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

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

And that's not what is taking place.  We have statements from leaders saying that members can support gay marriage and remain in good standing.  I'd imagine that included Bishops too.

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

But that is not what he actually said.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And that's not what is taking place.  We have statements from leaders saying that members can support gay marriage and remain in good standing.  I'd imagine that included Bishops too.

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. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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 homosexuality ever being declared acceptable in the Church?  

I never stated "now in office", did I?

I'm just stating that you can believe there will never be any change on this, but church history shows that Prophets have erred and teachings change.  Teachings have already changed regarding gays.  I know you fervently hope they won't change again, and I get that.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

But that is not what he actually said.

I don't concede your biased reading is "what he actually said."

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

I never stated "now in office", did I?

I'm just stating that you can believe there will never be any change on this, but church history shows that Prophets have erred and teachings change.  Teachings have already changed regarding gays.  I know you fervently hope they won't change again, and I get that.  

 

Teachings have not changed fundamentally regarding homosexual behavior being sinful. I get that you hope social pressure will one day force a change in that, but a church driven by social pressure is not the Church I embrace which is a Church governed by divinely inspired councils. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Remain in good standing, not necessarily remain in leadership. 

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

Quote

 

An LDS apostle reaffirmed recently that Mormons who support gay marriage are not in danger of losing their temple privileges or church memberships — even though the Utah-based faith opposes the practice.

......

Christofferson made the point again in a Trib Talk interview Jan. 29.

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID

 

 

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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 homosexuality 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 pretty much day by day and moment to moment. 

You do realize that by believing  this statement, is all you are confirming is that you believe the church is not run by revelation, but rather by the opinions of those currently serving in the Quorum of the 12 that would rather hold on to their opinion than listen to God if he so directed such a change.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Teachings have not changed fundamentally regarding homosexuality being sinful. 

Once again, that's not what I stated.  Maybe you need to read what I'm actually posting more carefully.  I stated:  "Teachings have already changed regarding gays".  And they have.

Does the church still teach that gays can be "cured"?

 

Quote

 

"The entrenched homosexual has 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.  If they will 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.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

 

 - Pamphlet published in 1970 by the LDS church for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors

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

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't concede your biased reading is "what he actually said."

There is no reasonable reason why a gay youth reading that statement about being homosexual by Elder Kimball would make the assumption you are making.  This whole concept that being gay is not a sin, just acting on it is a pretty recent development.  Can you find ANYTHIING by President Kimball that would validate the assumption you are making?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, california boy said:

You do realize that by believing  this statement, is all you are confirming is that you believe the church is not run by revelation, but rather by the opinions of those currently serving in the Quorum of the 12 that would rather hold on to their opinion than listen to God if he so directed such a change.

This is bilgewater. I don't know where you got that. 

That is ALarson's notion, not mine. I'm showing that even by ALarson's flawed view of Church government, odds are virtually zero that what he wants will come to pass any time soon, if ever. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Once again, that's not what I stated.  Maybe you need to read what I'm actually posting more carefully.  I stated:  "Teachings have already changed regarding gays".  And they have.

 

 

In the final analysis, the teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful has not changed in any degree, and there have been expressions made that it never will. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is no reasonable reason why a gay youth reading that statement about being homosexual by Elder Kimball would make the assumption you are making.  This whole concept that being gay is not a sin, just acting on it is a pretty recent development.  Can you find ANYTHIING by President Kimball that would validate the assumption you are making?

I don't need to. Nothing you have shown can reasonably be construed to apply to anything other than behavior. 

What evidence do you have that the Church ever viewed having homosexual feelings as being sinful if one refrained from acting on them? I don't accept at all your assertion that this is "a pretty recent development."

Edited August 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the final analysis, the teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful has not changed in any degree, and there have been expressions made that it never will. 

And teachings and policies have changed in the past (as well as Prophets being in error).  That you believe there will be no further change regarding gays is your belief and I respect that.  Others look at the history and see that there may be more change.  

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't need to. Nothing you have shown can reasonably be construed to apply to anything other than behavior. 

They believed that being gay was a "malady" (I think you've stated you believe that too) or a disease that could be cured.

The church leaders no longer teach that.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

 

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 Curch 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. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They believed that being gay was a "malady" (I think you've stated you believe that too) or a disease that could be cured.

The church leaders no longer teach that.

That's not the same as believing it is sinful if acted upon. 

And they believe it is not a condition that will persist in the hereafter. 

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't need to. Nothing you have shown can reasonably be construed to apply to anything other than behavior. 

Tell that to a teenage kid reading right there the words of President Kimball that homosexuals (from the article)

Quote

Kimball described homosexuality and homosexuals using terms such as, “ugly,” “repugnant,” “ever-deepening degeneracy,” “evil,” “pervert,” deviant,” and “weaklings.” He taught that it was a spiritual disease that could be “cured,”

From "The Miracle of Forgiveness" itself Chapter "Sin of the Ages"

Quote

This perversion is defined as " sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex," whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages. It was present in Israel's wandering days as well as after and beforeS. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying

So yeah,  You are completely wrong.

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not the same as believing it is sinful if acted upon. 

And they believe it is not a condition that will persist in the hereafter. 

Well, now you're moving the goal posts.  

Church leaders have changed their teachings about being gay and they have not always taught that it is not a condition but just a behavior.  That is what you are wrong about.  They very clearly taught that it was a condition or disorder that could be cured.

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell that to a teenage kid reading right there the words of President Kimball that homosexuals (from the article)

From "The Miracle of Forgiveness" itself Chapter "Sin of the Ages"

So yeah,  You are completely wrong.

Here are more quotes from the past:

Quote

 

'"Homosexuality can be cured if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously."

- Dallin H. Oaks, "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals,"

 

Quote

 

From the Pamphlet for church leaders, entitled Hope For Transgressors (1970) ;

 "In the event that you have members who have homosexual tendencies or activities, it will be your privilege and responsibility to assist them to effect a cure and bring their lives back into total normalcy."

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

 

Quote

 

"The entrenched homosexual has 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.

If they will 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.

Homosexuality CAN be cured."

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

 

Quote

 

"The cause of this disorder has remained hidden for so long because we have been looking for it in the wrong place. When the cause is discovered, it may be nothing so mysterious after all. It may be hidden because it is so obvious. Have you explored the possibility that the cause when found, will turn out to be a very typical form of selfishness - selfishness in a very subtle form? Now - and understand this - 1 do not think for a minute that the form of selfishness at the root of perversion is a conscious one, at least not to begin with. I am sure it is quite the opposite. Selfishness can attach itself to an individual without his being aware that he is afflicted with it. It can become imbedded so deeply and disguised so artfully as to be almost indistinguishable. It is hard to believe that any individual would, by a clear, conscious decision or by a pattern of them, choose a course of deviation. It is much more subtle than that. If one could even experiment with the possibility that selfishness of a very subtle nature may be the cause of this disorder, that quickly clarifies many things. It opens the possibility of putting some very sick things in order... When one has the humility to admit that a spiritual disorder is tied to perversion and that selfishness rests at the root of it, already the way is open to the treatment of the condition. It is a painful admission indeed that selfishness may be at the root of it, but we do not have much evidence that one can cure perversion by trying to cure perversion. If unselfishness can effect a cure, we ought to be desperate enough by now at least to experiment with the possibility. I repeat, we have had very little success in trying to remedy perversion by treating perversion. It is very possible to cure it by treating selfishness... you can understand unselfishness and selfishness. You can learn to cure perversion".

Elder Boyd K. Packer, To the One, delivered at 12-stake regional conference March 5, 1978.

 

 

I'm grateful that the leaders have changed their teaching regarding treating being gay as an illness or malady that can be cured (or that it can be caused by selfishness, failure in the home or masturbation).  

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Holding leadership positions was never the context of this interview or the response.

Correct and no statement has been made that a person cannot hold a leadership position if they support gay marriage.  However it has been stated that a member can remain in good standing and hold a temple recommend.  So, you have nothing to stand on here if that's what you're claiming (that they cannot be called to leadership positions).

Again, this may be your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.

One who cannot earnestly support the Church leaders in public and in private lacks, in my view, an essential qualification for prominent leadership positions. 

The statement I quoted was from "Church leaders".  My Bishop has followed their guidelines and remains fully worthy to serve and to hold a temple recommend.  

If you have other statements from leaders (regarding a person not being worthy to serve in a leadership calling if they support gay marriage), please post them.  Otherwise, you are wrong about this.

(If this is just your "view" as you claim, then that's your opinion and I've stated numerous times that I respect your right to feel this way.)

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm grateful that the leaders have changed their teaching regarding treating being gay as an illness or malady that can be cured (or that it can be caused by selfishness, failure in the home or masturbation).  

Would you say those views were limited to some LDS leaders or were they held by the general population?

Edited August 27, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you say those views were limited to some LDS leaders or were they held by the general population?

But the church leaders and Prophets are to receive revelation and inspiration directly from God.  

Many here have claimed that our leaders do not cave to public opinion or are not swayed by views "held by the general population",  (thus no change will take place because of public opinions).  Are you now claiming that our leader's opinions are or have been swayed or formed this way?

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But the church leaders and Prophets are to receive revelation and inspiration directly from God.  

Many here have claimed that our leaders do not cave to public opinion or are not swayed by views "held by the general population",  (thus no change will take place because of public opinions).  Are you now claiming that our leader's opinions are or have been swayed or formed this way?

No. It was a simple question. Was it specific to LDS leaders , or was it the general sentiment? Simply that.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. It was a simple question. Was it specific to LDS leaders , or was it the general sentiment? Simply that.

No, others were just as much in error as church leaders were.