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

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Remain in good standing, not necessarily remain in leadership. Being "in good standing" does not necessarily qualify one to serve in each and every calling in the Church. 

 

22 hours ago, ALarson said:

There was no qualification regarding not being able to hold a leadership position:

 

 

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Holding leadership positions was never the context of this interview or the response. Many things might render a person unqualified to hold a specific position in the Church who is generally qualified to hold a temple recommend. I don't think I would make a very good Scoutmaster or a ward organist, for example, because I lack the skills or disposition to fill those callings. One who cannot earnestly support the Church leaders in public and in private lacks, in my view, an essential qualification for prominent leadership positions. 

Furthermore, as a rank-and-file Church member, I for one would lack confidence in a local-unit leader who I knew harbored sentiments at odds with the official position of the Church and its leaders. How could I be certain these sentiments were not somehow influencing my impressionable children in teaching situations in the ward or stake?

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is comparatively little (indeed, next to zero) social pressure for the church to abandon its views on premarital or extramarital sex. And, these commandments apply equally to everyone - they don't single out one class of people.

 

The sexual revolution has been around for a half-century now. There has been tremendous social pressure in that time, especially among rising generations, to abandon traditional moral values. As a child of the 1960s I have witnessed it.

And the moral values single ou those who, for whatever reason, want to give free-wheeling expression to their sexuality unhinderdd by the expectation that it be limited to marriage. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

The church doesn't take such a hard line about women and careers anymore. Maybe it's not a good idea to derive "eternal" law from mid-20th century social norms?

I don't recall anything in the proclamation about women and careers. I am well acquainted with the instruction that mothers are primarily responsible for the nurturing of children in the family. 

Heaven help us should <that> ever be deemed outmoded. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The sexual revolution has been around for a half-century now. There has been tremendous social pressure in that time, especially among rising generations, to abandon traditional moral values. As a child of the 1960s I have witnessed it.

And the moral values single ou those who, for whatever reason, want to give free-wheeling expression to their sexuality inhinderdd by the expectation that it be limited to marriage. 

There is pressure for young people by their peers to abandon these standards (always has been), but almost no one expects churches to abandon these standards.

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't recall anything in the proclamation about women and careers. I am well acquainted with the instruction that mothers are primarily responsible for the nurturing of children in the family. 

Heaven help us should <that> ever be deemed outmoded. 

It's outmoded on two sides - in that it doesn't account for the fact that women can contribute more than this, and it doesn't account for the fact that fathers should be equally responsible for the nurturing of children in the family.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

but almost no one expects churches to abandon these standards.

That's rich. 

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

Right. The idea that having same-sex attraction is a choice is absolutely laughable.

Then why did the leaders teach that Homosexuality was "evil" and that "He did not make people 'that way'"?   The church has not always taught that people were born gay.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

It's outmoded on two sides - in that it doesn't account for the fact that women can contribute more than this, and it doesn't account for the fact that fathers should be equally responsible for the nurturing of children in the family.

Your declaration of what is outmoded holds extremely little weight with me when placed in direct opposition to the word of divinely called and inspired prophets and apostles. 

I suppose that's why we have them: as protection against being " "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine," to put it in the apostle Paul's terms. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, as a rank-and-file Church member, I for one would lack confidence in a local-unit leader who I knew harbored sentiments at odds with the official position of the Church and its leaders. 

That's of course your choice based on your own feelings and opinions.  However, this does not change the fact that he has been deemed worthy to serve as a Bishop (and his leaders know his beliefs regarding SSM).

Edited August 28, 2017 by ALarson

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then why did the leaders teach that Homosexuality was "evil" and that "He did not make people 'that way'"?   The church has not always taught that people were born gay.

Being born gay is absolutely not the only alternative to "attraction is a choice."

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

There is pressure for young people by their peers to abandon these standards (always has been), but almost no one expects churches to abandon these standards.

The same threat has been made as is being made now: Change your expectations or people, the youth especially, will lose interest in what your church has to offer them. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

However you try to spin it, Church teachings condemned behavior, not orientation if it was held in check. It was the same then as now in that respect. 

Furthermore, as unenlightened as efforts were back then to "cure" homosexuality, the fact that those who had the orientation but had not acted on it were not subject to discipline refutes your contention that the mere feeling (as opposed to behavior) was regarded as sinful. 

Not true.  When Pres. Kimball wrote that sinning could cause you to become gay, that is a pretty clear message that becoming gay is a sin.

Also, here is information from church leaders to Bishops from 1970:

Quote

Homosexuality is not the fault totally of family conditions.  Every normal person must answer for his own sins.

God did not make men evil.  He did not make people "that way".

This same directive to Bishops uses the phrase "the sin of homosexuality"  and that "the problem is in the mind more than in the body" and refers to the gay person as "the pervert".

You are the one who is trying to spin that being gay is a sin was never taught by church leaders.  We should all be grateful that teachings have evolved and this is no longer taught.  The focus now is on the choice to act and no longer speaks about choosing to be gay.

Thankfully leaders also no longer teach that being gay is a disease (or your words, a congenital "malady") that can be cured.

They have also stopped advising gay members to marry the opposite sex (another item in this same directive to Bishops).

 

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Being born gay is absolutely not the only alternative to "attraction is a choice."

Never said it was.  But you need to acknowledge past teachings by our leaders stating that God "did not make people 'that way'" or that sinning can cause you to be gay or that it's a curable disease.  Teachings have evolved and hopefully will continue to do so in the same positive direction as they have from the past.

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That's rich. 

Who is lobbying churches to stop teaching against adultery?

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Never said it was.  But you need to acknowledge past teachings by our leaders stating that God "did not make people 'that way'" or that sinning can cause you to be gay or that it's a curable disease.  Teachings have evolved and hopefully will continue to do so in the same positive direction as they have from the past.

Thanks for explaining to me what I need to do. Being LGBT myself and wrestling with my faith and experience for years didn't adequately prepare me to correctly interpret the past teachings I've been reading since I was 10. Thank goodness I have people like you to straighten me out. 

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Thanks for explaining to me what I need to do. Being LGBT myself and wrestling with my faith and experience for years didn't adequately prepare me to correctly interpret the past teachings I've been reading since I was 10. Thank goodness I have people like you to straighten me out. 

From your comments on this thread, it came through strongly that some of what once was taught by our leaders are things that are difficult for you to acknowledge.  I can understand why that is, when you are LGBT yourself.  But because of the fact that you are LGBT, I would have to believe you are very grateful that leaders no longer teach some of the hurtful things regarding this topic that were once taught.  There has been great progress made and not just within the church.  

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your declaration of what is outmoded holds extremely little weight with me when placed in direct opposition to the word of divinely called and inspired prophets and apostles. 

I suppose that's why we have them: as protection against being " "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine," to put it in the apostle Paul's terms. 

I don't see any value in teaching men to be irresponsible parents, or to suppose that women have only one thing to contribute to the world.

You can find the voice of God on women and careers in the graphic at the end of this article:

http://universe.byu.edu/2016/04/28/lds-mothers-balance-career-aspirations-with-divine-calling-of-motherhood1/

 

 

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The same threat has been made aas is being made now: Change your expectations or people, the youth especially, will lose interest in what your church has to offer them. 

Who is making these threats? People expect churches to preach against adultery and premarital sex.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[ALarson]

Reading through the directive or pamphlet for Bishops (or Stake Presidents) from the church leaders is very revealing regarding what was taught back then (1970).

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

One thing of interest is this statement:

Quote

You are entitled to special inspiration for every case but if you find some cases extra difficult and you feel that additional assistance and suggestions are necessary, feel free to contact the brethren who have been appointed to assist in this important phase of the church work - President Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Petersen.

I was not aware that these two were "appointed" for this.

 

Also, much of what this pamphlet contains supports what californiaboy describes as the advise he received from his Bishop to marry the opposite sex as a cure for being gay:

Quote

The entrenched homosexual had generally and gradually moved all of his interests and affections to those of his own sex rather than to the opposite sex and herein is another step.  When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and gradually move his life toward the normal.  It is proper that a girl should be interested in a boy and a boy should be interested in a girl and though they will never indulge in sex until after their marriage makes it proper and meaningful, there are many of the afflicted ones who have no interesting in the opposite sex and must now gradually develop it.  Some homosexual become effeminate and some lesbians become masculine in the dress, voice and mannerisms.

Quote

If they close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong.  Marriage and normal life can follow.

 

Quote

Convince the individual that proper marriage and family life is the only thing to save this confused world and if men waste their seed and fail to sire children and rear them in righteousness in the true family life, certainly the race will disappear.

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not true.  When Pres. Kimball wrote that sinning could cause you to become gay, that is a pretty clear message that becoming gay is a sin.

Also, here is information from church leaders to Bishops from 1970:

This same directive to Bishops uses the phrase "the sin of homosexuality"  and that "the problem is in the mind more than in the body" and refers to the gay person as "the pervert".

You are the one who is trying to spin that being gay is a sin was never taught by church leaders.  We should all be grateful that teachings have evolved and this is no longer taught.  The focus now is on the choice to act and no longer speaks about choosing to be gay.

Thankfully leaders also no longer teach that being gay is a disease (or your words, a congenital "malady") that can be cured.

They have also stopped advising gay members to marry the opposite sex (another item in this same directive to Bishops).

 

 

I think you have a problem with definitions. When you see the word homosexuality in those writings you interpret it to mean everything including sexual orientation, whether or not it is expressed in behavior. I don't concede the writers meant it in that way and I don't believe you have any way of knowing they did. Again, no one I know of was disciplined merely for having the unexpressed feeling, either today or in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Who is lobbying churches to stop teaching against adultery?

 

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Who is making these threats? People expect churches to preach against adultery and premarital sex.

People generally expect the Church of Jesus Christ to teach that homosexual behavior is wrong and sinful. But then we have people like you who come on with dire predictions and threats that if the Church doesn't get with the times, it will people will fall away and youth will have not interest in it.

That strikes me as a textbook example of attempted social pressure.

Incidentally a member of our high priests group who is a former bishop and current stake Young Men leader made a comment during our priesthood lesson yesterday. He said he has observed a "polarization" among the youth he has worked with, that there are those who resist and rail against the teachings of the prophets and apostles but there are also those who wholeheartedly embrace them. I suspect this has long been the case and will be so on into futurity until the Second Coming of the Son of God.

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't see any value in teaching men to be irresponsible parents, or to suppose that women have only one thing to contribute to the world.

You can find the voice of God on women and careers in the graphic at the end of this article:

http://universe.byu.edu/2016/04/28/lds-mothers-balance-career-aspirations-with-divine-calling-of-motherhood1/

 

 

This is ridiculous. Nothing in the family proclamation teaches "men to be irresponsible parents or to suppose that women have only one thing to contribute to the world." This is egregious twisting of the message. You should know better.

 

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

People generally expect the Church of Jesus Christ to teach that homosexual behavior is wrong and sinful. But then we have people like you who come on with dire predictions and threats that if the Church doesn't get with the times, it will people will fall away and youth will have not interest in it.

That strikes me as a textbook example of attempted social pressure.

 

I was asking about adultery and premarital sex. I agree that there is pressure to relax its stance on gay marriage. But who do you think is pressuring the church to change on adultery and premarital sex? That was my question.

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you have a problem with definitions. When you see the word homosexuality in those writings you interpret it to mean everything including sexual orientation, whether or not it is expressed in behavior. I don't concede the writers meant it in that way and I don't believe you have any way of knowing they did. Again, no one I know of was disciplined merely for having the unexpressed feeling, either today or in the past.

Do you have any statements from Spencer W. Kimball clarifying what he meant when he stated that "Homosexuality is an ugly sin" or stating that different sins can lead to being homosexual?  ("...it [masterbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even the sin against nature, homosexuality."). Or that being too selfish causes homosexuality?  Why teach it can be cured if he didn't believe it was a sin or a disease?  Or call a gay person a "pervert"?  We all know the definition of that word!!

You seem to be putting your own wishful thinking or meaning to his words.  I agree that by the 90's church leaders were very much more emphasizing behavior.  I'm just curious if you just believe that is what President Kimball meant or if he ever made more statements that back up your feelings.  That would strengthen your position I think.  

Edited August 28, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is ridiculous. Nothing in the family proclamation teaches "men to be irresponsible parents or to suppose that women have only one thing to contribute to the world." This is egregious twisting of the message. You should know better.

 

 

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children."

To your point (at least what I think is your point), the proclamation does allow for individual adaptation. Nevertheless, mothers and fathers should be equally involved in the nurturing of their children. Anything less than that is an abdication of fatherly responsibilities. My opinion, of course. I would consider my life wasted had I not taken an equal role to my wife in the nurturing of our child. And in the mean time she is also working on her own career.