Scrutinizing general conference

[rockpond]

13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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?

Yes, I think he was clear when he referred to "identifying as gay".  I think he was recalling his experience in the church at the time and his memories.

I'm not making an assertion.  I don't know what was happening back then with respect to disciplinary councils.

Could people back then have been excommunicated for nothing more than admitting to experiencing homosexual attraction?  Possibly but I don't know.  I have no evidence either way - only an anecdotal account from Christofferson.

13 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Because I'll happily tell you my position: they weren't.

How do I know that?

Very easily:

1. They can't today; and
2. Nothing more than mere opinion has been offered to suggest that they ever could; and
3. Said opinion runs directly contrary to known LDS doctrine from every period.

1.  What is happening in councils today isn't relevant to thirty years ago.  Church teachings on the subject have changed and the handbook has been revised multiple times over those decades.

2.  Nothing more than opinion has been offered to suggest that they could or couldn't.

3.  I have cited Church documents and addresses authored by apostles and officially published by the Church in 1971 and 1978 which reflect the Church doctrine of the time.  Unless I am mistaken, the 1984 Oaks quote that you and Scott are relying on was from an unpublished 1984 confidential memorandum that was not leaked until sometime in the early 2000's.  It, therefore, cannot be used to demonstrate what was happening with respect to disciplinary councils in the 1980's.  I'll add that the one other document I can find that may have influenced priesthood leaders during that timeframe would have likely been Kimball's revised "Letter to a Friend" published by the Church in 1978.  I believe that it was a revision of the 1971 New Horizons for Homosexuals pamphlet (also written by Kimball and published by the Church.  It is the 1978 version that Oaks cites in this 1984 confidential memo and the quotes he uses can also be found in the 1971 publication.

Some other gems from that 1984 confidential memo:

"Similarly, in considering our position on legislation affecting "homosexuals" we need to be clear on whether the proposed laws would affect only person with perverted acts, or whether the proposed legislation and our position on it could be understood also to affect persons guilty of no more than perverted thoughts or tendencies."  (Note the use of the words guilty and perverted in describing thoughts and tendencies.  Underline added by Oaks, bold added by me.)

"In contrast, condemnations directed at the condition of homosexuality are condemnations of persons who are sinners in thought (like a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her), but not necessarily sinners in deed.  Evil thoughts are of course also sinful, but for most purposes we do not consider the evil thinker to be guilty of as grave a sin as the evil doer."  (Note the use of the words condemnations and evil thinker.  Underline added by Oaks, bold added by me.)

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by rockpond
spelling

[CV75]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Can it really, and still be a bona fide covenant? A covenant of course is a sacred agreement between God and those making it. The sealing power is the means whereby a covenant exists in and after the resurrection of the dead (D&C 132:7), meaning the power exercised in the physical realm applies to the spiritual realm, both before and after the resurrection of the dead, in both mortal and immortal environments.

Does it make any sense for the following covenants to change in their physical manifestation (with corresponding spiritual meaning):

Baptizing by immersion from air above us into air below us. Using a liquid drink to represent both the body and the blood (or a solid foodstuff to do the same) for the sacrament. For the oath and covenant of the priesthood to be manifest by our receiving any permutation of servants and / or Son and / or Father in lieu of the prescribed order set forth in D&C 121. To use the same sings and tokens, or combine them into one, for all the endowment covenants.

It makes as much sense as putting a spirit into his host spirit for the purposes of fulfilling his second estate, or inseparably connecting a body with its host body in the resurrection, but neither ever having possessed a spirit.

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can it really, and still be a bona fide covenant? A covenant of course is a sacred agreement between God and those making it. The sealing power is the means whereby a covenant exists in and after the resurrection of the dead (D&C 132:7), meaning the power exercised in the physical realm applies to the spiritual realm, both before and after the resurrection of the dead, in both mortal and immortal environments.

Does it make any sense for the following covenants to change in their physical manifestation (with corresponding spiritual meaning):

Baptizing by immersion from air above us into air below us. Using a liquid drink to represent both the body and the blood (or a solid foodstuff to do the same) for the sacrament. For the oath and covenant of the priesthood to be manifest by our receiving any permutation of servants and / or Son and / or Father in lieu of the prescribed order set forth in D&C 121. To use the same sings and tokens, or combine them into one, for all the endowment covenants.

It makes as much sense as putting a spirit into his host spirit for the purposes of fulfilling his second estate, or inseparably connecting a body with its host body in the resurrection, but neither ever having possessed a spirit.

The water in a baptismal font and the bread/water (changed from wine) are symbols we use in making the covenant.  I see the associated symbols in the sealing ceremony to be the temple clothing, the alter, and some other parts of that ceremony that I don't feel comfortable mentioning.

In all cases above, the men and women involved are not "the covenant" nor are they "the symbols"... they are the participants - the individuals entering into a covenant relationship with God and each other.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The water in a baptismal font and the bread/water (changed from wine) are symbols we use in making the covenant.  I see the associated symbols in the sealing ceremony to be the temple clothing, the alter, and some other parts of that ceremony that I don't feel comfortable mentioning.

In all cases above, the men and women involved are not "the covenant" nor are they "the symbols"... they are the participants - the individuals entering into a covenant relationship with God and each other.

Christ is the covenant and the participant. A man and a woman are symbols are what they will be as exalted beings.

What would happen to the covenants supported by the fundamental law of all covenants laid forth in Moses 6:59-60?

“That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the water ye are justified, and by the water ye are sanctified?”

Just as we cannot be born or born again by water, and water, and water, we cannot have a marriage where the covenanting parties are of the same sex.

We cannot have an Atonement by marrying, or bringing together as one, justice and justice or mercy and mercy; nor by the Lord condescending and condescending (or ascending up on high and ascending up on high).

These examples, as the physical structure of the covenants, use the complementary relationship between opposing principles as called for by the law of opposition (air and water, fluid and solid, touch and sound, mortal and immortal, Son and Father, etc.). Hence man and woman.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Christ is the covenant and the participant. A man and a woman are symbols are what they will be as exalted beings.

What would happen to the covenants supported by the fundamental law of all covenants laid forth in Moses 6:59-60?

“That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory; For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the water ye are justified, and by the water ye are sanctified?”

Just as we cannot be born or born again by water, and water, and water, we cannot have a marriage where the covenanting parties are of the same sex.

We cannot have an Atonement by marrying, or bringing together as one, justice and justice or mercy and mercy; nor by the Lord condescending and condescending (or ascending up on high and ascending up on high).

These examples, as the physical structure of the covenants, use the complementary relationship between opposing principles as called for by the law of opposition (air and water, fluid and solid, touch and sound, mortal and immortal, Son and Father, etc.). Hence man and woman.

The parts I bolded above are where you move into your own realm of interpretation of scripture and I don't subscribe to your interpretation.  Thus, it isn't a doctrinal or theological dilemma for me.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The parts I bolded above are where you move into your own realm of interpretation of scripture and I don't subscribe to your interpretation.  Thus, it isn't a doctrinal or theological dilemma for me.

They are just examples and you may not agree with all of them. But just as the sanctified symbols represent the sanctified principles so that they function as one and the same, and we believe in a literal, physical exaltation, the symbols of the covenants cannot be merged (water for bread, for example) and still make any sense. Men and women and the lives they live (including their bodies and their divinely appointed roles) are the symbols of faith and worship:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-symbol-of-our-faith?lang=eng

He then asked: “...what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They are just examples and you may not agree with all of them. But just as the sanctified symbols represent the sanctified principles so that they function as one and the same, and we believe in a literal, physical exaltation, the symbols of the covenants cannot be merged (water for bread, for example) and still make any sense. Men and women and the lives they live (including their bodies and their divinely appointed roles) are the symbols of faith and worship:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-symbol-of-our-faith?lang=eng

He then asked: “...what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

President Hinckley:

I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

 

Yes, I agree with President Hinckley that our lives should be a symbol of our belief in and devotion to the living Christ.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

President Hinckley:

I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

 

Yes, I agree with President Hinckley that our lives should be a symbol of our belief in and devotion to the living Christ.

Yes, and if our lives serve as symbols, our living bodies (including primary sex characteristics) and our active roles (including gender), which define our lives, are also symbols. The covenant of marriage, as the other covenants of salvation and exaltation, are instituted with opposing and differentiating but complementary symbols “instituted from before the foundation of the world” (D&C 132:5). Hence, the male and female construct of marriage is in line, and is not an exception to, the other covenants (air and water and positioning above and beneath; water and bread; mortal servants and Deity; Son and Father; signs, tokens, etc.)

[smac97]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:51 PM, rockpond said:

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. 

The recollection of one member of the Church is a "data point?"

Kiwi57 has a contervailing recollection, which he has presented here.  So his "data point" cancels out the one you want to present.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 10/30/2017 at 11:58 PM, rockpond said:

I only posted the quote.  You dismissed it. If you think he is wrong, than provide a reference. 

I don't think that's how things work.  A single statement, comprised of a recollection of one member of the Church, is not sufficient to create a prima facie showing that the contested assertion (that the LDS Church previously excommunicated people for only having same-sex feelings) is correct.

My understanding is that no such policy was ever in place.  Excommunication for homosexual behavior has been possible, but not mere feelings.

There.  If you feel that the quote you posted created a prima facie showing, my above statement rebuts it.  They are on equal footing (both are recollections by members of the Church).

So we're back to square one.

Thanks,

Smac

[smac97]

.

Edited November 2, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not making an assertion.  I don't know what was happening back then with respect to disciplinary councils.

I'm glad you've cleared that up.

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Could people back then have been excommunicated for nothing more than admitting to experiencing homosexual attraction?  Possibly but I don't know.  I have no evidence either way - only an anecdotal account from Christofferson.

1.  What is happening in councils today isn't relevant to thirty years ago.  Church teachings on the subject have changed and the handbook has been revised multiple times over those decades.

What the Church is doing today can be relevant, particularly if it is contrasted with previous policies.

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

Some other gems from that 1984 confidential memo:

"Similarly, in considering our position on legislation affecting "homosexuals" we need to be clear on whether the proposed laws would affect only person with perverted acts, or whether the proposed legislation and our position on it could be understood also to affect persons guilty of no more than perverted thoughts or tendencies."  (Note the use of the words guilty and perverted in describing thoughts and tendencies.  Underline added by Oaks, bold added by me.)

"In contrast, condemnations directed at the condition of homosexuality are condemnations of persons who are sinners in thought (like a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her), but not necessarily sinners in deed.  Evil thoughts are of course also sinful, but for most purposes we do not consider the evil thinker to be guilty of as grave a sin as the evil doer."  (Note the use of the words condemnations and evil thinker.  Underline added by Oaks, bold added by me.)

I don't follow.  These "gems" plainly differentiate between thoughts and actions.

Moreover, Elder Oaks had in mind here "sinners in thought" who were the gay equivalent of "a man who looks upon a woman to lust after her."  That is, a person who is affirmatively choosing to entertain lustful, sinful thoughts.

A heterosexual man is not a "sinner in thought" unless he "looks upon a woman to lust after her."

A homosexual man is not a "sinner in thought" unless he "looks upon {another man} to lust after {him}."

Surely you see this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 10/31/2017 at 1:30 PM, rockpond said:

Quote

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.

How do you reconcile this with the LDS paradigm?  What does "it can work" mean?

I am thinking here of D&C 132:7:

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

A same-sex marriage can work in some ways.  I concede that.  Two people of the same gender can live together, pool their resources, raise children.  I acknowledge that.

But there are also some fundamental ways it cannot work. 

There will never be a complimentary mother/father team in place for those children, who are necessarily deprived of one of these parental figures.

Same-sex marriage, as an institution, necessarily precludes procreation.  Intervening efforts can ameliorate this, but it's a intrinsic flaw that is baked into the institution.  It the rule, not the exception (as contrasted with heterosexual marriage, in which procreative capacity is the rule, not the exception).

The impact of same-sex parenting on children is, I think, hard to gauge at this point.  It's such a novelty that we just don't have sufficient amounts of data to work with yet.  For example, this study by sociology professor Paul Sullins found that “[a]t age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression as persons raised by man-woman parents.” In addition, there was an “elevated risk associated with imbalanced closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity.”  However, there has been much controversy about this study (see here). 

Moreover, even talking about this topic appears to be controversial.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Marriage equality advocates have failed to condemn the behaviour of activists who made phone and social media threats, forcing a meeting of Christian opponents of gay marriage to be abandoned.

The Accor hotels group confirmed on Friday that a meeting of about 100 people from groups including the Australian Christian Lobby, the Marriage ­Alliance, Sydney Anglicans and Sydney Catholics had been abandoned following threatening phone calls and social media posts that “rattled” employees and left the company concerned about the safety of staff and guests at the Mercure Sydney Airport hotel.

A key argument used by Labor and Greens politicians and same-sex marriage advocates who ­oppose the government’s proposed plebiscite on the issue is that it will fuel “hate speech” against same-sex couples and their families.

A statement from the meeting’s conveners alleged hotel staff had received “threats of violence” from same-sex marriage activists after details of the event were published on LGBTI community website SameSame.com.au.

See also here (emphases added):

Quote

As the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals considers whether to strike down laws in three states banning same-sex "marriage," four adult children of homosexual parents have filed court briefings arguing that government-sanctioned homosexual unions could lead to disaster for thousands of kids.

Katy Faust, Dawn Stefanowicz, B.N. Klein, and Robert Oscar Lopez, who were all raised by homosexual parents, each submitted briefs to the 5th Circuit opposing the legalization of same-sex "marriage." Recounting childhood memories of households made deeply dysfunctional by their parents' sexual appetites and the radical subculture that went along with their "gay" identities, all four argued that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples will likely lead to the exploitation and abuse of countless children for political and personal gain.

"I grew up with a parent and her partner{s}

 in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse," wrote B. N. Klein of her lesbian mother and her series of live-in lovers.

"While I do not believe all gays would be de facto bad parents, I know that the gay community has never in my lifetime put children first as anything other than a piece of property, a past mistake or a political tool to be dressed up and taken out as part of a dog-and-pony show to impress the well-meaning," Klein wrote. She added that as a child of a lesbian mother, she was pressured to pay "constant homage and attention" to her mother's gay identity, taught that "some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent," and told that homosexuals were "much more creative and artistic because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.'"

While Klein classified her upbringing as abusive, Robert Oscar Lopez told the court that his own childhood upbringing by his mother and her longtime partner represented the "best possible conditions for a child raised by a same-sex couple." Even so, Lopez testified that the lack of a father figure in his life, combined with the influence of the radical gay culture in which he was raised, gave rise to a devastating confusion about his own sexuality and ultimately led to his becoming a homosexual prostitute in his teen years in order to fulfill his craving for acceptance and love from older men.

"Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts' in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life," Lopez wore. "[But] behind these façades of a happy ‘outcome' lay many problems."

"I experienced a great deal of sexual confusion," Lopez wrote. "I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males … and wanted to have sex with older men who were my father's age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing."

Lopez said that he has spoken to dozens of other adult children of homosexuals, and that many of them have similar stories of pain and damage inflicted by the absence of a biological parent and the unwanted "step-parent" type relationship demanded by their homosexual parents' lovers. Lopez included testimonies from nine of them in his brief, but said there were many more who were afraid to speak out for fear that the homosexual lobby would target them for harassment like they have Lopez himself.

"Children raised by same-sex couples face a gauntlet if they break the silence about the ‘no disadvantages' consensus," Lopez wrote, after recounting how homosexual activists harassed his employers and spread lies about him on the internet after he first came forward about his own childhood experiences as the son of a lesbian. "In such a climate, I must conclude that placing children in same-sex couples' homes is dangerous, because they have no space or latitude to express negative feelings about losing a mom or dad, and in fact they have much to fear if they do."

Katy Faust also [wrote], "Some adult children with gay parents shy away from making their thoughts about marriage public because we do not want to jeopardize our relationships with those to whom our hearts are tethered. Unfortunately, many gay-marriage lobbyists have made gay marriage the sole badge of loyalty to our LGBT family and friends."

"The label of bigot or hater has become very powerful and effective tools to silence those of us who choose not to endorse the marriage platform of many gay lobbyists," Faust continued. "For much of my adult life I was content to keep my opinions on the subject of marriage to myself. I was (and still am) sickened by the accusation that I was bigoted and anti-gay for my belief in natural marriage."

"For many years those devices kept me quiet," admitted Faust. "I didn't seek a venue where I could share my views. But I have come to realize that my silence, and the silence of others, has allowed for the conversation to be dominated by those who claim that only animus, ignorance, or indoctrination could lead one to oppose ‘marriage equality.'"

Faust said that her outspokenness against same-sex "marriage" stems from her belief that every child has a right to a relationship with his or her mother and father.

“When we institutionalize same-sex marriage … we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households,” Faust wrote. “Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent. Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.”

Dawn Stefanowicz echoed the sentiments of the other three, in a frank and graphic testimony of her childhood with a promiscuous homosexual father who later died of AIDS.

“It is quite difficult to discuss the implications of growing up in a gay household until later in adulthood when we have developed a measure of personal identity and independence apart from our GLBT parent, partners and the subcultures,” Stefanowicz wrote. “We are often forced to approve and tolerate all forms of expressed sexuality, including various sexual and gender identity preferences.”

“As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” wrote Stefanowicz. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.”

“The special-interest GLBT groups and so-called support groups for kids sometimes act, or function, as fronts for a far darker side that silences, intimidates and threatens the children who want to share the truth, allowing only a politically-correct version of our childhoods to be heard,” Stefanowicz continued. “These special-interest groups support political and legal objectives toward same-sex marriage, ignoring the horrendous inequality, permanent losses and prejudice to children in the name of adult sexual rights. Children lose forever their rights to know and be raised by their married biological father and mother.”

Finally, perhaps the most fundamental problem here is that same-sex marriage is incompatible with the concept of ratification by God (unlike heterosexual marriage, which can be ratified and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise per D&C 132).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2017 by smac97

[CV75]

@rockpond

It is important to differentiate between the construct of the covenant (the words and symbols) with other attendant symbols (white cloth, clothing, etc.) which are ancillary, as important as their symbolism and forms might be. Look the words of the covenants in relation to the symbols and that shows the connection between the words, the symbols and the eternal principles. The baptism and sacrament prayers are easiest to do that with I suppose, where bread and water are specifically mentioned as is “baptize,” which means immersion from air into water.

The bread and water are also sanctified unto the participant souls, and in this way, are object participants that are quite literally incorporated into the human participants. The baptismal water literally enshrouds the participant, and his sins are symbolically left in the water, two other forms of incorporation, the physical agreeing with the spiritual. With regard to priesthood, the servants of God are symbolically the Son and the Father (by virtue of the keys they are permitted to exercise); with regard to the temple, we are all symbolically Adam and Eve; etc.

As I pointed out a couple of times, and as you agreed also, the lives of the participants themselves are the symbols, for whom sex and gender are intrinsic, and so the words of the marriage covenant are quite sex and gender specific. To change that would pervert the covenant as much as changing the bread to water and the water to air, respectively, for the sacrament and baptismal covenants.

These covenants are instituted from before the foundation of the world. Hence, marriage is for the inhabitants of all the worlds that are and were created, and they are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and if our lives serve as symbols, our living bodies (including primary sex characteristics) and our active roles (including gender), which define our lives, are also symbols. The covenant of marriage, as the other covenants of salvation and exaltation, are instituted with opposing and differentiating but complementary symbols “instituted from before the foundation of the world” (D&C 132:5). Hence, the male and female construct of marriage is in line, and is not an exception to, the other covenants (air and water and positioning above and beneath; water and bread; mortal servants and Deity; Son and Father; signs, tokens, etc.)

D&C 132:5 doesn't refer to complementary symbols or opposition.

I don't see any scriptural support for your conclusion that we, the participants in a sealing covenant, are the symbols nor that the law of opposition applies.  To me, that is a stretch that doesn't make sense.

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The recollection of one member of the Church is a "data point?"

Kiwi57 has a contervailing recollection, which he has presented here.  So his "data point" cancels out the one you want to present.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's fine that Kiwi57 has a countervailing recollection (was Kiwi a gay adult in the 80's?), although I don't recall Kiwi mentioning his recollection -- just stating that Christofferson was wrong which is why I asked for a reference on that.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's fine that Kiwi57 has a countervailing recollection (was Kiwi a gay adult in the 80's?),

I think more than just people who were gay adult Mormons in the 80s can have recollections about what was going on in the Church at the time.

A recollection from one person just isn't very compelling to me.  In legal parlance, it does not create a "prima facie" showing about the the Church's policies on this issue that were in place in the 80s.  You are the one making the assertion, so I think it is incumbent upon you to back it up, or at least make a "prima facie" showing of it (rather than expecting others to rebut one person's recollection).

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

although I don't recall Kiwi mentioning his recollection -- just stating that Christofferson was wrong which is why I asked for a reference on that.

Again, I think it is more incumbent upon you to establish that Christofferson was right (about what the Church's policies were in the 80s).  Merely quoting Christofferson's unadorned and unsubstantiated recollection does not do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think more than just people who were gay adult Mormons in the 80s can have recollections about what was going on in the Church at the time.

A recollection from one person just isn't very compelling to me.  In legal parlance, it does not create a "prima facie" showing about the the Church's policies on this issue that were in place in the 80s.  You are the one making the assertion, so I think it is incumbent upon you to back it up, or at least make a "prima facie" showing of it (rather than expecting others to rebut one person's recollection).

Again, I think it is more incumbent upon you to establish that Christofferson was right (about what the Church's policies were in the 80s).  Merely quoting Christofferson's unadorned and unsubstantiated recollection does not do that.

Thanks,

-Smac

I shared the quote from Christofferson.  I am not making a claim as to what was happening back then.  I've also shared the documents and addresses that likely shaped LDS doctrine at the time.  But I don't know what was happening with disciplinary councils back then.

Kiwi said Christofferson was wrong.  When someone makes such a claim, it is on them to provide a reference as to why they are making the claim.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I shared the quote from Christofferson.  I am not making a claim as to what was happening back then. 

Well, it seems that you are.  You presented his statement as "relat{ing} to our topic," and thereafter have defended it, treated it as if it establishes some baseline from which we can work, and attempted to use it to shift the burden of proof as to the matter asserted (that people were being excommunicated for merely identifying as gay):

Quote

"It has not been established that Christofferson was wrong."

"You can believe that {Christofferson was incorrect in his recollection} 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."

"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 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."

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

"I have no reason to believe that Chrisofferson is wrong in his recollection."

"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'm not making an assertion.  I don't know what was happening back then with respect to disciplinary councils."

I'm not sure what you are saying.  You quote Christofferson as if his recollection establishes X, but then you deny asserting X.  But then you also insist that Kiwi and others refute X.  And you state that you have "no reason" to not believe X.

I am . . . confused.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 2, 2017 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

D&C 132:5 doesn't refer to complementary symbols or opposition.

I don't see any scriptural support for your conclusion that we, the participants in a sealing covenant, are the symbols nor that the law of opposition applies.  To me, that is a stretch that doesn't make sense.

 

We have scriptural support for the wording of the covenants, though obviously the temple covenants cannot be shared here. We have scriptural support that the covenants were instituted from before the foundation of the world. The elements of the covenant, such as objects (water, bread, baptismal water) and participants (saints, servants, Son, Father), that are mentioned in the wording possess complementing properties, both literal and symbolic, that are intrinsically essential to the covenant. You can’t reconstruct any of these covenants to have one element substitute for the other without changing the covenant. The man and the woman are such an element, and their lives, which in part are comprised of sexual and gender identity, as President Hinckley points out, are the symbols. I’m not sure why you resist that particular point. When people marry, they unite their very lives.

Saying my interpretation of “symbols” and “opposition” isn’t scriptural has absolutely nothing to do with the literal scriptural support we all can review for the wording of the covenants and their requirements, so if scriptural support for "opposition" proves to be a stretch for you, simply stay focused on how the covenants themselves are written out. I’m sure you don’t require scriptural support, for example, for water not being the same, or symbolizing the same things, as bread. Or for air being a suitable substitute for the waters of baptism, or that immersion can be replaced with drying out or ascending out of water.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We have scriptural support for the wording of the covenants, though obviously the temple covenants cannot be shared here. We have scriptural support that the covenants were instituted from before the foundation of the world. The elements of the covenant, such as objects (water, bread, baptismal water) and participants (saints, servants, Son, Father), that are mentioned in the wording possess complementing properties, both literal and symbolic, that are intrinsically essential to the covenant. You can’t reconstruct any of these covenants to have one element substitute for the other without changing the covenant. The man and the woman are such an element, and their lives, which in part are comprised of sexual and gender identity, as President Hinckley points out, are the symbols. I’m not sure why you resist that particular point. When people marry, they unite their very lives.

 

Saying my interpretation of “symbols” and “opposition” isn’t scriptural has absolutely nothing to do with the literal scriptural support we all can review for the wording of the covenants and their requirements, so if scriptural support for "opposition" proves to be a stretch for you, simply stay focused on how the covenants themselves are written out. I’m sure you don’t require scriptural support, for example, for water not being the same, or symbolizing the same things, as bread. Or for air being a suitable substitute for the waters of baptism, or that immersion can be replaced with drying out or ascending out of water.

 

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.  I get your position.  But, I don't see any reason why two men or two women can't be the participants in that covenant.

[rockpond]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, it seems that you are.  You presented his statement as "relat{ing} to our topic," and thereafter have defended it, treated it as if it establishes some baseline from which we can work, and attempted to use it to shift the burden of proof as to the matter asserted (that people were being excommunicated for merely identifying as gay):

I'm not sure what you are saying.  You quote Christofferson as if his recollection establishes X, but then you deny asserting X.  But then you also insist that Kiwi and others refute X.  And you state that you have "no reason" to not believe X.

I am . . . confused.

Thanks,

-Smac

His statement did relate to the topic.  I don't think it establishes a baseline.  But if one is going to say "he is wrong" as Kiwi did, then they ought to be able to back it up with something.  Otherwise, it's just an opinion.  I am not saying he is right or wrong but it's obviously what Christofferson believes and believed at the time.

p.s.  As a reminder - I have made no claims or assertions about disciplinary councils.  I've repeated that time and time again.  I don't know what was happening with disciplinary councils.  Throughout this thread, Scott has asked for evidence of people being excommunicated solely for being gay (which I don't have and don't think exists publicly) and, now, Kiwi has stated that it wasn't happening.  Given Kiwi's claim, I thought a reference for it was in order.

Edited November 2, 2017 by rockpond

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

His statement did relate to the topic. 

So did mine.  So does Kiwi's.

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't think it establishes a baseline. 

Then why are you telling other people that they need to refute it?

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But if one is going to say "he is wrong" as Kiwi did, then they ought to be able to back it up with something. 

Kiwi's statement was in the second instance.  Let's first create a baseline for the verity of what was claimed in the first instance.  If that isn't established, addressing Kiwi's statement is unnecessary.  If it is established, then you could fault Kiwi's rebuttal.

So, you assert that Christofferson's statement is correct ("I have no reason to believe that Chrisofferson is wrong in his recollection.").  I think Christofferson's unadorned recollection does not establish a prima facie showing of the matter asserted (that people in the 1980s were being excommunicated for merely identifying as gay).

That is the assertion.  You are presenting it.  You say you believe it.  Fine.  I am asking you to substantiate it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So did mine.  So does Kiwi's.

Then why are you telling other people that they need to refute it?

Kiwi's statement was in the second instance.  Let's first create a baseline for the verity of what was claimed in the first instance.  If that isn't established, addressing Kiwi's statement is unnecessary.  If it is established, then you could fault Kiwi's rebuttal.

So, you assert that Christofferson's statement is correct ("I have no reason to believe that Chrisofferson is wrong in his recollection.").  I think Christofferson's unadorned recollection does not establish a prima facie showing of the matter asserted (that people in the 1980s were being excommunicated for merely identifying as gay).

That is the assertion.  You are presenting it.  You say you believe it.  Fine.  I am asking you to substantiate it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't tell anyone they needed to refute it.  When Kiwi claimed that Christofferson was wrong, I asked him to provide a reference.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I'm not sure what you want me to say here.  I get your position.  But, I don't see any reason why two men or two women can't be the participants in that covenant.

What else is new? ...but deep down you know I'm right!