california boy Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Duncan said: you know better than I that homosexuality has a long way to go to be accepted in society, I don't know when or how that will all take place but even today gay marriage is still controversial. Maybe in Canada?? Maybe in Utah?? But certainly not in California. Gay marriage is certainly more accepted in society than the way the Mormons treat gays.
california boy Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 54 minutes ago, Vanguard said: The proposition of only man & woman coming together in this way seems foundational to the Christian faith and one that has been already discussed ad infinitum on this board. I'm more interested in taking the proposition as a given and then exploring the ramifications of staying true to this principal in the face of many of our brothers & sisters whose experience run contrary to this. The proposition that Adam and Eve were the first humans on earth was also foundational to the Christian faith. How is that teaching going in 2017? Those that take that position as a given are diminishing along with those that believe there was a world wide flood with Noah's family and animals in the ark being the only ones saving. I honestly think that this type of thinking you are holding on to is one of the principle reasons people are leaving organized religion. It has become clear to many that not every thing taught in the Bible is true. Stoning homosexuals is one of those teachings that is no long believed to be of God. Your natural leap to assume that proposition as a given I think is very similar to the leaders of the church. I don't think they ever even stopped to wonder if this baring of gay couples and their children from membership in the church is in line with the teachings of Christ. This pamphlet reveals a lot of the prejudice and superstitions that church leaders had around homosexuality. Clearly they did not seek any kind of guidance from God.
Exiled Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: There is literally nothing that will not be defended by some percentage of partisans on any topic. Why do you think that is? For me seeing others thinking they have to defend against some point, regardless of how obvious the point is, promoted doubt in my mind because it made me think that there was something to fear over the obvious point that seemingly had to be denied at all costs. Why not just admit the obvious and move on? McConkie said to forget the past regarding the priesthood ban as the brethren received further light and knowledge. Perhaps the same thing happened here? Edited December 17, 2017 by Exiled
CV75 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: To the first question: No, I was saying that the Church has not always supported laws protecting LGBT individuals from housing and job discrimination. To the second question: l don't know. Clearly those who wrote and voted for the amendment felt that it should not be legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. But, I'm not sure I understand your question. This response is not referencing the post I am concerned about. In case it wasn’t clear from today's posts and links, what I would like to see is your straightforward answer from this post: Posted 3 hours ago (referencing Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM ). And in case you missed it, I would like as well as a response to this post: Posted yesterday at 01:16 PM (edited) At any rate, the booklet was not prepared for the purpose of addressing the Church’s position on LGBT housing and job discrimination. I would think that proponents of designating homosexuality as a minority status describing homosexuality as “incurable” would be rather disconcerting to modern sensibilities. I am looking for meaningful changes from the booklet content. Bringing up the Church’s current position on LGBT housing and job discrimination has nothing to do with any of the booklet content. 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Thank you for answering. I am sorry I missed the question on the first page of the thread. As you can see above, I have answered it for you. The question on the first page of the thread is not referencing the post I am concerned about. In case it wasn’t clear from today's posts and links, I would like to see your straightforward answer from this post: Posted 3 hours ago (referencing Posted Thursday at 07:53 PM ). And in case you missed it, I would like as well as a response to this post: Posted yesterday at 01:16 PM (edited) Can you see how someone might construe this as "dodging" on your part?
Scott Lloyd Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 4 hours ago, rockpond said: Good non-answer, Scott. I'm glad that my position is strong enough that I don't have to dodge questions. An answer that you don’t like is not ipso facto a “non-answer.”
Robert F. Smith Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I’m confused why you’re telling me this, when I’m the one who first pointed out that I thought this would occur in the thread, and low and behold it did. I guess thanks for the link, but I’m confused why you’re sending it to me. A lot of people do not know what the "backfire effect" is, and the link was to all the other people who are visiting this thread. A lot of people underestimate the importance of that principle, or imagine that it does not apply to them. They need to think again. We cannot emphasize it enough. 1
hope_for_things Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: A lot of people do not know what the "backfire effect" is, and the link was to all the other people who are visiting this thread. A lot of people underestimate the importance of that principle, or imagine that it does not apply to them. They need to think again. We cannot emphasize it enough. Thanks, ok. Then in that case, very good, carry on. 1
ALarson Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: An answer that you don’t like is not ipso facto a “non-answer.” But it's still a dodge. How about the teachings regarding the instructions given to local leaders on this issue? Do you believe those have evolved or changed since the 1960's, 70's or 80's? 1
cinepro Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 7 hours ago, CV75 said: Take a very close look at who was saying it was incurable at the time, and for what purpose. It wasn't the Church. Then take a look at how homosexuality is considered by the Church in the booklet as a behavior, activity, or practice and for what purpose "cure" is applied. For the Church's purposes, "cure" is about changing behaviors, activities and practices, and managing temptation. Do you agree with this statement from the pamphlet? Quote It is inconceivable that - as some involved in homosexual behavior claim- [God] would permit some of his children to be born with desires and inclinations which would require behavior contrary to the eternal plan.
Anijen Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) It would seem there are two camps being established. Camp 1 There are those who feel it was revelation in the past and Heaven forbid the church change or policy change. Then they use that change (or failure of change) as criticism to justify their own nature and some even why they left the church. Camp 2 There are those who accept the past attitudes and posit that there has been no change. What we must remember is that the Church currently plainly states marriage is between a man and a woman. This irritates those who want change and appears they "kick against the pricks" until that change is made. That is futile and they have no power. The Lord will change His Church (if He changes it all) and its policies on his own time. Note: The Apostle Peter had a strict Diet and the Lord changed it. If there is going to be a change it is nothing we can do to accelerate that and that any change comes from the Lord. As for me I accept the current policies and teachings of the Lords' Church. If changes do come, I'll accept them as well. Edited December 17, 2017 by Anijen 3
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 15 hours ago, rockpond said: Sorry, your claim about believing Latter-day Saints is wrong. I am a believing Latter-day Saint and I agree with the point that California Boy made. Of course you do. As long as I have seen you in action, you have always presented yourself as being more inspired than the brethren, at very least on this question. However, that's not exactly usual among believing Latter-day Saints. 15 hours ago, rockpond said: And, since I am the thread originator I can also say that I had no such wish. So, it's a complete coincidence, is it, that you "like" (internet applaud) every comment to that or similar effect? Okay. And I think I shall leave it at that. 2
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 15 hours ago, JulieM said: Thanks for your honesty, kiwi. As far as what doctrine is, I think that’s a pretty grey area and hard to pin down a lot of the time. I don't. I think it is quite clear, and if anything, getting clearer. 15 hours ago, JulieM said: I hope we can at least agree that teachings and beliefs have changed on this since the pamphlet was put out by the leaders. I think we can agree that policies and procedures have changed on this since this pamphlet was in use. 15 hours ago, JulieM said: Also, I agree that the leaders depended on scientific notions at that time (or fads, trends, etc., as you state above). Which for me only supports that the teachings weren’t revelation or through the spirit of God or these writings and teachings would have contained the truth. As far as the doctrine is concerned, it does; and that hasn't changed. The bits that have changed are non-doctrinal, and as such, reasonable people have no trouble accepting that inspired apostles and prophets will rely upon scientific information on non-doctrinal matters - and still remain no less inspired thereby. And their authority to teach the doctrine to the Church will therefore remain unaffected. And I rather suspect that the last point goes to the real agenda at hand. 1
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 15 hours ago, rockpond said: And there you have it California Boy, the counsel in this pamphlet upon which you based several decades of your life (believing that you were following revealed truth) was simply “outmoded” because our prophets and apostles accepted fad science that has since been superseded. No big deal, right? Gawrsh, Rocky. If I didn't know better, I'd think the above attack on the inspiration of the Lord's anointed servants was a boilerplate bit of apostate propaganda. But that can't possibly be the case. Can it?
Anijen Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Jeanne said: Ugh.what an ugly comment. Thanks... The comment was neither "ugly" nor uplifting. It was real. Facts do not care about our feelings. We have all had terrible tragedies in our lives (everyone of us). Every single one of us in times do suffer and we go through devastating trials. Actually, what is ugly, is trying to use such trials in effort to gain acceptance to a lifestyle that is considered sinful. It is not my goal to soften words of repentance. However, I recognize how insensitive I came across. I am a very caring person and do not like to hurt people's feelings. I am sorry for offense. 2
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 13 hours ago, california boy said: You should be sorry because the evidence is written in black and white and it doesn't match what you want to believe. Church leaders did not make their decisions based on revealed knowledge from God. That is indisputable. On the contrary, that assertion is highly disputable. Whether they were right to rely upon the science available at the time is, of course, a perfectly valid question. But the decision to treat homosexual behaviour as sinful, and the process of repentance therefor as being the same as for other sins, relied entirely upon revealed knowledge from God. 13 hours ago, california boy said: I was one of those believing Latter-day Saints. If I had not have been, I would not have put my trust in the claims made by those who told us all that they received revelation from God on this issue. You really shouldn't keep leading with your personal anti-testimony, CB. Because, as you know (and perhaps intend) it immediately raises other questions which, if asked, will immediately cause you to feel victimised and put upon.
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 12 hours ago, california boy said: I don't blame the church for what it didn't do. I blame the church for what it DID do. And telling young gay men that if they just married a woman they would no longer be gay is something that was so wrong. Good thing the Church didn't do that, then.
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 9 hours ago, california boy said: And what makes you think that the church is even right that homosexual relationships within the bonds of marriage is wrong? Whether it will change or not remains to be seen. What is clear now is that position did not come from revelation. On the contrary, that isn't "clear" at all. 9 hours ago, california boy said: Now the assumption clearly should be that no revelation has occurred. Church leaders are just deciding in their committee votes doctrine and policy of the church. Thank you for admitting that that is just an assumption. It is not an assumption that any authentic believing Latter-day Saint will share.
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 8 hours ago, Anijen said: Don't know too many people? Every family has tremendous struggles. Besides suffering through trials does not make a persons point more or less valid. Amen and amen! I wonder, though, whether talking about one's troubles and trials is intended to add validity to one's point as much as it is intended to render the speaker immune to criticism. "How dare you be so uncaring as to suggest that he might be wrong! Can't you see what he's been through? Haven't you any compassion?" 1
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 7 hours ago, rockpond said: I think false claims of revelation fall under the third commandment. But just my opinion. So if someone other than the prophets and apostles claims that the Lord has revealed to him/her that the Church should change its position on, say, same sex marriage, that person would be taking the Lord's name in vain? If that's what you're saying, then I agree.
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 7 hours ago, rockpond said: Good non-answer, Scott. I'm glad that my position is strong enough that I don't have to dodge questions. Said the fellow who so righteously disapproves of sarcasm in any of its forms. Q: What is the Church's position on homosexual activity (sometimes called "homosexuality" purely for the sake of brevity) as of December, 2017? A: It is always seriously sinful. Q: And can it be repented of? A: Yes. Q: Is the repentance process different for homosexual acts than for other serious sins? A: No. Q: How does this differ from the Church's position as at 1981?
Bob Crockett Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, california boy said: Maybe in Canada?? Maybe in Utah?? But certainly not in California. Gay marriage is certainly more accepted in society than the way the Mormons treat gays. A canard., if you'll permit this libertarian's views. Mormons do not deny gays medical treatment, marriage, cigarettes, housing, motor vehicles or the right to vote. Unless on an individual basis just they are like any other bigoted Evangelical, Catholic or Jew. Mormons have a theological position that homosexual behavior is a sin. That's like a Shriner saying that if you want to be a Shriner you have to provide a certain amount of hours a year in good deeds. Or Jehovah's Witnesses expelling somebody for advocating good citizenship. People have the full right to join organizations that have peculiar theological beliefs. So long as the organization does not deny essential public services, it can do what it wants in that regard. You too have the right to deride Jews for making women sit on one side of the congregation. You have the right to make public posts against it. You even have the fight to say it is discrimination against women and makes them second class congregants. But to what end, really? Nobody erects statues to critics. I can also say that if I were gay I wouldn't like the Mormons either, but it isn't so easy. Too many gays remain in the church and commit their souls to Jesus Christ and give up their ways. I know of a bishop and two general authorities in that regard. I also know that long-time faithful members of the church may slip and fall. I also know of circumstances of the opposite, those who return to the church in their old age. I even have a client, a member of the church, who is a married gay in California and holds tenuously onto his membership in the church for personal reasons. The Church is for me, it is for them. Edited December 17, 2017 by Bob Crockett 4
rockpond Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: A canard., if you'll permit this libertarian's views. Mormons do not deny gays medical treatment, marriage, cigarettes, housing, motor vehicles or the right to vote. Unless on an individual basis just they are like any other bigoted Evangelical, Catholic or Jew. Mormons have a theological position that homosexual behavior is a sin. That's like a Shriner saying that if you want to be a Shriner you have to provide a certain amount of hours a year in good deeds. Or Jehovah's Witnesses expelling somebody for advocating good citizenship. People have the full right to join organizations that have peculiar theological beliefs. So long as the organization does not deny essential public services, it can do what it wants in that regard. You too have the right to deride Jews for making women sit on one side of the congregation. You have the right to make public posts against it. You even have the fight to say it is discrimination against women and makes them second class congregants. But to what end, really? Nobody erects statues to critics. I can also say that if I were gay I wouldn't like the Mormons either, but it isn't so easy. Too many gays remain in the church and commit their souls to Jesus Christ and give up their ways. I know of a bishop and two general authorities in that regard. I also know that long-time faithful members of the church may slip and fall. I also know of circumstances of the opposite, those who return to the church in their old age. I even have a client, a member of the church, who is a married gay in California and holds tenuously onto his membership in the church for personal reasons. The Church is for me, it is for them. I agree with much of what you wrote here but I take issue with your statement that “Mormons do not deny gays marriage.” While technically true, they did try to deny marriage to gays, were successful temporarily, but ultimately failed. Unfortunately, we still hear statements from certain Brethren indicating that they feel marriage should be denied to gay couples. 2
rockpond Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 1 hour ago, kiwi57 said: Gawrsh, Rocky. If I didn't know better, I'd think the above attack on the inspiration of the Lord's anointed servants was a boilerplate bit of apostate propaganda. But that can't possibly be the case. Can it? No. Just an observation. Which, rather than actually address, you seem to just want to label as apostate. But I’ve seen that quite often from you.
rockpond Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 1 hour ago, kiwi57 said: Said the fellow who so righteously disapproves of sarcasm in any of its forms. Q: What is the Church's position on homosexual activity (sometimes called "homosexuality" purely for the sake of brevity) as of December, 2017? A: It is always seriously sinful. Q: And can it be repented of? A: Yes. Q: Is the repentance process different for homosexual acts than for other serious sins? A: No. Q: How does this differ from the Church's position as at 1981? That small part of the church’s position has not changed.
rockpond Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 1 hour ago, kiwi57 said: So if someone other than the prophets and apostles claims that the Lord has revealed to him/her that the Church should change its position on, say, same sex marriage, that person would be taking the Lord's name in vain? If that's what you're saying, then I agree. Only if it’s false.
Recommended Posts