Bryce Cook's article reviewing church's stance on gay marriage

[churchistrue]

Has there been a discussion of this? I looked for a thread to bump but didn't find one.  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

This article has been compared to Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood published in Dialogue that had great effect on Pres. Kimball. The article is very long but I guess he is condensing it for publication in Dialogue. 

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

What I like about Bryce's article, and Bryce in general, is that he's smart and level headed and supportive of the church, even though he has strongly opposing views on LGBT issues. I think the case he presents is pretty strong. And given the angst over this issue and the rising support among members, I see the church moving on this issue within 30 years.

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, churchistrue said:

Has there been a discussion of this? I looked for a thread to bump but didn't find one.  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

This article has been compared to Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood published in Dialogue that had great effect on Pres. Kimball. The article is very long but I guess he is condensing it for publication in Dialogue. 

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

What I like about Bryce's article, and Bryce in general, is that he's smart and level headed and supportive of the church, even though he has strongly opposing views on LGBT issues. I think the case he presents is pretty strong. And given the angst over this issue and the rising support among members, I see the church moving on this issue within 30 years.

During the time of Epiphanes, lots of Jewish men were just fine with going along with societal pressure and underwent painful circumcision reversal surgery so they could pass time in the bathhouses without embarrassment.

The Maccabees were right, though. To be Jewish is to be circumcised. Some things are just that fundamental.

[kllindley]

27 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Has there been a discussion of this? I looked for a thread to bump but didn't find one.  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

This article has been compared to Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood published in Dialogue that had great effect on Pres. Kimball. The article is very long but I guess he is condensing it for publication in Dialogue. 

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

What I like about Bryce's article, and Bryce in general, is that he's smart and level headed and supportive of the church, even though he has strongly opposing views on LGBT issues. I think the case he presents is pretty strong. And given the angst over this issue and the rising support among members, I see the church moving on this issue within 30 years.

 

Unless he has substantially rewritten it, Cook's article is seriously lacking in rigor. And he has been very dismissive of anyone who tries to point out areas where it could be improved. I'm not at all impressed. 

[churchistrue]

48 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Unless he has substantially rewritten it, Cook's article is seriously lacking in rigor. And he has been very dismissive of anyone who tries to point out areas where it could be improved. I'm not at all impressed. 

I agree with the rigor critique. Cook's a smart guy, but he's not an academic. And it's a very large, ambitious piece. I think he does about as well as you could possibly do as a non-academic. And I think an academic could polish it up, with more research and references and properly footnoted, in a way that you would end up saying that is a solid, rigorous academic treatment of the subject, and it wouldn't be materially different. As for the critique of him being dismissive, I've followed him quite a bit, and I don't get that sense at all. Compared to others in this field, either on the Mo side, the Exmo side, or in the middle, I think he is quite humble and genuine.  

[The Nehor]

I will be amongst the first to cheer if this can change and relieve the burden of pain and suffering of so many I know and care for.

I just am not sure if it can or will.

[stemelbow]

I'd say all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue.  It'll be interesting when in time all of what is definite doctrine straight from God will be policies created based on men's opinions and understanding at the time.  I don't know when the Church will get there. But to put a cap on it and say the Church will not change, it certainly cannot, is just plain silly, generally speaking if not on the this topic.  We always work with limited understanding.  We can't see what we don't understand, very well. 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue.  It'll be interesting when in time all of what is definite doctrine straight from God will be policies created based on men's opinions and understanding at the time.  I don't know when the Church will get there. But to put a cap on it and say the Church will not change, it certainly cannot, is just plain silly, generally speaking if not on the this topic.  

I agree (although I'm not sure that "all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue").  I do see some shifting (even with the recent support of the LGBT concert) and I definitely believe that more and more active members are supporting SSM (most especially the youth).  The leaders have to know that they will loose a great many of the youth to this issue if there are not changes made (such as doing away with the recent policy).

As far as the article in the OP, I skimmed through it and liked it.  I think he gives a good history and overview.  I also agree with his conclusions and projections.

Edited August 25, 2017 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

Just now, ALarson said:

I agree (although I'm not sure that "all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue").  I do see some shifting (even with the recent support of the LGBT concert) and I definitely believe that more and more active members are supporting SSM (most especially the youth).  The leaders have to know that they will loose a great many of the youth to this issue if there are not changes made (such as doing away with the recent policy).

Fair enough.  I get overly excited when I think of the good changing and evolving to come, and perhaps speaks in hyperbole because of that. 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fair enough.  I get overly excited when I think of the good changing and evolving to come, ....

 Me too!!!

Edited August 25, 2017 by ALarson

[CV75]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Has there been a discussion of this? I looked for a thread to bump but didn't find one.  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

This article has been compared to Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood published in Dialogue that had great effect on Pres. Kimball. The article is very long but I guess he is condensing it for publication in Dialogue. 

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

What I like about Bryce's article, and Bryce in general, is that he's smart and level headed and supportive of the church, even though he has strongly opposing views on LGBT issues. I think the case he presents is pretty strong. And given the angst over this issue and the rising support among members, I see the church moving on this issue within 30 years.

 

The hoodwinking continues...

Brother Cook is taking Elder Uchtdorf’s talk out of context.

Elder Uchtdorf is talking about how sometimes we “delay doing what we should do or we misunderstand what we were taught.” He is teaching Church leadership how to carry out their work with their councils and by revelation.

Brother Cook left out the entire quote from the preface of his article, which I think does everyone a disservice. It full quote is, “Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers from the scriptures or the handbooks because we think we know the answers already.” This isn’t about a Kimballesuqe search for answers, but how “It might be wise to look at the handbooks and even the scriptures not as checklists or detailed scripts but rather as opportunities to prepare our minds and hearts to receive divine inspiration for our responsibilities.”

Everything else he has to say kind of crumbles from there.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree (although I'm not sure that "all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue").  I do see some shifting (even with the recent support of the LGBT concert) and I definitely believe that more and more active members are supporting SSM (most especially the youth).  The leaders have to know that they will loose a great many of the youth to this issue if there are not changes made (such as doing away with the recent policy).

I think you're completely right about the youth.  I was just called into the YW's program (as an advisor to the 12-13 year age group).  We made those woven string friendship bracelets this week for an activity.  

One of the girls made hers rainbow colors and held it up and said "gay pride baby!!!".  All the girls laughed and then many started making rainbow ones for themselves.  Even a couple of the other YW leaders wanted one for themselves.

This seems to be a popular topic for these girls too and the ones I've heard vocalize how they feel, they are very supportive of gays and SSM.  

It will be interesting to see how the church leaders react to the member support of SSM over the next few years.

Edited August 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Guest]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Has there been a discussion of this? I looked for a thread to bump but didn't find one.  https://mormonlgbtquestions.com/

This article has been compared to Lester Bush's article on race and priesthood published in Dialogue that had great effect on Pres. Kimball. The article is very long but I guess he is condensing it for publication in Dialogue. 

I did a review of the article http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/bryce-cook-mormon-church-gay-marriage/

What I like about Bryce's article, and Bryce in general, is that he's smart and level headed and supportive of the church, even though he has strongly opposing views on LGBT issues. I think the case he presents is pretty strong. And given the angst over this issue and the rising support among members, I see the church moving on this issue within 30 years.

 

I want to be as gentle as possible regarding this topic. The entire doctrine, policy and history of the Priesthood Ban was always something that lacked scriptural support. It was a policy that simply had to end, and thankfully in President Kimball, we had a leader who was willing to challenge this institutional doctrine and make a change. Polygamy, and Monogamous relationship in marriage both have scriptural doctrines that can be supported or rejected depending on what parts of all canonized scripture that we have. But, The Church is not governed by popular vote, and if this is a Church that is truly lead by Prophets, under the direction of Jesus Christ, it must remain so. There simply is nothing to which Prophets ancient and modern Prophets, can point to that such practices having been or ever, or will be permitted to sanction such unions, and making them equal in the eyes of the doctrine and blessings. This is just one of many social issues, as were others where people will have to choose to stay or to go. Many of us have family who are touched by this issue, and they are bound to these family member by mutual love, and all wish for their family members to be loved, and saved. It tugs at the heartstrings, just as having family members who are in common-law marriages, just living together, and one down the list. We love them, we care for them and their salvation, but it is not "we" who grant such salvation. 

Our Father in Heaven, gave his Son, Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of all mankind. This is why a loving Father, just as a loving parent would do, to provide different rewards, and do the best he can for each individual. Except for those who give themselves totally over to Satan and become the sons of perdition, then they are beyond "His Grace", the rest receive according to his Grace, his loving Grace. 

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think you're completely right about the youth.  I was just called into the YW's program (as an advisor to the 12-13 year age group).  We made those woven string friendship bracelets this week for an activity.  

One of the girls made hers rainbow colors and held it up and said "gay pride baby!!!".  All the girls laughed and then many started making rainbow ones for themselves.  Even a couple of the other YW leaders wanted one for themselves.

This seems to be a popular topic for these girls too and the ones I've heard vocalize how they feel, they are very supportive of gays and SSM.  

It will be interesting to see how the church leaders react to the member support of SSM over the next few years.

Yes, I've heard the enthusiasm ("gay pride") and support expressed from the youth in our ward too.  I find that very encouraging 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I will be amongst the first to cheer if this can change and relieve the burden of pain and suffering of so many I know and care for.

I just am not sure if it can or will.

Ditto.  I would celebrate if it is God's will that gay people function in the church just like straight people.  But that's the catch, it has to be about what God wants.  Not what I want, or what anyone else wants either.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The hoodwinking continues...

Brother Cook is taking Elder Uchtdorf’s talk out of context.

 

Elder Uchtdorf is talking about how sometimes we “delay doing what we should do or we misunderstand what we were taught.” He is teaching Church leadership how to carry out their work with their councils and by revelation.

 

Brother Cook left out the entire quote from the preface of his article, which I think does everyone a disservice. It full quote is, “Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation or answers from the scriptures or the handbooks because we think we know the answers already.” This isn’t about a Kimballesuqe search for answers, but how “It might be wise to look at the handbooks and even the scriptures not as checklists or detailed scripts but rather as opportunities to prepare our minds and hearts to receive divine inspiration for our responsibilities.”

 

Everything else he has to say kind of crumbles from there.

 

I had two objections to Cook's piece which I read most of.

One, he seemed to presume he was right and some of his quotes were a bit of a stretch to back it up as you said. As I said I hope he is right but I am not convinced. I have seen some of the suffering and want it to stop and part of me wonders if eternal law can accommodate ending it and turning it to joy in this life. While part of me balks at the God I know allowing it to continue I also work with abused and neglected children and balk at that suffering and wish God would step in and end it.

The second objection I had was the sentimental bit about special spirituality possessed by those he has worked with. We have been down that road with women. I just dislike it. It comes across as patronizing.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ditto.  I would celebrate if it is God's will that gay people function in the church just like straight people.  But that's the catch, it has to be about what God wants.  Not what I want, or what anyone else wants either.

I agree totally. While I do believe revelation comes when the membership as a whole is ready it still must come from the top. I do not want church members lobbying for revelation. I do believe members who feel that we need more revelation on this matter should take the one authorized endrun we have in the church hierarchy to talk to the guy in charge and petition God.

Even if this solution is unworkable under eternal law I want revelation for solutions that are and I have no idea what they could be. I do know that the apostles are seeking light and knowledge on this topic and our prayers can speed that search.

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I want to be as gentle as possible regarding this topic. The entire doctrine, policy and history of the Priesthood Ban was always something that lacked scriptural support. It was a policy that simply had to end, and thankfully in President Kimball, we had a leader who was willing to challenge this institutional doctrine and make a change. Polygamy, and Monogamous relationship in marriage both have scriptural doctrines that can be supported or rejected depending on what parts of all canonized scripture that we have. But, The Church is not governed by popular vote, and if this is a Church that is truly lead by Prophets, under the direction of Jesus Christ, it must remain so. There simply is nothing to which Prophets ancient and modern Prophets, can point to that such practices having been or ever, or will be permitted to sanction such unions, and making them equal in the eyes of the doctrine and blessings. This is just one of many social issues, as were others where people will have to choose to stay or to go. Many of us have family who are touched by this issue, and they are bound to these family member by mutual love, and all wish for their family members to be loved, and saved. It tugs at the heartstrings, just as having family members who are in common-law marriages, just living together, and one down the list. We love them, we care for them and their salvation, but it is not "we" who grant such salvation. 

Our Father in Heaven, gave his Son, Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of all mankind. This is why a loving Father, just as a loving parent would do, to provide different rewards, and do the best he can for each individual. Except for those who give themselves totally over to Satan and become the sons of perdition, then they are beyond "His Grace", the rest receive according to his Grace, his loving Grace. 

I agree with you that there is no precedent for this but this is the dispensation of the fullness of times. Things will be different this time. This is the dispensation where nothing will eventually be withheld. There are new practices, new understandings, and the generation that will be able to abide the coming of the Savior in glory. God has solutions and consolations to help with this conundrum and I think we should knock until God opens the door and helps. I suspect God wants to but due to the laws of a fallen earth it will not come until we desire it.

[Traela]

I'm saddened by the number of members who seem to be ok with depriving spirit children of either a Heavenly Father or a Heavenly Mother, which is what the exaltation of gay couples would lead to.  Personally, I think it takes a certain amount of contempt for the opposite sex to say that your children don't need, and shouldn't even want, that opposite-sex parent.

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd say all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue.  It'll be interesting when in time all of what is definite doctrine straight from God will be policies created based on men's opinions and understanding at the time.  I don't know when the Church will get there. But to put a cap on it and say the Church will not change, it certainly cannot, is just plain silly, generally speaking if not on the this topic.  We always work with limited understanding.  We can't see what we don't understand, very well. 

I can't see the church changing at all on the issue of SSM in the next 10000 years.  God is not changing his views regardless of the how many people view the issue on one planet out of the billions he owns in the universe. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Traela said:

I'm saddened by the number of members who seem to be ok with depriving spirit children of either a Heavenly Father or a Heavenly Mother, which is what the exaltation of gay couples would lead to.  Personally, I think it takes a certain amount of contempt for the opposite sex to say that your children don't need, and shouldn't even want, that opposite-sex parent.

 

 

I would place the odds of a gay couple being exalted together is about as much as Satan being exalted anytime within the next 100 trillion earth years.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree (although I'm not sure that "all signs point to the Church changing drastically on this issue").  I do see some shifting (even with the recent support of the LGBT concert) and I definitely believe that more and more active members are supporting SSM (most especially the youth).  The leaders have to know that they will loose a great many of the youth to this issue if there are not changes made (such as doing away with the recent policy).

 

If that is the price to pay than that is the price to pay.  If the Church has to kick out 95% of the members to save the 5% that is better in the end than accepting a practice that would lead to the damnation of the 100%.

[carbon dioxide]

From the article

" Jesus never addressed gay marriage or what gay people should do related to relationships.  The Book of Mormon, meant for our day and considered the most correct book of scripture, never addresses gay marriage or sexual activity."  

I HATE arguments like this.  Jesus did not address a lot of issues specifically.  Should one take that to mean he might endorse people using crack cocaine or other drugs for recreational purposes?  He never spoke against against using cocaine.  On can justify pretty much any modern day sinful practice like having sex with robots (they are developing these things) under the label "well Jesus never mentioned anything against it".  The real question would be is there anything at all in the scriptures that would remotely hint to Jesus accepting SSM? 

Can anyone really envision Alma,. Nephi, the brother of Jared, or Moroni even accepting the very idea of SSM with any degree of seriousness?

I take the view that Jesus and Satan are polar opposites.  Whatever Jesus is for Satan is against and vice versa.  The almost never agree on anything.  So what would be their respective positions on SSM.  If Jesus is for SSM, then Satan would be against.  If Jesus is against SSM than Satan would be for it.  Using the scriptures, I lean heavily towards one side over the other.

Edited August 25, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Traela said:

I'm saddened by the number of members who seem to be ok with depriving spirit children of either a Heavenly Father or a Heavenly Mother, which is what the exaltation of gay couples would lead to.  Personally, I think it takes a certain amount of contempt for the opposite sex to say that your children don't need, and shouldn't even want, that opposite-sex parent.

I do not think we know enough about the eternities to understand what that would even mean let alone to condemn it.

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I can't see the church changing at all on the issue of SSM in the next 10000 years.  God is not changing his views regardless of the how many people view the issue on one planet out of the billions he owns in the universe. 

But what about 10,001 years? God does not change his views but he does adapt his commandments and the commanded practices of his people as time goes on. What we call the nuclear family has only scant resemblance to how it looked over the millennia before. We have no achieved perfection and have no idea what it will look like in the future.

10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would place the odds of a gay couple being exalted together is about as much as Satan being exalted anytime within the next 100 trillion earth years.

What odds are you offering? Is gambling still a sin?

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If that is the price to pay than that is the price to pay.  If the Church has to kick out 95% of the members to save the 5% that is better in the end than accepting a practice that would lead to the damnation of the 100%.

And if God changes it?

 

We make a lot of hay over God being unchanging but God is still giving up freshmen and sophomore courses on reality. The restoration is ongoing. Will SSM be a thing he allows? Maybe. Maybe not. I think though that members of the church are often reactionary conservatives in many ways pining for a mythical past, particularly in the United States. They see perfection as some kind of Norman Rockefeller Utah Mountain West 1950's family as a kind of Platonic ideal but we are not going back to it. The world is unlikely to and the gospel is definitely not. We got to husband and wife being equal partners and I do not want to go back and I do not believe God intends to either.

While the culture as a whole is going to have some terrible ideas the structure of society in the gospel will change. Some will match cultural changes and others will be in defiance of them. Some ideas will Last and some will discarded. The old ship Zion is charging forwards. God has things in wait for us we cannot comprehend. There is a strong chance that the families of the Millenium will look back on this generation's families the way many of us look back on arranged polygamous marriages or marrying for alliances or forcing your daighter to marry the guy who raped her. I do not know what these changes will be but they will come. If I shared my guesses (and they are only guesses) I would probably be accused of blasphemy.  

That being said I am not an apostle. I do not know if our stance on SSM will ever change. It may not. If not, something will to help these precious sons and daughters of God who are currently struggling and suffering. No idea what it will be. In any case, the future is going to be amazing! 

[Bernard Gui]

It's interesting to contemplate these words of Elder Maxwell. Of course, he could have been speaking as a man, not as a prophet.

Quote

Discipleship includes good citizenship. In this connection, if you are a careful student of the statements of the modern prophets, you will have noticed that with rare exceptions—especially when the First Presidency has spoken out—the concerns expressed have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties. The declarations are about principles, not people; and causes, not candidates. On occasions, at other levels in the Church, a few have not been so discreet, so wise, or so inspired.

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities—when faced with clear alternatives—will make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).

This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Do we need to make a choice between the First Presidency and [EDIT] Bryce Cook?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It's interesting to contemplate these words of Elder Maxwell. Of course, he could have been speaking as a man, not as a prophet.

Do we need to make a choice between the First Presidency and Lester Bush?

If we do I pick the former. Why?