Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Nope. They are revealed truth.

And it appears to be shaping up as the great litmus test for our time. Those who are faithful to the Gospel and obedient to God will - it should go without saying - be faithful to this principle.

While the others?

2 Timothy 4:

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Like the fable of "same sex marriage," for instance.

They have, and will continue (like Paul in the Areopagus) to use secular knowledge to illustrate and amplify their teachings. But they won't let secular knowledge, which has changed and will continue to change, to determine the doctrines they teach.

Because the doctrines are not secular knowledge. And secular knowledge is not doctrine.

Well, I agree with that the Church's position on homosexuality could be a litmus test.  I just believe that the mainstream church is failing it.

The quotes I provided aren't apostles using "secular knowledge to illustrate and amplify".  That is a ridiculous conclusion.

[Jeanne]

There has to be a reason that children are born gay...the big question is..what were we to learn from all of this...and yes, in many ways ..in many churches..we have failed.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No.

But thanks for asking.

Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have rather significantly greater authority than pamphlets. And the Proclamation is a statement of doctrine, outright, not just a letter setting out guidelines about how to deal with repentant homosexuals.

The 1971 Hope for Transgressors and the Proclamation deal with entirely different things.  Not sure what your point is there.

Remember, Hope for Transgressors was written by two apostles (one of whom was serving as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve) and was published by the Church for distribution to priesthood leaders.  Call it whatever you want: "guidelines", "policies", "doctrines".  This is what was being taught from "on high" to the priesthood leaders of the time.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Really? Then what does this mean?

"3.  That homosexuals should get married as a way to correct their attractions (Kimball/Peterson). "

What do the highlighted words mean, Rockpond?

 

I take them to mean that getting married would "cure" their homosexuality.  They used the word repeatedly in that document.  And, when you listen to the experiences of gay men in the church over the next couple of decades it is what they were counseled to do by their priesthood leaders.

[kiwi57]

On 10/27/2017 at 3:39 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I can do that Scott.

Perhaps the best place to start is with President Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness. He wrote:

There is this fun thing in here about how homosexuality is a result or development of earlier sins - and is a progressive behavior that starts with masturbation. (Actually, if masturbation leads to homosexuality, we ought to expect humanity to have disappeared ages ago ....). But you can see that homosexuality is defined as both "sexual desire" (same-sex attraction) and as sexual relations between same-sex individuals. This is the ambiguity where the behavior and the attraction are clearly connected, and identified as part of the same issue. Both are defined as perversions, and as sins.

Sorry, that's not the case.

Context matters, Benjamin. And the Context of Miracle (I read it on my mission) is that desires only become sinful when we allow ourselves to entertain them.

On 10/27/2017 at 3:39 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This was published in 1969? So in 1984, we a memo written by Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, on August 7, 1984, titled "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals"

So Elder Oaks confirms that we had this language that was ambiguous and used for both the attraction and the sexual relations. But we also see this as part of a change to create a distinction (in the early 80s) forged by separating these earlier statements in the way that Elder Oaks does here.

However, and this is part of the reason I used this particular document, what we see here is that in the early 1980s, there is a clear view that while being an active homosexual was a grave sin, having the feelings still remains as being sinful (just not as sinful).

See above. In fact, the example Elder Oaks gives is instructive. He compares it to "a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her." This is a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) The wording given clearly entails intent.

Matthew 5:

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

Looking isn't just seeing, it's a deliberate choice; and looking "to" have some effect, again, is something the looker chooses to do.

To claim that the Church has ever taught that there can be sin without choice is outrageously and brazenly dishonest. That's why Adam and Eve's transgression in the Garden isn't considered a sin, because they, being innocent, were unable to choose between right and wrong.

To the extent that a homosexual doesn't choose his attractions, he is innocent. To the extent that he acts upon them - whether in deed or in thought - that is the extent to which he sins. This is the doctrine. This has always been the doctrine, and anyone who claims otherwise has lost all credibility.

I just thought you should know.

[kiwi57]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, I agree with that the Church's position on homosexuality could be a litmus test.  I just believe that the mainstream church is failing it.

Yes, because there is so much pressure from the world to exclude gays from marriage.

Oh. Wait.

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The quotes I provided aren't apostles using "secular knowledge to illustrate and amplify".  That is a ridiculous conclusion.

Really? Then what do you think they are doing.

Because I'll tell you this, free of charge: they're not basing the doctrine on secular knowledge.

You're welcome.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, because there is so much pressure from the world to exclude gays from marriage.

Oh. Wait.

Really? Then what do you think they are doing.

Because I'll tell you this, free of charge: they're not basing the doctrine on secular knowledge.

You're welcome.

It was never my contention that they were basing the doctrine on secular knowledge.  That was CV75.

What they were doing is teaching to their best understanding of homosexuality and God's will regarding homosexuals.  Later, as further light and knowledge came to bear, line upon line, the teachings changed and became more clear.

 

[kiwi57]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I take them to mean that getting married would "cure" their homosexuality. 

Aaargh!

Then why did you previously say this?

"Nope.  I never claimed it was a therapeutic stategy.  Quite the opposite. "

This is where discussing things with you becomes increasingly frustrating, Rockpond.

If "getting married would 'cure' their homosexuality," then getting married was ipso facto a therapeutic strategy.

Why do you make it so hard?

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

They used the word repeatedly in that document.  And, when you listen to the experiences of gay men in the church over the next couple of decades it is what they were counseled to do by their priesthood leaders.

Except that that is not what the pamphlet suggested. It suggested marriage and family life as the end goal, to be sought after the homosexual had conquered his predelictions, not as a way of overcoming them. That's an important distinction.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Aaargh!

Then why did you previously say this?

"Nope.  I never claimed it was a therapeutic stategy.  Quite the opposite. "

This is where discussing things with you becomes increasingly frustrating, Rockpond.

If "getting married would 'cure' their homosexuality," then getting married was ipso facto a therapeutic strategy.

Why do you make it so hard?

Except that that is not what the pamphlet suggested. It suggested marriage and family life as the end goal, to be sought after the homosexual had conquered his predelictions, not as a way of overcoming them. That's an important distinction.

In the beginning, Kimball and Peterson made it clear that this was about priesthood discernment, not therapy.  That's why I don't consider it therapeutic.

This is where context is important and why I was so hesitant to just provide you with cherry-picked quotes.  The message of Hope for Transgressors (the "hope" if you will) that is presented is that homosexuality CAN be cured.

You'll note that the teaching of today, that it won't be cured in this life for many and that celibacy is an acceptable option is not present.  Be cured and get married is the teaching.  That was my point in citing that church publication.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

And so do I.

Just not the changes that you and the other "allies" are looking for.

What changes do you predict?  (Sincere question as I'd like to know your thoughts....)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

It was never my contention that they were basing the doctrine on secular knowledge.  That was CV75.

CFR!

This is hilarious (and real big turn-off at the same time!) -- everyone can see that I was saying they were not basing doctrine on secular knowledge, but even more importantly, I was describing another relationship between the two altogether, where they were drawing upon secular knowledge as a tool in supporting the doctrine, both in explaining and teaching  it and in using it to minister.

I got an itchy finger on the Report button LOL CFR!

Edited October 27, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

CFR!

This is hilarious (and real big turn-off at the same time!) -- everyone can see that I was saying they were not basing doctrine on secular knowledge, but even more importantly, I was describing another relationship between the two altogether, where they were drawing upon secular knowledge as a tool in supporting the doctrine, both in explaining and teaching  it and in using it to minister).

My apologies. That's how I understood what you were saying, I wasn't trying to misrepresent.  

[CV75]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

My apologies. That's how I understood what you were saying, I wasn't trying to misrepresent.  

You’ve been drawing upon outdated Church talks, pamphlets and other materials to make a point about changing doctrine. If you look closely at what hasn’t changed in those materials, or in the Church teachings on marriage and relations outside of marriage, that would be the doctrine, or the eternal principles which have not changed. Plenty has changed. The essentials for exaltation have not.

These older materials, and today’s materials, use the best knowledge at the time to support the doctrinal points and aims. I think it important to note that today’s knowledge would be impossible without yesterday’s, and that an investment in the best is requisite to advancing that knowledge. This requires an open mind and in a religious context, a modicum of charity in how we represent those invested in the best knowledge of their day.

As far as what the Church should, or hopefully or could or might change in relation to her use of quality secular knowledge, I think she has demonstrated a pattern of consistency in using the “best books” or the most reliable secular discoveries in teaching and applying the doctrine. I believe that is largely a function of the resources (mental, material, academic, etc.) accessible to her prophets.

As far as what the Church could change in relation to doctrine, note that she isn’t doing the changing; that is entirely the Lord’s call. The wonderful thing about spiritual knowledge is that as we invest in the revealed doctrine with faith, “the eyes of our understanding [are] opened” and we will be blessed with an open mind when it comes to receiving more: “For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith” (D&C 98:12).

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Sorry, that's not the case.

Context matters, Benjamin. And the Context of Miracle (I read it on my mission) is that desires only become sinful when we allow ourselves to entertain them.

See above. In fact, the example Elder Oaks gives is instructive. He compares it to "a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her." This is a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. (Perhaps you've heard of it.) The wording given clearly entails intent.

Matthew 5:

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

Looking isn't just seeing, it's a deliberate choice; and looking "to" have some effect, again, is something the looker chooses to do.

To claim that the Church has ever taught that there can be sin without choice is outrageously and brazenly dishonest. That's why Adam and Eve's transgression in the Garden isn't considered a sin, because they, being innocent, were unable to choose between right and wrong.

To the extent that a homosexual doesn't choose his attractions, he is innocent. To the extent that he acts upon them - whether in deed or in thought - that is the extent to which he sins. This is the doctrine. This has always been the doctrine, and anyone who claims otherwise has lost all credibility.

I just thought you should know.

Thanks for this response, kiwi.

I was going to say essentially these same things in response to Benjamin McGuire's post, but I had other pressing matters on my plate at the time, and frankly, I was growing tired of the debate.

The parallel you identify from Elder Oaks's teaching is instructive. I would put it this way:

There are levels of sexual misconduct (or lack thereof), be it heterosexual or homosexual.

The first level, merely having the attraction but doing nothing with regard to it, carries zero guilt.

The second level, entertaining and indulging in impure thoughts and fantasies, be they heterosexual or homosexual, carries a less-severe degree of guilt (see the Savior's warning in the sermon on the mount).

The third level, committing acts that are contrary to the law of chastity (no sex outside of marriage as God has ordained it, i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) carries the greatest degree of guilt.

By the way, Benjamin's citation of a 1984 discourse by Elder Oaks pushes rockpond's time frame back yet further. Rockpond had at first asserted that 20 years ago, the Church was drawing no distinction between homosexual feelings and homosexual behavior. In response to documentation I provided, he revised that claim to 26 years.

Now, we have this statement Benjamin cites from Elder Oaks made 33 years ago, so rockpond will have to do yet more revision of his timeline.

In that respect, I don't see that Benjamin did rockpond any favor here.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You’ve been drawing upon outdated Church talks, pamphlets and other materials to make a point about changing doctrine. If you look closely at what hasn’t changed in those materials, or in the Church teachings on marriage and relations outside of marriage, that would be the doctrine, or the eternal principles which have not changed. Plenty has changed. The essentials for exaltation have not.

These older materials, and today’s materials, use the best knowledge at the time to support the doctrinal points and aims. I think it important to note that today’s knowledge would be impossible without yesterday’s, and that an investment in the best is requisite to advancing that knowledge. This requires an open mind and in a religious context, a modicum of charity in how we represent those invested in the best knowledge of their day.

As far as what the Church should, or hopefully or could or might change in relation to her use of quality secular knowledge, I think she has demonstrated a pattern of consistency in using the “best books” or the most reliable secular discoveries in teaching and applying the doctrine. I believe that is largely a function of the resources (mental, material, academic, etc.) accessible to her prophets.

As far as what the Church could change in relation to doctrine, note that she isn’t doing the changing; that is entirely the Lord’s call. The wonderful thing about spiritual knowledge is that as we invest in the revealed doctrine with faith, “the eyes of our understanding [are] opened” and we will be blessed with an open mind when it comes to receiving more: “For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith” (D&C 98:12).

You are looking through the lens of hindsight and saying:  that which changed obviously wasn’t doctrine. That may suit your purposes, but at the time it was taught — it was taught as doctrine. 

This is what I suspect will happen with the “doctrine” today... what doesn’t change in the coming decades will be considered doctrine and what dgoes change was obviously just secular knowledge.

Also interesting that teachings of the apostles can become “outdated”.  

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for this response, kiwi.

I was going to say essentially these same things in response to Benjamin McGuire's post, but I had other pressing matters on my plate at the time, and frankly, I was growing tired of the debate.

The parallel you identify from Elder Oaks's teaching is instructive. I would put it this way:

There are levels of sexual misconduct (or lack thereof), be it heterosexual or homosexual.

The first level, merely having the attraction but doing nothing with regard to it, carries zero guilt.

The second level, entertaining and indulging in impure thoughts and fantasies, be they heterosexual or homosexual, carries a less-severe degree of guilt (see the Savior's warning in the sermon on the mount).

The third level, committing acts that are contrary to the law of chastity (no sex outside of marriage as God has ordained it, i.e. marriage between a man and a woman) carries the greatest degree of guilt.

By the way, Benjamin's citation of a 1984 discourse by Elder Oaks pushes rockpond's time frame back yet further. Rockpond had at first asserted that 20 years ago, the Church was drawing no distinction between homosexual feelings and homosexual behavior. In response to documentation I provided, he revised that claim to 26 years.

Now, we have this statement Benjamin cites from Elder Oaks made 33 years ago, so rockpond will have to do yet more revision of his timeline.

In that respect, I don't see that Benjamin did rockpond any favor here.

Note that the older quote by Oaks identifies the attractions as a sin, just not the greater sin.  Likewise with Kimball and Peterson. 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Note that the older quote by Oaks identifies the attractions as a sin, just not the greater sin.  Likewise with Kimball and Peterson. 

No, I quite disagree.

Look again at my three-levels parallel. What they were identifying as sin is not merely having the attraction but entertaining impure thoughts and fantasies in association with it. The same is true with heterosexual attraction.

kiwi quite rightly points out that the concept of sin without choice is damnable heresy. I don’t attribute that to any prophet, past or present. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

17 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Joint statements of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have rather significantly greater authority than pamphlets.

This pamphlet was written under the direction of President Spencer W. Kimball and Elder Mark E. Petersen and was sent out to all of the local leaders as instructions from church leaders.

I suggest that you read through it before you continue making comments about it that are not correct.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329822240/Hope-for-Transgressors

[ALarson]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Note that the older quote by Oaks identifies the attractions as a sin, just not the greater sin.  Likewise with Kimball and Peterson. 

The leaders also defined homosexuality as both the attraction (or "mental state") and the behavior.  So it's difficult to always know which way they were using that word at times.   The leaders are much more clear today regarding only behavior or actions being the sin.

Quote

 

Definitions:

Homosexuality has many forms.  It may be only a mental state without behavior, or it may include complete emotional and sexual genital involvement with a member of the same sex.

https://www.scribd.com/document/329384642/Homosexuality-Welfare-Services-Packet-1-LDS-Victor-Brown

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The leaders also defined homosexuality as both the attraction (or "mental state") and the behavior.  So it's difficult to always know which way they were using that word at times.   The leaders are much more clear today regarding only behavior or actions being the sin.

 

Brown (who, by the way, was not a General Authority but a professional psychologist) does not say in this quote that the “mental state” is sinful. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

I can't seem to post anything that is very long - I have no idea why.

In response to Kiwi earlier, here is the really short version.

I never said or implied that the Church believed that things we do not choose are sinful. What I have repeated is that the Church's view shifted from believing that same-sex attraction was itself a choice (and so sinful) to the view that it wasn't (and so stopped being sinful). That is the change.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Brown (who, by the way, was not a General Authority but a professional psychologist) does not say in this quote that the “mental state” is sinful. 

There is a statement in the front of this document from the first presidency stating that homosexuality is a sin.

Then in the definitions section it states this as the definition for "homosexuality":

Quote

Homosexuality has many forms.  It may be only a mental state without behavior, or it may include complete emotional and sexual genital involvement with a member of the same sex

They clearly defined homosexuality as both the "mental state without behavior" and the actions. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You are looking through the lens of hindsight and saying:  that which changed obviously wasn’t doctrine. That may suit your purposes, but at the time it was taught — it was taught as doctrine. 

This is what I suspect will happen with the “doctrine” today... what doesn’t change in the coming decades will be considered doctrine and what dgoes change was obviously just secular knowledge.

Also interesting that teachings of the apostles can become “outdated”.  

Actually, I am a proponent of the idea that hindsight is not the means for accurately predicting the future but rather for widening our horizons. To use hindsight well is to be educated, well-informed and continually improving, a good thing for the advancement of secular knowledge. You are using it poorly. Just as the present state/stage of secular knowledge on this subject was never inevitable, we have many more possibilities before us than you seem to be able to imagine or admit to; you keep harping on the same eventuality.

You apologize for going off on a tangent with your “misunderstanding” yet you just keep “misunderstanding” don’t you!

You keep conflating secular knowledge with religious principles: understand that I see them not as you do but as separate things that can work well together hand in hand (but obviously not yours). I say that because you keep referring to “teachings,” which conveniently muddies/muddles the distinction. If that is on purpose, shame! on you; if you are in denial, pity! on you; if you misunderstand, onus! on you. Especially since you already admitted it.

I am saying: that which became outdated in the 40-50 year old Church materials you shared, as compared to similar materials today, is the secular aspect as one would expect. This expectation comes not from hindsight but from tangible observation and experience (are you conflating those, too?) as opposed to aspiration, suspicion or an insistence on what is a right. I am saying: that which has not changed in the Church materials are those same eternal principles we find reiterated in the family proclamation from 25 years ago and which are referenced in “Mormon and Gay” and other current materials.

Please give you next response some thought – your simplistic one-liners come across as awfully dissembling.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Note that the older quote by Oaks identifies the attractions as a sin, just not the greater sin.  Likewise with Kimball and Peterson. 

No where in that document ("Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals") does he refer to "attraction" -- he refers to lust, specifically in the quote you provided: "In contrast, condemnations directed at the condition of homosexuality are condemnations of persons who are sinners in thought (like a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her), but not necessarily sinners in deed. Evil thoughts are of course also sinful, but for most purposes we do not consider the evil thinker to be guilty of as grave a sin as the evil doer." And of course the overall context in this document is about what can be legislated. Lust cannot be; acts can be.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There is a statement in the front of this document from the first presidency stating that homosexuality is a sin.

Then in the definitions section it states this as the definition for "homosexuality":

They clearly defined homosexuality as both the "mental state without behavior" and the actions. 

The "mental state" seems to refer to the active contemplation of behaviors, or in this case, lust.

Time to get out your psychology 101 text. Attraction (a term not used in the document) does not fall under mental states of the mind: beliefs and desires; knowledge and thoughts; emotions and moods; perceptions and sensations. Lust does.