MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not consider God's commandments to be "arbitrary rules". Sorry.

Can you elaborate then, where is your disagreement, with me or with Uchtdorf or both?  Don't you think Uchtdorf is critiquing the church members explicitly?  

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Can't have it both ways. If we want GAs to be open to answer questions they're going to answer them in terms of their knowledge and experience. If we don't want GAs answering in terms of their understanding then we're saying we should only have statements that go through correlation.

I am happy that he answered it and that he clarified it as his belief.  I don't want it both ways.  My point was that his answer is just more evidence that we have not received further light and knowledge on the matter.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

The call was to repent. You cannot repent unless you acknowledge you are wrong. Jesus also spent quite a bit of time telling people how screwed up they were.

And who were the people the NT Jesus was critiquing?  The current status quo religious leaders and orthodox believers.  But that being said, I have evaluated what I think are central messages to the gospel, and I like to emphasize those items.  Each of the NT authors has a different perspective about Jesus, so my perspective is a selection of the things I find most compelling.  

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you elaborate then, where is your disagreement, with me or with Uchtdorf or both?  Don't you think Uchtdorf is critiquing the church members explicitly?  

He is but he is not talking about preaching the gospel or calling someone to repentance.

He is talking about threats at home and at work. Coercion used for your own economic or social or whatever gain. Using fear of losing your job or the love of a family member to scare people into compliance with your personal preferences.

The talk is a soft call to repentanceitself. He is saying some members of the church are doing this and it needs to stop. Unsaid is that failure to stop is defiance against God's will and can consign you to hellfire but the implication is there. Is that fear mongering?

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The call was to repent. You cannot repent unless you acknowledge you are wrong. Jesus also spent quite a bit of time telling people how screwed up they were.

14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

(Mark 16)

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And who were the people the NT Jesus was critiquing?  The current status quo religious leaders and orthodox believers.  But that being said, I have evaluated what I think are central messages to the gospel, and I like to emphasize those items.  Each of the NT authors has a different perspective about Jesus, so my perspective is a selection of the things I find most compelling.  

No, he also critiqued his own friends. When Peter was trying to help in a wrong way Jesus called him Satan. He told the woman at the well that her Samaritan faith was wrong and had no saving power. His terrifying parable of the sheep and the goats is pure fear-mongering by the standard you seem to want to use.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He is but he is not talking about preaching the gospel or calling someone to repentance.

He is talking about threats at home and at work. Coercion used for your own economic or social or whatever gain. Using fear of losing your job or the love of a family member to scare people into compliance with your personal preferences.

The talk is a soft call to repentanceitself. He is saying some members of the church are doing this and it needs to stop. Unsaid is that failure to stop is defiance against God's will and can consign you to hellfire but the implication is there. Is that fear mongering?

I think his message applies to both situations, and I think it is very specifically a call to church leaders to stop using fear tactics as leaders, since he sites D&C 121 in this context of unrighteous dominion and church leaders regularly use their leadership authority in unrighteous ways whenever any kind of thread or compulsion is involved.  Its common and rampant in the church from my experience.  

Many of the slippery slope arguments, many of the 2nd coming preparation talk, many of the consequences for sin rhetoric falls into this unrighteous fear motivation bucket.  I think its so pervasive that its hard to go to any church meeting without hearing it.  

[SteveO]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 Its up to each of us to determine what we think is moral and how to apply these principles in our life.  

The definition of morality is not a simple matter of differing opinions as to what it should be...imagine if society as a whole operated on that idea.

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If warning my neighbor means telling them that God loves them and that they are of great value in this world and that I'd like to be their friend, then I think I've warned my neighbor.  

Loving someone sometimes means telling them "hard truths".  Imagine the ministry of Christ if He did not correct the falsehoods of the Pharisees and Scribes...  

EDIT: Nehor beat me to it...again

Edited August 8, 2017 by SteveO

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, he also critiqued his own friends. When Peter was trying to help in a wrong way Jesus called him Satan. He told the woman at the well that her Samaritan faith was wrong and had no saving power. His terrifying parable of the sheep and the goats is pure fear-mongering by the standard you seem to want to use.

Like I said, I'm a cafeteria Christian.  

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the thought is that gay people only see "being manly" through the "tunnel vision of sexualness"?  I'm not even sure how to interpret that.  Maybe California Boy can help clarify what you mean. 

That might be someone’s thought--not sure why that is the first that comes to your mind--but it is not mine and I’m not attributing it to Elders Perry and Clarke, either.

Why not simply ask me to clarify what I mean rather than triangulate with another poster?

The question is poised in terms of seeking help, so the answer is appropriately framed in that same way (to render sought-after help). When a male asks this question with an attitude of seeking help, it is helpful to remind them who he really is, which is not “gay,” as Elder Bednar did this with the youth in a Face2Face session. For the male, it is helpful he celebrate his manliness in terms of priesthood responsibility and service; worthiness, charity, and healthy moral relationships; and strong, healthy, and energetic morality, spirituality, intellect, and emotion. I’m sure they would give similar counsel for females asking this question.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

The definition of morality is not a simple matter of differing opinions as to what it should be...imagine if society as a whole operated on that idea.

Loving someone sometimes means telling them "hard truths".  Imagine the ministry of Christ if He did not correct the falsehoods of the Pharisees and Scribes...  

Its exactly how society works, society defines social norms and runs based on those common beliefs.  We should constantly be re-evaluating our core principles in an effort to be more inclusive and learn from our mistakes.  

Yes, agreed about the hard truths, but that should be very rare from my experience.  

 

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am happy that he answered it and that he clarified it as his belief.  I don't want it both ways.  My point was that his answer is just more evidence that we have not received further light and knowledge on the matter.

I do not accept his answer as evidence of that at all -- it presumes you have that added light and knowledge with which to make that assessment. I think instead it is evidence of your own prejudice on the subject, since you don't see his response as I do LOL

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its exactly how society works, society defines social norms and runs based on those common beliefs.  We should constantly be re-evaluating our core principles in an effort to be more inclusive and learn from our mistakes.  

Yes, agreed about the hard truths, but that should be very rare from my experience.  

 

So now "common beliefs" dictate how society should act moving forward?  I don't think that's a good measuring stick.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That might be someone’s thought--not sure why that is the first that comes to your mind--but it is not mine and I’m not attributing it to Elders Perry and Clarke, either.

 

Why not simply ask me to clarify what I mean rather than triangulate with another poster?

 

The question is poised in terms of seeking help, so the answer is appropriately framed in that same way (to render sought-after help). When a male asks this question with an attitude of seeking help, it is helpful to remind them who he really is, which is not “gay,” as Elder Bednar did this with the youth in a Face2Face session. For the male, it is helpful he celebrate his manliness in terms of priesthood responsibility and service; worthiness, charity, and healthy moral relationships; and strong, healthy, and energetic morality, spirituality, intellect, and emotion. I’m sure they would give similar counsel for females asking this question.

 

The reference to California Boy was an attempt a humor since he is one of the few "out" gay participants on the board.  You'll note I was primarily asking you.

I'm still confused at the reference to "celebrate his manliness".  Is the idea here that gay individuals haven't property celebrated their manliness?  Or is it that they can substituted their yearning for love and companionship by celebrating their manliness through priesthood service?

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I do not accept his answer as evidence of that at all -- it presumes you have that added light and knowledge with which to make that assessment. I think instead it is evidence of your own prejudice on the subject, since you don't see his response as I do LOL

If there was a clear revelation to the apostles regarding the issue being addressed by the question, wouldn't Elder Perry have provided that information... even in an extemporaneous answer?

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I am happy that he answered it and that he clarified it as his belief.  I don't want it both ways.  My point was that his answer is just more evidence that we have not received further light and knowledge on the matter.

Ah. OK. I misunderstood you then. My apologies. Sounds like we mostly agree then.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I usually won at gay chicken back in High School and college. I think you could match me and probably beat me.  

Yeah well, I never intended to loose.  

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Yeah well, I never intended to loose.  

Ha!... just when I thought that Nehor had given us the funniest line of the day.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Elder Perry is answering the question extemporaneously.  I'm sure if he had time to prepare an answer that there would be more to it and it would address all aspect of the question. 

 

That might be even worse if that is possible.  He has never thought about this question before being asked??

[rockpond]

Just now, california boy said:

That might be even worse if that is possible.  He has never thought about this question before being asked??

That's an excellent point.  How has he reached that point of his leadership service and not come up with a better answer?  If it is the first time he's had to address such an issue than we truly do have a problem.

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the thought is that gay people only see "being manly" through the "tunnel vision of sexualness"?  I'm not even sure how to interpret that.  Maybe California Boy can help clarify what you mean. 

I have no idea what he is talking about.  I was gay when I was a deacon.  Spent a lot if time in priesthood quorum.  Maybe if guys would have attended quorum meetings in tank tops instead of white shirts and ties I would have gotten over this "phase".  

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The reference to California Boy was an attempt a humor since he is one of the few "out" gay participants on the board.  You'll note I was primarily asking you.

I'm still confused at the reference to "celebrate his manliness".  Is the idea here that gay individuals haven't property celebrated their manliness?  Or is it that they can substituted their yearning for love and companionship by celebrating their manliness through priesthood service?

The idea here is that we see in the Q&A a general request for help that is connected with identifying as "gay." The answer to that is to recognize that there is a deeper and more well-rounded identification than that. Yearning for love and companionship aren't part of he question as asked, so I cannot speak to that, and I don't see that Elders Perry and Clarke did either. But the answers given transcend sexualness by focusing on those common activities, relationships and attributes all LDS males can have as sons of God in the covenant.

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If there was a clear revelation to the apostles regarding the issue being addressed by the question, wouldn't Elder Perry have provided that information... even in an extemporaneous answer?

I think he did, as I explained above. I think you are reading more specificity into the question, and in a much narrower way, than it is asked. The question was not, "Help me deal with this yearning for gay love and gay companionship." It was, "I identify as gay; help me." The answer conveyed that God sees His child as greater than one aspect of his makeup, and a way to find happiness in cultivating a more well-rounded self-image and persona.

Edited August 8, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The idea here is that we see in the Q&A a general request for help that is connected with identifying as "gay." The answer to that is to recognize that there is a deeper and more well-rounded identification than that. Yearning for love and companionship aren't part of he question as asked, so I cannot speak to that, and I don't see that Elders Perry and Clarke did either. But the answers given transcend sexualness by focusing on those common activities, relationships and attributes all LDS males can have as sons of God in the covenant.

I think he did, as I explained above. I think you are reading more specificity into the question, and in a much narrower way, than it is asked. The question was not, "Help me deal with this yearning for gay love and gay companionship." It was, "I identify as gay; help me." The answer conveyed that God sees His child as greater than one aspect of his makeup, and a way to find happiness in cultivating a more well-rounded self-image and persona.

This explanation makes more sense though I think you are somewhat changing his response.  And, I'll note that you had to remove the odd reference to manly things that was what my question revolved around.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah well, I never intended to loose.  

Yeah, I am guessing kissing you would not win like it has for me in the past. I concede good sir.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

There is a Q&A session in which Elder Perry provides some answers that seem contradictory to the current Church position.

I find his answers fully in harmony with the Church's current teachings.