Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

MormonLeaks: Elder Perry on Homosexuality


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

lol.

I'm not a member anymore, more or less. I wouldn't take a recommend if it came with a hundred dollar bill attached if I had to also use it.

But I'll bet you this - there will be a day when an apologist will point to the fact the law of chastity does not speak about homosexuality and will be throwing the thinking you are sharing here under the bus using the exact same logic I am applying. It will be something about God not actually saying it but the times and culture unfortunately causing leaders to insert their own biased beliefs so God had to work with what he had. Refer to the essay on the priesthood ban if still unsure about this.

If legally married, there is no reason to say they are violating the law of chastity. You can complain about the fact it is now considered legal I guess. But you can't change the fact they are not unchaste if they are legally married and faithful.

Not every argument is equivalent to every other.  However, I would be willing to argue that legally married polygamists will be considered unchaste by the LDS Church, even when polygamy becomes legal in America.  They would be unchurched for it, even though polygamy was once acceptable and even encouraged by the LDS faith.
There is no likelihood that legal homosexual marriage will be acceptable within Mormonism at any time in the future, much less by 2025.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Judiciary edicts don't change God's laws. Homosexual behavior is still violating the law of chastity. 

That's fine but by definition it isn't fornication or adultery.  No one is disputing the right of the LDS church to still consider it sin.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Granted, I am interpreting his response in line with what I believe is a correct interpretation of the question, which is clearly more general than about "yearning."

I know how old people talk and what they mean when they say it! For example, this is what "manly" means to me: possessing those good qualities traditionally associated with men (courage, strength, high morals, etc.). In context of an Apostle speaking, this would have to do with manliness / maleness in terms of priesthood. In this context, "manly things" would be the priesthood ideals and activities (of which which the quorums and scouting program provide ample opportunity).

Considering his tenure as an apostle, I'm sure the principles in this talk, which apply today, provided his frame of reference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/be-men?lang=eng

And here's a good one from President Hinckley:

"You cannot afford to do anything that would place a curtain between you and the ministering of angels in your behalf.

"You cannot be immoral in any sense. You cannot be dishonest. You cannot cheat or lie. You cannot take the name of God in vain or use filthy language and still have the right to the ministering of angels.

"I do not want you to be self-righteous. I want you to be manly, to be vibrant and strong and happy. To those who are athletically inclined, I want you to be good athletes and strive to become champions. But in doing so, you do not have to indulge in unseemly behavior or profane or filthy language...

"You must not, you cannot under any circumstances compromise the divine power which you carry within you as ordained ministers of the gospel."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/personal-worthiness-to-exercise-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

You said it violated the law of chastity. It isn't about the definition of marriage or what you think God thinks because a church that has a bad track record on this sort of thing claims it can speak for God. But even then, given the specific language used if legally married, how does it violate the law of chastity?

That's "legal" in scriptural terms, as used in D&C 68:16, 18; 107:16, 76. And "lawful" as used in scripture as well: D&C 49:16; 76;115; 86:9; 132;65.

And that's just the D&C. The point is, marriage needs to be legal and lawful unto the Lord.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This demonstrates what we all know -- that such non-professional views are all too common, and that they frequently dominate policy decisions.  Perhaps many of us used to share that unscientific view.  Hopefully we are now better informed.

I think it demonstrates what we all are better off recognizing: it is an apostolic view and is perfectly valid. The apostle will remind someone seeking help with this question of who he really is, which is not “gay,” as Elder Bednar did this with the youth in a Face2Face session.

Posted 14 minutes ago

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. The answer transcends sexualness and the tendency to enable a counterproductive identity by focusing on those common activities, relationships and attributes all LDS males can have as sons of God in the covenant. Elders Perry and Clarke’s answers 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 by CV75
Link to comment
5 hours ago, sjdawg said:

That's fine but by definition it isn't fornication or adultery.  No one is disputing the right of the LDS church to still consider it sin.

Within the context of the Mormon faith gay "marriage" is not even marriage. So within that context it is fornication or adultery. So when HJW or Honorentheos anyone else claims, within an LDS framework, that gay "marriage" is not a violation of the law of chastity, they are trying to impose a definition on the Church that the Church doesn't accept. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Granted, I am interpreting his response in line with what I believe is a correct interpretation of the question, which is clearly more general than about "yearning."

I know how old people talk and what they mean when they say it! For example, this is what "manly" means to me: possessing those good qualities traditionally associated with men (courage, strength, high morals, etc.). In context of an Apostle speaking, this would have to do with manliness / maleness in terms of priesthood. In this context, "manly things" would be the priesthood ideals and activities (of which which the quorums and scouting program provide ample opportunity).

Considering his tenure as an apostle, I'm sure the principles in this talk, which apply today, provided his frame of reference: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/be-men?lang=eng

And here's a good one from President Hinckley:

"You cannot afford to do anything that would place a curtain between you and the ministering of angels in your behalf.

"You cannot be immoral in any sense. You cannot be dishonest. You cannot cheat or lie. You cannot take the name of God in vain or use filthy language and still have the right to the ministering of angels.

"I do not want you to be self-righteous. I want you to be manly, to be vibrant and strong and happy. To those who are athletically inclined, I want you to be good athletes and strive to become champions. But in doing so, you do not have to indulge in unseemly behavior or profane or filthy language...

"You must not, you cannot under any circumstances compromise the divine power which you carry within you as ordained ministers of the gospel."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/personal-worthiness-to-exercise-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Maybe you should have written out the response he should have given. Oh wait, you did.  Nothing like what he said, but it certainly is an improvement.  

My father is of that same generation.  I will never forget what he said to me when I told him I was gay.  He said "You can't be gay.  You don't act at all like someone who is gay."  I just about started laughing.  Just how is a gay person suppose to act?  Because I played sports and am pretty athletic, I can't be gay?

Elder Perry's answer tells me he has not even the slightest idea about what it is like to be gay or what the issues are.  Is it any wonder the church has the policies it has against gay members that directly effects their relationship with the church?  Quite honestly very little critical thinking, let alone any spiritual discernment went into his answer.  Yet he held the reins of power to decide church policy.  Those policies are sounding more like knee jerk reactions based on long held false ideas about gay people. Not really surprised.  

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Wow!  Didn't know you'd served as a Stake President!  How long did you serve?

I was on the Stake High Council during the time when the old SP was being replaced.  Its pretty standard practice for the visiting GA (Tom Perry in this case) to interview all members of the HC and other names suggested by the HC (I for example suggested 3 other members of our stake for the position, one of which was called as SP) for the position.  So I was interviewed but fortunately was passed over and not actually called to the SP

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Within the context of the Mormon faith gay "marriage" is not even marriage. So within that context it is fornication or adultery. So when HJW or anyone else claims, within an LDS framework, that gay "marriage" is not a violation of the law of chastity, they are trying to pose a definition on the Church that the Church doesn't accept. 

So what is it?  Fornication or adultery.  It sounds like you are trying to find a label for gay married couples that don't even fit the church's label for what a sin is.  

If it is fornication, then they aren't married.  If they are married, but having sex outside that marriage then it is adultery.  I know you won't see this, but neither term fits the relationship a gay married couple has even if the church doesn't accept their marriage.  They are still legally married and hardly committing either fornication or adultery.

Maybe we should call gay married couples adulticators.  

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe you should have written out the response he should have given. Oh wait, you did.  Nothing like what he said, but it certainly is an improvement.  

My father is of that same generation.  I will never forget what he said to me when I told him I was gay.  He said "You can't be gay.  You don't act at all like someone who is gay."  I just about started laughing.  Just how is a gay person suppose to act?  Because I played sports and am pretty athletic, I can't be gay?

Elder Perry's answer tells me he has not even the slightest idea about what it is like to be gay or what the issues are.  Is it any wonder the church has the policies it has against gay members that directly effects their relationship with the church?  Quite honestly very little critical thinking, let alone any spiritual discernment went into his answer.  Yet he held the reins of power to decide church policy.

Yes.  He seemed very out of touch--not surprising in the sense of his generation. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe you should have written out the response he should have given. Oh wait, you did.  Nothing like what he said, but it certainly is an improvement.  

My father is of that same generation.  I will never forget what he said to me when I told him I was gay.  He said "You can't be gay.  You don't act at all like someone who is gay."  I just about started laughing.  Just how is a gay person suppose to act?  Because I played sports and am pretty athletic, I can't be gay?

Elder Perry's answer tells me he has not even the slightest idea about what it is like to be gay or what the issues are.  Is it any wonder the church has the policies it has against gay members that directly effects their relationship with the church?  Quite honestly very little critical thinking, let alone any spiritual discernment went into his answer.  Yet he held the reins of power to decide church policy.

Elder Perry is (was) not your father, who I trust you love, and who I hope is alive and well, but in any case merits being treated above post-mortem mockery.

I would have laughed too, but your father's understanding is not reflected in Elder Perry's and Clarke's equally concise answers. I think you are reading too much personal experience into it, or with too much bias.

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  He seemed very out of touch--not surprising in the sense of his generation. 

See above and here  Posted 6 minutes ago and here: Posted 22 minutes ago

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, california boy said:

So what is it?  Fornication or adultery.  It sounds like you are trying to find a label for gay married couples that don't even fit the church's label for what a sin is.  

If it is fornication, then they aren't married.  If they are married, but having sex outside that marriage then it is adultery.  I know you won't see this, but neither term fits the relationship a gay married couple has even if the church doesn't accept their marriage.  They are still legally married and hardly committing either fornication or adultery.

Maybe we should call gay married couples adulticators.  

The definitions still apply: fornication if they are not married (under the traditional definition), adultery if they are. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

Since it took about 10 years from Loving v Virginia to the Kimball revelation I'll give myself a timeframe, too. Say 2025.

Of course the testimonies of those in actual attendance at the councils is of no consequence, and Loving and Colorado State's football players are the real reasons for OD2  ...  :rolleyes:

Edited by USU78
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you are reading too much personal experience into it, or with too much bias.

Precisely.  Not every thread is about a certain person's personal experiences; not every Q12 or First Presidency announcement is about a certain person's personal experiences; and not every conversation is about a certain person's personal experiences.

 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Of course the testimonies of those in actual attendance at the councils is of no consequence, and Loving and Colorado State's football players are the real reasons for OD2  ...  :rolleyes:

Not at all what Honorentheos said or even implied.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...