Scrutinizing general conference

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

I love how Mormons can change something that was definitely taught as doctrine for 100 years now want to call it "practice or restrictions". I know this is going to happen with the current church policy towards married gay couples as well.  It will get changed and when it does, there will be this same kind of statement saying the the 15 never called it a revelation.  Only Elder Nelson who was speaking for himself and not for the church.  Everyone will nod their heads and continue on like nothing has happened to discredit what the church once  called a revelation.  A revelation defended by the TBM's that were positive this police came from God Himself and to question that means calling Elder Nelson a liar.  The policy will go away eventually.  It contradicts to much of the teachings of Christ in mine and many others opinion.

Eventually, the church's angst against gay marriage will also soften.  Not sure it will ever be practiced in the Mormon Church.  But it will soften as the church decides that it is more moral for gay couples to marry in a committed relationship than to live out of the bonds of marriage.  It will eventually be a moral issue that is more in line with the traditional law of chastity that always forbid sex outside of marriage.

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I love how Mormons can change something that was definitely taught as doctrine for 100 years now want to call it "practice or restrictions". I know this is going to happen with the current church policy towards married gay couples as well.

And how do you "know" this?

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

 It will get changed and when it does, there will be this same kind of statement saying the the 15 never called it a revelation.  Only Elder Nelson who was speaking for himself and not for the church.  Everyone will nod their heads and continue on like nothing has happened to discredit what the church once  called a revelation.  A revelation defended by the TBM's that were positive this police came from God Himself and to question that means calling Elder Nelson a liar.  The policy will go away eventually.  It contradicts to much of the teachings of Christ in mine and many others opinion.

I don't doubt there are those who think the policy "contradicts... the teachings of Christ." I find it interesting that nobody has ever been able to point to an actual teaching of Christ that it contradicts.

I suspect that what it really "contradicts" is a vague, sentimental, wishy-washy mental picture of "Jesus who said to be nice to everybody."

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Eventually, the church's angst against gay marriage will also soften.  Not sure it will ever be practiced in the Mormon Church.  But it will soften as the church decides that it is more moral for gay couples to marry in a committed relationship than to live out of the bonds of marriage.  It will eventually be a moral issue that is more in line with the traditional law of chastity that always forbid sex outside of marriage.

Yes, the Law of Chastity does now and always will proscribe sex outside of valid (not merely legal) marriage.

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

That's right; facts are merely "rationalizations" when they don't serve your agenda.

Edited October 29, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

5 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. 

 

In all my extensive reading on the subject, I find that Number 1 was never mentioned, except as an explanation for Number 2.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

That's right; facts are merely "rationalizations" when they don't serve your agenda.

This is the pot calling the kettle black..

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And how do you "know" this?

I don't doubt there are those who think the policy "contradicts... the teachings of Christ." I find it interesting that nobody has ever been able to point to an actual teaching of Christ that it contradicts.

I suspect that what it really "contradicts" is a vague, sentimental, wishy-washy mental picture of "Jesus who said to be nice to everybody."

Yes, the Law of Chastity does now and always will proscribe sex outside of valid (not merely legal) marriage.

I am just giving my opinion based on past ways the church has dealt with these kinds of issues..  I thought that was clear.  

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am just giving my opinion based on past ways the church has dealt with these kinds of issues..  I thought that was clear.  

I'm not entirely sure that any meaningfully similar issues have arisen in the past.

And you did, after all, say that you knew.

[rockpond]

I’m planning to respond to the other posts directed at me tomorrow when I have more time. But, in a totally unrelated discussion with family members about Tom Christofferson’s new book, I was pointed to an interview he did with LDSLiving.com.  As I read that interview, I came across this quote that relates to our topic:

“Soon afterward, in 1984, Christofferson decided he was unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his membership in the Church, so he asked to be excommunicated. “I had to find out if I could be gay and happy, and I wanted to feel like I had some integrity about my journey. And at that time, if you just identified as gay, that was enough to be excommunicated. And so that’s what happened.”

Bold added by me. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And how do you "know" this?

I don't doubt there are those who think the policy "contradicts... the teachings of Christ." I find it interesting that nobody has ever been able to point to an actual teaching of Christ that it contradicts.

I suspect that what it really "contradicts" is a vague, sentimental, wishy-washy mental picture of "Jesus who said to be nice to everybody."

Yes, the Law of Chastity does now and always will proscribe sex outside of valid (not merely legal) marriage.

Jesus did say to be nice to everybody. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In all my extensive reading on the subject, I find that Number 1 was never mentioned, except as an explanation for Number 2.

Does that make it okay?  Does it make it less false?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m planning to respond to the other posts directed at me tomorrow when I have more time. But, in a totally unrelated discussion with family members about Tom Christofferson’s new book, I was pointed to an interview he did with LDSLiving.com.  As I read that interview, I came across this quote that relates to our topic:

“Soon afterward, in 1984, Christofferson decided he was unable to reconcile his homosexuality with his membership in the Church, so he asked to be excommunicated. “I had to find out if I could be gay and happy, and I wanted to feel like I had some integrity about my journey. And at that time, if you just identified as gay, that was enough to be excommunicated. And so that’s what happened.”

Bold added by me. 

Wasn’t 1984 the year Elder Oaks made that statement, cited earlier in this thread by Benjamin McGuire, in which Elder Oaks drew a clear and unequivocal distinction between orientation and behavior?

So what conclusion are we to draw from this obvious contradiction? 

We could conclude that one or the other is lying. But I’m not willing to conclude that about either Elder Oaks or Tom Christofferson.  

So where does that leave us? Was Elder Oaks mistaken? An apostle making a public statement about the Church’s position on an important matter? I don’t think that conclusion is realistic. 

Was Tom Christofferson mistaken? I think this is more likely. You yourself harbored a mistaken notion about the position the Church held on this matter as recently as 20 years ago, a notion that was proven wrong when Ben McGuire cited a 33-year-old statement from Elder Oaks. I think it quite plausible that such a misconception got ingrained in the gay community and passed along to Tom Christofferson. 

There is another possibility. What exactly does Tom Christofferson mean when he said he wanted to find out if he “could be gay and happy” and to feel he had “some integrity” in his “journey.” Did that mean merely disclosing his identity, or did it contemplate more, such as finding a gay partner and perhaps living with that partner in a sexual relationship (a thing that ultimately did happen)?

If he was wary of excommunication, I’m thinking he had something in mind other than merely declaring his orientation and then resigning himself to a life of celibacy. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Jesus did say to be nice to everybody. 

But not at the cost of violating divine law or commandments. To make that point clear He on one occasion declared He had come to set family members at odds with one another for the sake of building the kingdom of God. 

One could ask: Is it being nice to people to let them think their ungodly inclinations and false philosophies don’t matter and bear no consequences?

Edited October 30, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not entirely sure that any meaningfully similar issues have arisen in the past.

And you did, after all, say that you knew.

Even when you are typing this out, there must be something in the back of your mind acknowledging that what the church once declared to be doctrine coming by revelation from God is now considered "a practice or restriction".  Anyone growing up in the church in the 60's and early 70's knows darn good and well that the church taught it was God that cursed black people and that they would not receive the priesthood until all the sons of Able first received it.  

So yeah. This isn't the first time the church has declared something a revelation that wasn't.  Just because you have amnesia doesn't mean that the entire church does.  We have heard all the arguments over this policy.  But the facts don't support the claim for many.  Can you think of a single revelation from God where only a single church leader called it a revelation and no one else supported that statement?  Just one time?  Is that doctrine still taught?  Heck this policy has less support from church leaders than banning blacks from holding the priesthood because of the color of their skin and now that revelation is called "a practice or restriction".  You are not arguing from a position of much strength.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

I love how Mormons can change something that was definitely taught as doctrine for 100 years now want to call it "practice or restrictions". I know this is going to happen with the current church policy towards married gay couples as well.  It will get changed and when it does, there will be this same kind of statement saying the the 15 never called it a revelation.  Only Elder Nelson who was speaking for himself and not for the church.  Everyone will nod their heads and continue on like nothing has happened to discredit what the church once  called a revelation.  A revelation defended by the TBM's that were positive this police came from God Himself and to question that means calling Elder Nelson a liar.  The policy will go away eventually.  It contradicts to much of the teachings of Christ in mine and many others opinion.

Eventually, the church's angst against gay marriage will also soften.  Not sure it will ever be practiced in the Mormon Church.  But it will soften as the church decides that it is more moral for gay couples to marry in a committed relationship than to live out of the bonds of marriage.  It will eventually be a moral issue that is more in line with the traditional law of chastity that always forbid sex outside of marriage.

Practice and restrictions were certainly taught, but that does not make them doctrine. Doctrine is also taught; what make it doctrine (hint: I provided a link)? This seems to be a common point of confusion.

Other than that, you’re obviously haven’t been following the conversation. Or is it just that you’d rather go off on a tangent about so-called angst “against” ssm? News flash: it already seen is a moral issue in line with the law of chastity.

I'll be happy to engage you in conversation if your next post seems to be in line with the points of discussion covered in the last few pages.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Even when you are typing this out, there must be something in the back of your mind acknowledging that what the church once declared to be doctrine coming by revelation from God is now considered "a practice or restriction".  Anyone growing up in the church in the 60's and early 70's knows darn good and well that the church taught it was God that cursed black people and that they would not receive the priesthood until all the sons of Able first received it.  

This is false. 

I grew up in the Church the ‘50s, ‘60s and early ‘70s. I never heard that “sons of Abel” stuff, much less believed it. The common understanding among my contemporaries in the Church and me was that the restriction would end at some point; we just didn’t know when. 

Furthermore, belief in a “curse” had ceased to be the conventional wisdom among Church members long before 1978. I didn’t accept that notion beyond early childhood. 

Methinks the gentleman doth project too much. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Practice and restrictions were certainly taught, but that does not make them doctrine. Doctrine is also taught; what make it doctrine (hint: I provided a link)? This seems to be a common point of confusion.

 

Other than that, you’re obviously haven’t been following the conversation. Or is it just that you’d rather go off on a tangent about so-called angst “against” ssm? News flash: it already seen is a moral issue in line with the law of chastity.

 

I'll be happy to engage you in conversation if your next post seems to be in line with the points of discussion covered in the last few pages.

And what would the point be of that.  No one wants to change their position do they.  The church definitely told me that I could be cured from being gay.  Is all I had to do was marry a woman.  They promised me in the name of God that my feelings and attractions would disappear over time.  That is a fact.  The promise was made.  But for some reason Mormons want to sweep yet another promise that I and many others were told came from God under the rug and once again claim it never happened.  Do you see a repeating pattern here?  Of course not.  Because you are not the gay member that such a promise was given.  You are not the gay member who trusted that what church leaders were inspired by God.  You were not the gay member that made life changing decisions based on such a promise.  Heck you can't even acknowledge that the church taught as doctrine for over 100 years that if you had a black skin you were cursed and could not hold the priesthood.  If you can't even acknowledge that, then what is the point of talking about the promises made by the church to gay members.  To you, this is just a *** for tat discussion on a Mormon discussion board.  You all know this already.  You all know I am not the only one that such a promise was given.  Yet not a single mind has changed.  

Unless you are willing to acknowledge that this was a common practice by church leaders then what conversation can we possibly have that has some basis of truth?  

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is false. 

I grew up in the Church the ‘50s, ‘60s and early ‘70s. I never heard that “sons of Abel” stuff, much less believed it. The common understanding among my contemporaries in the Church and me was that the restriction would end at some point; we just didn’t know when. 

Furthermore, belief in a “curse” had ceased to be the conventional wisdom among Church members long before 1978. I didn’t accept that notion beyond early childhood. 

Methinks the gentleman doth project too much. 

It is in the revelation for heavens sakes.  Really Scott, where the heck did you think this doctrine came from?  Did you never ask how this doctrine came about?  Did anyone ever tell you what the person who instituted this doctrine under the claim that it came from God said?  

Unbelievable.  If this is true, then are you saying that this is another example of the church whitewashing it's history so that members were left in the dark what the origins and promise actually was?  You are the one blaming others for not knowing the history about some of the other distorted history of the church.  So which way are you going to play this?  Did the church hide this part of the revelation from you or were they open as to where this doctrine came from and what the actual revelation stated?  Because the one thing you can not say is that the promise of WHEN blacks would hold the priesthood is not part of the very revelation that this doctrine is based upon.

Edited October 30, 2017 by california boy

[Hestia]

Any posters who resort to name calling, including implying an active member is actually anti mormon, will be banned from the thread.  This is the only warning. 

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is false. 

I grew up in the Church the ‘50s, ‘60s and early ‘70s. I never heard that “sons of Abel” stuff, much less believed it. The common understanding among my contemporaries in the Church and me was that the restriction would end at some point; we just didn’t know when. 

Furthermore, belief in a “curse” had ceased to be the conventional wisdom among Church members long before 1978. I didn’t accept that notion beyond early childhood. 

Methinks the gentleman doth project too much. 

And just to be clear.  Are you also claiming that you never heard that Cain and his descendants were cursed with a dark skin while you were growing up after your early child hood which I am assuming was in the 50's in the church?

Edited October 30, 2017 by california boy

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Your link doesn't work.

I can distinguish between what is taught and what is used to teach it.  No problem.  I've tried to restrict myself in this discussion to "what is taught".

The reason I brought up past teachings that were incorrect or changed or are now "outdated" (however one wants to describe them) is to show that sometimes even them men we revere as prophets, seers, and revelators get important things wrong.  So, I won't base my testimony on their teachings alone and if I receive personal revelation that contradicts what they have taught or are teaching - that's okay.

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Rockpond,

you accused, in classic anti-Mormon fashion:

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."

If only that really were "all!"

Your response to my point about the Brethren teaching racist doctrine was that they taught the ban would end.  Those "explanations" were taught as doctrine.  Whether or not they were used to explain the ban doesn't change those things having been taught as true.

"The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God."  -- First Presidency statement, 17 Aug 1949

[rockpond]

19 hours 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?

Where in the 1971 Hope for Transgressors did Kimball/Peterson explain that one can live a celibate life as a homosexual and remain in full fellowship in the church?

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

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

Yes... calling them "theories" was a change that happened decades after those teachings were declared as doctrine.  I firmly believe that someday we'll see the (future) Brethren doing the same thing with current teachings regarding homosexuality and marriage (deeming them to have been theories or using the McConkie approach of saying they spake as men without the further light and knowledge).

"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

Sure sounds like doctrine.

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Wasn’t 1984 the year Elder Oaks made that statement, cited earlier in this thread by Benjamin McGuire, in which Elder Oaks drew a clear and unequivocal distinction between orientation and behavior. 

So what conclusion are we to draw from this obvious contradiction? 

We could conclude that one or the other is lying. But I’m not willing to conclude that about either Elder Oaks or Tom Christofferson.  

So where does that leave us? Was Elder Oaks mistaken? An apostle making a public statement about the Church’s position on an important matter? I don’t think that conclusion is realistic. 

Was Tom Christofferson mistaken? I think this is more likely. You yourself harbored a mistaken notion about the position the Church held on this matter as recently as 20 years ago, a notion that was proven wrong when Ben McGuire cited a 33-year-old statement from Elder Oaks. I think it quite plausible that such a misconception got ingrained in the gay community and passed along to Tom Christofferson. 

There is another possibility. What exactly does Tom Christofferson mean when he said he wanted to find out if he “could be gay and happy” and to feel he had “some integrity” in his “journey.” Did that mean merely disclosing his identity, or did it contemplate more, such as finding a gay partner and perhaps living with that partner in a sexual relationship (a thing that ultimately did happen)?

If he was wary of excommunication, I’m thinking he had something in mind other than merely declaring his orientation and then resigning himself to a life of celibacy. 

Elder Oaks also referred to the attraction as sin just not as great a sin as the act.

Regarding the Christofferson quote:  You'll recall that this is exactly what I said would happen.  I noted that if I were to look and find evidence you would dismiss it because it would be one-sided due to the church's confidentiality of disciplinary councils.

[CV75]

On 10/24/2017 at 6:17 PM, rockpond said:

My understanding of the gospel and God’s plan coupled with prayer, pondering, and the Spirit are how I arrived where I have.  ...Christ told me wherein to place my faith.

On 10/28/2017 at 5:49 PM, rockpond said:

...I think current church teachings regarding homosexuality are not in line with the gospel of Christ and the plan of salvation. 

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I won't base my testimony on their teachings alone and if I receive personal revelation that contradicts what they have taught or are teaching - that's okay.

These are the types of statements that I'm most interested in exploring, and you keep not exploring them with me. Given that your own understanding has changed and will continue to change, what is your current understanding of how the Church might change, let's say, paragraphs 4 - 7 in the family proclamation. How would you write them up to better reflect what you've indicated the Lord has led you to believe in?

If you insist on replying to the following reply alone, I'll leave you to partake in whatever california boy's tangent is.

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sure sounds like doctrine.

Please provide a link to the full 1949 First Presidency statement -- assuming that is where your quote from, as you didn't attribute it to anything -- so we can see that it does not refer to the restriction as a doctrine but as part of the “attitude of the Church;” a “direct commandment from the Lord;” and the “position of the Church.” What Brigham Young shared was a statement as to the “the operation of the principle,” referring to the restriction.

The only actual doctrine mentioned in that piece is “that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth.” This applies to anyone born outside of the blessings of any dispensation, for any reason—even those who are born under such circumstances today.