Scrutinizing general conference

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

Do you have a citation for same-sex attraction being a choice? I think the term began to be used fairly recently to help people distinguish attraction (which is not a mental state that is intentional) from lust (which is intentional). Such a mental state and as such is sinful (by degree of course).

Edited October 28, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

51 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.

I don't think you really understand what a mental state is or entails. The leaders did, even that long ago!

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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

"Seems to refer"?  You have no way of knowing that and what is stated is clear.  Lust is not mentioned. 

 

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

No, but what they did state as one definition for homosexuality is  "a mental state without behavior".  Nothing about lust or acting on their feelings or attractions.  The words  "without behavior" makes that very clear.

I'm not sure why you and others are fighting against how the term "homosexuality" used to be used or defined by the leaders as both the mental state ("without behavior") as well as the acting on or behavior of that mental state (or attraction).

This is a good change, but still a change.

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No where in that document ("Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals") does he refer to "attraction" -- 

Perfect. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't think you really understand what a mental state is or entails. 

What is attraction?  Does it involve "a mental state"?  I know my attraction to my wife does and it's not just a physical attraction, but a mental and emotional one as well.  I'd imagine it's the same for someone who is gay.

"A mental state without behavior" is a statement about attractions, IMO.

You're parsing words here and it's getting to be ridiculous.  Just admit that teachings from our leaders have changed regarding homosexuality.  I'm not sure why you believe that's a bad thing.  It's progress and very positive that much of the past teachings are no longer taught.

Edited October 28, 2017 by ALarson

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I prefer my simple answers because, for me, the gospel doesn’t require the mental gymnastics you seem to have to use. 

To your points:

1.  Secular knowledge:  This is something you brought into the discussion as a means of dismissing teachings from our leaders which have since changed.  I’ve only been referring to church doctrine (which I define as officially published teachings from church leaders).

2.  Why do I use the term “teachings”?  It isn’t to muddy the waters, it is actually my attempt to be clear since doctrine is defined so differently by people on these boards. 

3.  I’m not sure what you are referring to me conflating or misunderstanding. 

[rockpond]

3 hours 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).

I know I responded to this already but I wanted to point out where we have found common ground. 

You agreed that “plenty has changed”.  That was the basis of my point from many pages ago.

And I totally support your last three paragraphs.  That’s consistent with my thinking and beliefs as well. 

I think where you and I seem to differ is what constitutes doctrine and secular knowledge. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I prefer my simple answers because, for me, the gospel doesn’t require the mental gymnastics you seem to have to use. 

Great statement.  Why not just accept past statements on face value (such as the "mental state without behavior" part of the definition for homosexuality) instead of going through all of the contortions and twists necessary to change the clear meaning (or speculating about what the leaders must have meant but didn't state).  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I think rockpond’s initial claim was that the Church leaders in the past did not distinguish between attraction and behavior.  I remain unconvinced of that claim. 

Incidentally, I think the reason you are having trouble posting is that you are using some combination of words the system doesn’t like for some reason and is kicking out your whole post because of them. That has happened to me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

What is attraction?  Does it involve "a mental state"?  I know my attraction to my wife does and it's not just a physical attraction, but a mental and emotional one as well.  I'd imagine it's the same for someone who is gay.

"A mental state without behavior" is a statement about attractions, IMO.

You're parsing words here and it's getting to be ridiculous.  Just admit that teachings from our leaders have changed regarding homosexuality.  I'm not sure why you believe that's a bad thing.  It's progress and very positive that much of the past teachings are no longer taught.

Assuming arguendo that Church leaders in the past erroneously believed that homosexual attraction was a choice, the underlying principle has not changed: People are accountable for choices they make, not for what they didn’t choose. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Great statement.  Why not just accept past statements on face value (such as the "mental state without behavior" part of the definition for homosexuality) instead of going through all of the contortions and twists necessary to change the clear meaning (or speculating about what the leaders must have meant but didn't state).  

To do what you demand would be to accept that in the past admitting one had homosexual attraction would get him in just as much trouble with the Church as would indulging in homosexual behavior. I’ve seen no indication of that, and the very idea is absurd. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To do what you demand would be to accept that in the past admitting one had homosexual attraction would get him in just as much trouble with the Church as would indulging in homosexual behavior.

That's not true and I've seen no one claim this.  If someone has stated that (and I missed the post), I would disagree with them.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not true and I've seen no one claim this.  If someone has stated that (and I missed the post), I would disagree with them.

rockpond claimed that the Church (he said 20 years ago, but, as is obvious now, he was grossly mistaken on the time frame at least) did not distinguish between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior. kiwi challenged him on that assertion, and he was never able to come up with an unambiguous statement from a Church leader to that effect.

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

rockpond claimed that the Church (he said 20 years ago, but, as is obvious now, he was grossly mistaken on the time frame at least) did not distinguish between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior. kiwi challenged him on that assertion, and he was never able to come up with an unambiguous statement from a Church leader to that effect.

Saying that in the past, they did not make the same distinction as they currently do (and instead spoke of choice and cure) is not the same as saying that church discipline was the same for orientation vs behavior. 

As I mentioned earlier, could we place the Hope For Transgressors document on LDS.org today (with no disclaimer) and have it fit with our current teachings on homosexuality?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Saying that in the past, they did not make the same distinction as they currently do (and instead spoke of choice and cure) is not the same as saying that church discipline was the same for orientation vs behavior. 

As I mentioned earlier, could we place the Hope For Transgressors document on LDS.org today (with no disclaimer) and have it fit with our current teachings on homosexuality?

What was the discipline (if any) for "orientation" with no behavior?

To put it another way, suppose someone back then approached his bishop to disclose that he had feelings of sexual attraction for the same sex, that he did not want them, that he had not acted on them in any way, and that he wanted help in overcoming them. Are you saying the bishop would have initiated discipline against him? What would have been the nature of the discipline?

 

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Assuming arguendo that Church leaders in the past erroneously believed that homosexual attraction was a choice, the underlying principle has not changed: People are accountable for choices they make, not for what they didn’t choose. 

Of course.  But that does not change the fact that the teachings have changed regarding it being a choice to be gay or that being gay is a disease (or malady) or that it can be cured.  

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Saying that in the past, they did not make the same distinction as they currently do (and instead spoke of choice and cure) is not the same as saying that church discipline was the same for orientation vs behavior. 

Exactly.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As I mentioned earlier, could we place the Hope For Transgressors document on LDS.org today (with no disclaimer) and have it fit with our current teachings on homosexuality?

Definitely not.  If anyone doubts that teachings have changed, they just need to read through that document.  There is no way it still represents the teachings from our current leaders.

Edited October 28, 2017 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What was the discipline (if any) for "orientation" with no behavior?

To put it another way, suppose someone back then approached his bishop to disclose that he had feelings of sexual attraction for the same sex, that he did not want them, that he had not acted on them in any way, and that he wanted help in overcoming them. Are you saying the bishop would have initiated discipline against him? What would have been the nature of the discipline?

 

No. 

[kiwi57]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No. 

In which case, the brethren did, in every meaningful way, distinguish between homosexual attraction and homosexual behaviour.

Game, set and match. Thank you linemen, thank you ball-boys.

[kiwi57]

On 10/28/2017 at 10:19 AM, 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.

Really?

So are you saying that the Church is out of the way while you yourself are righteous?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

In which case, the brethren did, in every meaningful way, distinguish between homosexual attraction and homosexual behaviour.

Game, set and match. Thank you linemen, thank you ball-boys.

Cute. But no, that’s a false conclusion. We’ve already shown several ways in which previous teachings differed dramatically. 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Really?

So are you saying that the Church is out of the way while you yourself are righteous?

I have my fair share of mistakes. But I think current church teachings regarding homosexuality are not in line with the gospel of Christ and the plan of salvation. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by rockpond

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Cute. But no, that’s a false conclusion. We’ve already shown several ways in which previous teachings differed dramatically. 

No you haven't. The most you could legitimately say is that certain things weren't spelled out as clearly as they are now.

If you want to claim that drilling down to a more precise level of detail is a "change," then I'll let you.

But every attempt you've made to show that homosexual attraction simpliciter was ever considered sinful has fallen short.

Sorry.

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have my fair share of mistakes. But I think current church teachings regarding homosexuality are not in line with the gospel of Christ and the plan of salvation. 

You are entitled to your view. I, OTOH, think that current worldly teachings regarding homosexuality - as espoused by you - are not in line with the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation; while the Church's position is the only doctrinally coherent one possible.

The unanimity of the presiding quorums on this question, whose authority is known to and sustained by the body of the Church, lets me know that those who are out of harmony with them are out of harmony with the Church.

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Really?

So are you saying that the Church is out of the way while you yourself are righteous?

Kiwi...you might want to tell the linemen and the ball boys that self righteousness doesn't make for good sportsmanship.  Granted, the church is a righteous church (as are many others)..but you seem to reflect the very image that you condemn.  Perhaps someday...the Lord will find a way to direct acceptance for all..on that day...it will be game, set, and match.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Jeanne