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

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

The priesthood ban was supposed to last until literally every other decedent of Adam got the priesthood. Obviously it didn't work out like that.

Your passive-voice "was supposed to" is dubious. I'm aware of one quote to that effect. And there is more than one way to read it. 

And Samuel the Lamanite makes a good point: No one in authority ever claimed the priesthood ban would never change. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

The priesthood ban was supposed to last until literally every other decedent of Adam got the priesthood. Obviously it didn't work out like that.

That was the view by Brigham Young.  However that brings up a interesting thing.    The ban of blacks from holding the scriptures was not really supported by the scriptures.  One can't even find the clear revelation establishing in the ban.  So the removal of the ban if anything got the Church back to what the scriptures declare.  Any change of the church towards marriage that would allow SSM would be moving away from the scriptures like the priesthood ban moved away from it.  If you believe that the ban of blacks holding the priesthood was a bad thing, then a change of view towards marriage to allow SSM would also be a bad thing since it would be departing away from the scriptures. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, the Church of Jesus Christ does not/will not cave in to social pressure.

Hopefully people will be able to adjust their attitudes accordingly. But there may come a sifting process -- even a self-selected one.

 

Such has been prophesied for decades.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The priesthood ban was supposed to last until literally every other decedent of Adam got the priesthood. Obviously it didn't work out like that.

I heard it was until Abel's posterity got the Priesthood. They must have finally gotten it.  

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Such has been prophesied for decades.

Yes, I know. Perhaps we are seeing the early stages of it now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:30 AM, 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 Father and the Son I know, and the prophets and the apostles I know, but who is Bryce Cook that I should have even a moment's pause over what he says about anything?

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

The priesthood ban was supposed to last until literally every other decedent of Adam got the priesthood. Obviously it didn't work out like that.

Well, as far as I can determine  there was never a time before the Restoration that the two Priesthoods were available and offered to all men. There have always been restrictions. After a short season of restriction in the beginning of the Restoration, the temporary ban was lifted, and they truly are available to all.

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Father and the Son I know, and the prophets and the apostles I know, but who is Bryce Cook that I should have even a moment's pause over what he says about anything?

Well, we know the apostles and prophets are not "smart and level headed and supportive of the church," so it's good to have people around who are.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, as far as I can determine  there was never a time before the Restoration that the two Priesthoods were available and offered to all men. There have always been restrictions. After a short season of restriction in the beginning of the Restoration, the temporary ban was lifted, and they truly are available to all.

With the global expansion of the Church by 1978, and the improvements in technology, communications and travel, it can be argued that the priesthood by then was available to every worthy man who wanted it, with the exception of blacks. That could be one way of interpreting Brigham Young's statement. 

Another possibility is that he was just wrong individually, as he apparently was on Adam-God and blood atonement. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The primary purpose of the family is the continuation of all mankind. Without marriage between a man and woman, there will be no happiness, no history, no debate, no purpose, no nothing. You cannot dismiss the argument, by pointing to one purpose that of being a ""helpmate" and ignoring all others reasons. Not taking anything away, just including all, that "God" has provided. This are not my policies not the Church's policies, these are God's commands. I know how difficult it must be for who cannot or will not conform to the entire purpose of creation. But the fallout is not with Christianity, Mormonism, or whatever one might wish to cite, it is with God's words, and commandments. 

I don't think anyone is advocating stopping marriage between a man and a woman.  And it appears that the human race is in on immediate danger of not reproducing.  Nor can you say that reproduction is a requirement for anyone's marriage.  I am not ignoring other reasons.  I am stating that there is more than one reason.  Don't you think that you could acknowledge that?  Or is that just too big of line to cross.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, are you aware that the law of Moses ended with the resurrection of Jesus?    

"Peter received a revelation from God on what the church was to do to allow the church to be open to more people."

EXACTLY.  And that is my point.  We don't throw out the entire Old Testament do we.  Peter made a radical change in doctrine when he received the revelation from God concerning circumcism.  That covenant with God was much more than dietary laws or an eye for an eye etc.  It was a change in how God made covenants with His people.

 

Is all I am saying, is that it is entirely possible that God would once again change dramatically how we view covenants made with Him through  revelation to his prophet.  Can you acknowledge that it would be possible?

 

   9 hours ago,  SamuelTheLamanite said: 

Do you believe the church is a church of prophets, faith, and revelation? Prophets have made it in very clear  in general conference, letters, and official statements that the doctrine of marriage is never going to change. You don't have to live a celestial lifestyle if you don't want, the church only invites. No one forces you not to marry someone of the same sex, you won't go to outer darkness for gay marriage. 

Well this is what is interesting isn't it.  

During president Kimballs time as prophet, he taught that just being a homosexual was “ugly,” “repugnant,” “ever-deepening degeneracy,” “evil,” “pervert,” deviant,” and “weaklings.” (See Miracle of Forgiveness)  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that a homosexual is any of those things.  Only acting on homosexual desires is a sin.  

In the 50's and 60's the church leaders taught that  homosexuality was a psychological or spiritual malady that could be cured through intense repentance, self-mastery.  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that one may be cured of having same sex attraction.

In the 60's and 70's church leaders said that a promise from God Himself that if gays that if would just marry someone of the opposite sex, they would no longer be attracted to someone of the same sex.  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that gays should marry someone of the opposite sex as a way of loosing same sex attraction.  Marriage is not therapy.

A few church leaders now teach that if gays remain celibate in this life then they will want to marry someone of the opposite sex in the next life.  Was that a revelation from God?

This counsel is exactly like the previous counsel that was also promised to come from God.  How is this counsel any different than the false promise given just a few decades earlier?

 

Quote

 

   11 hours ago,  SamuelTheLamanite said: 

In General Conference and official statements our prophets made it very clear that the church doctrine on marriage is never going to change, repeatedly. When did the prophets say in official statements or general conference that the priesthood ban is never going to change? Big difference.

 

But the "revelations" on gay marriage have already changed multiple times.  It is a little late to now claim that they will never change in the future.

 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, as far as I can determine  there was never a time before the Restoration that the two Priesthoods were available and offered to all men. There have always been restrictions. After a short season of restriction in the beginning of the Restoration, the temporary ban was lifted, and they truly are available to all.

Any restrictions would have been lifted in the first century CE.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your passive-voice "was supposed to" is dubious. I'm aware of one quote to that effect. And there is more than one way to read it. 

And Samuel the Lamanite makes a good point: No one in authority ever claimed the priesthood ban would never change. 

One quote from Brigham Young, as president of the church.

There is a lot more weight of church doctrine against blacks getting the priesthood than there is against gay marriage. And yet the former changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

One quote from Brigham Young, as president of the church.

There is a lot more weight of church doctrine against blacks getting the priesthood than there is against gay marriage. And yet the former changed.

There was never any doctrine that blacks would <never> get the priesthood. The teaching is clear, by contrast, that homosexual behavior will never be acceptable. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/26/2017 at 11:50 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Well, we know the apostles and prophets are not "smart and level headed and supportive of the church," so it's good to have people around who are.

 

I dare say there have been many who are ostensibly  "smart and level headed and supportive of the church" among the would-be ark steadiers and apostates-in-training back through time. 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

EXACTLY.  And that is my point.  We don't throw out the entire Old Testament do we.  Peter made a radical change in doctrine when he received the revelation from God concerning circumcism.  That covenant with God was much more than dietary laws or an eye for an eye etc.  It was a change in how God made covenants with His people.

 

Is all I am saying, is that it is entirely possible that God would once again change dramatically how we view covenants made with Him through  revelation to his prophet.  Can you acknowledge that it would be possible?

 

   9 hours ago,  SamuelTheLamanite said: 

Do you believe the church is a church of prophets, faith, and revelation? Prophets have made it in very clear  in general conference, letters, and official statements that the doctrine of marriage is never going to change. You don't have to live a celestial lifestyle if you don't want, the church only invites. No one forces you not to marry someone of the same sex, you won't go to outer darkness for gay marriage. 

Well this is what is interesting isn't it.  

During president Kimballs time as prophet, he taught that just being a homosexual was “ugly,” “repugnant,” “ever-deepening degeneracy,” “evil,” “pervert,” deviant,” and “weaklings.” (See Miracle of Forgiveness)  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that a homosexual is any of those things.  Only acting on homosexual desires is a sin.  

In the 50's and 60's the church leaders taught that  homosexuality was a psychological or spiritual malady that could be cured through intense repentance, self-mastery.  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that one may be cured of having same sex attraction.

In the 60's and 70's church leaders said that a promise from God Himself that if gays that if would just marry someone of the opposite sex, they would no longer be attracted to someone of the same sex.  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that gays should marry someone of the opposite sex as a way of loosing same sex attraction.  Marriage is not therapy.

A few church leaders now teach that if gays remain celibate in this life then they will want to marry someone of the opposite sex in the next life.  Was that a revelation from God?

This counsel is exactly like the previous counsel that was also promised to come from God.  How is this counsel any different than the false promise given just a few decades earlier?

 

But the "revelations" on gay marriage have already changed multiple times.  It is a little late to now claim that they will never change in the future.

 

My contextual reading of President Kimball's words is that they always applied to homosexual behavior, not to individuals themselves. 

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

With the global expansion of the Church by 1978, and the improvements in technology, communications and travel, it can be argued that the priesthood by then was available to every worthy man who wanted it, with the exception of blacks. That could be one way of interpreting Brigham Young's statement. 

Another possibility is that he was just wrong individually, as he apparently was on Adam-God and blood atonement. 

What would stop leaders (including Prophets) from being wrong again then?   Logic (and history of the church) follows that this leaves the door open to error and change.

None of us know if this will take place and of course there are differing opinions.  But I'd be cautious in stating that policies for those involved in SSM will "never" change.

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

EXACTLY.  And that is my point.  We don't throw out the entire Old Testament do we.  Peter made a radical change in doctrine when he received the revelation from God concerning circumcism.  That covenant with God was much more than dietary laws or an eye for an eye etc.  It was a change in how God made covenants with His people.

 

Is all I am saying, is that it is entirely possible that God would once again change dramatically how we view covenants made with Him through  revelation to his prophet.  Can you acknowledge that it would be possible?

 

   9 hours ago,  SamuelTheLamanite said: 

Do you believe the church is a church of prophets, faith, and revelation? Prophets have made it in very clear  in general conference, letters, and official statements that the doctrine of marriage is never going to change. You don't have to live a celestial lifestyle if you don't want, the church only invites. No one forces you not to marry someone of the same sex, you won't go to outer darkness for gay marriage. 

Well this is what is interesting isn't it.  

During president Kimballs time as prophet, he taught that just being a homosexual was “ugly,” “repugnant,” “ever-deepening degeneracy,” “evil,” “pervert,” deviant,” and “weaklings.” (See Miracle of Forgiveness)  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that a homosexual is any of those things.  Only acting on homosexual desires is a sin.  

In the 50's and 60's the church leaders taught that  homosexuality was a psychological or spiritual malady that could be cured through intense repentance, self-mastery.  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that one may be cured of having same sex attraction.

In the 60's and 70's church leaders said that a promise from God Himself that if gays that if would just marry someone of the opposite sex, they would no longer be attracted to someone of the same sex.  Was that a revelation from God?

The church no longer teaches that gays should marry someone of the opposite sex as a way of loosing same sex attraction.  Marriage is not therapy.

A few church leaders now teach that if gays remain celibate in this life then they will want to marry someone of the opposite sex in the next life.  Was that a revelation from God?

This counsel is exactly like the previous counsel that was also promised to come from God.  How is this counsel any different than the false promise given just a few decades earlier?

 

But the "revelations" on gay marriage have already changed multiple times.  It is a little late to now claim that they will never change in the future.

 

Correct.  Once again, leaving the door open for more change.  

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, ALarson said:

You consider your marriage an "activity"?  Interesting....

 

Well carbon, many of the adult leaders agree with the youth (my Bishop included).  So I don't foresee any correcting taking place.  I'm actually proud of these youth.

Do you mean to say your bishop is unabashedly contradicting the teachings of the Brethren and the position of the Church? I agree with carbon that's a problem. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What would stop leaders (including Prophets) from being wrong again then?   Logic (and history of the church) follows that this leaves the door open to error and change.

None of us know if this will take place and of course there are differing opinions.  But I'd be cautious in stating that policies for those involved in SSM will "never" change.

What would stop it would be the council system of government. Brigham Young's erroneous ideas and wild statements never had the full support of the Church leaders as a council. 

And the council system in the Church is more refined today than ever in history. 

To a man, the council consisting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are unified in the position that homosexual behavior is unacceptable in the Church and will always be so. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you mean to say your bishop is unabashedly contradicting the teachings of the Brethren and the position of the Church? 

Nope.  One can support gay marriage and remain in good standing.  

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What would stop it would be the council system of government. Brigham Young's erroneous ideas and wild statements never had the full support of the Church leaders as a council. 

And the council system in the Church is more refined today than ever in history. 

To a man, the council consisting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are unified in the position that homosexual behavior is unacceptable in the Church and will always be so. 

You don't know that this will be the case in the future (part in bold) when younger men start being called to those positions.  With the errors of the past and the changes that have occurred over the history of the church, you absolutely do not know that the teachings and policies in place now "will always be so".  You can certainly believe that and hope they won't change, but others feel differently.

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Activity, contract, whatever you want to call it.   God does not look on an issue and decide whether something is right or wrong based on whether those involved are committed to whatever they are doing. 

When we are speaking of entering a marriage vs. pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex, I think God has already decided which is of these is right.  I was responding to a direct comment regarding that.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

You don't know that this will be the case in the future (part in bold) when younger men start being called to those positions.  With the errors of the past and the changes that have occurred over the history of the church, you absolutely do not know that the teachings and policies in place now "will always be so".  You can certainly believe that and hope they won't change, but others feel differently.

Each member of the Quorum of the Twelve is a potential candidate for president of the Church. Which of the "younger men" now in office shows any sign of one day relenting on homosexual behavior ever being declared acceptable in the Church?  

Besides, you are looking at it from a worldly, power struggle paradigm. I don't view it in those terms. I see the Church being led by revelation given through those who desire and seek it and receive it pretty much day by day and moment to moment. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Nope.  One can support gay marriage and remain in good standing.  

That's not the subject in question. It's serving in leadership and at the same time openly contradicting the unified position of the Brethren. Problematic, say I.