Scrutinizing general conference

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

kiwi, did you read the document that I gave you the link to?  If not, it's difficult to discuss this with you.

If you have read the document, do you believe the teachings in it would be taught by our leaders today?  

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Calling good evil and evil good displays its own manner of self-righteousness.

Good = revealed doctrines and commandments as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ.

Evil = worldly trends and ideologies in conflict with the doctrines and commandments as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 27/10/2017 at 2:39 PM, rockpond said:

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?

I honestly don't understand what you are saying/asking here.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

Sorry... I can’t do anything if you choose to ignore the evidence.  In each case you’ve been content to either disregard it or re-interpret. 

As for homosexual attraction on its own being considered sinful, I never made such a claim.  So you can stop insisting that I prove it. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

We also once had unanimity among the presiding quorums on polygamy and that blacks were cursed. 

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

We also once had unanimity among the presiding quorums on polygamy and that blacks were cursed. 

You know this has been done to death. It was entirely possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint Priesthood holder in good standing with precisely one marriage throughout the entirety of the plural marriage period. This is a glaring unparallel to homosexual behaviour, which has always been doctrinally unacceptable.

As you also know, the former Priesthood ban was always expected to end someday. There was unanimity among the presiding quorums about that point throughout the entire period of the ban, and there was unanimity again in June 1978. Just as there is unanimity among them that "same sex marriage" is doctrinally incoherent.

Rockpond, there is only one way that you will ever belong to a church that practices "same sex marriage," and that is to join one. Because we won't be joining you.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sorry... I can’t do anything if you choose to ignore the evidence.  In each case you’ve been content to either disregard it or re-interpret. 

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. My interpretation was based upon what was said, not upon what you wanted it to mean.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

As for homosexual attraction on its own being considered sinful, I never made such a claim.  So you can stop insisting that I prove it. 

Then what was the point of your monotonously repetitive insistence that the leaders of the Church previously did not distinguish between homosexual activity and homosexual attraction? Given (and it is a given) that actual Church discipline only ever attached to homosexual acts, and not to the state of feeling attracted to members of the same sex, then it is abundantly clear that there was a distinction, because that is a distinction.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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..

At which time - what? The Church will have finally risen to your standard?

Here's the thing, Jeanne: The Lord has already directed "acceptance for all;" and furthermore, the Church practices it.

The "acceptance for all" is on conditions of repentance.

There are some who don't want to repent.

We can't help that.

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

on that day...it will be game, set, and match.

That day is already here.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

kiwi, did you read the document that I gave you the link to?  If not, it's difficult to discuss this with you.

Yes, I've read it.

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

If you have read the document, do you believe the teachings in it would be taught by our leaders today?  

With some minor adjustments, yes.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours 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. 

The "current Church teachings regarding homosexuality" are fundamentally the same as they have always been.

From the "Gospel Topics"  entry "Same-Sex Marriage":

Quote

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

The entry includes this notation at the bottom:

Quote

The above text is drawn from a letter prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to Church leaders in March 2014.

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, not those who would presume to second-guess them, are the entity whose role it is to define what is 'in line with the gospel of Christ and the plan of salvation."

Edited to add:

Here is a passage from another of the "Gospel Topics" entries, the one on "Same-Sex Attraction":

Quote

Sexual purity is an essential part of God’s plan for our happiness. Sexual relations are reserved for a man and woman who are married and promise complete loyalty to each other. Sexual relations between a man and woman who are not married, or between people of the same sex, violate one of our Father in Heaven’s most important laws and get in the way of our eternal progress. People of any sexual orientation who violate the law of chastity can be reconciled with God through repentance. As followers of Christ, we resist immoral behavior and strive to become like Him. We seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the help of the Savior, who knows how to succor us when we are tempted (see 1 Corinthians 10:13; D&C 62:1). If we give in to sexual temptations and violate the law of chastity, we can repent, be forgiven, and participate in full fellowship in the Church.

 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You know this has been done to death. It was entirely possible to be a faithful Latter-day Saint Priesthood holder in good standing with precisely one marriage throughout the entirety of the plural marriage period. This is a glaring unparallel to homosexual behaviour, which has always been doctrinally unacceptable.

As you also know, the former Priesthood ban was always expected to end someday. There was unanimity among the presiding quorums about that point throughout the entire period of the ban, and there was unanimity again in June 1978. Just as there is unanimity among them that "same sex marriage" is doctrinally incoherent.

Rockpond, there is only one way that you will ever belong to a church that practices "same sex marriage," and that is to join one. Because we won't be joining you.

Yes.  Those are the common rationalizations for why the Brethren had to change those church doctrines. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. My interpretation was based upon what was said, not upon what you wanted it to mean.

Then what was the point of your monotonously repetitive insistence that the leaders of the Church previously did not distinguish between homosexual activity and homosexual attraction? Given (and it is a given) that actual Church discipline only ever attached to homosexual acts, and not to the state of feeling attracted to members of the same sex, then it is abundantly clear that there was a distinction, because that is a distinction.

What I’ve repeated is that the Brethren’s teachings have changed over the decades.  The monotonous insistence on the teaching that only behavior was a sin arose from you and Scott intentionally missing the point and harping on the one thing you could. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What I’ve repeated is that the Brethren’s teachings have changed over the decades.  The monotonous insistence on the teaching that only behavior was a sin arose from you and Scott intentionally missing the point and harping on the one thing you could. 

You have yet to own the fact that you said the Church in the past (20 years ago? 26 years ago? 33 years ago?) failed to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior.

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have yet to own the fact that you said the Church in the past (20 years ago? 26 years ago? 33 years ago?) failed to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior.

I have owned that.  Check the record. 

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Those are the common rationalizations for why the Brethren had to change those church doctrines. 

Not rationalizations. Essential and explanatory context.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not rationalizations. Essential and explanatory context.

Dismissing a century of racist doctrine (note I’ve been referring to the teachings about blacks being cursed) by claiming that an associated restriction against full fellowship would someday end, is most certainly a rationalization. 

What would not be a rationalization would be to admit that they were wrong and then corrected the false teachings. 

That’s all I’m suggesting here... that we acknowledge that some of our past teachings on homosexuality were wrong and that we’ve corrected them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Dismissing a century of racist doctrine (note I’ve been referring to the teachings about blacks being cursed) by claiming that an associated restriction against full fellowship would someday end, is most certainly a rationalization. 

What would not be a rationalization would be to admit that they were wrong and then corrected the false teachings. 

That’s all I’m suggesting here... that we acknowledge that some of our past teachings on homosexuality were wrong and that we’ve corrected them. 

That there had been promises from past Church presidents “that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all ... who are worthy may receive the priesthood” (OD 2) is essential context that is too often neglected or ignored. 

By contrast, there has been no promise made that homosexual relations will one day be regarded and accepted by the Lord or His servants as marriage. Just the opposite has been repeatedly stated, in fact. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That there had been promises from past Church presidents “that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all ... who are worthy may receive the priesthood” (OD 2) is essential context that is too often neglected or ignored. 

By contrast, there has been no such promise made that homosexual relations will one day be regarded and accepted by the Lord or His servants as marriage. Just the opposite has been repeatedly stated, in fact. 

There are two aspects of racial doctrine in our church:

1.  That blacks were cursed because of a lack of valiancy and/or because they descended from Cain. 

2.  The denial of full fellowship in the church based on race. 

Number 2 was often projected to end (the originator of the ban prophesied a millennial timeframe, those closer to 1978 projected it would end at some time).

Number 1 is what I am referring to... something prophets and apostles taught as doctrine for over a century. 

 

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Sorry... I can’t do anything if you choose to ignore the evidence.  In each case you’ve been content to either disregard it or re-interpret. 

As for homosexual attraction on its own being considered sinful, I never made such a claim.  So you can stop insisting that I prove it. 

Rock, I acknowledge that you are not alone in your interpretation of the past writings. Please do not make the mistake of claiming that your perspective is the only correct one. I'm not dismissing your personal study and prayer. But please don't dismiss mine, either. With all due respect, I think I have you beat in terms of both personal involvement and sheer time. 

Not that my conclusions are more correct. But I am certainly not disregarding or blithely re-interpreting. 

I have taken each other quotes and documents that you cite and shown how they really aren't that far removed from current teachings. The wording of the past would be woefully inadequate today. So, yes, thankfully the wording has changed to better fit popular understanding.

Edited October 29, 2017 by kllindley

[kllindley]

21 hours ago, ALarson said:

kiwi, did you read the document that I gave you the link to?  If not, it's difficult to discuss this with you.

If you have read the document, do you believe the teachings in it would be taught by our leaders today?  

I feel like our other conversation was cut short. 

I will register my opinion that the teachings from the documents you have posted are consistent with present teachings. I accept that such a conclusion requires some assumptions about the true intent and meaning behind those writings that not everyone is comfortable accepting. 

[CV75]

On 10/28/2017 at 12:12 PM, 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.

Attraction is simply not a mental state whatever your "presentistic" opinion, but perhaps more germane to the discussion is that 50 years ago, only lust and behavior were being addressed as morally problematic. The concept of attraction was not parsed out with the granularity that it is today, but in a practical sense I think bishops would know the difference. I don't think a person would be inclined to even bring it up until it evolved into a problem with lust or behavior. Even today. But in a highly sexualized society, attraction may be imagined to be a problem sooner than it was decades ago. Just like kids erroneously concluding that being exposed to porn turns them into a pervert.

On 10/28/2017 at 12:29 PM, rockpond said:

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. 

I too think “doctrine” is “what is taught.” But while identifying what is actually taught is sometimes misunderstood and controversial, this can be resolved for conversational purposes with a mutual agreement on the semantics: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine. But you are not even distinguishing between what is taught and what is used to teach it, and labeling them both “what is taught.” That is only helpful when the only way to argue a point is to confuse important concepts and terms.

Last week (Tuesday) you said that your feelings on this subject came from Christ, and that there is no great leap between that and what is being taught. I don’t think anyone can rightly argue against feelings derived from prayer, pondering and the Spirit and feeling led by Christ to place your faith in your conclusions. But when you emphasize the change from outdated teachings (rather, what is used to teach it) to prove your point, that is a great leap: one, because it takes a great leap to call the tools of teaching (and ministering) the doctrine that is taught and applied, and two, to call a diametrically opposed doctrinal point harmonious and compatible.

Edited October 29, 2017 by CV75

[kiwi57]

Rockpond,

you accused, in classic anti-Mormon fashion:

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

Dismissing a century of racist doctrine (note I’ve been referring to the teachings about blacks being cursed) by claiming that an associated restriction against full fellowship would someday end, is most certainly a rationalization. 

Really? Who has been "dismissing a century of racist doctrine?" When? Where can I read said dismissal?

I have argued that the Priesthood ban was always expected to end. As you know, what you are pleased to call "a century of racist doctrine" was nothing more or less than the various explanations that were given for the ban. The "racist doctrine" was inextricably tied to the ban. Are you attempting to deny that fact?

The point of my post was not to "dismiss" anything, but to point out the undeniably true fact that the Priesthood ban was always expected to end, and therefore that is not parallel to the doctrinal impossibility of "same sex marriage."

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

What would not be a rationalization would be to admit that they were wrong and then corrected the false teachings. 

That’s all I’m suggesting here... that we acknowledge that some of our past teachings on homosexuality were wrong and that we’ve corrected them. 

If only that really were "all!"

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

What I’ve repeated is that the Brethren’s teachings have changed over the decades.  The monotonous insistence on the teaching that only behavior was a sin arose from you and Scott intentionally missing the point and harping on the one thing you could. 

Intentionally missing the point?

Who was it, Rockpond, who claimed in post after post after post after post that the leaders of the Church previously did not distinguish between homosexual activity and homosexual attraction?

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Intentionally missing the point?

Who was it, Rockpond, who claimed in post after post after post after post that the leaders of the Church previously did not distinguish between homosexual activity and homosexual attraction?

Lest they be forgotten, here are a couple of specimens:

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."

And

Quote

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

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

There are two aspects of racial doctrine in our church:

1.  That blacks were cursed because of a lack of valiancy and/or because they descended from Cain. 

2.  The denial of full fellowship in the church based on race. 

Number 2 was often projected to end (the originator of the ban prophesied a millennial timeframe, those closer to 1978 projected it would end at some time).

Number 1 is what I am referring to... something prophets and apostles taught as doctrine for over a century. 

 

Responsible and reliable scholarship refers to the ban not as a doctrine but a practice or restriction, and that theories, not doctrines were advanced to explain the restrictions. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Here again we see similar conflation, this time on two points: conflation of practice and doctrine, and conflation of doctrine and theory. This allows confusion because “what was taught” as practice and supporting theories, with the practice being the ministering tool for the theories. One, we do not know the precise doctrinal nor administrative origin of the practices; and two, we know the cultural origin and context of the theories. The theories have been disavowed. The practice has been changed. The doctrine has been in place, unchanged, let’s say since 1830-31 (D&C 20, 27 and 68; or if you want to be very literal and specific about it, D&C 121).

But we do not see this kind of relationship issues between practice and doctrine, doctrine and theory, and what was taught with what was used to teach with this topic. One key indicator for that is that Mormon and Gay, for example, disavows no theories of the past.