Change in the doctrine of homosexuality

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

But everyone claims they know what was meant when they make fun of or get offended by older Church teachings.  

It makes a huge difference if sexual orientation is a recent 20th century social construct and there really are eternal truths about the nature of man and our divine potential.  

Everyone?  Heck, I am offended by current church teachings.  Why would I care how toxic the church was back  when the book was written.

No gays before the 20th century?  No one exhibiting homosexual behavior until the 20th century?  Really?  Just because something has a more clear definition doesn't mean it is a recent phenomenon  Just because gays don't have to pretend to be in straight relationships to hide their sexual orientation any more doesn't mean that this is something new.  I hope you weren't implying that. 

[Calm]

AL, I know you have stressed repeated it was teachings, not doctrine and if this was an ideal medium of communication and we were ideal readers, once would have been enough and your multiple corrections overkill.  But it is unfortunately not.  And they should have at least been adequate, but it appears not for some (not your fault or responsibility).

I also pointed out that CV should have accepted your correction, by which I meant I think he should have just said "sorry, I misunderstood" and left it at that.

I think there is just such great evidence of huge misunderstandings that can too easily occur between people; in addition, for me the evidence in the past is that both of you are posters of integrity, so that I feel that there have been misguided claims on both sides have become overheated (and understandably so given claims implied or were explicit about lack of integrity and it is reasonable to defend yourself against such) and am sorry this has happened.

I was reading and made some of the same assumptions CV did (and  mixed up posters as comments blurred together as they tend to do in longer threads with several strong participants).  I paid attention to correction (I hope), I think CV should have accepted it and dropped his claim...so I believe I see how the conflict started and how each thinks they are completely in the right.  I just think there would be better communication and less negative responses if each could try a bit harder to see it from the other's POV.  Sorry if this comes across as busybody.  I respect you both highly as posters.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

No gays before the 20th century?  No one exhibiting homosexual behavior until the 20th century?  Really?  Just because something has a more clear definition doesn't mean it is a recent phenomenon  Just because gays don't have to pretend to be in straight relationships to hide their sexual orientation any more doesn't mean that this is something new.  I hope you weren't implying that. 

That is not what he said.  

There developed a new way of looking at and labeling homosexual behaviour and those who participate in such as well as experiencing homosexual attraction in society in the recent centuries.  He is referring to the social constructs that are used to discuss homosexual behaviour and to think about it, of course, which includes how one thinks about oneself and one's identity/personality/attributes.  "Sexual orientation" is one of those constructs (my opinion is that people understood human behaviour in different ways that didn't require the concept and it wasn't until psychology became more formalized that ideas about orientation began to be formulated and discussed).

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Not true on both counts.  More dishonesty from you.

I stated that church "teachings have changed" (twice in the post you reference) and I never stated that doctrine has changed. (So that's a fail on your attempt to fulfill the CFR I asked for on that).

And, you state above that it was not you who broached the subject ("change in doctrine"?  That's a lie as well.  Check the link and your quoted post below (the one I was responding to):

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68293-change-in-the-doctrine-of-homosexuality/?do=findComment&comment=1209673904

You posted:

So, two false accusations and then dishonesty in owning up to the fact that it was you who broached the subject of a change in doctrine, not me.

I'll let you out of the CFR because I really do not want to continue interacting with you (at least on this topic).

When you said, “And, let's not turn this into a discussion regarding what is church doctrine or what isn't as that's been done ad nauseam on other threads.  The teachings spoken by church leaders have changed over they years on the subject of homosexuality, read the quotes I posted,” I took it to mean you acknowledged there is no salient difference between doctrine and teachings.

Since that differentiation isn’t important to you, and I only most rarely make a distinction between the two (teaching can include practice and policy which, I don't construe to be fundamental doctrine) and the thread (at least the title and OP) is about "doctrine," what do you see as important about the changes you keep trying to point out?

Edited November 5, 2016 by CV75

[Calm]

CV, perhaps it would be best to respect AL's desire and move on to discussing it with others.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is not what he said.  

There developed a new way of looking at and labeling homosexual behaviour and those who participate in such as well as experiencing homosexual attraction in society in the recent centuries.  He is referring to the social constructs that are used to discuss homosexual behaviour and to think about it, of course, which includes how one thinks about oneself and one's identity/personality/attributes.  "Sexual orientation" is one of those constructs (my opinion is that people understood human behaviour in different ways that didn't require the concept and it wasn't until psychology became more formalized that ideas about orientation began to be formulated and discussed).

I agree.  Which is why I said "I hope he wasn't implying that"

[Calm]

Perhaps it would be best to lead with that to avoid misunderstandings.  And just ask what he meant before challenging a position not likely taken.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Calm

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

When you said, “And, let's not turn this into a discussion regarding what is church doctrine or what isn't as that's been done ad nauseam on other threads.  The teachings spoken by church leaders have changed over they years on the subject of homosexuality, read the quotes I posted,” I took it to mean you acknowledged there is no salient difference between doctrine and teachings.

Since that differentiation isn’t important to you, and I only most rarely make a distinction between the two (teaching can include practice and policy which, I don't construe to be fundamental doctrine) and the thread (at least the title and OP) is about "doctrine," what do you see as important about the changes you keep trying to point out?

Because he has clarified his position 4 times.  Because you "took it to mean" wrong.  Because he never said the differentiation isn't important to him.  Yet you still insist in reading his position wrong.  

I don't know why I am inserting myself other than this has been going on for way too many pages.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps it would be best to lead with that to avoid misunderstandings.  And just ask what he meant before challenging a position not likely taken.

Perhaps you are right.  It was just an odd comment that had nothing to do with my post.  I thought I would give him a chance to explain what he meant.

Edited November 5, 2016 by california boy

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because he has clarified his position 4 times.  Because you "took it to mean" wrong.  Because he never said the differentiation isn't important to him.  Yet you still insist in reading his position wrong.  

I don't know why I am inserting myself other than this has been going on for way too many pages.

It gets frustrating watching it happen, doesn't it?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

When you said, “And, let's not turn this into a discussion regarding what is church doctrine or what isn't as that's been done ad nauseam on other threads.  The teachings spoken by church leaders have changed over they years on the subject of homosexuality, read the quotes I posted,” I took it to mean you acknowledged there is no salient difference between doctrine and teachings.

I just went back through the posts being talked about here.

CV75, you always leave the first sentence out from the post you're quoting of AL's.  Why is that?  (Is it because he states "change of teachings" not doctrine?)  Here is what you leave out each time you post his quote. He stated:

"There has been a change in the teachings over the years on this topic as shown here."

Why do you always leave that sentence off when you've quoted his post???

He was only responding to your post right above his and you definitely brought up change of doctrine (used that word at least twice).  That's why he said (from what I can tell) let's not derail this discussion to be about what or what not is doctrine (because YOU brought it up).

edited to add:

I think you owe Alarson an apology.  You taunted and hounded everyone for some quotes (after he had already tried to help other posters with references and quotes) and he was the only one who did what you'd asked.  Then, that's not good enough for you and wanted more.  Now you've quoted him out of context and he still didn't say what you accused him of saying (even out of context) and you continue to deny what you posted (blaming him for posting what YOU posted).  

Easy comparison:

CV75's post where he claims he didn't bring up the word doctrine:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68293-change-in-the-doctrine-of-homosexuality/?do=findComment&comment=1209673904

Then see AL's reply directly below (partial post used by CV75 in answer to a CFR to show that AL stated there has been a change in doctrine).

Edited November 6, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

How could I be certain.  He is dead.  He can't comment on what he meant.  Anyone who thinks they know what President Kimball meant is just speculating.  

 

You acted certain in your prior post. That's why I asked.

Quote

Quite frankly, I don't see what all this back and forth is about.  What difference does it make?  Everyone knows what the church thinks of gays.  What are we suppose to be grateful the church likes us a little more than it used to?  

The way I see it, the "back and forth" comes about when people accuse Church leaders, past and present, of saying things they did not say and accusing them of condemning people for having merely having the orientation whether they act on it or not. It's about keeping the record straight.

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You acted certain in your prior post. That's why I asked.

The way I see it, the "back and forth" comes about when people accuse Church leaders, past and present, of saying things they did not say and accusing them of condemning people having merely having the orientation whether they act on it or not. It's about keeping the record straight.

 

It doesn't mean your speculation is correct either.  No one knows what exactly President Kimball meant.  So what record are you keeping straight?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

It doesn't mean your speculation is correct either.  No one knows what exactly President Kimball meant.  So what record are you keeping straight?

I have only ever known the Church of Jesus Christ to hold people accountable for their behavior with regard to homosexuality, not the inclination or, in today's parlance, the "orientation." If people make claims to the contrary, they need to prove the accusation. If they cannot or will not, that needs to be highlighted. That's the record I seek to keep straight.

[kllindley]

ETA: (I can't resist the opportunity to try to lighten up the mood; please accept this with the warmest feelings.)

Though, of course, some people would just like to keep everyone straight. . . . .   

Thank goodness we don't do that anymore!  

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by kllindley

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

ETA: (I can't resist the opportunity to try to lighten up the mood; please accept this with the warmest feelings.)

Though, of course, some people would just like to keep everyone straight. . . . .   

Thank goodness we don't do that anymore!  

 

I thought about the unintended pun when I used that word, but I didn't have a suitable synonym at the ready.

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

ETA: (I can't resist the opportunity to try to lighten up the mood; please accept this with the warmest feelings.)

Though, of course, some people would just like to keep everyone straight. . . . .   

Thank goodness we don't do that anymore!  

Good one 

(Way to lighten the mood!)