Greg Prince - Homosexual Policy and Church Fallout

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I mentioned, an active church member said exactly the same thing to me, only he said it approvingly. 

And as I mentioned, I find that commend to be reprehensible.  Disgusting.  Appalling.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

BS.  It was not about homosexual members, it was about members who had become involved in homosexuality.  You don't think any bisexuals would fall into that category?

It was stated clearly regarding the pamphlet containing instructions on how to cure "homosexuality".   I don't disagree that some of the same advise would have been given to bisexual members (if that's what you're asking), but that was not mentioned.  (I was specifically referring to that one document.)

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Haha....touche. It was admittedly over the top and foolishly hyperbolic.

.

-Smac

Edited October 27, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never ranted about the church in my home, either. What would be the point? But yes, my kids have asked me my opinion about a lot of things, including religious and political issues, and I tell them what I think. 

And in almost every instance, I would do that as well. But as I said, there are some very few things I would be extremely reserved about, and expressing my opposition to the leadership of the Church is among them. If that makes me a craven scoundrel, so be it.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

And in almost every instance, I would do that as well. But as I said, there are some very few things I would be extremely reserved about, and expressing my opposition to the leadership of the Church is among them. If that makes me a craven scoundrel, so be it.

No, just makes you a loyal member of the church. Nothing wrong with that.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It was stated clearly regarding the pamphlet containing instructions on how to cure "homosexuality".   I don't disagree that some of the same advise would have been given to bisexual members (if that's what you're asking), but that was not mentioned.  (I was specifically referring to that one document.)

You don't think it could reasonably be inferred if it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You don't think it could reasonably be inferred if it wasn't explicitly mentioned?

Sure.  But the discussion was about how teachings have changed regarding gay members (I was responding to a CFR specifically for that).  If you want to discuss bisexual members, that's a different topic, IMO. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

According to Elder Oaks (emphases added):

The article is quite long, but definitely worth a read.

There is essentially no circumstance under which the publicly slandering and demeaning of general authorities (acting within their capacity) by an observant Latter-day Saints is appropriate.

Which is a different topic from, and does not justify, the publicly slandering and demeaning of general authorities (acting within their capacity) by an observant Latter-day Saints.

I agree.  But some of the accusations I have read against Pres. Nelson are, I think, plainly slanderous and demeaning.  "He went rogue" is a common one.  Innuendo about him lying have been frequent in this very thread.

Yes.  But that disagreement should be expressed in the appropriate time, place and manner.  There is essentially no circumstance under which the publicly slandering and demeaning of general authorities (acting within their capacity) by an observant Latter-day Saints is appropriate.

I acknowledge that.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, on my computer, about two-thirds of your post is showing up with strike-throughs. Did you intend for that to happen?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, ALarson said:

Sure.  But the discussion was about how teachings have changed regarding gay members (I was responding to a CFR specifically for that).  If you want to discuss bisexual members, that's a different topic, IMO. 

So if the teaching of the past was applicable to some members who involve themselves in homosexuality, and could even applicable to some today, could it not still be regarded as in some measure valid?

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac, on my computer, about two-thirds of your post is showing up with strike-throughs. Did you intend for that to happen?

 

Fixed it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Fixed it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Gee, I thought you were doing us a favor by marking the parts we could ignore.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if the teaching of the past was applicable to some members who involve themselves in homosexuality, and could even applicable to some today, could it not still be regarded as in some measure valid?

 

Scott, you're breaking the rule of never mentioning any distinction of sexual or romantic attraction, behavior, orientation, and identity! We must always interpret all things related to sexual orientation as being about the person's entire identity as a human. That's how some people understand it now, so that must be how it is and how it's always been, regardless of the alleged science and history. 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if the teaching of the past was applicable to some members who involve themselves in homosexuality, and could even applicable to some today, could it not still be regarded as in some measure valid?

I don't know.  Do the leaders still teach that there is a cure for homosexuality (including bisexuals)?  If you believe they do, can you supply a recent quote from one of our leaders who still teaches this?

Do our leaders currently instruct local leaders to advise bisexual members to marry the opposite sex?  (From my experience, these types of teachings are no longer encouraged.)

I think it's very wise that the leaders have distanced themselves from making general claims regarding this.   Cases should really be handled individually and uniquely, IMO.  There are just too many variables to give sweeping instructions to all gay (including bisexual) members.

Edited October 27, 2017 by ALarson

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Gee, I thought you were doing us a favor by marking the parts we could ignore.

I have really come to appreciate that article.  It is very long.  Very long.  But there is very little that is extraneous.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Brother Bear]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

.

-Smac

Game, set, match I guess. All opinions and views negated because of tone. 

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I agree.  But some of the accusations I have read against Pres. Nelson are, I think, plainly slanderous and demeaning.  "He went rogue" is a common one.  Innuendo about him lying have been frequent in this very thread.

 

When I pointed out my comment was intended to offer the question of what is revelation, you went back to say you disagreed and the intention remained that I was indirectly intimating lying.  I reject such a characterization--innuendo about him lying. 

I continue to wish we could discuss this without resorting to this stuff. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by stemelbow

[Bob Crockett]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

Wouldn't it equally be false reasoning to assume the opposite stance - that because church leaders have received revelation in that past, that this must be (even if one says so)?

 

As I have pointed out, the Church doesn't work the way you are assuming.  An important decision is made.  It is ratified by the Holy Spirit.  Or not.  Thus, I assume that the Brethren undertook that protocol when they, in the 1920s, barred children from baptism from polygamous households.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

To me it just does not compute. I don't see how I would be guiltless making a decision as a church leader but guilty making the same decision as a parent. I understand the complexity when this issue is addressed in the context of same-sex marriage, but previous posts seemed to me to suggest that, regardless of context, there is no harm done and no sin in delaying saving ordinances. I think others may have felt the same way, but if that wasn't intended then I apologize for the misread. 

BB, Smac said something that I agree with. The policy is designed to mitigate harmful effects on children. The policy was not a knee jerk response by the 12 plus the first presidency. It was something they though about long and hard, and prayed about long and hard, and discussed over and over. I am sure that they realized there would be negative reaction in some quarters. But I do believe that they genuinely have the best interests of the children in their hearts and minds. If one recalls the words of Jesus "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) Do you really believe that it would be better to allow a child to be baptized and be taught that SSM is a sin at church and go home to people that he or she loves and be taught something different. Especially if the child gained a strong testimony, and loved the church and its theology about families being sealed together forever, yet learning over time that such would not be possible for the child and his or her current family. Are you willing to put a child through that?

Glenn

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

BB, Smac said something that I agree with. The policy is designed to mitigate harmful effects on children. The policy was not a knee jerk response by the 12 plus the first presidency. It was something they though about long and hard, and prayed about long and hard, and discussed over and over. I am sure that they realized there would be negative reaction in some quarters. But I do believe that they genuinely have the best interests of the children in their hearts and minds. If one recalls the words of Jesus "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) Do you really believe that it would be better to allow a child to be baptized and be taught that SSM is a sin at church and go home to people that he or she loves and be taught something different. Especially if the child gained a strong testimony, and loved the church and its theology about families being sealed together forever, yet learning over time that such would not be possible for the child and his or her current family. Are you willing to put a child through that?

Glenn

Okay..so they thought long and hard and discussed.  Why then did it start in a church handbook....clarified.. then a revelation...it kind of sounds like some lack of communication there.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

Game, set, match I guess. All opinions and views negated because of tone. 

I had a rather . . . firmly-worded response to your post.  I posted it, then thought better of it and immediately removed it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When I pointed out my comment was intended to offer the question of what is revelation, you went back to say you disagreed and the intention remained that I was indirectly intimating lying.  I reject such a characterization--innuendo about him lying. 

I accept your rejection.  I retract my accusation and apologize.

Plenty of other people, however, have so insinuated.  So the point pretty much remains.

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I continue to wish we could discuss this without resorting to this stuff. 

Oh, same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As I have pointed out, the Church doesn't work the way you are assuming.  An important decision is made.  It is ratified by the Holy Spirit.  Or not.  Thus, I assume that the Brethren undertook that protocol when they, in the 1920s, barred children from baptism from polygamous households.

The key word being, "assume".  The only way to know is to pray about it and have the Spirit bear witness to you personally.  Otherwise you rely on blind faith, which the prophets warn against.   "Don't take my word for it..." (Brigham Young).

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Do the leaders still teach that there is a cure for homosexuality (including bisexuals)?  If you believe they do, can you supply a recent quote from one of our leaders who still teaches this?

Do our leaders currently instruct local leaders to advise bisexual members to marry the opposite sex?  (From my experience, these types of teachings are no longer encouraged.)

I think it's very wise that the leaders have distanced themselves from making general claims regarding this.   Cases should really be handled individually and uniquely, IMO.  There are just too many variables to give sweeping instructions to all gay (including bisexual) members.

This is from the current Pamphlet regarding Same-Gender Attraction

Quote

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True happiness depends on more than the expression of physical urges. These urges diminish as more fundamental emotional needs are met—such as the need to interact with and serve others. True happiness comes from self-control, self-respect, and positive direction in life. It comes from a testimony of true doctrine—including who you are and who you may become—and from living according to God’s plan of happiness.

----------------------------------------------

This principle applies to all of God’s children, for He has declared that all sexual relations outside of marriage are unacceptable. Everyone has temptations, but one of the purposes of mortality is to learn to overcome them. President David O. McKay beautifully defined spirituality as “the consciousness of victory over self” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1969, 8). These temptations, which are generally uninvited, may be powerful, but they are never so strong as to deprive us of our freedom of choice. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said, “All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior” (“Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995, 9). Improper thoughts diminish if you replace them immediately with uplifting, constructive thoughts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An understanding of eternal truths is a powerful motivation for righteous behavior. You are best served by concentrating on the things you can presently understand and control, not wasting energy or enlarging frustration by worrying about that which God has not yet fully revealed. Focus on living the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Same-gender inclinations may be very powerful, but through faith in the Atonement you can receive the power to resist all improper conduct, keeping your life free from sin.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A number of Latter-day Saints with same-gender attraction are moving forward with their lives by carefully adhering to gospel standards, staying close to the Lord, and obtaining ecclesiastical and professional help when needed. Their lives are rich and satisfying, and they can be assured that all the blessings of eternal life will ultimately be theirs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These blessings are based on obedience to eternal principles. The importance of families is one of these principles. Heaven is organized by families, which require a man and a woman who together exercise their creative powers within the bounds the Lord has set. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this plan. Without both a husband and a wife there would be no eternal family and no opportunity to become like Heavenly Father.

 

According to Elder Holland

Quote

Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. 

------------------------------------------

In doing so, recognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness. But other attempts have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes.

Elder Oaks:

Quote

We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

 

[Glenn101]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Okay..so they thought long and hard and discussed.  Why then did it start in a church handbook....clarified.. then a revelation...it kind of sounds like some lack of communication there.

Clarification of policies happen all the time. What about the rest of the post? 

[Brother Bear]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

BB, Smac said something that I agree with. The policy is designed to mitigate harmful effects on children. The policy was not a knee jerk response by the 12 plus the first presidency. It was something they though about long and hard, and prayed about long and hard, and discussed over and over. I am sure that they realized there would be negative reaction in some quarters. But I do believe that they genuinely have the best interests of the children in their hearts and minds. If one recalls the words of Jesus "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matthew 6:24) Do you really believe that it would be better to allow a child to be baptized and be taught that SSM is a sin at church and go home to people that he or she loves and be taught something different. Especially if the child gained a strong testimony, and loved the church and its theology about families being sealed together forever, yet learning over time that such would not be possible for the child and his or her current family. Are you willing to put a child through that?

Glenn

No, and I commented elsewhere that if that was the purpose of the policy then I agree. But as I've stated earlier, I don't think the policy can prevent that kind of conflict. Sure it disallows baptism, but it doesn't prevent "dry" membership activity in Sunday meetings, youth activities, seminary, etc. Any conflict that would arise from baptism would likely arise from other forms of participation on which the policy is silent. I think the policy clearly cannot achieve the stated goal. I also think the brethren are intelligent and are advised by capable, intelligent people and so I'm left to wonder why a group of intelligent people would give such silly reasons for developing the policy. I agree with you that they likely prayed much, counseled much, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them had a lot of consternation. I think they likely have another justification for the policy and I can only speculate as to what that justification is, but I can't accept this useless explanation of preventing conflict for children when it clearly does not do that.