same sex and those who act on such feelings. The distinction, of course, is important in determining one's standing in the Church and in determining eligibility to hold a temple recommend, go on a mission and hold callings in the Church.

I have never really grasped the reasoning of those who object so strenuously to this phrase, other than they want to blur the distinction between those who merely have the urge and those who act on it. If that be the case, then this, like other such instances of political correctness, is driven by ideology.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

She says she is gay, not same-sex attracted. This is put out by the church, it kind of left me hanging, but I'm guessing it's okay to be gay and a member in good standing and even hold callings?  

This is a big step, what happened to there being no such thing as a being gay, according to Bednar. What next? 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think the November policy will stay in place for the next 4 prophets. I can foresee the future and believe the next 4 prophets will be in order, Russell M Nelson, Dallin H Oaks, Jeffrey R Holland, and David A Bednar, and I don't see any of them changing the policy. In fact I believe they were the apostles who are most for the policy.

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have been denounced -- and in one post called a vile name -- because of my intention to continue using the very serviceable term same-sex attraction.

I note that the phrase is used as the title of the newly updated "Gospel Topics" essay on lds.org, "Same Sex Attraction".

The essay gives solid reasoning for using the term:

So the phrase is useful in drawing a very important distinction between those who merely feel sexually attracted to others of the same sex and those who act on such feelings. The distinction, of course, is important in determining one's standing in the Church and in determining eligibility to hold a temple recommend, go on a mission and hold callings in the Church.

I have never really grasped the reasoning of those who object so strenuously to this phrase, other than they want to blur the distinction between those who merely have the urge and those who act on it. If that be the case, then this, like other such instances of political correctness, is driven by ideology.

I've explained the objection to you at least a couple times.  

Regarding the quote from LDS.org that you provided:  not everyone agrees with the Church's logic and definitions of these terms. 

If someone identifies as SSA and prefers that term, we ought to use it. 

If someone (or some group) tells you that they find SSA to be an offensive description or label and that they prefer "gay" or "lesbian" we ought respect that. Would you agree?

[california boy]

Maybe at this point in the thread, we should all take  a breath.  Obviously there are two points of view.  One group thinks that anything a church leader says about gays is doctrine and official policy.  This is an infallible position because church doctrine would completely fall apart of gay marriage was allowed to happen in the church.

The other group thinks church policies are toxic and hurtful to those gays that want to still be involved in the church.  They know for a fact that church leaders and even prophets have spoken their opinions before and have now been disavowed.  Sometimes those opinions have even been called revelations from God himself.  

When the church decided that those statements are no longer worth defending, they have been disavowed.  Currently the church still thinks those opinions/revelations, whatever you want to call them are still valid and wants to hold fast to them.  About half of the people on this thread want to hold those opinions as well mostly because they want to follow the church leaders.  The other half feel the current church position is wrong and feel they are sending a warning to correct that wrong.  Through past experience, they are unwilling to put blind trust in church leaders.   

Church policy isn't going to change any time soon.  We all have to just be patient and see how all of this plays out.  Most on both sides believe that in 38 years and how many days this will be resolved one way or the other.  Until then, it feels like we are on a repeating loop on this subject.  In the mean time the majority of gay members leave the church and find a happy and fulfilling life outside the gospel.  God doesn't seem to much care about what is happening.  Through all of this, He evidently has been silent.  If God doesn't care, why should we?