Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2017 Author Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: 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. If you agree with Tom Christofferson that merely disclosing one’s homosexual orientation was enough in 1984 to get one excommunicated even without acting on it, then it must have happened routinely. Yet you’ve been unable to cite even one case. And I remind you of your claim several pages ago that the Church as recently as 20 years ago did not distinguish between orientation and behavior. The 1984 Elder Oaks quote contradicts that. Edited October 31, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you agree with Tom Christofferson that merely disclosing one’s homosexual orientation was enough in 1984 to get one excommunicated even without acting on it, then it must have happened routinely. Yet you’ve been unable to cite even one case. And I remind you of your claim several pages ago that the Church as recently as 20 years ago did not distinguish between orientation and behavior. The 1984 Elder Oaks quote contradicts that. I only posted the quote. You dismissed it. If you think he is wrong, than provide a reference. I retracted my 20 year statement.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2017 Author Posted October 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, but the definition doesn’t require any form of intimacy either. You’re being absurdly coy. Every reasonable person knows what “homosexual relations” means. Suppose I were to claim that “sexual relations” doesn’t mean any form of intimacy. Could I expect to be taken seriously? 1
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re being absurdly coy. Every reasonable person knows what “homosexual relations” means. Suppose I were to claim that “sexual relations” doesn’t mean any form of intimacy. Could I expect to be taken seriously? I’m just trying to counter your absurd assumptions on this thread. Could a priesthood leader reasonably interpret “homosexual relations” to mean a member going on a date with someone of the same sex? Also, what did Handbook 1 say about homosexuality prior to the 2010 revision? Edited October 31, 2017 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2017 Author Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: I only posted the quote. You dismissed it. If you think he is wrong, than provide a reference. I retracted my 20 year statement. You posted the quote ostensibly to bolster your claim. I have a good reason why I think his assumption is wrong. I stand by it.
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You posted the quote ostensibly to bolster your claim. I have a good reason why I think his assumption is wrong. I stand by it. I thought the quote was interesting given our conversation but I have made no claim regarding disciplinary councils. I have no reason to believe that Chrisofferson is wrong in his recollection. I guess we’ll have to wait for Kiwi to answer the CFR. Have a good night.
CV75 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 18 hours 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. When you say that, are you differentiating between sex (reproductive anatomy and other sex characteristics; i.e. male and female) and gender (sex-based social role, or one's personal identity; i.e. masculinity and femininity)? Or are they the same to you?
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, CV75 said: When you say that, are you differentiating between sex (reproductive anatomy and other sex characteristics; i.e. male and female) and gender (sex-based social role, or one's personal identity; i.e. masculinity and femininity)? Or are they the same to you? I'm referring to the words: male, female, man, woman, husband, wife in the proclamation. In some parts you could just strike them from the document in other parts you'd want to replace them with a term like "spouse".
rongo Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm referring to the words: male, female, man, woman, husband, wife in the proclamation. In some parts you could just strike them from the document in other parts you'd want to replace them with a term like "spouse". I haven't kept up on this thread and just saw this, but eliminating all gendered nouns altogether from the PotF and replacing them in places with "spouse" would destroy the document and its intent. The whole point of it is establishing the doctrine that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." And that there are unique gender roles for males and females. To eliminate that and simply make it a document espousing (pun intended) mutual helping of each other in duties makes it a completely different thing altogether. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here (again, I haven't read this for a while). 3
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, rongo said: I haven't kept up on this thread and just saw this, but eliminating all gendered nouns altogether from the PotF and replacing them in places with "spouse" would destroy the document and its intent. The whole point of it is establishing the doctrine that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." And that there are unique gender roles for males and females. To eliminate that and simply make it a document espousing (pun intended) mutual helping of each other in duties makes it a completely different thing altogether. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here (again, I haven't read this for a while). CV75 kept asking me how I would rewrite the Proclamation. If you read our entire interaction (which I wouldn't expect) you would note that I expressed my unwillingness but I finally responded to him with that. For me, I just don't see the Proclamation as necessary so rewriting is not something that I find useful. Nor, do I see it as my place to suggest how it should be rewritten.
rongo Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 It's the only place where it states that gender is eternal. Would you want to eliminate that because you don't agree with it (don't think it's true)? I suppose if I were in your shoes, I would argue that something that fundamental should be in canonized scriptures and not have its only instance be in a 1995 non-canonized document . . .
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, rongo said: It's the only place where it states that gender is eternal. Would you want to eliminate that because you don't agree with it (don't think it's true)? I suppose if I were in your shoes, I would argue that something that fundamental should be in canonized scriptures and not have its only instance be in a 1995 non-canonized document . . . We had a discussion about that either long ago in this thread or in another thread. A few scriptures were cited that contain the same principle of gender being eternal. But I also would agree that if it is a revealed principle unique to that document, than it should be added to our canon.
CV75 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I'm referring to the words: male, female, man, woman, husband, wife in the proclamation. In some parts you could just strike them from the document in other parts you'd want to replace them with a term like "spouse". 1 hour ago, rockpond said: CV75 kept asking me how I would rewrite the Proclamation. If you read our entire interaction (which I wouldn't expect) you would note that I expressed my unwillingness but I finally responded to him with that. For me, I just don't see the Proclamation as necessary so rewriting is not something that I find useful. Nor, do I see it as my place to suggest how it should be rewritten. Ugh. The editing job – I said that is my 5th and least favorite approach to having this discussion! How come when I (and you) refer to the doctrines laid forth in the proclamation you still want to stick to the text of the proclamation? So, rather than rewrite the proclamation, why not just address the doctrines that you see reflected in the proclamation and which the Lord is leading you to believe should, could, would (pick your modal auxiliary) change? And to keep it focused, let’s use gender to refer to roles and identity. Pick a doctrine that is found in the proclamation and then explain how it would work if gender is no longer germane to our doctrines. @rongo, I know what it is like to enter threads late and usually it is easy to catch up but in this case if you want to see the actual context, I recommend you go back to last Tuesday and check out all those posts and let them tell the story. Edited October 31, 2017 by CV75
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, CV75 said: Ugh. The editing job – I said that is my 5th and least favorite approach to having this discussion! How come when I (and you) refer to the doctrines laid forth in the proclamation you still want to stick to the text of the proclamation? I don't want to stick to the text of the proclamation. You asked me to. I said that if it were up to me, we would just ditch the entire document. 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: So, rather than rewrite the proclamation, why not just address the doctrines that you see reflected in the proclamation and which the Lord is leading you to believe should, could, would (pick your modal auxiliary) change? I have. 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: Pick a doctrine that is found in the proclamation and then explain how it would work if gender is no longer germane to our doctrines. Marriage. It can work with a man and a woman. It can work with a man and a man. It can work with a woman and a woman. And, I suppose for some, it can work with more than two people.
kiwi57 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 21 hours ago, california boy said: 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. It's a good thing we don't do that then. 21 hours ago, california boy said: 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. The policy isn't "Discriminating against some children because of who their parents are." It's avoiding putting the child in the position of having to choose between their Church life and their home life. 1
kiwi57 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 18 hours 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. I am making a claim for the criteria for disciplinary councils, which you know is true, and which you cannot refute. You are claiming (or perhaps just implying, or insinuating, or trying to create the impression without committing yourself) that it was different in 1984. Absent support for that claim or insinuation, there is no reason to believe it to be true; and the current practice provides sufficient reason to believe it to be false. 1
kiwi57 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I don't want to stick to the text of the proclamation. You asked me to. I said that if it were up to me, we would just ditch the entire document. I have. Marriage. It can work with a man and a woman. It can work with a man and a man. It can work with a woman and a woman. And, I suppose for some, it can work with more than two people. Not according to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. 1
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 Just now, kiwi57 said: I am making a claim for the criteria for disciplinary councils, which you know is true, and which you cannot refute. You are claiming (or perhaps just implying, or insinuating, or trying to create the impression without committing yourself) that it was different in 1984. Absent support for that claim or insinuation, there is no reason to believe it to be true; and the current practice provides sufficient reason to believe it to be false. I think we both agree on criteria for disciplinary councils now. At least, I know the criteria well because I had to use Handbook 1 on a regular basis from 2012 through 2016. But, I presented a quote from Tom Christofferson regarding his recollection and experience regarding disciplinary councils. You stated that he was wrong. I'm asking for a reference for you to back up that claim. I gather you have no such evidence and that your statement that Christofferson was wrong is just your opinion or best guess. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2017 Author Posted October 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think we both agree on criteria for disciplinary councils now. At least, I know the criteria well because I had to use Handbook 1 on a regular basis from 2012 through 2016. But, I presented a quote from Tom Christofferson regarding his recollection and experience regarding disciplinary councils. You stated that he was wrong. I'm asking for a reference for you to back up that claim. I gather you have no such evidence and that your statement that Christofferson was wrong is just your opinion or best guess. Oh, it's more than a best guess. It is supported by a statement from an apostle (Dallin H. Oaks) given in the very year of Tom's recollection. 1
rockpond Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, it's more than a best guess. It is supported by a statement from an apostle (Dallin H. Oaks) given in the very year of Tom's recollection. That quote does not speak to disciplinary councils and it also identified homosexual attractions as sin (assuming we are both thinking of the same quote). Also, if it that Oaks statement was given in the same year as Tom's recollection of what was happening with disciplinary councils than it wouldn't necessarily have had any impact on what had been happening immediately prior to that with respect to those councils. That statement doesn't give you (or Kiwi) any firm ground to stand on in claiming that Christofferson's statement is wrong and it doesn't satisfy the CFR. 1
kiwi57 Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, rockpond said: That quote does not speak to disciplinary councils and it also identified homosexual attractions as sin (assuming we are both thinking of the same quote). Also, if it that Oaks statement was given in the same year as Tom's recollection of what was happening with disciplinary councils than it wouldn't necessarily have had any impact on what had been happening immediately prior to that with respect to those councils. That statement doesn't give you (or Kiwi) any firm ground to stand on in claiming that Christofferson's statement is wrong and it doesn't satisfy the CFR. You know, for someone who isn't trying to argue that the Church ever excommunicated people for not acting on homosexual inclinations, you do seem remarkably argumentative, if not downright defensive about this. Why is that? Let's look again at what Christofferson said: 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.” If "integrity about my journey" meant something like "living according to how I felt" (IOW, acting on it) then it's entirely possible that "identified as gay" might just as well mean something like, "I regard my identity as defined by my homosexual inclinations; I've been acting on those inclinations and intend to continue to do so." In which case, excommunication is not all that surprising. Edited November 1, 2017 by kiwi57 2
rockpond Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 21 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: You know, for someone who isn't trying to argue that the Church ever excommunicated people for not acting on homosexual inclinations, you do seem remarkably argumentative, if not downright defensive about this. Why is that? Let's look again at what Christofferson said: 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.” If "integrity about my journey" meant something like "living according to how I felt" (IOW, acting on it) then it's entirely possible that "identified as gay" might just as well mean something like, "I regard my identity as defined by my homosexual inclinations; I've been acting on those inclinations and intend to continue to do so." In which case, excommunication is not all that surprising. I find what he said to be very clear. You claimed that Christofferson was wrong and I asked you to back it up... that’s argumentative? Being asked to back up your claims is par for the course here on these threads. You’ll note that I’ve provided numerous sources for you regarding what I have claimed (as I’ve retracted/corrected what I had wrong). You’ve only provided reinterpretation and mental gymnastics. But it’s helped me gain some insight into your thought process since you are relatively new here. So, thanks for that.
kiwi57 Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: I find what he said to be very clear. Do you? What do you think he was claiming? Do you assert that he was claiming that people could be excommunicated for nothing more that admitting to experiencing homosexual attraction? Yes or no? And do you assert that people could be excommunicated for nothing more that admitting to experiencing homosexual attraction? Yes or no? Because I'll happily tell you my position: they weren't. How do I know that? Very easily: They can't today; and Nothing more than mere opinion has been offered to suggest that they ever could; and Said opinion runs directly contrary to known LDS doctrine from every period. 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: You claimed that Christofferson was wrong and I asked you to back it up... that’s argumentative? Being asked to back up your claims is par for the course here on these threads. You’ll note that I’ve provided numerous sources for you regarding what I have claimed (as I’ve retracted/corrected what I had wrong). You’ve only provided reinterpretation and mental gymnastics. But it’s helped me gain some insight into your thought process since you are relatively new here. So, thanks for that. What "mental gymnastics" were they? And what "reinterpretation?" It is entirely legitimate to ask what a vague and possibly hyperbolic throwaway line actually means, especially when someone appears like they might be somewhat circuitously trying to lead it as evidence of something or other. The insight I'm getting into your style of argumentation is that you like to make assertions by proxy. You quote someone saying, implying or hinting something, and then deny having said it yourself - but you don't actually disavow it, either. Am I right? Incidentally, I'm not all that new. I've been here before. 1
california boy Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, kiwi57 said: It's a good thing we don't do that then. The policy isn't "Discriminating against some children because of who their parents are." It's avoiding putting the child in the position of having to choose between their Church life and their home life. I have heard the party line. And of course I think it is total nonsense. If the child is attending the Mormon church, then the same issues come up whether there is a baptism or not. Is there any evidence that baptizing a child in a gay marriage has caused ANY conflict in the home where the parents have agreed to that baptism? Yet there are many examples of a gay father perfectly happy to have their children becoming members of the church. I get that you want to back up the party line. But show me the evidence. So yeah, it is about discrimination and punishing a child because of the church's attitude towards gay marriage. Edited November 1, 2017 by california boy
rockpond Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 9 hours ago, california boy said: I have heard the party line. And of course I think it is total nonsense. If the child is attending the Mormon church, then the same issues come up whether there is a baptism or not. Is there any evidence that baptizing a child in a gay marriage has caused ANY conflict in the home where the parents have agreed to that baptism? Yet there are many examples of a gay father perfectly happy to have their children becoming members of the church. I get that you want to back up the party line. But show me the evidence. So yeah, it is about discrimination and punishing a child because of the church's attitude towards gay marriage. Yep, for the party line to work, you have to admit that those children aren’t welcome in church. I’ve met very few fellow members who want to sign on to that.
Recommended Posts