Scrutinizing general conference

[kiwi57]

18 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. 

And I'm sure that that is how he genuinely perceived things at that time.

The fact that he was wrong doesn't change the fact that he perceived things that way.

Nor does the fact that he perceived things that way change the fact that he was wrong.

As a matter of interest, when was this interview done?

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is the "Hummmm" an indication that you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming so as to ignore what I said? Because your response does not address it.
 

I submit that you don't know nearly enough about the procedures by which Church presidents and apostles have received and implemented revelations over the years to say with any competence whether or not it has happened like this in the history of the Church.

Nice to know that the great Scott Lloyd knows more about what I know than I do.  You are amazing.  

 

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have serious doubts that things happened in the way you describe here, it wold not make one iota of difference to your receptiveness to it.

Did you miss the part where I said "I really don't care?"

 

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And by the way, children are not forbidden from baptism under this policy; their baptism is delayed until they are in a better position to receive it -- just like children in households where polygamy prevails. But you don't seem to care about those children, just as smac97 has pointed out.

Yeah no problem at all right?  No one is having issues with denying baptism to children.  Heck why baptize anyone?  Seriously?  They will all get baptized at some point.  If it doesn't make any difference waiting until 18, then it really doesn't make any difference waiting until they are 50 or 80 or dead.  And what makes you think I was ONLY talking about children of gay couples?  

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How would the doctrines laid forth in the family proclamation need to change to match my understanding?

That’s easy... just remove the gender specific references. 

So what you're saying is that all you need to do is accept the gender specific references and then you'd be fine with the Proclamation?

That sounds easy too.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And I'm sure that that is how he genuinely perceived things at that time.

The fact that he was wrong doesn't change the fact that he perceived things that way.

Nor does the fact that he perceived things that way change the fact that he was wrong.

As a matter of interest, when was this interview done?

It has not been established that Christofferson was wrong. 

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Nice to know that the great Scott Lloyd knows more about what I know than I do.  You are amazing.  

 

Did you miss the part where I said "I really don't care?"

 

Yeah no problem at all right?  No one is having issues with denying baptism to children.  Heck why baptize anyone?  Seriously?  They will all get baptized at some point.  If it doesn't make any difference waiting until 18, then it really doesn't make any difference waiting until they are 50 or 80 or dead.  And what makes you think I was ONLY talking about children of gay couples?  

Now California Boy, you know that's not what anyone is saying.

Let's try a thought experiment: would you rather the policy was that children being raised by a same-sex couple could be blessed as babies, baptised and confirmed when eight years old, and the boys could be ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood at the appropriate ages? Keep in mind that, without a single word being said about it, both members of that same-sex couple would be prohibited from standing in the circle, or performing the baptism, or being the witnesses, or participating in the Priesthood ordinations, simply by virtue of the way they have chosen to live. The children in question would see their friends' fathers participating in those events, but their own fathers could not.

Would that be less "discriminatory" in your mind?

Or would you, rather, be just as energetically complaining about it?

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

So what you're saying is that all you need to do is accept the gender specific references and then you'd be fine with the Proclamation?

That sounds easy too.

No, not easy. 

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It has not been established that Christofferson was wrong. 

Well, he was.

[kiwi57]

Just now, rockpond said:

No, not easy. 

So in your mind, it's easier for the Lord to change to suit you than for you to change to suit the Lord?

Okay.

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Now California Boy, you know that's not what anyone is saying.

Let's try a thought experiment: would you rather the policy was that children being raised by a same-sex couple could be blessed as babies, baptised and confirmed when eight years old, and the boys could be ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood at the appropriate ages? Keep in mind that, without a single word being said about it, both members of that same-sex couple would be prohibited from standing in the circle, or performing the baptism, or being the witnesses, or participating in the Priesthood ordinations, simply by virtue of the way they have chosen to live. The children in question would see their friends' fathers participating in those events, but their own fathers could not.

Would that be less "discriminatory" in your mind?

Or would you, rather, be just as energetically complaining about it?

Of course that would be a reasonable way to treat any child of non members.  The issue has always been punishing a child for the sins of the parents.  If ANY parents are supportive of their child being baptize, then it should be allowed. It should not make one bit if difference if the parents are gay, polygamists unmarried, or Lutheran or anything else you can think of. Discriminating against some children because of who their parents are is WRONG.  imo.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

It was my opinion and of course...after over 40 years in the church, I am still learning to think for myself.  Rockpond clarified for me.  (Thank you Rockpond) My comment was a broad view have what happened.  If this was ever a revelation, it should have never happened this way...and to blame it on leaks is just redic.  You do know that it is cruel to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about..????

P.S.  I have never ever claimed to know everything..some people do

Edited October 31, 2017 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Well, he was.

You can believe that but it’s just an opinion.  Neither of us has any facts to say whether or not people were being excommunicated for being homosexual during that time frame. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So in your mind, it's easier for the Lord to change to suit you than for you to change to suit the Lord?

Okay.

That’s not at all what I said.  Please don’t put words in my mouth. 

[kiwi57]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You can believe that but it’s just an opinion.  Neither of us has any facts to say whether or not people were being excommunicated for being homosexual during that time frame. 

It is established and settled LDS doctrine and practice that sin consists in people giving in to temptation, not to how they are tempted; and that Church discipline always and only attaches to sin.

Therefore, if you are asserting that something different did happen, then the burden of proof rests with you.

If you aren't, then there's no issue.

But if you're trying to have a bob each way, then maybe you need to make up your mind.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It was my opinion and of course...after over 40 years in the church, I am still learning to think for myself.  Rockpond clarified for me.  (Thank you Rockpond) My comment was a broad view have what happened.  If this was ever a revelation, it should have never happened this way...and to blame it on leaks is just redic.  You do know that it is cruel to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about..????

P.S.  I have never ever claimed to know everything..some people do

Jeanne,

you really need to stop routinely weaponising your feelings. It isn't "cruel to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about." It may, at most, be impolite; it might or might not be accurate. But it is certainly not "cruel."

Please note that your statement to which Scott responded:

"I don't think anyone was more surprised than the first presidency and apostles heard that this was a revelation....at a fireside."

Appears to be based upon assumptions rather than facts; and the underlying assumptions do not seem to resemble the way in which the presiding quorums are known to operate.

Rather, I humbly suggest that it represents a kind of wishful thinking, in which those of a certain disposition want to believe that the Proclamation is uninspired, and so they are developing a narrative to support that wish.

Edited October 31, 2017 by kiwi57

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

It is established and settled LDS doctrine and practice that sin consists in people giving in to temptation, not to how they are tempted; and that Church discipline always and only attaches to sin.

Therefore, if you are asserting that something different did happen, then the burden of proof rests with you.

If you aren't, then there's no issue.

But if you're trying to have a bob each way, then maybe you need to make up your mind.

Incorrect.

The clarity of that teaching is well established today.  Given the official teachings that have been presented here, there is not enough data for you or I to make any conclusion as to what local leaders were doing decades ago. 

You are making a claim about criteria for disciplinary councils when Christofferson was a young man.  So, the burden rests on you to support that claim.  

[kiwi57]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Incorrect.

The clarity of that teaching is well established today.  Given the official teachings that have been presented here, there is not enough data for you or I to make any conclusion as to what local leaders were doing decades ago. 

You are making a claim about criteria for disciplinary councils when Christofferson was a young man.  So, the burden rests on you to support that claim.  

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

I won't appeal to my years of experience in the Church, because neither you nor anyone else has any way of checking that. But you know that that is the doctrine and practice today; it is up to you to show that it was ever otherwise.

The notion that Mormon orthopraxy is in a constant state of flux is, to put it mildly, wildly overdrawn.

However popular it may be in some circles.

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Wrong. But thanks for playing.

I won't appeal to my years of experience in the Church, because neither you nor anyone else has any way of checking that. But you know that that is the doctrine and practice today; it is up to you to show that it was ever otherwise.

The notion that Mormon orthopraxy is in a constant state of flux is, to put it mildly, wildly overdrawn.

However popular it may be in some circles.

 

Funny. 

I provided a data point with Tom Christofferson that speaks to disciplinary councils.  But, I have made NO claim regarding disciplinary councils... my position is that we don’t know.

You, on the other hand, made the claim that Christofferson is wrong — CFR. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

It has not been established that Christofferson was wrong. 

It has been established that Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who is in an authoritative position to know such things, contradicted him in a statement given in the very year that he referenced in the quotation. 

I’ve not seen you make any effort to address that contradiction. If you don’t believe Tom Christofferson was wrong in his assumption, what is your explanation? 

I’ve given you a plausible analysis of my own, which you appear to have rejected out of hand without even endeavoring to deal with it on its merits. 

If it’s true that back in ‘84, merely disclosing one’s homosexual orientation was enough to get him excommunicated from the Church, there ought to be at least one or two illustrative examples. Yet we’ve seen nary a one. And it has been several days now since kiwi issued his challenge. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Jeanne,

you really need to stop routinely weaponising your feelings. It isn't "cruel to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about." It may, at most, be impolite; it might or might not be accurate. But it is certainly not "cruel."

Please note that your statement to which Scott responded:

"I don't think anyone was more surprised than the first presidency and apostles heard that this was a revelation....at a fireside."

Appears to be based upon assumptions rather than facts; and the underlying assumptions do not seem to resemble the way in which the presiding quorums are known to operate.

Rather, I humbly suggest that it represents a kind of wishful thinking, in which those of a certain disposition want to believe that the Proclamation is uninspired, and so they are developing a narrative to support that wish.

I apologize for speaking (or rather, writing) so harshly and abruptly to Jeanne. But the remark to which I was responding has the effect of defaming a good and decent man, one I know personally and regard highly, and appears to be based on assumed knowledge she could not possibly possess. 

When I see my friends attacked in public I am inclined to defend them. It’s one of my quirks. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has been established that Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who is in an authoritative position to know such things, contradicted him in the very year that he referenced in the quotation. 

I’ve not seen you make any effort to address that contradiction. If you don’t believe Tom Christofferson was wrong in his assumption, what is your explanation? 

I’ve given you a plausible analysis of my own, which you appear to have rejected out of hand without even endeavoring to deal with it on its merits. 

Are we talking about the quote in which Oaks states that the feelings are a sin but a lesser sin than the acts?

Where in the quote does he talk about disciplinary council procedures?

Where in the quote does he provide a reference to the handbook at that time which should have instructed local priesthood leaders regarding the difference between sexual orientation and behavior?

Where in the quote does Oaks state that priesthood leaders at the time did not excommunicate, disfellowship, or place on probation members who had a homosexual orientation but didn’t “act on it”?

Where in the quote does he speak to how local priesthood leaders were instructed on the changes or clarifications since Hope for Transgressors and To The One were the preeminent instructive documents regarding homosexuality for the church?

You are making some massive assumptions from a single Oaks quote. And if you are going to claim that Christofferson is wrong, I issue the same CFR to you. 

[rockpond]

I’ll add that the 2010 Handbook I was given when called to serve as a bishop’s counselor in 2012 named “homosexual relations” as a reason for a disciplinary council with no explanation of what “homosexual relations” means.  Adultery and fornication were listed ahead of homosexual relations indicating that it is apparently in addition to the sin of sexual intercourse with someone you are not married to. 

This section on church discipline does not instruct leaders that they should refrain from disciplining someone who is homosexual but does not act on it. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Are we talking about the quote in which Oaks states that the feelings are a sin but a lesser sin than the acts?

Where in the quote does he talk about disciplinary council procedures?

Where in the quote does he provide a reference to the handbook at that time which should have instructed local priesthood leaders regarding the difference between sexual orientation and behavior?

Where in the quote does Oaks state that priesthood leaders at the time did not excommunicate, disfellowship, or place on probation members who had a homosexual orientation but didn’t “act on it”?

Where in the quote does he speak to how local priesthood leaders were instructed on the changes or clarifications since Hope for Transgressors and To The One were the preeminent instructive documents regarding homosexuality for the church?

You are making some massive assumptions from a single Oaks quote. And if you are going to claim that Christofferson is wrong, I issue the same CFR to you. 

I submit that the burden of proof is on you to show that people were routinely being excommunicated for disclosing their homosexual orientation whether or not they were acting on it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’ll add that the 2010 Handbook I was given when called to serve as a bishop’s counselor in 2012 named “homosexual relations” as a reason for a disciplinary council with no explanation of what “homosexual relations” means.  Adultery and fornication were listed ahead of homosexual relations indicating that it is apparently in addition to the sin of sexual intercourse with someone you are not married to. 

This section on church discipline does not instruct leaders that they should refrain from disciplining someone who is homosexual but does not act on it. 

 

It doesn’t explicitly instruct leaders to refrain from disciplining people for getting a parking ticket either, but leaders could be expected to be sensible enough to make that assumption. 

And I don’t see how any reasonable individual could not conclude that “homosexual relations” means “acting on it.” The very word “relations” by definition involves two or more parties. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I submit that the burden of proof is on you to show that people were routinely being excommunicated for disclosing their homosexual orientation whether or not they were acting on it. 

Why would that burden of proof be on me when I made no such claim.   CFR that I ever claimed that people were routinely being excommunicated for disclosing their homosexual orientation whether or not they were acting on it.

And since I know you can’t provide such a reference, kindly retract. 

If you are claiming that Christofferson is wrong, then you need to back up that claim with evidence regarding disciplinary councils. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It doesn’t explicitly instruct leaders to refrain from disciplining people for getting a parking ticket either, but leaders could be expected to be ssnsible enough to make that assumption. 

And I don’t see how any reasonable individual could not conclude that “homosexual relations” means “acting on it.” The very word “relations” by definition involves two or more parties. 

Yes, but the definition doesn’t require any form of intimacy either.