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

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Teachings on homosexuality are mostly recent and have evolved signifantly. The priesthood ban has been a hot topic for most of the Church's existence.  Actually both have evolved significantly. There is no reason to suppose the evolution will suddenly stop

[Gray]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

The ban is articulated in the POGP, but apparently influenced by American pro slavery apololgetics. On the other hand there is no explicit support in scripture for the church's stance on gay marriage 

 

The scriptures of course approve of both good and evil things. If one wishes to get the most good out of scriptures, one must pick out the universals and leave aside the particulars which are not godly.  Strict literalism is the path to destruction 

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

So it would seem.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

So it would seem.

And your point?  I see that as being supportive of change taking place.  Also supportive of church leaders being in error at times and how teachings continue to change regarding this topic as well as it being evidence that the leaders quite possibly are influenced by what the general population believes.

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[JulieM]

2 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 position in the Curch who are 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. 

A counselor in our bishopric just attended his gay brother's wedding (SSM).  I'm friends with his wife and she said they have heard some criticism for going, but that the bishop told them family comes first and he very much supported them going and celebrating with their family members.  The bishop even discussed it with the SP who also said family comes first.

This brother has been through so much (married a woman first) and they are all so happy for him now.  His ex-wife even attended the wedding and they are still very close and are good friends.

He no longer is active, but his bishop told him there would be no disciplinary court held unless he is specifically told to do so by his SP.  That SP has expressed he had no desire to seek any members out who are in SSMs for discipline.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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.

I would readily tell it to anyone who  has the same misunderstanding and misconception of those words that you appear to. Accurate understanding is crucial in communication. 

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would readily tell it to anyone who  has the same misunderstanding and misconception of those words that you appear to. Accurate understanding is crucial in communication. 

To be accurate though, the leaders wrote that being gay was a disorder, disease or condition, then they voiced different opinions and beliefs about what caused it.  They then taught that it could be cured.  That's quite different from your claim that the leaders only meant one needed to change their behavior.  Just study the horrible shock treatments and therapy inflicted on gays to "cure them" at BYU and elsewhere.   More indication of what the leaders believed back then, IMO.

They also believed back then that it was a choice to be gay (so thereful sinful to call yourself gay).  That teaching has changed too.

Edited August 27, 2017 by JulieM

[Guest]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

Of course there is more than one reason, it is most certainly not only about reproduction. But reproduction is the only way we can continue, so that in this age, or in any age this topic can even be discussed. Marriage between a man and a woman is not a social issue, or institution, it is an eternal issue. I can also assure you that any marriage founded only upon sexual desire and reproduction is doomed, no honeymoon last forever. It is love and mutual respect, combined with all other things that allow for the creation of the family. The "family" is the basic building block of any flourishing society. As President Benson once said, (too paraphrase) " No society can ever rise above the caliber of it's families". No endless debate can change the fact that marriage was ordained by God, and the family as a result. His finishing of creation, was the institution of marriage, and the commandment of family. All that he had created was to serve and support this first institution and this first commandment. All other things were secondary to that, all other institutions, all other commands, were all secondary to fulfill this goal. 

If marriage were a man made institution, then man could do with whatever he likes, whenever he likes, wherever he likes. Past societies have done so, and have brought condemnation and destruction upon themselves. Just as abortion is an attempt to violate these laws, as "Children are the heritage of the Lord". The breakdown of the family, the killing of the innocent, jus to name two is why Christ will burn us at his coming. What individuals do in their personal lives is between them and God, unless such acts harm the innocent. But what His Church does, or does not do, is why Jesus Christ, and scripture tells us, he will first cleanse or purge his Church, before he passes judgement upon the world. Are more to the point, he will judge not only the leaders of his Church for their action or inaction, he will also pour out his judgements upon us, and rightly so. God does not judge men based on the outcome of the war, but in actions within the battles fought. This is indeed heartbreaking to those who find that they cannot abid, but also to those who love them, and wish things were different. If our Church is man made, then it matters not what they do, or when they do it. Because either we are not of God, or there is no God to judge anyway. And if there be no God; God forbid..."we are of all men most miserable". (1 Corinthians 15: 16-19)

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

To be accurate though, the leaders wrote that being gay was a disorder, disease or condition, then they voiced different opinions and beliefs about what caused it.  They then taught that it could be cured.  That's quite different from your claim that the leaders only meant one needed to change their behavior.  Just study the horrible shock treatments and therapy inflicted on gays to "cure them" at BYU and elsewhere.   More indication of what the leaders believed back then, IMO.

This is another sad chapter in church history.  It's great that they realize their error though (even though they would never admit a mistake directly) and don't follow the same misguided line of thinking today.

[ALarson]

46 minutes ago, JulieM said:

To be accurate though, the leaders wrote that being gay was a disorder, disease or condition, then they voiced different opinions and beliefs about what caused it.  They then taught that it could be cured.  That's quite different from your claim that the leaders only meant one needed to change their behavior.  Just study the horrible shock treatments and therapy inflicted on gays to "cure them" at BYU and elsewhere.   More indication of what the leaders believed back then, IMO.

They also believed back then that it was a choice to be gay (so thereful sinful to call yourself gay).  That teaching has changed too.

Yes, it's not accurate for Scott to claim that Pres. Kimball was simply teaching that a person who was born gay just needs to change their behavior.  But to be fair, beliefs were different back then and Pres. Kimball was writing based on those.  Gratefully we now know that both were wrong (gay is a choice and can be cured).

Edited August 27, 2017 by ALarson

[SamuelTheLamanite]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

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?

Sure it is possible, but very unlikely. A new revelation accepting gay marriage in the church would contradict the scriptures, General Conference, church statements, and inspiration. Church leaders made it very clear by revelation that Gay Marriage is a sin, I highly doubt God is going to change his mind. 

10 hours ago, california boy said:

aught 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?

Yes in the miracle of  forgiveness, not general conference, church manuals, or the scriptures. As for "homosexual" at the time they meant homosexual activity, they never said attraction was evil. I already explained attraction is not a choice,  a CNN article I shared before explains that. Our actions, not our feelings, are the choice. So because attraction is not a choice it can't be a sin.   Some people are romantically attracted to cars, cartoons, or toys, but it doesn't mean God is going to approve marriage to cars, toys, or cartoons.

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

The Bible is silent on gay marriage

The Bible is also silent on  cartoon marriage. 

A Tokyo man marries video game character http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/16/japan.virtual.wedding/index.html

With the rise of artificial intelligence one day it may become a reality everywhere. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

And your point?  I see that as being supportive of change taking place.  Also supportive of church leaders being in error at times and how teachings continue to change regarding this topic as well as it being evidence that the leaders quite possibly are influenced by what the general population believes.

You are reading a lot into a simple statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Yes, it's not accurate for Scott to claim that Pres. Kimball was simply teaching that a person who was born gay just needs to change their behavior.  But to be fair, beliefs were different back then and Pres. Kimball was writing based on those.  Gratefully we now know that both were wrong (gay is a choice and can be cured).

You're not accurately characterizing what I said (and this at least the second time you've mischaracterized it). 

What I did was to dispute the notion that what was taught back then was that merely having the orientation was a sin, even if one didn't act upon it. 

If you are going to quote me, even indirectly, please do it accurately. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Teachings on homosexuality are mostly recent and have evolved signifantly. The priesthood ban has been a hot topic for most of the Church's existence.  Actually both have evolved significantly. There is no reason to suppose the evolution will suddenly stop

Family Proclamation: We, the first presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. 

Gospel Topics: Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society...Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established.

General Conference: laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God's law of marriage 

I don't see evolution

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

It is a little late to now claim that they will never change in the future.

Artificial intelligence may someday become self-aware, and I predict the Supreme Court is going to legalize marriage to computers and machines. Would God ever approve marriage to computers?   

Do you think God approves aTokyo man marrying an intelligent video game character?  http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/16/japan.virtual.wedding/index.html

[SamuelTheLamanite]

I don't understand the point of this discussion. God doesn't recognize same sex marriage, but the Supreme Court already legalized it. 

No one is going to force you not to marry someone of the same sex. The church only invites you to live the commandments of God, it doesn't force anyone. 

We all have moral agency.  

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Family Proclamation: We, the first presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. 

Gospel Topics: Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society...Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established.

General Conference: laws legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” do not change God's law of marriage 

I don't see evolution

Compare current language to teachings in the 70s. Even the proclamation is becoming dated in some of the gender roles it talks about. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Compare current language to teachings in the 70s. Even the proclamation is becoming dated in some of the gender roles it talks about. 

Sure, languages changes, not core doctrine. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Sure, languages changes, not core doctrine. 

"Against gay marriage" is not core doctrine. But the doctrine has certainly evolved, and will continue to evolve.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would readily tell it to anyone who  has the same misunderstanding and misconception of those words that you appear to. Accurate understanding is crucial in communication. 

You are completely in denial.  instead of admitting that you are totally wrong, you double down.  When these are President Kimball's exact words.  Can you not read the part I put in bold????????

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.

That statement from President Kimball's chapter on homosexuality clearly defines what he considers a perversion.. BOTH THINGS ARE BEING CALLED A PERVERSION.  

When you look at something so black and white and then deny what is black and white, it completely destroys any kind of credibility of being the least bit honest about this subject.  It is not a gray area.  It is not an opinion of what he met.  It is clear that President Kimball is defining even the sexual desire for the same sex as a perversion.  

You are completely wrong.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Of course there is more than one reason, it is most certainly not only about reproduction. But reproduction is the only way we can continue, so that in this age, or in any age this topic can even be discussed. Marriage between a man and a woman is not a social issue, or institution, it is an eternal issue. I can also assure you that any marriage founded only upon sexual desire and reproduction is doomed, no honeymoon last forever. It is love and mutual respect, combined with all other things that allow for the creation of the family. The "family" is the basic building block of any flourishing society. As President Benson once said, (too paraphrase) " No society can ever rise above the caliber of it's families". No endless debate can change the fact that marriage was ordained by God, and the family as a result. His finishing of creation, was the institution of marriage, and the commandment of family. All that he had created was to serve and support this first institution and this first commandment. All other things were secondary to that, all other institutions, all other commands, were all secondary to fulfill this goal. 

Do you honestly believe that just because a person is gay, they are not worthy of this?

 

4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

If marriage were a man made institution, then man could do with whatever he likes, whenever he likes, wherever he likes. Past societies have done so, and have brought condemnation and destruction upon themselves. Just as abortion is an attempt to violate these laws, as "Children are the heritage of the Lord". The breakdown of the family, the killing of the innocent, jus to name two is why Christ will burn us at his coming. What individuals do in their personal lives is between them and God, unless such acts harm the innocent. But what His Church does, or does not do, is why Jesus Christ, and scripture tells us, he will first cleanse or purge his Church, before he passes judgement upon the world. Are more to the point, he will judge not only the leaders of his Church for their action or inaction, he will also pour out his judgements upon us, and rightly so. God does not judge men based on the outcome of the war, but in actions within the battles fought. This is indeed heartbreaking to those who find that they cannot abid, but also to those who love them, and wish things were different. If our Church is man made, then it matters not what they do, or when they do it. Because either we are not of God, or there is no God to judge anyway. And if there be no God; God forbid..."we are of all men most miserable". (1 Corinthians 15: 16-19)

 

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Sure it is possible, but very unlikely. A new revelation accepting gay marriage in the church would contradict the scriptures, General Conference, church statements, and inspiration. Church leaders made it very clear by revelation that Gay Marriage is a sin, I highly doubt God is going to change his mind. 

Yes in the miracle of  forgiveness, not general conference, church manuals, or the scriptures. As for "homosexual" at the time they meant homosexual activity, they never said attraction was evil. I already explained attraction is not a choice,  a CNN article I shared before explains that. Our actions, not our feelings, are the choice. So because attraction is not a choice it can't be a sin.   Some people are romantically attracted to cars, cartoons, or toys, but it doesn't mean God is going to approve marriage to cars, toys, or cartoons.

The Bible is also silent on  cartoon marriage. 

A Tokyo man marries video game character http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/16/japan.virtual.wedding/index.html

With the rise of artificial intelligence one day it may become a reality everywhere. 

I guess you have not figured out by now that I am not going to have a dialogue with you if you are going to ignore half of what I post.  Get back to me if you want to be a part of a discussion.  My post was about revelation, not cartoon characters.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess you have not figured out by now that I am not going to have a dialogue with you if you are going to ignore half of what I post.  Get back to me if you want to be a part of a discussion.  My post was about revelation, not cartoon characters.

I told you it is possible, but unlikely.  Are you trying to change God's mind? 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

 

Did they teach that in General Conference? Did they say it was inspired? 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Artificial intelligence may someday become self-aware, and I predict the Supreme Court is going to legalize marriage to computers and machines. Would God ever approve marriage to computers?   

 

 I guess if enough of the youth in the Church accept virtual reality marriages to computers, sex bots, ect than perhaps that might initiate a change and the church will start temple sealings of members to their Apple devices.    I guess that is how some people view these things.