Scrutinizing general conference

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What is your testimony based upon?

Have you read Alma 32?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Have you read Alma 32?

Many times.  It is a beautiful and powerful treatise on faith. 

I assume you’ve read John 15:26, D&C 42:17, and D&C 9:8. 

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the video was pretty clear that they have no direct evidence that the church's actions towards gays has caused the jump, but certainly some share that opinion.  And people are sharing how they personally have been affected by church policies.  You can't dismiss those feelings can you?  

Feelings are one thing and I am not and have not attempted to belittle any individual's feelings within this piece of propaganda.  I strongly doubt they knew they were being used in such a way and I suspect that they were manipulated to say certain things or at least, address specific topics like the Church's position on gay marriage and teen suicide. 

And, no - it did not do a good job of clearly, distinctly separating fact from fiction.  Rather it built up on it and used to repeatedly to portray that the Church was at fault for gay teen suicides.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Yeah, that's never worked as anything much more than a preliminary step for me ... when it works at all.

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, that's never worked as anything much more than a preliminary step for me ... when it works at all.

Sounds good. 

And I feel I’ve provided ample evidence to support my statement. 

[Rain]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Would you engage in a discussion with an attitude fueled by these bits and pieces and then when asked to share the basis for your position, just perpetuate the attitude, leaving others to wonder where you're coming from?

I didn't want to leave your queston hanging. I'm really tired. I have a big day tomorrow. I didn't realize you understood this to be a "proxy conversation" so I hope you are ok, that I am leaving this part of the conversation. It's more effort than I want to put in at the moment to word it in an understandable manner. I'm sorry.

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Whoa.   Please don’t misrepresent what I’ve said.  I did not claim that the Church’s moral standards are wrong  

To the epistemology question.  Isn’t it LDS doctrine that a testimony is gained through the Spirit?

What is your testimony based upon?

My testimony is gained through faith and action.  It may have begun as a spiritual encouragement that supports obeying one or more commandment or doctrine of the Church.  Alma 32 called it "experiment."  By consistently acting upon it, one becomes aware of a predictable outcome.  That, in my experience, is a foundation of my testimony, that has grown into knowledge. Jesus said in John 7:17 " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."  That is LDS doctrine of how one gains a testimony.  Alma 32 describes a spiritual experience that motivates to action.  John 7:17 describes the result of that action: knowledge and testimony.  That is also a description of my testimony.  It is not based merely on "Feelings."  Sorry to disappoint.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Meerkat

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Your entire epistemology may indeed be based on feelings, which would explain why you can claim with a straight face that something somewhere has revealed to you that the Church's moral standards are wrong.

But ours are not.

Well we usually agree but how do you know the church is "true"?

You think just maybe your testimony can be described as a "feeling"?

Are you married?  How do you know you are in love- or love your kids or country or occupation or lifestyle or freedom and the flag and....

And how about those objective news reports that are based on totally impartial empirical facts, which are never prejudiced, or people who vote with robotic precision for the best person, or feel in their hearts that murder is wrong and we should not molest children.....

And then we have the scientists who are motivated by pure love of science to work for absolutely nothing making new drugs, or getting grants in popular subjects, and are never pressured to be anything but objective in their findings....

But other than that, our morals have nothing to do with feelings....   

 

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

My testimony is gained through faith and action.  It may have begun as a spiritual encouragement that supports obeying one or more commandment or doctrine of the Church.  Alma 32 called it "experiment."  By consistently acting upon it, one becomes aware of a predictable outcome.  That, in my experience, is a foundation of my testimony, that has grown into knowledge. Jesus said in John 7:17 " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."  That is LDS doctrine of how one gains a testimony.  Alma 32 describes a spiritual experience that motivates to action.  John 7:17 describes the result of that action: knowledge and testimony.  That is also a description of my testimony.  It is not based merely on "Feelings."  Sorry to disappoint.

And of course you know it is true because your experience tells you that knowing the church is true causes you discomfort and disgust but you live with it anyway in your purely objective evaluation of that spiritual experience right?  "Man is that he might fill the measure of his creation and have.... objectivity therein"- right?  Isn't that what it says?    Or that "he might have pure rationality"?  Like perhaps Mr Spock?

No, it says "joy" which is definitely a feeling.

And the Holy Ghost is called the .... "Objectifier" and the "Rationalizer", right?  No, he is the "comforter"

Objectivity is not what Alma 32 says the results should be.  The results should be "sweet" to you- ie: it should FEEL good and be "SWEET" to you!

Quote

 

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing upunto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruitthereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

 

How does one judge "good fruit"?  Because it predicts?  What does it predict?  It predicts joy and satisfaction in your lifestyle.

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

 It may have begun as a spiritual encouragement that supports obeying one or more commandment or doctrine of the Church.  Alma 32 called it "experiment."  By consistently acting upon it, one becomes aware of a predictable outcome.  That, in my experience, is a foundation of my testimony, that has grown into knowledge. Jesus said in John 7:17 " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."  That is LDS doctrine of how one gains a testimony.  Alma 32 describes a spiritual experience that motivates to action.  John 7:17 describes the result of that action: knowledge and testimony.  That is also a description of my testimony.  It is not based merely on "Feelings."  Sorry to disappoint.

I don't mean to single you out- it is just that what is that "spiritual encouragement" but a feeling?

How does a "spiritual experience motivate into action"?

Because it causes joy.  It brings tears of joy.  Tears of joy are not brought about by doing math equations- at least not for me.  They may be satisfying like solving a puzzle, but do not produce a warmth in the spirit which causes the FEELING of joy.  They do not cause comfort.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Lol, I had to go back and doublecheck.  I tend to be highly aware of the difference because "affect" is a noun in psychology, which I had to get used to using back in my university days.

Yes, and there is also a less-common definition for “effect” as a verb meaning “to bring about,” as in “to effect a change.” 

So those two less-common usages make it yet more difficult to remember the proper way to use those words. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

That’s a convenient interpretation of what they taught.  It fits well with their current positions on homosexuality which are, of course, significantly different than what they were decades ago (as demonstrated by the papers I cited).

Your papers were not as probative or persuasive to your point as you think they were. They failed to measure up to the conditions kiwi set: that they contain unambiguous statements from Church leaders that feelings alone, whether or not accompanied by actions were considered sinful. Bear in mind that he specified that the  usage of “homosexual” must clearly be not mere shorthand for “homosexual behavior.” 

Or can you show us an instance where someone was excommunicated or disfellowshipped merely for having the desire, even though he had never acted on it? That would be a litmus test, it seems to me. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Meerkat]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't mean to single you out- it is just that what is that "spiritual encouragement" but a feeling?

How does a "spiritual experience motivate into action"?

Because it causes joy.  It brings tears of joy.  Tears of joy are not brought about by doing math equations- at least not for me.  They may be satisfying like solving a puzzle, but do not produce a warmth in the spirit which causes the FEELING of joy.  They do not cause comfort.

 

I had a joyful hope in Christ long before I had a testimony of the Restored Gospel.  It was the diligence that brought me to pasture where I hunger not, neither do I thirst... finally.  Now I have a Testimony.   The experiment has taken me over hills of joy and valleys of despair where at my core, I gained knowledge. It was (and is) born of experience there was a blessing attached to the Commandment I was keeping, regardless how far away.  What about those times there is no joy?  What about those times when one wonders if they can ever be happy again?  Is there no testimony there?  Yes, there are times of great and sustained joy.  But that is not it for me.  Is it for you, really, MFBukowski, Professor of Pragmatism? 🤔

Yes, feeling is one component of testimony, but not all.  Certain pleasant feelings may lead one to experiment with immoral behavior, resulting in guilt, perhaps shame and sorrow.  And I suppose those feelings, if carefully and sincerely considered, could result in a testimony that some joys are deceptive.  Was it the joy that brought that testimony, or the despair?

What we are looking for is a consistent good result, which may not always be accompanied by a feeling.   May I replace my earlier thought "spiritual encouragement" with the word "desire?"  That is what sets the ball rolling on the path to testimony.

"27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
            28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me." 

(Pardon my digression here for a moment-- Don't you have to love the Prophet Joseph Smith's description of a spiritual experience in verse 28? Have you ever heard a more perfect definition?  It is very clear, and foundational to my testimony that he was Prophet of the Restoration, this 20 plus year old young man.  Okay, MFB, I admit to a feeling of joy when I contemplate that thought. BUT the first time the Spirit testified of that fact to me, I considered it for a day, then ignored it for ten years.  That feeling was NOT a testimony.  It was the influence of "The Testifier," or The Holy Ghost.)

"32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 
            33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
            34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know,"

So, MFB, are we at the point of testimony here?  I don't think so.  

"now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
            36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good."

"if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit."  

So we're not there yet.  We must persist further.  Have we felt joy?  Yes.  But is joy testimony?  I don't think so even yet...

"41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.
            42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst."

That is what Testimony means to me.  And, MFB, thanks for the chance to think about it!   😃

Edited October 24, 2017 by Meerkat

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Objectivity is not what Alma 32 says the results should be.

To be fair, Mark, I think you're the only person who brought up objectivity.

Following the Liahona and noting that it repeatedly leads to the more fertile parts of the wilderness is certainly a subjective experience, but it's still different than never leaving one's tent but having a good feeling about the Liahona.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your papers were not as probative or persuasive to your point as you think they were. They failed to measure up to the conditions kiwi set: that they contain unambiguous statements from Church leaders that feelings alone, whether or not accompanied by actions were considered sinful. Bear in mind that he specified that the  usage of “homosexual” must clearly be not mere shorthand for “homosexual behavior.” 

Or can you show us an instance where someone was excommunicated or disfellowshipped merely for having the desire, even though he had never acted on it? That would be a litmus test, it seems to me. 

Did you read the papers in their entirety?

Again, I’m not interested in proving the restrictive claim that you and Kiwi came up with.  The teachings and doctrine regarding homosexuality have changed.  That was my claim and that is what the facts support. 

We both know that prior to about twenty years ago church leaders did not distinguish between orientation and behavior.  You wish to take that as verification that they always understood orientation to be acceptable and behavior to be the sin.  I understand the change in teaching for what it is ... a change. 

As Greg Prince so eloquently stated:  Before their was knowledge, there was certitude. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by rockpond

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I didn't want to leave your queston hanging. I'm really tired. I have a big day tomorrow. I didn't realize you understood this to be a "proxy conversation" so I hope you are ok, that I am leaving this part of the conversation. It's more effort than I want to put in at the moment to word it in an understandable manner. I'm sorry.

Absolutely no problem. rockpond had asked me to talk to you instead since you seemed to say what he was trying to say better than he could explain it to me.

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

You’ve lost me with these two responses.  If you’d like to clarify, I’ll try to answer.  

Let's see if if I can remember what i was thinking at the time LOL...

1. I'd rather talk about your ideas that the LDS doctrines and the family proclamation need to become more inclusive of LGBT families as heirs of exaltation. What i mean by that is, specifics resulting from personal study and analysis dealing with ramifications to existing LDS doctrine and policy that underlie the proclamation, such as marriage and sealing, covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant, and parental presiding vis-à-vis priesthood. I'm asking you to flesh out and share what you think about that. Or, if you would rather, we can discuss these things in terms of whether more apostolic, canonized revelation is needed to confirm, support or clarify the proclamation or existing doctrine and policy. Springboarding from Elder Packer's talk about the differences between doctrine or principle, policy and practice to label the ideas doesn't contribute to such a  discussion -- I'd rather talk about the actual ideas, no matter how you label them.

2. Rain was talking about his discomfort with sharing less-than-fully-fleshed-out ideas of the kind I wanted to discuss (see 1 above). From my observation, this is why some might engage in a discussion on a more visceral level only, leaving others to wonder where they are coming from. My question was about whether or how long that would seem to be a productive conversation to him.

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely no problem. rockpond had asked me to talk to you instead since you seemed to say what he was trying to say better than he could explain it to me.

Let's see if if I can remember what i was thinking at the time LOL...

1. I'd rather talk about your ideas that the LDS doctrines and the family proclamation need to become more inclusive of LGBT families as heirs of exaltation. What i mean by that is, specifics resulting from personal study and analysis dealing with ramifications to existing LDS doctrine and policy that underlie the proclamation, such as marriage and sealing, covenant birth and child-rearing in the covenant, and parental presiding vis-à-vis priesthood. I'm asking you to flesh out and share what you think about that. Or, if you would rather, we can discuss these things in terms of whether more apostolic, canonized revelation is needed to confirm, support or clarify the proclamation or existing doctrine and policy. Springboarding from Elder Packer's talk about the differences between doctrine or principle, policy and practice to label the ideas doesn't contribute to such a  discussion -- I'd rather talk about the actual ideas, no matter how you label them.

2. Rain was talking about his discomfort with sharing less-than-fully-fleshed-out ideas of the kind I wanted to discuss (see 1 above). From my observation, this is why some might engage in a discussion on a more visceral level only, leaving others to wonder where they are coming from. My question was about whether or how long that would seem to be a productive conversation to him.

Please stop stating that I asked you to talk to Rain. I did no such thing.  I just point to an answer that Rain provided.  There is a difference. 

1.  LDS doctrine teaches that much of our growth and learning in mortality is to be done through marriage and family. And we teach that one of the greatest blessings of the gospel is having those relationships continue eternally. Given that, I see no reason why LGBT relationships can’t also be brought under that umbrella. And I definitely feel that it is antithetical to our teachings on marriage and family to prescribe celibacy. 

Why a revelation?  Because similar to our teachings on race, a revelation was needed to move us beyond where we were. 

2.  There is definitely a risk on these boards with sharing “less than fully fleshed out” ideas.  There is sometimes a quickness to attack and tear apart.  It’s not our best quality as a discussion board.

[rongo]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

The Bishop that I served with at the time that the essay was released was certain that, like you said, it was just about PR and damage control. 

Regarding the authority of the essay, I believe the thought is that the essays must have gone through FP approval prior to being published.  I thought, back when I was in a Bishopric, that we received a letter that stated something to that effect. I’m released now but, if your aren’t, perhaps you could check your communications archive in LCR. 

At a certain (and important) level, all things that appear on the Church website are "approved" by the Brethren. This approval is nominal, though. They don't write the things, and they don't have input in the crafting of them. They are outsourced to experts, and then the Brethren review them and approve them. At that point, they own it, so it's like investiture of authority --- it becomes their statement by virtue of them granting their approval. This is a far cry, to me anyway, from them (the 15 of them) sitting down and writing these things themselves. I think I remember reading somewhere that the person mainly responsible for writing the essay on the ban is named Reeve.

As we both agree, the gaping hole in the essay is that it disavows past explanations for the ban and claims that we don't know the origin, but completely refuses to address, discuss, or even acknowledge the scriptures that very clearly lie at the heart of the ban. At a minimum, the essay should have attempted to do that, although I acknowledge that it is a third rail and a landmine to do that --- and it runs counter to the essay's purpose: to disavow explanations while leaving room to believe or not believe that the ban had a divine origin and purpose. Entering the fray with the Restoration scriptures would have chosen a side where many people on the other side would have been very unhappy. Now, people are only sort of unhappy . . .  

If the scriptures themselves are disavowed, or even removed, then we can turn the lights off and go home. That can't happen. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Did you read the papers in their entirety?

Again, I’m not interested in proving the restrictive claim that you and Kiwi came up with.  The teachings and doctrine regarding homosexuality have changed.  That was my claim and that is what the facts support. 

We both know that prior to about twenty years ago church leaders did not distinguish between orientation and behavior.  You wish to take that as verification that they always understood orientation to be acceptable and behavior to be the sin.  I understand the change in teaching for what it is ... a change. 

As Greg Prince so eloquently stated:  Before their was knowledge, there was certitude. 

So I take that 20 years ago (your own arbitrary time period) the Church was not excommunicating people merely for having homosexual tendencies without acting on them. Again, if you could have shown that was the case, you would have done it by now.

By the way, I did take a look at the Prince piece and wasn't anymore successful than you were at finding a clear indication that the Church was excommunicating people or telling them they were guilty of sin for having the inclinations without acting on them.

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

At a certain (and important) level, all things that appear on the Church website are "approved" by the Brethren. This approval is nominal, though. They don't write the things, and they don't have input in the crafting of them. They are outsourced to experts, and then the Brethren review them and approve them. At that point, they own it, so it's like investiture of authority --- it becomes their statement by virtue of them granting their approval. This is a far cry, to me anyway, from them (the 15 of them) sitting down and writing these things themselves. I think I remember reading somewhere that the person mainly responsible for writing the essay on the ban is named Reeve.

As we both agree, the gaping hole in the essay is that it disavows past explanations for the ban and claims that we don't know the origin, but completely refuses to address, discuss, or even acknowledge the scriptures that very clearly lie at the heart of the ban. At a minimum, the essay should have attempted to do that, although I acknowledge that it is a third rail and a landmine to do that --- and it runs counter to the essay's purpose: to disavow explanations while leaving room to believe or not believe that the ban had a divine origin and purpose. Entering the fray with the Restoration scriptures would have chosen a side where many people on the other side would have been very unhappy. Now, people are only sort of unhappy . . .  

If the scriptures themselves are disavowed, or even removed, then we can turn the lights off and go home. That can't happen. 

Yes, it really is a tough issue.  I've seen that essay received with gladness/relief by some.  "Meh" by others.  And for a few people I know, the essay was what threw them into a tailspin of a faith crisis.  No simple answers on this one.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So I take that 20 years ago (your own arbitrary time period) the Church was not excommunicating people merely for having homosexual tendencies without acting on them. Again, if you could have shown that was the case, you would have done it by now.

By the way, I did take a look at the Prince piece and wasn't anymore successful than you were at finding a clear indication that the Church was excommunicating people or telling them they were guilty of sin for having the inclinations without acting on them.

 

You know that you are intentionally setting up criteria that can't be answered.

Details of excommunications are kept confidential.  So, no, I can't respond to that.

And the Brethren, in the past, didn't distinguish between orientation and behavior.  Such a distinction didn't seem to even be on their radar.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

At a certain (and important) level, all things that appear on the Church website are "approved" by the Brethren. This approval is nominal, though. They don't write the things, and they don't have input in the crafting of them. They are outsourced to experts, and then the Brethren review them and approve them. At that point, they own it, so it's like investiture of authority --- it becomes their statement by virtue of them granting their approval. This is a far cry, to me anyway, from them (the 15 of them) sitting down and writing these things themselves. I think I remember reading somewhere that the person mainly responsible for writing the essay on the ban is named Reeve.

As we both agree, the gaping hole in the essay is that it disavows past explanations for the ban and claims that we don't know the origin, but completely refuses to address, discuss, or even acknowledge the scriptures that very clearly lie at the heart of the ban. At a minimum, the essay should have attempted to do that, although I acknowledge that it is a third rail and a landmine to do that --- and it runs counter to the essay's purpose: to disavow explanations while leaving room to believe or not believe that the ban had a divine origin and purpose. Entering the fray with the Restoration scriptures would have chosen a side where many people on the other side would have been very unhappy. Now, people are only sort of unhappy . . .  

If the scriptures themselves are disavowed, or even removed, then we can turn the lights off and go home. That can't happen. 

From another angle though, the scriptures are just books amongst other books.  Much of what is in them is disregarded, treated as outdated, or fulfilled in some sense.  Anonymous authors wrote them and then they or others after them attributed them to the likes of Moses, Isaiah, Alma and Matthew.  They are, filled with humansplained (mansplained works since they are largely if not exclusive written by men) divinity.  We shouldn't treat them, it seems to me, as authoritative moreso than anonymous essays on the Church's website.  The scriptures that speak on race could very well be nothing more than human's explaining what they perceive as God's ways.  Too often, ti seems to me, we retreat to a notion of infallibility in scripture while simultaneously accepting that much if not most of the content is useless. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You know that you are intentionally setting up criteria that can't be answered.

Details of excommunications are kept confidential.  So, no, I can't respond to that.

And the Brethren, in the past, didn't distinguish between orientation and behavior.  Such a distinction didn't seem to even be on their radar.

I would say there was probably less of a distinction then now (particularly if we're talking 20 years ago), but it was there.  The bigger issue was 20 years ago it was popular amongst local leaders to tell children that their orientation will change once they learn to pray hard enough.  I think that's going away now, luckily.  I think that that largely came from the general leaders, but I suspect that most, 20 years ago, knew that orientation change was not going to happen.  The problem was they couldn't exactly do an about face without the luxury of time. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I would say there was probably less of a distinction then now (particularly if we're talking 20 years ago), but it was there.  The bigger issue was 20 years ago it was popular amongst local leaders to tell children that their orientation will change once they learn to pray hard enough.  I think that's going away now, luckily.  I think that that largely came from the general leaders, but I suspect that most, 20 years ago, knew that orientation change was not going to happen.  The problem was they couldn't exactly do an about face without the luxury of time. 

Yes... it's tough to know what the majority of leaders thought because only a few were speaking on the subject.  Primary voices were originally Kimball and Packer.  Later Oaks and Holland.

Early on (in the Kimball/Packer) era - there were attempts to pin homosexuality on sin, selfishness, and choice.  The spoke of curing it and BYU/Evergreen were working on those cures.

It was not until the 2006-2007 when we finally had Oaks stating that we don't understand the cause (quite different than what Kimball/Packer had taught in previous decades) and Holland clarifying that "some may never be free of same gender attraction".

And it was great to see Holland's "God Loveth His Children" MormonsandGays.org (2012) replace "To The One" and "To Young Men Only" as the primary church statements on homosexuality.  Those years, 2006 through 2012, are where we saw the distinction that Scott and Kiwi refer to, really come forward in our doctrine and become the new standard.

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes... it's tough to know what the majority of leaders thought because only a few were speaking on the subject.  Primary voices were originally Kimball and Packer.  Later Oaks and Holland.

Early on (in the Kimball/Packer) era - there were attempts to pin homosexuality on sin, selfishness, and choice.  The spoke of curing it and BYU/Evergreen were working on those cures.

It was not until the 2006-2007 when we finally had Oaks stating that we don't understand the cause (quite different than what Kimball/Packer had taught in previous decades) and Holland clarifying that "some may never be free of same gender attraction".

And it was great to see Holland's "God Loveth His Children" MormonsandGays.org (2012) replace "To The One" and "To Young Men Only" as the primary church statements on homosexuality.  Those years, 2006 through 2012, are where we saw the distinction that Scott and Kiwi refer to, really come forward in our doctrine and become the new standard.

OK.  Good summary.  Sorry for chiming in.  Sometimes I do that.  I didn't follow your guys' conversation so I'm missing the context of your comment to which I replied.  I'll go back and catch up before I comment again, if I comment again.