Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  If we are speculating about how current events will yield substantive changes to the Church's doctrinal stance on matters of sexuality, I think it makes sense to look at a previous seismic event pertaining to sexuality: the Sexual Revolution.  Heck, it even has its own Wikipedia entry:

Now, I won't say that the Revolution left the LDS Church completely unchanged.  I think the Church has moderated its position on contraception (though not necessarily because of the Revolution).  But overall, has the last fifty years of changing sexual mores results in doctrinal changes by the LDS Church pertaining to "sex outside of traditional heterosexual, monogamous relationships" (that is, marriage)?  Nope.

Culture has shifted in many ways since the 1960's and in most ways I would suggest the culture has liberalized, even within the church.

"Public nudity?"  Nope.

But have cultural shifts in modesty influenced the church? Are women still required to wear dresses or skirts at BYU? Are swimsuits worn by members today just as modest as in the 1960's?

"Pornography?"  Nope.

"Premarital sex?"  Nope.

"Homosexuality?"  Well, not really (the conduct is a sin, but not the orientation / desire / inclination, and we have become more kind and welcoming to people with same-sex attraction than we were fifty years ago).

The rhetoric has definitely shifted in this area.

"Alternative forms of sexuality?"  Nope.

Depends on what you're talking about. You probably remember the ruckus made in the late 70's-early 80's when a question about oral sx was part of the temple recommend interview. I would dare say that sensibilities for many in this area have changed and the church definitely takes a different approach.

"Abortion?"  Nope.

Although, now, even the church has exceptions in the cases where the mother's life may be in danger. That hasn't always been the case.

The LDS Church's rather long (50 year) track record of bucking societal trends and sticking to their doctrinal guns seems to constitute some solid evidence against the likelihood of Rockpond's speculations about where the Church will go in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that the church changes at a glacial pace, but that doesn't mean changes aren't happening. As an illustration, Australia is moving northward by 1-3 inches per year. The change is nearly imperceptible but over time the changes will be more pronounced and one day it may actually be in the northern hemisphere even if the yearly change is too small to notice. Substantive changes are happening...slowly.

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The difference between "20-30 years" ago and today is this:

• Then: "necessarily-non-openly gay (and celibate)"
• Now: "potentially-but-not-necessarily openly gay (and celibate)"

That is a change in culture.  A change in attitudes.  A change in understanding.  I am glad of these changes.

But what it is not is a change in doctrine.

Thanks,

-Smac

And why is there the "then" and "now" that you describe?  Because of the doctrine being taught back then by Packer, Kimball, and others was different than what it is today.

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, CV,

I guess I should have been more clear in my previous response.  I assumed it went without saying in my previous post that it's not the titles themselves of "husband," "father," "son," etc. that I find important or significant...

The aspects of my identity that are the most important to me and which I hold most dear are the actual, reality-based interpersonal relationships I have with the specific, actual people with whom I have a loving relationship in my life.

Meaning, I don't just identify myself as "husband," with that word being interchangeable with any random person that I could be assigned to.  Rather, the fact that I am MY husband's husband, and he is MY husband, is what defines me. Upon marrying one another, we took upon ourselves the others' last name (we hyphenated our last name, so we each have each others' former last name).  When I introduce myself, I offer my full given first name coupled with my married hyphenated name, which symbolizes the joining of his and my lines into one unified family.  In marrying one another, the two of us former individuals formed a family unit unique, personal, and specific to taking upon us one another's' names.  When I identify as a "husband," I personally do so in describing myself in relation to him, my husband.

The fact that I am gay and the fact that the two of us are both men is not inconsequential to our shared titles and last names designating us as a family unit, and as one another's husband--the fact that we are one another's husband rests on the foundation that we are, in fact, homosexuals.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have chosen to enter into a romantic, emotional, familial, spiritual, legal, civil, and sexually intimate relationship with one another. 

Your suggestion that I can still lay claim to the title of husband even if it weren't with a man may sound matter-of-fact, but it misses the entire point of marriage.  Our spouses are not insignificant to our choice to marry; they are central and foundational.  We don't just marry any Tom, ****, or Harry (or their female equivalents)... we choose our spouse, and taken upon ourselves a shared family name.  Our identities are inseparably and interconnectly associated with being Mr. and Mr. Daniel2.

Let me try and put it another way.... you say that our true identities are children of God.  Assuming that is true for a moment, wouldn't you agree a given significant portion of that identity ("children of God") is WHO is the father, in that sentence....?  Meaning, by identifying that you are a child of God, it would be nonsensical to suggest that the important part of that "identity would be to dismiss who is the father by saying, "Well, being A child is the most important aspect of that... it doesn't really matter that your the child of anyone specific...."  The key aspect of that phrase, children of God, is that you exist as children to a specific FATHER.... It would be another thing altogether to suggest that it doesn't really matter who one's father is, as long as your a child of Someone... (consider how different it would be to say we're "children of Satan.")

Just as my identity as my husband's husband is unique and specific and directly tied to him, I would say the same applies to my status as father.... I am my CHILDREN's father... not just a father of a generic somebody.  The most important aspect of my identity as a father is not that I get to claim the title of father------the most important aspect is that I exist as my unique and specific children's Dad.  And the same is true of my status as a son (as specifically related to my own Father and Mother); they are not interchangeable with any other man or woman who also have children.

I'm not sure if my point is getting through... but I just found it really odd that you would dismiss the fact that being gay directly and foundationally impacts one of the most important roles of my life; that of being a husband to my husband, and his being a husband to me. That is not peripheral; it is core to who I am, how I love, and the value that I place on the most important intimate relationship I have been blessed with in my life.

Being my husband's husband, and his being my husband, ARE both "facts of being," not merely just an inconsequential characteristic.

Daniel2

 

You speak of foundational identity, and I wasn’t talking about titles, either, but that we identify as fathers, husbands, etc., our orientation notwithstanding. These roles are outgrowths and reflections of our relationships, not matter who we ended up marrying and how we relate.

Being “one” with someone still entails a personal identity for each party, which in healthy relationships do not become enmeshed, no matter who we have chosen to be “one” with, or our reasons for doing so. That happens even in our oneness with the Father and the Son, as spirit children and heirs, and as joint-heirs, respectively. Even you don’t believe the doctrine, the principle works the same way in our mortal relationships.

You seem to be overstating the case that a gay husband and a straight husband, by virtue of their orientations and partners represent two distinct identities. As a child of God, I don’t make a distinction. The identity of husband is husband.

Being a good husband, father, son, sibling, etc. makes all other relationships healthier, for we relate to anyone and everyone, no matter who they are, from an appropriate and healthy ego state. I’m saying that identifying as a child of God helps that happen long before identifying oneself by sexual orientation does. And if one doesn’t accept that doctrine, I’d say there are still other contributors to identity that are more fundamental than sexual orientation, such as conscience and sociability, and the personalities we develop long before we are old enough to put a label to our sexuality, or get it labeled for us.

I get your point that you most foundationally identify as gay, which impacts everything else in your life. The Church encourages people to see themselves as children of God (Who is our Father no matter Who He is!), and that impacts everything else in their life. In relation to the OP, I do not think this will change.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

And yet, if you could go back 20-30 years, who would have predicted that we'd be at a point where an openly gay (though celibate) young man or woman could serve a mission?  Hold a calling?

Well, here again, definitions come into play. "Openly gay though celibate" strikes me as a contradiction in terms because "openly gay" connotes behavior and embracing of a lifestyle.

And I'm not so certain an individual with same-sex attraction but a determination not to act on it would not have been eligible for those things 20 or even 30 years ago. Can you document that? With something more solid than anecdotes, I mean.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, here again, definitions come into play. "Openly gay though celibate" strikes me as a contradiction in terms because "openly gay" connotes behavior and embracing of a lifestyle.

And I'm not so certain an individual with same-sex attraction but a determination not to act on it would not have been eligible for those things 20 or even 30 years ago. Can you document that? With something more solid than anecdotes, I mean.

The contradiction is because of the unique definitions you use.  Gay just refers to their sexual orientation.  "Openly gay" means that they have come out publicly with their sexual orientation.  These terms do not refer to sexual behavior.  And since there is no one gay lifestyle, they don't refer to that either.

20-30 years ago the teachings of the church did not distinguish between having the attraction and acting on it.  You can study the published articles if you'd like to understand.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this a less-than-apt comparison.  Black people, by virtue of their skin color and places of origin, were prohibited from entering the temple.  There was no cure for them (in the earthly sense - I am confident those of our brothers and sisters who were deprived of access to the temple in this life will have every opportunity to have their temple work done).  Access was granted for non-of-black-African-ancestry members of the Church, but was withheld from of-black-African-ancestry members of the Church.  

In contrast, a person with same-sex attraction has access to the temple, and always has.  He or she has access to it on the same terms as everyone else.  That he or she may not feel inclined to enter into a heterosexual marriage is, of course, understandable.  Likewise, heterosexual members of the Church may also be unwilling or unable to enter into a heterosexual marriage.  The Lord will sort things out for all such persons who desire to obey God and to keep his commandments.

Not so.  Members of the Church who have same-sex attraction can attend the temple provided they adhere to the standards of worthiness required of all persons who wish to attend.

Your words are full of bitterness and anger and spite and venom and contempt.  I am sorry about that, and I hope a day comes when you can get over such things.  

I know many, many people who struggle in this life with varies challenges and struggles and sins and weaknesses.  I do not discount these struggles.  I instead find solace in what we have been taught about them:

• "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
• "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
• "{B}lessed is he that keepeth my commandments, whether in life or in death; and he that is faithful in tribulation, the reward of the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven."
• "Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation."

Thanks,

-Smac

Your entire rational is based on one premise, a gay man marrying a woman who he is not attracted to.  Do you really think that is a solid stone to build the foundation of your twisting of reality for most gay men?

I am not bitter in the least.  I am perhaps a bit impatient with those that try and convolute some scenario that is so out of the realm of reality for most gay men and then think they have provided an answer.  I have learned long ago that the church has no answers for someone who is gay.  Church leaders are willing to pretend to have answers to God.  But the problem is, when they plug a hole here, another one springs up over there because the whole premise is faulty.  Most of the policies (you can't really call it doctrine) have been patched together when each issue has come up.  Marry a woman, that will fix you.  Wait, that didn't work out.  How about be celibate your whole life just like all those other people who are incapable of marrying.  Wait, you are capable of marrying.  Well trust us, just don't do it.  Let's go with when you die you will become straight.  Wait, you don't want to be straight and married to a woman for eternity?  Well tough we think that is what God wants us to tell you.  What do you mean many gays are happily married to someone of their same gender.  We can't have that.  Let's call them apostates.  That will discourage them.  Not harsh enough?  Well then we won't baptize their children.  Ok we will baptize their children when they are adults, but their children have to disavow the people they love the most for their mistake of wanting to have a family.  Yeah I know families are important for Mormons, but not if you are gay.  Well they could become straight and have a family if they really wanted to.  See, now it all works because they are like us now.  Why are so many gays angry at the church?  Why are so many gays leaving the church?  Oh well, probably just didn't have enough faith.  Wait.  Why are so many other faithful members of the church leaving?  Maybe if we drop the "s" on Momons and Gays they will feel we are nicer to them.  This isn't going to really do much is it.  Well it is just a phase.  They will come back after their faith crisis.  

Look I know you don't see this the way I do. And perhaps that is why you think I am angry about the fact that I couldn't be straight like you.  I am sure you will dismiss this little head game that has been going on in my head for the past 45 years.  Yeah that is what it is like when you are gay and grow up Mormon.  You try and make sense of all these messages you get.  And you think something is wrong with you because all the straight faithful members seem to be able to swallow it. In the end, you just walk away from it.  The good that the church does in your life doesn't match up to the pain and misery that it brings.  Two things become abundantly clear.  I am not going to become straight.  And the Mormon church is no place for me to be if I can't be straight.  Once you come to grips with that reality, then you find that there is a life out there where you can find happiness and enjoy all the richness of life that other people cherish more than life itself.  Someone to love.  Family.  Good friends and peace with God.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, CV,

I guess I should have been more clear in my previous response.  I assumed it went without saying in my previous post that it's not the titles themselves of "husband," "father," "son," etc. that I find important or significant...

The aspects of my identity that are the most important to me and which I hold most dear are the actual, reality-based interpersonal relationships I have with the specific, actual people with whom I have a loving relationship in my life.

Meaning, I don't just identify myself as "husband," with that word being interchangeable with any random person that I could be assigned to.  Rather, the fact that I am MY husband's husband, and he is MY husband, is what defines me. Upon marrying one another, we took upon ourselves the others' last name (we hyphenated our last name, so we each have each others' former last name).  When I introduce myself, I offer my full given first name coupled with my married hyphenated name, which symbolizes the joining of his and my lines into one unified family.  In marrying one another, the two of us former individuals formed a family unit unique, personal, and specific to taking upon us one another's' names.  When I identify as a "husband," I personally do so in describing myself in relation to him, my husband.

The fact that I am gay and the fact that the two of us are both men is not inconsequential to our shared titles and last names designating us as a family unit, and as one another's husband--the fact that we are one another's husband rests on the foundation that we are, in fact, homosexuals.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have chosen to enter into a romantic, emotional, familial, spiritual, legal, civil, and sexually intimate relationship with one another. 

Your suggestion that I can still lay claim to the title of husband even if it weren't with a man may sound matter-of-fact, but it misses the entire point of marriage.  Our spouses are not insignificant to our choice to marry; they are central and foundational.  We don't just marry any Tom, ****, or Harry (or their female equivalents)... we choose our spouse, and taken upon ourselves a shared family name.  Our identities are inseparably and interconnectly associated with being Mr. and Mr. Daniel2.

Let me try and put it another way.... you say that our true identities are children of God.  Assuming that is true for a moment, wouldn't you agree a given significant portion of that identity ("children of God") is WHO is the father, in that sentence....?  Meaning, by identifying that you are a child of God, it would be nonsensical to suggest that the important part of that "identity would be to dismiss who is the father by saying, "Well, being A child is the most important aspect of that... it doesn't really matter that your the child of anyone specific...."  The key aspect of that phrase, children of God, is that you exist as children to a specific FATHER.... It would be another thing altogether to suggest that it doesn't really matter who one's father is, as long as your a child of Someone... (consider how different it would be to say we're "children of Satan.")

Just as my identity as my husband's husband is unique and specific and directly tied to him, I would say the same applies to my status as father.... I am my CHILDREN's father... not just a father of a generic somebody.  The most important aspect of my identity as a father is not that I get to claim the title of father------the most important aspect is that I exist as my unique and specific children's Dad.  And the same is true of my status as a son (as specifically related to my own Father and Mother); they are not interchangeable with any other man or woman who also have children.

I'm not sure if my point is getting through... but I just found it really odd that you would dismiss the fact that being gay directly and foundationally impacts one of the most important roles of my life; that of being a husband to my husband, and his being a husband to me. That is not peripheral; it is core to who I am, how I love, and the value that I place on the most important intimate relationship I have been blessed with in my life.

Being my husband's husband, and his being my husband, ARE both "facts of being," not merely just an inconsequential characteristic.

Daniel2

 

This is the relationship that I had with my husband.  It is the relationship I have with my children.  It is...who. I. am.  Real and all encompassing with the title of wife and mother, it is who we are in all the complications...the highs and lows in life..the togetherness that makes the single a whole.  I so envy you.  I miss the embrace and compansionship. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, CV,

I guess I should have been more clear in my previous response.  I assumed it went without saying in my previous post that it's not the titles themselves of "husband," "father," "son," etc. that I find important or significant...

The aspects of my identity that are the most important to me and which I hold most dear are the actual, reality-based interpersonal relationships I have with the specific, actual people with whom I have a loving relationship in my life.

Meaning, I don't just identify myself as "husband," with that word being interchangeable with any random person that I could be assigned to.  Rather, the fact that I am MY husband's husband, and he is MY husband, is what defines me. Upon marrying one another, we took upon ourselves the others' last name (we hyphenated our last name, so we each have each others' former last name).  When I introduce myself, I offer my full given first name coupled with my married hyphenated name, which symbolizes the joining of his and my lines into one unified family.  In marrying one another, the two of us former individuals formed a family unit unique, personal, and specific to taking upon us one another's' names.  When I identify as a "husband," I personally do so in describing myself in relation to him, my husband.

The fact that I am gay and the fact that the two of us are both men is not inconsequential to our shared titles and last names designating us as a family unit, and as one another's husband--the fact that we are one another's husband rests on the foundation that we are, in fact, homosexuals.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have chosen to enter into a romantic, emotional, familial, spiritual, legal, civil, and sexually intimate relationship with one another. 

Your suggestion that I can still lay claim to the title of husband even if it weren't with a man may sound matter-of-fact, but it misses the entire point of marriage.  Our spouses are not insignificant to our choice to marry; they are central and foundational.  We don't just marry any Tom, ****, or Harry (or their female equivalents)... we choose our spouse, and taken upon ourselves a shared family name.  Our identities are inseparably and interconnectly associated with being Mr. and Mr. Daniel2.

Let me try and put it another way.... you say that our true identities are children of God.  Assuming that is true for a moment, wouldn't you agree a given significant portion of that identity ("children of God") is WHO is the father, in that sentence....?  Meaning, by identifying that you are a child of God, it would be nonsensical to suggest that the important part of that "identity would be to dismiss who is the father by saying, "Well, being A child is the most important aspect of that... it doesn't really matter that your the child of anyone specific...."  The key aspect of that phrase, children of God, is that you exist as children to a specific FATHER.... It would be another thing altogether to suggest that it doesn't really matter who one's father is, as long as your a child of Someone... (consider how different it would be to say we're "children of Satan.")

Just as my identity as my husband's husband is unique and specific and directly tied to him, I would say the same applies to my status as father.... I am my CHILDREN's father... not just a father of a generic somebody.  The most important aspect of my identity as a father is not that I get to claim the title of father------the most important aspect is that I exist as my unique and specific children's Dad.  And the same is true of my status as a son (as specifically related to my own Father and Mother); they are not interchangeable with any other man or woman who also have children.

I'm not sure if my point is getting through... but I just found it really odd that you would dismiss the fact that being gay directly and foundationally impacts one of the most important roles of my life; that of being a husband to my husband, and his being a husband to me. That is not peripheral; it is core to who I am, how I love, and the value that I place on the most important intimate relationship I have been blessed with in my life.

Being my husband's husband, and his being my husband, ARE both "facts of being," not merely just an inconsequential characteristic.

Daniel2

 

Wow that was great. Maybe you will use that in a conference talk some time in the far off distant future.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Your entire rational is based on one premise, a gay man marrying a woman who he is not attracted to.  

Nope.

Quote

Do you really think that is a solid stone to build the foundation of your twisting of reality for most gay men?

I don't think a gay man marrying a woman to whom he is not attracted is a good idea.

Some gay men have been able to enter into heterosexual marriage and make it work well, but this appears to be a rare thing.

What I advocate is that a person, regardless of sexual orientation, devote himself/herself to obedience to God's commandments.  That may mean a life of celibacy.  More than a few heterosexual Latter-day Saints are asked to do this because they never marry, because they never find a spouse, or get divorced, or are widowed.  

Quote

I am not bitter in the least.  I am perhaps a bit impatient with those that try and convolute some scenario that is so out of the realm of reality for most gay men and then think they have provided an answer.  

I have not done this.

Quote

I have learned long ago that the church has no answers for someone who is gay.  

That's plainly false.  The Restored Gospel presents a message for all of God's children.  Every.  Single.  One.

Quote

Church leaders are willing to pretend to have answers to God.  

More bitterness and venom, I see.

I hope some day you can conceive of the possibility that people who disagree with you might be acting sincerely and in good faith.

Quote

But the problem is, when they plug a hole here, another one springs up over there because the whole premise is faulty.  

The premise of the Restored Gospel isn't faulty.

Quote

Most of the policies (you can't really call it doctrine) have been patched together when each issue has come up.  Marry a woman, that will fix you.  Wait, that didn't work out.  

I'm not sure this was ever a "policy" in the Church.

In any event, I am not denying the leaders of the Church are fallible and without error in everything they do.  But as far as the "whole premise" of the Restored Gospel, and more particularly the Law of Chastity and its proscription against same-sex behavior, I think they are in accordance with the mind and will of God. 

Quote

How about be celibate your whole life just like all those other people who are incapable of marrying.  

Yes.  That is what is expected of all Latter-day Saints.

Quote

Wait, you are capable of marrying.  Well trust us, just don't do it.  Let's go with when you die you will become straight.  Wait, you don't want to be straight and married to a woman for eternity?  Well tough we think that is what God wants us to tell you.  What do you mean many gays are happily married to someone of their same gender.  We can't have that.  Let's call them apostates.  That will discourage them.  Not harsh enough?  Well then we won't baptize their children.  Ok we will baptize their children when they are adults, but their children have to disavow the people they love the most for their mistake of wanting to have a family.  Yeah I know families are important for Mormons, but not if you are gay.  Well they could become straight and have a family if they really wanted to.  See, now it all works because they are like us now.  Why are so many gays angry at the church?  Why are so many gays leaving the church?  Oh well, probably just didn't have enough faith.  Wait.  Why are so many other faithful members of the church leaving?  Maybe if we drop the "s" on Momons and Gays they will feel we are nicer to them.  This isn't going to really do much is it.  Well it is just a phase.  They will come back after their faith crisis.  

More bitterness and anger and venom.  I am sorry about that.  I hope someday you can get past these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 3, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

Wow that was great. Maybe you will use that in a conference talk some time in the far off distant future.

it is definitely was needs to be heard and understood...you, too california boy...I have learned so much from both of you!

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.

I don't think a gay man marrying a woman to whom he is not attracted is a good idea.

Some gay men have been able to enter into heterosexual marriage and make it work well, but this appears to be a rare thing.

What I advocate is that a person, regardless of sexual orientation, devote himself/herself to obedience to God's commandments.  That may mean a life of celibacy.  More than a few heterosexual Latter-day Saints are asked to do this because they never marry, because they never find a spouse, or get divorced, or are widowed.  

I have not done this.

That's plainly false.  The Restored Gospel presents a message for all of God's children.  Every.  Single.  One.

More bitterness and venom, I see.

I hope some day you can conceive of the possibility that people who disagree with you might be acting sincerely and in good faith.

The premise of the Restored Gospel isn't faulty.

I'm not sure this was ever a "policy" in the Church.

In any event, I am not denying the leaders of the Church are infallible and without error in everything they do.  But as far as the "whole premise" of the Restored Gospel, and more particularly the Law of Chastity and its proscription against same-sex behavior, I think they are in accordance with the mind and will of God. 

Yes.  That is what is expected of all Latter-day Saints.

More bitterness and anger and venom.  I am sorry about that.  I hope someday you can get past these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I really didn't expect you to understand what I was talking about.  But that is ok.  

[Daniel2]

For what it's worth, Carol Lynn Pearson (and I realize she is a polarizing figure) shared the following post on Facebook today. I share it here without any specific expectation other than finding it fascinating and, admittedly, rather surprising. I cannot vouch for its veracity, so feel free to take it with a shaker of salt...

Quote

GREAT STORY OF MARRIED GAY MAN EXONERATED AT CHURCH COURT.

A very dear man whom I will call “Richard” shared with me in person and then by letter an experience of which he wrote: “Carol Lynn, if you feel this material would benefit someone else, please share it.”

Richard has been with his gay partner for many years and they are now married. He has also for years been attending his local ward and is much loved there, serving well in responsibilities that are appropriate to his status. When the new policies came out one year ago this week, he was heart-broken. Not long after, he received a letter from his bishop saying that because a person in a same-sex marriage was now automatically “apostate,” he felt obligated to hold a disciplinary council regarding Richard’s membership in the Church. Richard’s worst fears were materializing; he has a deep, deep love for the LDS Church and a deep love for his place in his ward family, and would be devastated to lose it.

The court was held. Witnesses were heard. Holding his heart, Richard waited. A letter came. No excommunication. No disfellowshipment. No action at all to be taken. The final line in the letter from this good bishop: “We are blessed to have you as a member of our ward. We love you, we pray for you, and we hope to continue our friendship and association in the Church for many years to come.” 

Richard hopes that others might benefit from his story. May it be so.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

The contradiction is because of the unique definitions you use.  Gay just refers to their sexual orientation.  "Openly gay" means that they have come out publicly with their sexual orientation.  These terms do not refer to sexual behavior.  And since there is no one gay lifestyle, they don't refer to that either.

20-30 years ago the teachings of the church did not distinguish between having the attraction and acting on it.  You can study the published articles if you'd like to understand.

Articles published by whom? The Church?

I've never seen a Church-published article to indicate that as recently as 1996, a person was forbidden to hold a Church calling merely for having the attraction but not acting on it. Or forbidden to serve a mission, for that matter.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that the church changes at a glacial pace, but that doesn't mean changes aren't happening. As an illustration, Australia is moving northward by 1-3 inches per year. The change is nearly imperceptible but over time the changes will be more pronounced and one day it may actually be in the northern hemisphere even if the yearly change is too small to notice. Substantive changes are happening...slowly.

With the Church moving at a "glacial pace," it might have moved a millimeter by the time the earth is cleansed attendant to Christ's coming and the dawn of the Millennium, and then it won't matter anyway.

By the way, I was unaware there was ever a time when the Church did not make allowances for abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger. And my recollection goes back to the early '70s, when abortion was a prominent public issue.

Edited to add:

The U.S. Supreme Court made the Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973. At that time, the Church issued the following statement:

"The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."

"Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality."

"Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, 'Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it'." [Bold emphasis ours] _3,4

 

The statement can be read on this website which says that the it was a restatement of the Church historical position on abortion.

Where did you get the idea there had ever been a time when the Church did not allow abortion to save the life of the mother?

Edited November 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

And why is there the "then" and "now" that you describe?  Because of the doctrine being taught back then by Packer, Kimball, and others was different than what it is today.

Let's take a close look at what was being taught by "Packer, Kimball, and others" on the subject -- links, please (CFR).

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Articles published by whom? The Church?

I've never seen a Church-published article to indicate that as recently as 1996, a person was forbidden to hold a Church calling merely for having the attraction but not acting on it. Or forbidden to serve a mission, for that matter.

 

I did a quick Google search on this, and I have to agree with you Scott.  When we say "homosexuality" today, we mean sexual orientation.  In the past, "homosexuality" wasn't considered an identity--it was considered a behavior.

In 1986, the Ensign said,

“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived.” (Ensign, Nov. 1980, p. 97.)

We also need to teach our children plainly that homosexuality is a perversion of the Lord’s designated roles of men and women. Homosexuality is sexual relations between those of the same sex, whether men or women. When referring to homosexual women, the term lesbian is sometimes used.

“Be not deceived,” wrote the Apostle Paul, “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind … shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9–10; see also Rom. 1:24–27.)

If one has tendencies or desires for relations with one’s own gender, he overcomes them the same as he would the urge toward other sexual sins.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/12/talking-with-your-children-about-moral-purity?lang=eng (emphasis added)

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I did a quick Google search on this, and I have to agree with you Scott.  When we say "homosexuality" today, we mean sexual orientation.  In the past, "homosexuality" wasn't considered an identity--it was considered a behavior.

In 1986, the Ensign said,

 

 

Thank you.

I submit that, to a substantial degree, the words homosexuali and gay still imply behavior -- which is a good reason for using a term such as same -sex attraction, which clearly on its face does not necessarily imply behavior.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

I submit that, to a substantial degree, the words homosexuali and gay still imply behavior -- which is a good reason for using a term such as same -sex attraction, which clearly on its face does not necessarily imply behavior.

 

I rarely compliment Scott...but seeing his avatar juxtaposed next to above quoted comment, I feel the need to do so now and state empathetically that I agree with your avatar...you are dethpicable 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I rarely compliment Scott...but seeing his avatar juxtaposed next to above quoted comment, I feel the need to do so now and state empathetically that I agree with your avatar...you are dethpicable 

I agree.  But does he want to be called this??  Is it who he is or just his behavior?  My vote is all of the above...Scott, you are dethpicable!!  Now, I say this with great love and compassion in hope that though you can't change who you are, you are still welcome as a voice on this board.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

For what it's worth, Carol Lynn Pearson (and I realize she is a polarizing figure) shared the following post on Facebook today. I share it here without any specific expectation other than finding it fascinating and, admittedly, rather surprising. I cannot vouch for its veracity, so feel free to take it with a shaker of salt...

I saw that post by Carol Lynn as well and it made me happy.  Thanks for posting it here. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Articles published by whom? The Church?

I've never seen a Church-published article to indicate that as recently as 1996, a person was forbidden to hold a Church calling merely for having the attraction but not acting on it. Or forbidden to serve a mission, for that matter.

 

Yes, articles and talks written/delivered by the Brethren and published by the church.  

Now that you point it out... the timeframe I wrote was wrong.  You need to go back into the 70's, 80's and earlier. 

Edited November 3, 2016 by rockpond

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Let's take a close look at what was being taught by "Packer, Kimball, and others" on the subject -- links, please (CFR).

You can start with chapter 6 of Miracle of Forgiveness. 

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

For what it's worth, Carol Lynn Pearson (and I realize she is a polarizing figure) shared the following post on Facebook today. I share it here without any specific expectation other than finding it fascinating and, admittedly, rather surprising. I cannot vouch for its veracity, so feel free to take it with a shaker of salt...

Thanks for posting this, Daniel.  It gives me hope and is a very touching story.  The Bishop sounds like an amazing man and so does Richard.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

I submit that, to a substantial degree, the words homosexuali and gay still imply behavior -- which is a good reason for using a term such as same -sex attraction, which clearly on its face does not necessarily imply behavior.

 

I completely disagree.  I have a very dear friend who has an "openly gay" son.  He came out to everyone after his mission and uses the term "gay" in relation to himself often.  He is fully active in his ward, holds a calling and his ward loves him.  He lives a celibate life (which is what he decided to do).  But he is gay and calls himself gay and so does anyone who knows him.  What would you prefer he say? "I'm same-sex attracted" rather than "I'm gay"?  Your obsession over this is really pretty bizarre.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this, Daniel.  It gives me hope and is a very touching story.  The Bishop sounds like an amazing man and so does Richard.

Not surprisingly, I have a completely different reaction to this story.