Elder Uchtdorf: Progressive?

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Has Elder Uchtdorf spoken on gay issues? I'm not sure that he has. But I've read a few talks by Pres. Oaks that has, and in his opinion they will not progress to live with heavenly father if they act on it. Or become married, nor will their family unless they denounce their parents union.

I'd add in the ever important "and return to be brought into full fellowship." What happens on the other side of the veil will be quite important and I doubt either Elder Oaks or Elder Uchtdorf would want to judge someone's eternal future. Rather what they can talk about is what's acceptable sexual practice in order to be worthy of the ordinances that are required for salvation. So I can't see Elder Uchtdorf varying from Oaks in the least in that regard.

[kiwi57]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.ldsliving.com/Pres-Uchtdorf-weighs-in-on-same-sex-attraction/s/62556

I am in keeping with the topic. 

Sigh.

Then I suggest you look at this link: Analysis of Elder Uchtdorf's position I think it clearly establishes that Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks and all the brethren agree on the following:

1. Homosexual marriage is theologically unacceptable, and homosexual family units do not reflect “God’s plan of happiness.”
2. Homosexual activity is considered sinful.
3. Homosexual feelings are not, in themselves, immoral but are to be controlled.
4. Heterosexual marriage is the standard form of marriage in Mormonism and ought to be celebrated as such.
5. And most importantly, that all people–both LGBTQ or straight, should be treated with love, compassion, and respect.

Thanks.

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Sigh.

Then I suggest you look at this link: Analysis of Elder Uchtdorf's position I think it clearly establishes that Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks and all the brethren agree on the following:

1. Homosexual marriage is theologically unacceptable, and homosexual family units do not reflect “God’s plan of happiness.”
2. Homosexual activity is considered sinful.
3. Homosexual feelings are not, in themselves, immoral but are to be controlled.
4. Heterosexual marriage is the standard form of marriage in Mormonism and ought to be celebrated as such.
5. And most importantly, that all people–both LGBTQ or straight, should be treated with love, compassion, and respect.

Thanks.

What a convoluted mess that blog post is. 

How about he actually just quote what Elder Uchtdorf has publicly stated when speaking to the members of the church on this issue?

Quote

God loves all of us. He loves those of different faiths and those without any faith. He loves those who suffer. He loves the rich and poor alike. He loves people of every race and culture, the married or single, and those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. And God expects us to follow His example.

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/church-teachings

And:

Quote

"Many questions in life, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life," Uchtdorf said. "Until then, the truth is, God loves all his children, and because he loves us, we can trust him and keep his commandments."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50537493&itype=CMSID

Edited February 8, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Sigh.

Then I suggest you look at this link: Analysis of Elder Uchtdorf's position I think it clearly establishes that Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks and all the brethren agree on the following:

1. Homosexual marriage is theologically unacceptable, and homosexual family units do not reflect “God’s plan of happiness.”
2. Homosexual activity is considered sinful.
3. Homosexual feelings are not, in themselves, immoral but are to be controlled.
4. Heterosexual marriage is the standard form of marriage in Mormonism and ought to be celebrated as such.
5. And most importantly, that all people–both LGBTQ or straight, should be treated with love, compassion, and respect.

Thanks.

Thanks for the above link. I just read it and found it most enlightening.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What a convoluted mess that blog post is. 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for the above link. I just read it and found it most enlightening.

It is clear you and I have sharply differing perspectives on what we have just read.

I guess "your truth' is different than "my truth"

Though I have to say I'm not surprised by your objecting to anything that strikes at the core of your fanciful projections about Elder Uchtdorf's leanings.

By the way, the blog's author did quote this statement from Elder Uchtdorf: " Some [questions] related to same-gender attracitons must await a future answer, even in the next life."

Did you miss that? Here it is in the context of the paragraph in which it was quoted:

Quote

In 2010, President Uchtdorf stated that  “some [questions] related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.” These comments are, with minimal variation, a mirror image of the 2007 statement: “God loves his children.”  (“Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life”).  Uchtdorf echoed a fairly well-established Church-consensus.

Notice that Elder Uchtdorf's expression was quite consistent with what had already been published in the Church's "God Loves His Children."

 

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

It is clear you and I have sharply differing perspectives on what we have just read.

I guess "your truth' is different than "my truth"

Though I have to say I'm not surprised by your objecting to anything that strikes at the core of your fanciful projections about Elder Uchtdorf's leanings.

"Many questions in life, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life," Uchtdorf said. "Until then, the truth is, God loves all his children, and because he loves us, we can trust him and keep his commandments."

The bolded above seems pretty plainly stated.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by ksfisher

[kiwi57]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What a convoluted mess that blog post is. 

I'm sorry you have trouble following the argument. I didn't.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How about he actually just quote what Elder Uchtdorf has publicly stated when speaking to the members of the church on this issue?

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/church-teachings

And:

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50537493&itype=CMSID

Yes, let's.

Yes, I know the Trib[ulation] article is only a summary, not a transcript, but it still included some valuable information, even if that was entirely unintentional.

"Until then, the truth is, God loves all his children, and because he loves us, we can trust him and keep his commandments."

Why don't we all try that?

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sorry you have trouble following the argument. I didn't.

Oh, I followed it.  It was still a mess.

I prefer to simply read and trust the actual words that Elder Uchtdorf has spoken regarding this issue.

Where has he stated most of things you listed?  Do you have actual quotes (other than for number 5) written or spoken by Elder Uchtdorf?

If so, please provide exact quotes since this blogger attributed those conclusions to Elder Uchtdorf. 

Here they are again (the blogger's conclusions):

Quote

1. Homosexual marriage is theologically unacceptable, and homosexual family units do not reflect “God’s plan of happiness.”
2. Homosexual activity is considered sinful.
3. Homosexual feelings are not, in themselves, immoral but are to be controlled.
4. Heterosexual marriage is the standard form of marriage in Mormonism and ought to be celebrated as such.
5. And most importantly, that all people–both LGBTQ or straight, should be treated with love, compassion, and respect.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I followed it.  It was still a mess.

I prefer to simply read and trust the actual words spoken by Elder Uchtdorf.  

Where has he stated most of things you listed above?  Do you have actual quotes (other than for number 5) written or spoken by Elder Uchtdorf?

If so, please provide exact quotes since this blogger attributed those (his own) conclusions to Elder Uchtdorf. 

As the blogger demonstrated, Elder Uchtdorf personally signed off on explicit statements or decisions that include several of those points, and implicitly supported the others.

I'm sorry if you find that messy, but it's a valid (and strong) argument.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Sigh.

Then I suggest you look at this link: Analysis of Elder Uchtdorf's position I think it clearly establishes that Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks and all the brethren agree on the following:

1. Homosexual marriage is theologically unacceptable, and homosexual family units do not reflect “God’s plan of happiness.”
2. Homosexual activity is considered sinful.
3. Homosexual feelings are not, in themselves, immoral but are to be controlled.
4. Heterosexual marriage is the standard form of marriage in Mormonism and ought to be celebrated as such.
5. And most importantly, that all people–both LGBTQ or straight, should be treated with love, compassion, and respect.

Thanks.

Are these his words, the only thing I saw was his signature. What is he going to do, go against having his signature on these docs?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm sorry if you find that messy, but it's a valid (and strong) argument.

Not even close.  It's a complete mess and it's embarrassing that anyone even wrote something so convoluted and then attempted to attribute those teachings to Elder Uchtdorf, IMO (with no quotes provided).  I would not appreciate anyone doing that for me (putting words in my mouth), and I doubt Elder Uchtdorf would either.  He seems to be a man of such integrity that he'd want to speak for himself to the members (and most especially on this issue).

I'm going to assume you have no quotes from Elder Uchtdorf stating what those conclusions state?

[kiwi57]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Are these his words, the only thing I saw was his signature. What is he going to do, go against having his signature on these docs?

That's a bit desperate, Tac. When you sign something, you commit yourself to what it says. If you don't believe me, try telling your lawyer you're about to sign a document you haven't read yet.

[kiwi57]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not even close.  It's a complete mess and it's embarrassing that anyone even wrote something so convoluted and then attempted to attribute those teachings to Elder Uchtdorf, IMO (with no quotes provided).  I would not appreciate anyone doing that for me (putting words in my mouth), and I doubt Elder Uchtdorf would either.  He seems to be a man of such integrity that he'd want to speak for himself to the members (and most especially on this issue).

I'm going to assume you have no quotes from Elder Uchtdorf stating what those conclusions state?

You may assume whatever you wish. In the absence of any actual statements to the contrary, the position of the Church is Elder Uchtdorf's position. I take it you have no quotes from Elder Uchtdorf contradicting what those conclusions state?

Those conclusions are based upon documents he signed. Don't they mean anything?

Edited February 8, 2018 by kiwi57

[Jeanne]

And all this is probably why the man is not in the first Presidency...God help anyone who can think for himself..and receive revelation unto himself.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Sigh.

Then I suggest you look at this link: Analysis of Elder Uchtdorf's position I think it clearly establishes that Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks and all the brethren agree on the following:

1. Homosexual marriage is theologically unacceptable, and homosexual family units do not reflect “God’s plan of happiness.”
2. Homosexual activity is considered sinful.
3. Homosexual feelings are not, in themselves, immoral but are to be controlled.
4. Heterosexual marriage is the standard form of marriage in Mormonism and ought to be celebrated as such.
5. And most importantly, that all people–both LGBTQ or straight, should be treated with love, compassion, and respect.

Thanks.

Ok.  I just did my best to read this.  To be blunt, it’s not written well and it says just pretty much what the blogger believes.  He’s trying so hard to convince us that Elder Uchtdorf totally MUST agree with him on ALL those numbered items and it’s horrible writing and reasoning, I think.

How would anyone be in agreement with that kind of dishonest writing?  Where did you even find this guy?!!  Oh well, I will actually give it another chance and maybe I can follow it better this time.  The layout is weird too (at least on my computer).  I wouldn’t use this link as a reference though for anything from Elder Uchtdorf on topics related to LBGQ.  It’s hard to determine anything that really was spoken by him personally.

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And all this is probably why the man is not in the first Presidency...God help anyone who can think for himself..and receive revelation unto himself.

What on earth are you talking about? How does that even relate to what has been discussed?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  I just did my best to read this.  To be blunt, it’s not written well and it says just pretty much what the blogger believes.  He’s trying so hard to convince us that Elder Uchtdorf totally MUST agree with him on ALL those numbered items and it’s horrible writing and reasoning, I think.

How would anyone be in agreement with that kind of dishonest writing?  Where did you even find this guy?!!  Oh well, I will actually give it another chance and maybe I can follow it better this time.  The layout is weird too (at least on my computer).  I wouldn’t use this link as a reference though for anything from Elder Uchtdorf on topics related to LBGQ.  It’s hard to determine anything that really was spoken by him personally.

I have to believe that none of our church leaders would appreciate anyone doing this to them.  They are men who would want to speak for themselves, IMO.  It's actually sad that anyone would go to such extremes.  I've never heard of this blogger before, but I'm not at all impressed.

The quotes I posted above, are actually Elder Uchtdorf's words.  I'd stick to reading those if you really want his thoughts and expressions of love on this issue.

 

 

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  I just did my best to read this.  To be blunt, it’s not written well and it says just pretty much what the blogger believes.

As opposed to other bloggers - or MADB participants, or newspaper editors, or speakers in General Conference - who regularly make arguments for ideas they don't believe?

What kind of criticism is that supposed to be?

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

 He’s trying so hard to convince us that Elder Uchtdorf totally MUST agree with him on ALL those numbered items and it’s horrible writing and reasoning, I think.

It's not just him. Those numbered items are a pretty fair description of the position of the Church, based upon documents that Elder Uchtdorf signed.

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How would anyone be in agreement with that kind of dishonest writing?

What "dishonest writing" is that? I see no evidence to support that accusation.

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

 Where did you even find this guy?!!  Oh well, I will actually give it another chance and maybe I can follow it better this time.  The layout is weird too (at least on my computer).  I wouldn’t use this link as a reference though for anything from Elder Uchtdorf on topics related to LBGQ.  It’s hard to determine anything that really was spoken by him personally.

The blogger followed Elder Uchtdorf's paper trail. He considered the possibility that Elder Uchtdorf was merely submitting against his will, and dealt with that objection. He makes a sound and plausible argument. If you don't want to believe it because you'd prefer to maintain the fiction that Elder Uchtdorf is a secret "ally" for some subversive cause or other, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it won't work.

Sorry.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

As opposed to other bloggers - or MADB participants, or newspaper editors, or speakers in General Conference - who regularly make arguments for ideas they don't believe?

What kind of criticism is that supposed to be?

It's not just him. Those numbered items are a pretty fair description of the position of the Church, based upon documents that Elder Uchtdorf signed.

What "dishonest writing" is that? I see no evidence to support that accusation.

The blogger followed Elder Uchtdorf's paper trail. He considered the possibility that Elder Uchtdorf was merely submitting against his will, and dealt with that objection. He makes a sound and plausible argument. If you don't want to believe it because you'd prefer to maintain the fiction that Elder Uchtdorf is a secret "ally" for some subversive cause or other, then that's entirely your prerogative, but it won't work.

Sorry.

You don’t need to apologize.  You didn’t write it 

Seriously though, if that’s the best you have, just stick with your own writing that includes real quotes from Elder Uchtdorf.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I have to believe that none of our church leaders would appreciate anyone doing this to them.

What, discussing his position based upon what he's actually said and done?

Quelle horreur!

Would you like to know what I think they really wouldn't appreciate? Becoming the focus of some kind of personality cult; especially one based upon the erroneous assumption that they are secret sympathisers with the sometime subversives.

Quote

  They are men who would want to speak for themselves, IMO.  It's actually sad that anyone would go to such extremes.

You mean - you've never heard of anyone attempting to draw reasonable inferences from the published words and acts of a Church leader before?

Quote

  I've never heard of this blogger before, but I'm not at all impressed.

Oh well, you've settled his hash!

Quote

The quotes I posted above, are actually Elder Uchtdorf's words.  I'd stick to reading those if you really want his thoughts and expressions of love on this issue.

Yes, and the blogger has relied upon what are actually Elder Uchtdorf's words, including words like "Dieter F. Uchtdorf," in his own handwriting, at the end of an official document.

What Elder Uchtdorf puts his name to, Elder Uchtdorf can reasonably be described as having said.

Again: if it's the position of the Church, then nobody has any standing to claim that it's not the position of Elder Uchtdorf, unless he explicitly says otherwise.

Edited February 8, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You don’t need to apologize.  You didn’t write it 

I'm not apologising for the content. I'm apologising for your disappointment.

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Seriously though, if that’s the best you have, just stick with your own writing that includes real quotes from Elder Uchtdorf.

As pointed out already: the words "Dieter F. Uchtdorf," in his own handwriting, at the end of an official document, are real quotes from Elder Uchtdorf.

My signature at the bottom of a letter guarantees that the letter is from me. Elder Uchtdorf's signature at the bottom of an official Church communication guarantees that the document says what he wants it to say.

All wishful thinking to the contrary notwithstanding.

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not apologising for the content. I'm apologising for your disappointment.

As pointed out already: the words "Dieter F. Uchtdorf," in his own handwriting, at the end of an official document, are real quotes from Elder Uchtdorf.

My signature at the bottom of a letter guarantees that the letter is from me. Elder Uchtdorf's signature at the bottom of an official Church communication guarantees that the document says what he wants it to say.

All wishful thinking to the contrary notwithstanding.

I get that you like this blog post because it supports your position.  Ok.

But this writing would not even come close to passing a scholarly review with how it is written and how it makes statements that Elder Uchtdorf himself hasn’t actually spoken.  I know it’s just a blog post, though.  

 

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I get that you like this blog post because it supports your position.  Ok.

But this writing would not even come close to passing a scholarly review with how it is written and how it makes statements that Elder Uchtdorf himself hasn’t actually spoken.  I know it’s just a blog post, though.  

I'm glad you realise that. Because here's the thing: if you want to argue that Elder Uchtdorf's position is entirely unrelated to documents he signed, then you need to provide some evidence to that effect.

The default presumption is that a member of either of the Church's two top presiding quorums, and one who had a hand in crafting a number of the Church's key policies and statements over a period of years, would be on board with the Church's position as outlined in those policies and statements. When his own signature appears on all of the documents of that type that were signed, that ceases to be a default presumption, and becomes a proven fact.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not even close.  It's a complete mess and it's embarrassing that anyone even wrote something so convoluted and then attempted to attribute those teachings to Elder Uchtdorf, IMO (with no quotes provided).  I would not appreciate anyone doing that for me (putting words in my mouth), and I doubt Elder Uchtdorf would either.  He seems to be a man of such integrity that he'd want to speak for himself to the members (and most especially on this issue).

I'm going to assume you have no quotes from Elder Uchtdorf stating what those conclusions state?

I think it's interesting, and more than a little sad, that you and Julie are so quick to pounce on someone who is actively working for more inclusiveness and belonging in the Church. 

Are you that attached to the idea that Elder Uchtdorf disagrees with the Church's doctrinal positions?

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Ok.  I just did my best to read this.  To be blunt, it’s not written well and it says just pretty much what the blogger believes.  He’s trying so hard to convince us that Elder Uchtdorf totally MUST agree with him on ALL those numbered items and it’s horrible writing and reasoning, I think.

How would anyone be in agreement with that kind of dishonest writing?  Where did you even find this guy?!!  Oh well, I will actually give it another chance and maybe I can follow it better this time.  The layout is weird too (at least on my computer).  I wouldn’t use this link as a reference though for anything from Elder Uchtdorf on topics related to LBGQ.  It’s hard to determine anything that really was spoken by him personally.

Like, really? Did you not read the part where he argued for more inclusiveness? In fact, even after reading it twice, I'm not sure what the author's personal beliefs are. He is pretty objective in pointing out Elder Uchtdorf's actual public positions. 

I mean, it's not like the guy won the Mormon History Association Best Book Award or anything.  

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think it's interesting, and more than a little sad, that you and Julie are so quick to pounce on someone who is actively working for more inclusiveness and belonging in the Church. 

Are you that attached to the idea that Elder Uchtdorf disagrees with the Church's doctrinal positions?

Like, really? Did you not read the part where he argued for more inclusiveness? In fact, even after reading it twice, I'm not sure what the author's personal beliefs are. He is pretty objective in pointing out Elder Uchtdorf's actual public positions. 

I mean, it's not like the guy won the Mormon History Association Best Book Award or anything.  

Good find! I really didn't know that.

Elder Uchtdorf, of course, has said a number of important things about inclusion and acceptance. The thing is, so have the other brethren -- including those who are sometimes regarded as the "villains" of the piece.

Including (but not limited to) President Oaks, Elder Holland, and the late (and often-abused) President Boyd K. Packer.