Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And we can't treat the body to affect a change?

Not that anyone has figured out.  And I don’t think it’s for lack of trying.  Evidence seems to point to it happening in the womb. I think that things that happen at that stage of development are taught to change.  But this is not my field. 

[rockpond]

On 10/25/2017 at 5:15 PM, kiwi57 said:

So are you referring to this bit?

"If they will close the door to the intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong. Marriage and normal life can follow."

Because that doesn't suggest marriage as a therapeutic step, but as a hoped-for long-term goal.

"Homosexuality is not the fault totally of family conditions. Every normal person must answer for his own sins."

The second sentence explains the first; and it is talking about "his sins." Clearly, then, "Homosexuality" in this context == homosexual behaviour. Of course.

And yes, all behaviour is chosen. That's a no-brainer.

Which means, of course, that people can repent and turn away from homosexual behaviour. In that sense, homosexuality can be cured.

Some more quotes for you to ponder regarding family conditions as the cause:

“Parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality…” (Victor L. Brown Jr., “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975)

“Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.”    (J. Richard Clarke, Apr 1977 Gen Conf)

“If children have a happy family experience they will not want to be homosexual, which I am sure is an acquired addiction, just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way. But I do not believe this is true.” (Hartman Rector, Jr., Apr 1981Gen Conf, transcribed from audio)

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I have quoted two prophets, seers, and revelators telling you clearly that homosexuality can be cured.  Do you believe them?

I do think the word 'healed' is more apt, but yes, absolutely. Every form of man-made 'sexual identity', including heterosexuality, can be healed ... and must be if we are to truly become like our Heavenly Father. As with all other worldly traits, full healing will no doubt be accomplished in the eternal world, but the process absolutely can and should start here.

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I do think the word 'healed' is more apt, but yes, absolutely. Every form of man-made 'sexual identity', including heterosexuality, can be healed ... and must be if we are to truly become like our Heavenly Father. As with all other worldly traits, full healing will no doubt be accomplished in the eternal world, but the process absolutely can and should start here.

So... you seem to be changing the word, meaning, and context of what two apostles said. 

In what way do you think Kimball and Peterson meant that homosexuality and heterosexuality could be healed/cured?

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I deleted it because after a little study I began to see your point, kind of like a ship coming out of a fog on the idea of Christ in us.  I like the thought, but don't want to diminish the price He paid to accomplish this work in us.  I will study your links here as well.  Thanks for your response.

Notice that by no means am I diminishing the price He paid!

I believe it all really happened- but that is another thing entirely from getting that inside us.  We must internalize it in order to change our lives. Both ways of seeing it are perfectly compatible.  There is no way it must be one or the other- it can and IS- as far as I am concerned- both.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well, if you are saying that our leaders’ teachings on the subject of homosexuality have followed behind secular knowledge, I agree.  But perhaps that wasn’t what you meant. 

I think priesthood leaders generally apply available medical, scientific and social tools in ministering to the saints. Kimballs’ words for example weren’t too far off the mark or too far behind for the time; it wasn’t until the late 80’s that the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM (after 2 decades of controversy among its membership), and the WHO from the ICD-10 in 1992. Plus you’ve got to account for how long these secular tools take to become the newest “best practice” eve in their own communities. Of course these things do eventually change over time, so priesthood leaders do and will adopt new tools. I seem to recall President Young counseling the saints on some health practices we might consider odd today and are not currently perpetuated by the Brethren.

These “good books” and practices are not to be confused with teachings and doctrines. They are considered helpful in ministering, but are not the same thing. That would be like saying a health services missionary is teaching you to boil your water as a matter of Church doctrine just because she’s trying to help you get you healthy, which is preaching by example the doctrine of service. I’m sure they taught health practices 75 years ago that have since been improved.

Somewhere in this thread are a couple of links to articles distinguishing practice from principle from a religious standpoint. They don’t address the possible relationship between secular practice and religious doctrine, but I think you can see how that is covered by D&C 88:77-78.

Our doctrine is not driven by secular knowledge, but we do use secular knowledge in ministering according to doctrine. Secular knowledge hopefully improves, and when proven we drop old practices and may adopt new ones, but the driver is always our doctrine. Let's not conflate the order of things; that is how people insist on calling these practices "teachings" as if they were doctrine. Do you now understand what I meant?

Edited October 27, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Some more quotes for you to ponder regarding family conditions as the cause:

“Parents need to know that lack of proper affection in the home can result in unnatural behavior in their children such as homosexuality…” (Victor L. Brown Jr., “Two Views of Sexuality”, Ensign, July 1975)

“Homosexuality would not occur where there is a normal, loving father-and-son relationship.”    (J. Richard Clarke, Apr 1977 Gen Conf)

“If children have a happy family experience they will not want to be homosexual, which I am sure is an acquired addiction, just as drugs, alcohol and pornography are. The promoters of homosexuality say they were born that way. But I do not believe this is true.” (Hartman Rector, Jr., Apr 1981Gen Conf, transcribed from audio)

Again, compare these remarks with the APA-approved science of the respective years. The speakers are not pronouncing doctrine but supporting doctrine with acceptable secular observations of the day.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Again, compare these remarks with the APA-approved science of the respective years. The speakers are not pronouncing doctrine but supporting doctrine with acceptable secular observations of the day.

Brown was a social worker, so I will accept that he could be speaking from the "secular observations of the the day".  Although, the message was published in the church magazine.

Clarke and Rector however, were speaking in general conference.  Isn't that where doctrine is pronounced?  What is the point of having prophets, seers, and revelators if their teachings are going to be based on secular knowledge?

Edited October 27, 2017 by rockpond
correction

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think priesthood leaders generally apply available medical, scientific and social tools in ministering to the saints. Kimballs’ words for example weren’t too far off the mark or too far behind for the time; it wasn’t until the late 80’s that the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM (after 2 decades of controversy among its membership), and the WHO from the ICD-10 in 1992. Plus you’ve got to account for how long these secular tools take to become the newest “best practice” eve in their own communities. Of course these things do eventually change over time, so priesthood leaders do and will adopt new tools. I seem to recall President Young counseling the saints on some health practices we might consider odd today and are not currently perpetuated by the Brethren.

These “good books” and practices are not to be confused with teachings and doctrines. They are considered helpful in ministering, but are not the same thing. That would be like saying a health services missionary is teaching you to boil your water as a matter of Church doctrine just because she’s trying to help you get you healthy, which is preaching by example the doctrine of service. I’m sure they taught health practices 75 years ago that have since been improved.

Somewhere in this thread are a couple of links to articles distinguishing practice from principle from a religious standpoint. They don’t address the possible relationship between secular practice and religious doctrine, but I think you can see how that is covered by D&C 88:77-78.

Our doctrine is not driven by secular knowledge, but we do use secular knowledge in ministering according to doctrine. Secular knowledge hopefully improves, and when proven we drop old practices and may adopt new ones, but the driver is always our doctrine. Let's not conflate the order of things; that is how people insist on calling these practices "teachings" as if they were doctrine. Do you now understand what I meant?

To build on my remarks and questions immediately above... 

Aren't teachings delivered in general conference to be considered doctrine?  How are you defining doctrine?

Edited October 27, 2017 by rockpond
correction

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Brown was a social worker, so I will accept that he could be speaking from the "secular observations of the the day".  Although, the message was published in the church magazine.

Clark and Rector, however, were apostles speaking in general conference.  Isn't that where doctrine is pronounced?  What is the point of having prophets, seers, and revelators if their teachings are going to be based on secular knowledge?

Also, if this is what members expect from their church leaders, we will definitely see more change as more people support SSM.  I thought arguments on here are based on the church NOT doing the popular or worldly thing or being influenced by this, but only relying on revelation from God on this topic.

Why wouldn't God have revealed the truth back in the 1970's and 80's when the leaders were making the statements regarding how homosexuality could be cured?  Why allow them to follow the secular beliefs at that time if they were incorrect?

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Also, if this is what members expect from their church leaders, we will definitely see more change as more people support SSM.  I thought arguments on here are based on the church NOT doing the popular or worldly thing or being influenced by this, but only relying on revelation from God on this topic.

Why wouldn't God have revealed the truth back in the 1970's and 80's when the leaders were making the statements regarding how homosexuality could be cured?  Why allow them to follow the secular beliefs at that time if they were incorrect?

This was my question too...where were such revelations from God at such key times???  

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Also, if this is what members expect from their church leaders, we will definitely see more change as more people support SSM.  I thought arguments on here are based on the church NOT doing the popular or worldly thing or being influenced by this, but only relying on revelation from God on this topic.

Why wouldn't God have revealed the truth back in the 1970's and 80's when the leaders were making the statements regarding how homosexuality could be cured?  Why allow them to follow the secular beliefs at that time if they were incorrect?

I agree. IF prophets, seers, and revelators reveal the will of God and not necessarily the time and culture in which they live, then one would expect there to be more consistency in the message. It's funny that some take pride in being unpopular in the world yet also use the time and culture as a defense of the false teachings of the past.

Quote

CV75- Kimballs’ words for example weren’t too far off the mark or too far behind for the time;

If we're dealing with a worldly organization with only the same access to knowledge as the world, then a defense like this might work. But it's hard to hold prophets out as special and a means of providing increased knowledge and wisdom while simultaneously saying that the prophet wasn't "too far off the mark...for the time".

I experienced this in GD class last week. Members spoke boldly about how we can trust the words of the prophets as the word of God. When someone brought up an example of where a teaching has changed (race) then the apologetic was of course a statement about culture and time. There's a tension between claiming the word of God while also excusing errors long after the fact as cultural opinions. The message seems to be that current prophets and apostles are more correct and trustworthy in speaking the will of God than past prophets and apostles. It keeps people in line today...which I suppose is the point.

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree. IF prophets, seers, and revelators reveal the will of God and not necessarily the time and culture in which they live, then one would expect there to be more consistency in the message. It's funny that some take pride in being unpopular in the world yet also use the time and culture as a defense of the false teachings of the past.

If we're dealing with a worldly organization with only the same access to knowledge as the world, then a defense like this might work. But it's hard to hold prophets out as special and a means of providing increased knowledge and wisdom while simultaneously saying that the prophet wasn't "too far off the mark...for the time".

I experienced this in GD class last week. Members spoke boldly about how we can trust the words of the prophets as the word of God. When someone brought up an example of where a teaching has changed (race) then the apologetic was of course a statement about culture and time. There's a tension between claiming the word of God while also excusing errors long after the fact as cultural opinions. The message seems to be that current prophets and apostles are more correct and trustworthy in speaking the will of God than past prophets and apostles. It keeps people in line today...which I suppose is the point.

And this point (being made by @HappyJackWagon, @ALarson, and @Jeanne) can be applied to the topic of the thread regarding Oaks' address... Will we someday just explain away parts of the Proclamation as "secular knowledge in ministering according to doctrine" as @CV75 explains away the Kimball/Peterson quotes?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And this point (being made by @HappyJackWagon, @ALarson, and @Jeanne) can be applied to the topic of the thread regarding Oaks' address... Will we someday just explain away parts of the Proclamation as "secular knowledge in ministering according to doctrine" as @CV75 explains away the Kimball/Peterson quotes?

Or use this same reasoning to explain away the recent policy when it's no longer in place?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Brown was a social worker, so I will accept that he could be speaking from the "secular observations of the the day".  Although, the message was published in the church magazine.

Clark and Rector, however, were apostles speaking in general conference.  Isn't that where doctrine is pronounced?  What is the point of having prophets, seers, and revelators if their teachings are going to be based on secular knowledge?

Lots of secular references are made in General Conference to support the actual doctrine being taught. You truly do not see the difference? Do you take The Lion King as doctrine—really? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/lord-wilt-thou-cause-that-my-eyes-may-be-opened?lang=eng

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

To build on my remarks and questions immediately above... 

Aren't teachings delivered by prophets, seers, and revelators through official church channels to be considered as doctrine?  How are you defining doctrine?

To build on my remarks and questions immediately above... see my remarks and questions immediately above.

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And this point (being made by @HappyJackWagon, @ALarson, and @Jeanne) can be applied to the topic of the thread regarding Oaks' address... Will we someday just explain away parts of the Proclamation as "secular knowledge in ministering according to doctrine" as @CV75 explains away the Kimball/Peterson quotes?

Nope! LOL It isn't a secular document and no secular knowledge is referenced in it.

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Or use this same reasoning to explain away the recent policy when it's no longer in place?

Nope! LOL It isn't a secular document and no secular knowledge is referenced in it. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If we're dealing with a worldly organization with only the same access to knowledge as the world, then a defense like this might work. But it's hard to hold prophets out as special and a means of providing increased knowledge and wisdom while simultaneously saying that the prophet wasn't "too far off the mark...for the time".

I experienced this in GD class last week. Members spoke boldly about how we can trust the words of the prophets as the word of God. When someone brought up an example of where a teaching has changed (race) then the apologetic was of course a statement about culture and time. There's a tension between claiming the word of God while also excusing errors long after the fact as cultural opinions. The message seems to be that current prophets and apostles are more correct and trustworthy in speaking the will of God than past prophets and apostles. It keeps people in line today...which I suppose is the point.

If you’re dealing with what I actually posted, this makes no sense. Prophets will always in good faith use the secular knowledge of the day to support their doctrinal points and minister to the one. What prophet hasn’t?

Yes, culture and time do have something to do with the quality of the secular knowledge of day. Doctrine is revealed according to the Lord’s timetable. Those who are counseled with LDS doctrine are just as immersed in the culture and time as their minister. But the minister has something extra, the revealed doctrine he is delivering. He delivers it with the best tools he has at his disposal, both spiritual and temporal.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Lots of secular references are made in General Conference to support the actual doctrine being taught. You truly do not see the difference? Do you take The Lion King as doctrine—really? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/10/lord-wilt-thou-cause-that-my-eyes-may-be-opened?lang=eng

To build on my remarks and questions immediately above... see my remarks and questions immediately above.

Nope! LOL It isn't a secular document and no secular knowledge is referenced in it.

Nope! LOL It isn't a secular document and no secular knowledge is referenced in it. 

You can't have it both ways and be taken seriously here, IMO.

You pass off incorrect statements and teachings made by past Prophets by making the excuse for them that they were just following what was acceptable secular observations of their time.  And then turn around and try to reason that this isn't happening today with the current teachings.  You have nothing to stand on when you use that type of reasoning.

Why didn't the past Prophets receive the correct information through revelation back when they were teaching that homosexuality could be cured and other incorrect teachings?  

Whatever reasons you may give also apply to the current teachings from our current leaders.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Brown was a social worker, so I will accept that he could be speaking from the "secular observations of the the day".  Although, the message was published in the church magazine.

Clark and Rector, however, were apostles speaking in general conference.  Isn't that where doctrine is pronounced?  What is the point of having prophets, seers, and revelators if their teachings are going to be based on secular knowledge?

Are you serious? This from progressive you?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

To build on my remarks and questions immediately above... 

Aren't teachings delivered by prophets, seers, and revelators through official church channels to be considered as doctrine?  How are you defining doctrine?

So now infallibility for all GA's in every conference talk? And defining dogma? We don't even have a clear definition of doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So now infallibility for all GA's in every conference talk? And defining dogma? We don't even have a clear definition of doctrine.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can't have it both ways and be taken seriously here, IMO.

You pass off incorrect statements and teachings made by past Prophets by making the excuse for them that they were just following what was acceptable secular observations of their time.  And then turn around and try to reason that this isn't happening today with the current teachings.  You have nothing to stand on when you use that type of reasoning.

Why didn't the past Prophets receive the correct information through revelation back when they were teaching that homosexuality could be cured and other incorrect teachings?  

Whatever reasons you may give also apply to the current teachings from our current leaders.  

Of course I can have it both ways and I explained how.

Yes, prophets use the acceptable secular observations at their disposal to make a doctrinal point or to minister to the needs of the saints. Of course it’s happening today, and I provided an example (Lion King*). I think the latest research helps inform the Church website on this subject.

But it does not inform the doctrine. Is it really that difficult to distinguish between the two?

The prophets always had the correct doctrine. That is their calling. The available information on any subject is anybody’s to get and use, and they got their information from reliable sources of the time and used it.

* Elton John, who composed the music for that movie, married a woman in 1984. Why do you think he did that after coming out as bi, and then after the divorce, as gay? If I recall, he explained after the divorce that he was a product of his culture and time. Now he is a very spiritual man; do we beat him up for it?

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Are you serious? This from progressive you?

Yes (except I corrected my post because Clarke was a Seventy, not an apostle).  Not sure why that surprises you.

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So now infallibility for all GA's in every conference talk? And defining dogma? We don't even have a clear definition of doctrine.

No, I never suggested infallibility for GA's in conference talks.

As for doctrine, it is my experience here that everyone's got their own definition that they operate from -- thus my question.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes (except I corrected my post because Clarke was a Seventy, not an apostle).  Not sure why that surprises you.

Actually it's the other way around.  Elder Rector was a Seventy, President Clark was an apostle and a counselor in the First Presidency. 

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course I can have it both ways and I explained how.

Yes, prophets use the acceptable secular observations at their disposal to make a doctrinal point or to minister to the needs of the saints. Of course it’s happening today, and I provided an example (Lion King*). I think the latest research helps inform the Church website on this subject.

But it does not inform the doctrine. Is it really that difficult to distinguish between the two?

The prophets always had the correct doctrine. That is their calling. The available information on any subject is anybody’s to get and use, and they got their information from reliable sources of the time and used it.

* Elton John, who composed the music for that movie, married a woman in 1984. Why do you think he did that after coming out as bi, and then after the divorce, as gay? If I recall, he explained after the divorce that he was a product of his culture and time. Now he is a very spiritual man; do we beat him up for it?

There is a difference between drawing an analogy or metaphor using a movie or literary work and stating a conclusion that homosexuality is an addiction rooted in an unhappy family life.

How are you distinguishing between the words they speak that are doctrine and the words where they are just sharing secular knowledge with us?