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

[carbon dioxide]

7 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

The only teaching on homosexuality that has change is how to deal with the issue and how to treat those who are gay.  What has never changed is the core premise that homosexual acts are wrong.  That core principle remains untouched. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

Is disciplinary courts ever done for those that are inactive anyway regardless of what they are doing?

Edited August 28, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The only teaching on homosexuality that has change is how to deal with the issue and how to treat those who are gay.  What has never changed is the core premise that homosexual acts are wrong.  That core principle remains untouched. 

That's your opinion.. But nevertheless, the doctrine has evolved, in a relatively short period of time. If it were such a core issue (it's not - this isn't the Church of Jesus Christ of Anti-Gay Saints), there wouldn't be such rapid evolution on it. The real core issues (faith, repentance, baptism, atonement, priesthood) change the slowest.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Is disciplinary courts ever done for those that are inactive anyway regardless of what they are doing?

Yes, in recent years inactive gay married couples have been excommunicated.

[JulieM]

29 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Is disciplinary courts ever done for those that are inactive anyway regardless of what they are doing?

I've actually heard of that being done, but I don't know how often.  This brother was pretty well known though in his ward (where his ex-wife still lived) and stake.  Many members attended his wedding.  He did wonder if he'd be excommunicated, but neither the bishop or SP had any desire to do so or to make an example of him.   

Edited August 28, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Did they teach that in General Conference?

I'm not sure why you seem so obsessed with this.  How many talks about SSM have you heard at GC?  There are probably some that may touch on the topic (Packer or maybe another), but it's one that I haven't heard addressed much in GC.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Is disciplinary courts ever done for those that are inactive anyway regardless of what they are doing?

I  know of one done for a guy teaching antimormonism classes, who was going to another church.

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Seems we're doing that back and forth to each other because you've done this as well (mischaracterized what I stated).  I was only going from what I'd read here and what I thought you meant, but discussions can become confusing.

Quote

 

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. . 

 

What was believed back then was that a person who was gay had chosen to be gay and could be cured.  That pretty much tainted all else that was taught from there (from Pres. Kimball and others).  Those teachings were not correct and are no longer taught.   

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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????????

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.

Well, to be fair, desire and attraction are different things. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2012/navigating-the-labyrinth-surrounding-homosexual-desire

So "completely wrong" really doesn't fit since you insist on reading a modern construction into a historical setting. 

[kllindley]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What was believed back then was that a person who was gay had chosen to be gay and could be cured.  That pretty much tainted all else that was taught from there (from Pres. Kimball and others).  Those teachings were not correct and are no longer taught.   

On choosing to be gay, Not really unless you insist on trying to force a modern view of sexual identity onto what was historically a conception of behavior and desire (still not attraction or even orientation). 

 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Seems we're doing that back and forth to each other because you've done this as well (mischaracterized what I stated).  I was only going from what I'd read here and what I thought you meant, but discussions can become confusing.

What was believed back then was that a person who was gay had chosen to be gay and could be cured.  That pretty much tainted all else that was taught from there (from Pres. Kimball and others).  Those teachings were not correct and are no longer taught.   

Thank goodness the whole "God wouldn't make you or create you that way" kind of thinking is mostly in the past!  I remember getting into a discussion/disagreement with a few in our ward about that during the prop 8 times.  They totally believed it was a choice to be gay.  

[kllindley]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

God wouldn't make you or create you that way

Didn't President Packet say that God wouldn't create us with an inborn tendency that we could not overcome?  That's always bothered me that people refused to take the whole statement into context. 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Didn't President Packet say that God wouldn't create us with an inborn tendency that we could not overcome?  That's always bothered me that people refused to take the whole statement into context. 

I wasn't referring to his talk (it was what I heard during the prop 8 time).

But, here's the quote by President Packer:

"There are those today who’d not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality,” and that, “Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”

[kllindley]

Right. The idea that having same-sex attraction is a choice is absolutely laughable. But not a whole lot more ridiculous than the idea that those attractions cannot be overcome. The whole quote makes that clear. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by kllindley

[california boy]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

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

Where did you get the idea that everything in Genral Conference is approved by God?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Where did you get the idea that everything in Genral Conference is approved by God?

Do you know how modern General Conference works? All talks must be approved first. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

Seems we're doing that back and forth to each other because you've done this as well (mischaracterized what I stated).  I was only going from what I'd read here and what I thought you meant, but discussions can become confusing.

What was believed back then was that a person who was gay had chosen to be gay and could be cured.  That pretty much tainted all else that was taught from there (from Pres. Kimball and others).  Those teachings were not correct and are no longer taught.   

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. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you know how modern General Conference works? All talks must be approved first. 

Actually, that's not true. Topics  ordinarily are neither assigned in advance nor are the talks vetted. Correlation will look over a speaker's talk in advance if requested to do so, but that is at the speaker's discretion. 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, that's not true. Topics  ordinarily are neither assigned in advance nor are the talks vetted. Correlation will look over a speaker's talk in advance if requested to do so, but that is at the speaker's discretion. 

oh okay, I stand corrected. I probably confused them with church manuals. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours 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. 

It's not dated at all except to those who put societal whims above eternal law. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 All talks must be approved first. 

CFR please...never mind, I see you accepted the correction.

Edited August 28, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

19 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

The fact that social pressure has not forced the abandonment by the Church of prohibition of premarital or extramarital sex is good reason to suppose the Church will not abandon its teaching on this aspect of the law of chastity either. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 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.

Or so it would seem. 

 

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not dated at all except to those who put societal whims above eternal law. 

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?

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The fact that social pressure has not forced the abandonment by the Church of prohibition of premarital or extramarital sex is good reason to suppose the Church will not abandon its teaching on this aspect of the law of chastity either. 

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.

 

Edited August 28, 2017 by Gray