Scrutinizing general conference

[Scott Lloyd]

42 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.

 

The Church keeps such details confidential; those being excommunicated, not so much, depending on who they are and whether they are trying to use their excommunication as a weapon against the Church. After all this time, surely there would have been a disgruntled individual willing to go public to support the point you are trying to make.

Quote

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.

If that's true, then why can't you show a clear, unambiguous statement from even a single one of them that the feeling is just as bad as the act, whether or not it is acted upon?

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church keeps such details confidential; those being excommunicated, not so much, depending on who they are and whether they are trying to use their excommunication as a weapon against the Church. After all this time, surely there would have been a disgruntled individual willing to go public to support the point you are trying to make.

If that's true, then why can't you show a clear, unambiguous statement from even a single one of them that the feeling is just as bad as the act, whether or not it is acted upon?

 

Because they didn't identify such a distinction in their teachings.  I'm not sure how many times I can answer this same question.  Why don't you provide an older unambiguous statement in which they clarify that it is okay to be homosexual as long as you remain celibate and that you will receive all the same blessings promised to heterosexual people who marry in the temple.

[Stargazer]

On 10/22/2017 at 10:48 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

When the priesthood and temple ban was in effect, there was always a contingent among the brethren who assured us that the ban, however long it might last, was only temporary.  Even such things as the 1949 and 1969 statements of the First Presidency, respectively, regardless of how certain language contained therein might have made me or anyone else cringe, contained such caveats as "at the present time."  Can you point to anything analogous with respect to the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on gay marriage?

No, but that's just one form of marriage the church is leaving out!  Here are some others we need to consider:

• Group marriage - a marriage-like arrangement between more than two people. Usually consisting of three to seven adults, all partners live together, share finances, children, and household responsibilities. Depending on the sexual orientation and activity of the members, all adults in the family may be sexual partners. For instance, if all members are heterosexual, all the women may have sexual relationships with all the men. If members are bisexual, they may have evolved sexual relationships with either gender.
• Line marriage - a form of group marriage in which the family unit continues to add new spouses of both sexes over time so that the marriage does not end.
• Self marriage or sologamy - where a man or woman marries him or herself. I suppose that a self marriage is by definition gay marriage, since one is married to a person of the same sex.

Note that group marriages of one sort or another have actually been practiced in certain cultures. Self marriage is apparently new to human culture. Line marriage, so far as I have heard, was something invented by sci-fi author Robert Heinlein for his novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Risk schmisk. Especially for those of us who use screen names.

It is quite the leap to equate LDS eternal matrimony with non-marital sexual relationships, whether that idea comes by revelation or not! There are already faith and other communities that do not value any difference between the two and yet follow a moral code that is otherwise consistent with the Abrahamic and other religions; would these not demonstrate a construct that has already “moved beyond”?

But since we are talking about the Restored Religion, given your LDS paradigm that marriage and family relationships help us become like God and continue eternally, can you walk me through how you made your leap, and please make that LDS-specific, without referring to the universal virtues and morality we already hold in common with every other religion?

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Risk schmisk. Especially for those of us who use screen names.

 

It is quite the leap to equate LDS eternal matrimony with non-marital sexual relationships, whether that idea comes by revelation or not! There are already faith and other communities that do not value any difference between the two and yet follow a moral code that is otherwise consistent with the Abrahamic and other religions; would these not demonstrate a construct that has already “moved beyond”?

 

But since we are talking about the Restored Religion, given your LDS paradigm that marriage and family relationships help us become like God and continue eternally, can you walk me through how you made your leap, and please make that LDS-specific, without referring to the universal virtues and morality we already hold in common with every other religion?

 

I meant "risk" in terms of having to continuously explain yourself against a seemingly endless onslaught of responses.  That's why I try (though often fail) not to write ideas here that I haven't fully thought through knowing that they'll be picked apart.

I don't equate non-marital sexual relationships with eternal matrimony.  When I referred to LGBT relationships, I meant marriages.  Sorry for not being clear on that.

I didn't make any "leap".  And I try to consider all truth as being part of one great whole so I don't know how to separate "LDS specific" while ignoring universal virtues and morality.

Edited October 24, 2017 by rockpond

[Stargazer]

On 10/22/2017 at 6:48 PM, kiwi57 said:

I humbly suggest that genuine personal revelation never exceeds our personal stewardship. 

I wonder if genuine personal revelation could include doctrine not taught by the church, but not contradicting that which is taught.  Not that I have received any such, specifically, but there are some doctrines that I am fairly convinced are true, that are not part of "official" LDS doctrine.  I wonder if I could receive a confirmation that any of these are true.  Hmmm.  I think I shan't trouble the Lord about them, nevertheless.  Nor ever teach them!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Because they didn't identify such a distinction in their teachings.  I'm not sure how many times I can answer this same question.  Why don't you provide an older unambiguous statement in which they clarify that it is okay to be homosexual as long as you remain celibate and that you will receive all the same blessings promised to heterosexual people who marry in the temple.

You're the one who's making the unsubstantiated assertion here. You bear the burden. Show us the evidence. Can you provide a clear, unequivocal quotation from even one of the Brethren to the effect that a person with homosexual tendencies is condemned even if he holds them in check and never expresses them?

And don't just wave your hand at Prince's essay. All he does there is make unfounded attributions unsupported by quotes either direct or indirect.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're the one who's making the unsubstantiated assertion here. You bear the burden. Show us the evidence. Can you provide a clear, unequivocal quotation from even one of the Brethren to the effect that a person with homosexual tendencies is condemned even if he holds them in check and never expresses?

And don't just wave your hand at Prince's essay. All he does there is make unfounded attributions unsupported by quotes either direct or indirect.

I have not made the assertion that the Brethren taught "that a person with homosexual tendencies is condemned even if he holds them in check and never expresses".

Prince's presentation and essay were well referenced.  Take a look at the footnotes.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're the one who's making the unsubstantiated assertion here. You bear the burden. Show us the evidence. Can you provide a clear, unequivocal quotation from even one of the Brethren to the effect that a person with homosexual tendencies is condemned even if he holds them in check and never expresses?

And don't just wave your hand at Prince's essay. All he does there is make unfounded attributions unsupported by quotes either direct or indirect.

It appears that rockpond has shot himself in the foot by arbitrarily specifying a "20-years-ago" time period in which Church leaders allegedly were condemning persons with homosexual tendencies whether or not they had expressed those tendencies.

Here is a general conference talk given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in October 1995, in which he expresses the Church position as we understand it today. That's 22 years ago, well back in time beyond rockpond's 20-year time frame.

Is rockpond now going to push back his timeline? I don't think it will make any difference.

 

Quote

 

We should extend compassion to persons who suffer from ill health, including those who are infected with HIV or who are ill with AIDS (who may or may not have acquired their condition from sexual relations). We should encourage such persons to participate in the activities of the Church.

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.” All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

 

 

 

In his talk, Elder Oaks cites a 1991 "Letter of the First Presidency" in which it is stated that "“there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”

That's 26 years ago, pushing the timeline back even further. Care to revise your claim, rockpond?

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have not made the assertion that the Brethren taught "that a person with homosexual tendencies is condemned even if he holds them in check and never expresses".

Prince's presentation and essay were well referenced.  Take a look at the footnotes.

Then it should be an easy matter for you to support your claim.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears that rockpond has shot himself in the foot by arbitrarily specifying a "20-years-ago" time period in which Church leaders allegedly were condemning persons with homosexual tendencies whether or not they had expressed those tendencies.

Here is a general conference talk given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in October 1995, in which he expresses the Church position as we understand it today. That's 22 years ago, well back rockpond's 20-year time frame.

Is rockpond now going to push back his timeline? I don't think it will make any difference.

 

In his talk, Elder Oaks cites a 1991 "Letter of the First Presidency" in which it is stated that "“there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”

That's 26 years ago, pushing the timeline back even further. Care to revise your claim, rockpond?

 

26 years.  Not 20.  My apologies.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then it should be an easy matter for you to support your claim.

With the exception of being off by 6 years, I have.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

26 years.  Not 20.  My apologies.

So you're staking your credibility on the notion that the First Presidency in that letter were not merely reaffirming and clarifying a longstanding position then?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

With the exception of being off by 6 years, I have.

Hardly.

[Jeanne]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder how much of the effect has been caused by people telling them they should be affected.

I don't think that any parent needs to be told to be affected when it concerns their child.  This policy made no sense..none....and it hurt children, parents and grandparents along the line...no one  needs to tell them whether they should have been affected.   And as for the gay mormons themselves, they are condemned in apostasy when others have sinned time and time again.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you're staking your credibility on the notion that the First Presidency in that letter were not merely reaffirming and clarifying a longstanding position then?

Again, my claim was that LDS teachings regarding homosexuality have changed.  I stand by that and have provided references.  I did not make the claim that you continue to want to attribute to me.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I meant "risk" in terms of having to continuously explain yourself against a seemingly endless onslaught of responses.  That's why I try (though often fail) not to write ideas here that I haven't fully thought through knowing that they'll be picked apart.

I don't equate non-marital sexual relationships with eternal matrimony.  When I referred to LGBT relationships, I meant marriages.  Sorry for not being clear on that.

I didn't make any "leap".  And I try to consider all truth as being part of one great whole so I don't know how to separate "LDS specific" while ignoring universal virtues and morality.

I find that when I explain things often and clearly enough I eventually hit upon a way that can be understood. A large number of responses can be taken as a sign of broad interest, which can improve understanding and if too many responses to handle is a problem, can actually narrow down responses as people get clarity on what you’re talking about.

You already recognize that LGBT marriage within an LDS paradigm is construed to be a non-marital sexual relationship. So to be better understood, I suggest you straightforwardly address LDS teachings on marriage and sexual sin. For example, how do you get from cohabitation to eternal matrimony or from sin to holy covenant in a way that does not come across as a leap? I know the short answers are “Repentance” or “By God saying so” but hopefully you have a more robust response that addresses specific LDS tenets.

And it seems from other posts that you can separate “LDS specific” tenets from those common to other (let’s narrow it down to Christian) faiths, so please don’t cop-out on that one! I suggested a few possible areas awhile back but you don’t have to use those.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I find that when I explain things often and clearly enough I eventually hit upon a way that can be understood. A large number of responses can be taken as a sign of broad interest, which can improve understanding and if too many responses to handle is a problem, can actually narrow down responses as people get clarity on what you’re talking about.

You already recognize that LGBT marriage within an LDS paradigm is construed to be a non-marital sexual relationship. So to be better understood, I suggest you straightforwardly address LDS teachings on marriage and sexual sin. For example, how do you get from cohabitation to eternal matrimony or from sin to holy covenant in a way that does not come across as a leap? I know the short answers are “Repentance” or “By God saying so” but hopefully you have a more robust response that addresses specific LDS tenets.

And it seems from other posts that you can separate “LDS specific” tenets from those common to other (let’s narrow it down to Christian) faiths, so please don’t cop-out on that one! I suggested a few possible areas awhile back but you don’t have to use those.

While I recognize that gay marriage is not considered marriage within current LDS teachings, I still consider it marriage - not cohabitation.  And I don't believe that sexual relations within marriage are a sin.

[kiwi57]

5 hours 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.

Of course it wasn't. "Sexual orientation" is a recent cultural construct designed for political purposes.

The brethren have consistently taught that homosexual behaviour is wrong. If they've only (relatively) recently had to start specifying "behaviour" in order to distinguish it from "orientation," it's only because previously it was only the behaviour that was under discussion.

 

[kiwi57]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I recognize that gay marriage is not considered marriage within current LDS teachings, I still consider it marriage - not cohabitation.  And I don't believe that sexual relations within marriage are a sin.

You can "consider" whatever you like. We disagree with you, and always will.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I recognize that gay marriage is not considered marriage within current LDS teachings, I still consider it marriage - not cohabitation.  And I don't believe that sexual relations within marriage are a sin.

Yes, I know that is what you recognize, consider, and believe. You would like to see the LDS Church go the same way. The gap between that and the slate of LDS beliefs, considerations and tenets requires quite a leap to reconcile. That is what I've been asking you to explain. But if your vision is an emotional appeal and not a rational one that you can explain, I won't push it.

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course it wasn't. "Sexual orientation" is a recent cultural construct designed for political purposes.

The brethren have consistently taught that homosexual behaviour is wrong. If they've only (relatively) recently had to start specifying "behaviour" in order to distinguish it from "orientation," it's only because previously it was only the behaviour that was under discussion.

 

Sexual orientation was not designed for political purposes.  Absolutely false. 

And the concept of sexual orientation has been around since the first half of last century... by some regards it dates back to the 19th century. 

You and Scott have created a nice little strawman and defeated him.  Well done. 

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You can "consider" whatever you like. We disagree with you, and always will.

Good.  There is no reason for you to subscribe to my belief system.  I wouldn’t want that. 

Although, “always” is a hefty word.  I would recommend leaving yourself open for future revelation.  I feel strongly about that, personally. 

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I know that is what you recognize, consider, and believe. You would like to see the LDS Church go the same way. The gap between that and the slate of LDS beliefs, considerations and tenets requires quite a leap to reconcile. That is what I've been asking you to explain. But if your vision is an emotional appeal and not a rational one that you can explain, I won't push it.

Why is it a leap?  My understanding of the gospel and God’s plan coupled with prayer, pondering, and the Spirit are how I arrived where I have.  That prophets and apostles have taught some different ideas doesn’t take a leap to get through.  Christ told me wherein to place my faith.  No emotional appeal needed. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course it wasn't. "Sexual orientation" is a recent cultural construct designed for political purposes.

The brethren have consistently taught that homosexual behaviour is wrong. If they've only (relatively) recently had to start specifying "behaviour" in order to distinguish it from "orientation," it's only because previously it was only the behaviour that was under discussion.

That's because orientation is a gentle way of saying that someone has an inborn trait.
Traits used to be seen as positive and negative.  The negative ones (the sinful ones) used to be something to be worked on and overcome.
Now if you have an inborn trait you are supposed to embrace who you are.

Nobody needs to overcome anything anymore.  Anger, jealousy, shyness, gluttony, arrogance, or any sinful attractions.  If it's part of you , embrace it!
 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by JLHPROF