Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[rockpond]

Someone shared this article with me.  It's on a Deseret Book owned site: Time Out For Women.  It tells the story of an LDS family welcoming and embracing (after initial reluctance) their daughter's wife.  They recount a bit of the history before telling how they ended up bringing the daughter's wife into their family picture.

Reading that story, on the website of a church-owned business, and contrasting it with what Elder Oaks stated in his 2006 interview (pasted below and still linked from MormonandGay.LDS.org) is one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades.

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

 

 

[JLHPROF]

I think calling this a "Change in the doctrine" is a massive stretch.

But it may well reflect the change in membership viewpoints of Church doctrine.

[rockpond]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I think calling this a "Change in the doctrine" is a massive stretch.

But it may well reflect the change in membership viewpoints of Church doctrine.

 

I wouldn't call it a change in the doctrine either.  It isn't.

[thesometimesaint]

The doctrine remains the same, it is a sin. What is changing is how we treat the sinner.

Edited October 31, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wouldn't call it a change in the doctrine either.  It isn't.

Then why the thread title "Change in the doctrine of homosexuality "

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Then why the thread title "Change in the doctrine of homosexuality "

From my OP:  "...one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades."

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Someone shared this article with me.  It's on a Deseret Book owned site: Time Out For Women.  It tells the story of an LDS family welcoming and embracing (after initial reluctance) their daughter's wife.  They recount a bit of the history before telling how they ended up bringing the daughter's wife into their family picture.

Reading that story, on the website of a church-owned business, and contrasting it with what Elder Oaks stated in his 2006 interview (pasted below and still linked from MormonandGay.LDS.org) is one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades.

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.

 

I'm not sure I understand.  Elder Oaks specifically allowed for "some circumstances" which encompass those described the article about the Jensen family (which is quite nice, by the way).

I don't see any indication, either by the Jensens or by Elder Oaks, that the Church's doctrines about same-sex behavior are changing in a fundamental sense.  We are doing better at expressing love towards people with SSA, at accepting them to the extent possible, while still adhering to the teachings in the Law of Chastity that same-sex behavior is sinful.

We have likewise improved/softened our approach to heterosexual violations of the Law of Chastity.  The law and the principles underlying it remain substantively unchanged.  We have simply moderated our approach to individuals who violate this law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

From my OP:  "...one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades."

I wonder if the Church will change its theological doctrine on homosexuality or simply change its focus to the ever increasing "Love is the most/only important" teaching.

 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The doctrine remains the same, it is a sin. What is changing is how we treat the sinner.

Elder Oaks statement and last year's policy change both attempt to create a distance or separation between loving, committed gay couples and active LDS.

This story linked in my OP encourages more of an embracing, inclusive attitude.  As that begins to happen, it becomes more difficult to abide the doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks statement and last year's policy change both attempt to create a distance or separation between loving, committed gay couples and active LDS.

This story linked in my OP encourages more of an embracing, inclusive attitude.  As that begins to happen, it becomes more difficult to abide the doctrine.

It is highly unlikely that that doctrine will change.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is highly unlikely that that doctrine will change.

Where is this doctrine stated (sincere question)?  There have been no statements from our current Prophet regarding what the doctrine on homosexuality is (that I'm aware of).  

I know there is that new policy, of course.  But is that considered doctrine?

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

"Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

In addition to the policy of exclusion, words like this from top leaders tell me what I need to know about where the church is and how they feel about the LGBT community. It's ugly and hurtful. I don't care how many times they say "I love you" to the LGBTQ community, I just don't believe it. They are not being honest with us, and maybe not even themselves.

It would be impossible for me to tell my daughter I love her and then also say what Elder Oaks said. 

 

Rockpond- I understand the desire to hope for change by taking courage in what may be perceived as baby steps in the right direction. But I think it's only about misdirection so the church can make inroads on the PR front. Nothing more. The official position of the church, as spoken by multiple leaders, is that LGBTQ have "counterfeit families" and are deviants. That's how they repeatedly treat LGBTQ regardless of the expressions of love.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Oaks statement and last year's policy change both attempt to create a distance or separation between loving, committed gay couples and active LDS.

Yours is an unnecessarily hostile interpretation of Elder Oaks' remarks and the policy change.  Again, Elder Oaks allows for a spectrum of responses from faithful Latter-day Saints.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This story linked in my OP encourages more of an embracing, inclusive attitude.  

Which is expressly endorsed by Elder Oaks.  

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As that begins to happen, it becomes more difficult to abide the doctrine.

Not really.  Members of the Church have also improved in interacting with loved ones who violate the Law of Chastity in other ways, including heterosexual behaviors.  We are more inclined to adopt "an embracing, inclusive attitude" where possible.  We don't shun.  We don't demean.  And yet . . . we as a church are not ignoring the prohibitions against adultery, fornication, etc.  These standards are still in place, even while we improve our interactions with people who violate them.

If we can "abide the doctrine" as it pertains to heterosexual violations of the Law of Chastity, then what makes you think we will not be above to do the same with homosexual violations of it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Someone shared this article with me.  It's on a Deseret Book owned site: Time Out For Women.  It tells the story of an LDS family welcoming and embracing (after initial reluctance) their daughter's wife.  They recount a bit of the history before telling how they ended up bringing the daughter's wife into their family picture.

Reading that story, on the website of a church-owned business, and contrasting it with what Elder Oaks stated in his 2006 interview (pasted below and still linked from MormonandGay.LDS.org) is one example of why I see the church changing on this subject over the next few decades.

 

I don't see that one anecdotal incident on a commercial web site changes or invalidates in any way the sound advice given by Elder Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, in a document that is on the official "Newsroom" section of lds.org and, as you acknoweldge, is linked to from the official site mormonandgay.org.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see that one anecdotal incident on a commercial web site changes or invalidates in any way the sound advice given by Elder Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, in a document that is on the official "Newsroom" section of lds.org and, as you acknoweldge, is linked to from the official site mormonandgay.org.

 

It doesn't.  Nor was that the point that I made.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The official position of the church, as spoken by multiple leaders, is that LGBTQ have "counterfeit families" and are deviants. 

CFR, please, for your quotation of "counterfeit families" as "spoken by multiple {LDS} leaders."  I find zero results for this phrase on LDS.org.

Similarly, CFR, please, for statements "by multiple {LDS} leaders" which refer to people with same-sex attraction as "deviants."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Marmonboy]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

It would be impossible for me to tell my daughter I love her and then also say what Elder Oaks said. 

 

 

Suppose your daughter were an alcoholic, or a drug addict. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being an addict. Could you still love your child and not want to have them get rip-roaring drunk in front of everyone? Or light up a blunt and toke away? Nobody wants their kids to do wrong in front of the whole world, and if you perceive homosexuality as wrong, why would you be OK with your kids flaunting it in front of others? Doesn't mean you don't love them. I have a son who was pretty much a kleptomaniac in his youth--we loved that kid to pieces, but we kept the valuables locked up and watched him like a hawk in public.

[ALarson]

Just now, Marmonboy said:

Suppose your daughter were an alcoholic, or a drug addict. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being an addict.

Then why use it as a comparison?  If you don't believe they are "in any way similar", that invalidates the rest of your entire post above.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Suppose your daughter were an alcoholic, or a drug addict. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being an addict. Could you still love your child and not want to have them get rip-roaring drunk in front of everyone? Or light up a blunt and toke away? Nobody wants their kids to do wrong in front of the whole world, and if you perceive homosexuality as wrong, why would you be OK with your kids flaunting it in front of others? Doesn't mean you don't love them. I have a son who was pretty much a kleptomaniac in his youth--we loved that kid to pieces, but we kept the valuables locked up and watched him like a hawk in public.

 

Your comparison of a loving, committed gay couple to someone battling substance abuse or committing a crime tells me that you missed the point.

[thesometimesaint]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where is this doctrine stated (sincere question)?  There have been no statements from our current Prophet regarding what the doctrine on homosexuality is (that I'm aware of).  

I know there is that new policy, of course.  But is that considered doctrine?

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

.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Suppose your daughter were an alcoholic, or a drug addict. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being an addict. Could you still love your child and not want to have them get rip-roaring drunk in front of everyone? Or light up a blunt and toke away? Nobody wants their kids to do wrong in front of the whole world, and if you perceive homosexuality as wrong, why would you be OK with your kids flaunting it in front of others? Doesn't mean you don't love them. I have a son who was pretty much a kleptomaniac in his youth--we loved that kid to pieces, but we kept the valuables locked up and watched him like a hawk in public.

Marmonboy, I think the example is offensive and not useful. The only similarity between the two things are likely 1- You perceive both to be sins and/or 2- you perceive both to be social embarrassments.

I personally don't view a loving couple, walking down the street, holding hands, or even being introduced as a couple, to be "flaunting" anything. When I behave this way with my wife, I don't feel like I'm flaunting my heterosexuality. The whole notion is absurd.

Imagine you had a daughter living with her boyfriend, would you refuse to introduce her and her boyfriend to your friends out of shame for their sinful ways? I find that kind of behavior appalling and I do not consider it "loving" in any way.

[cinepro]

If the "doctrine" on homosexuality does change over the decades, I suspect it will happen very gradually, with many members of the Church insisting that "nothing has changed" with each small step.

We'll know the process is finished when someone quotes Elders Oaks, Bednar or other leaders from this decade and the response from defenders of the Church is "They were speaking as fallible men, and it was never official Church policy or doctrine" and that it would have happened sooner but "the church members just weren't ready for it."

Edited October 31, 2016 by cinepro

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Suppose your daughter were an alcoholic, or a drug addict. Note, I am not implying that being gay is in any way similar to being an addict. Could you still love your child and not want to have them get rip-roaring drunk in front of everyone? Or light up a blunt and toke away? Nobody wants their kids to do wrong in front of the whole world, and if you perceive homosexuality as wrong, why would you be OK with your kids flaunting it in front of others? Doesn't mean you don't love them. I have a son who was pretty much a kleptomaniac in his youth--we loved that kid to pieces, but we kept the valuables locked up and watched him like a hawk in public.

If you wish to use the example of alcohol, a good Mormon can sit politely in the company of others who drink at meals, and not partake themselves, and remain polite about it. 

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then why use it as a comparison?  If you don't believe they are "in any way similar", that invalidates the rest of your entire post above.

We consider active homosexuality to be a grave sin. As with any violation of our commitment to be chaste.

[mfbukowski]

False Advertising.