Jeff Robinson on the LGBT issue at FairMormon

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think you quite understand the Plan of Salvation. Every kingdom of glory requires chastity, not just the celestial one. Their motivations for repenting may differ, but in the end, all who are saved will have repented, fully, of all their sins, will have accepted Christ's offer of salvation, and will have been fully cleansed from all unrighteousness. There will be no unchastity in the Telestial Kingdom, just as there will be no lying, stealing, gossiping or violence.

There is certainly an option open for those who turn down every opportunity to embrace the Lord's requirement of complete purity, but it doesn't involve a kingdom of glory.

Chastity and complete purity the Mormon way... which means that California boy can’t be exalted with his husband but Brigham Young can with some four dozen wives (I’m not sure of the final count after you subtract those that divorced).

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Leaving isn’t that easy if you have faith in and a testimony of the restored gospel.  Gay or straight.  Trust me on this. 

Faith in and a testimony of the Restored Gospel, except priesthood keys, prophetic authority, eternal family, plan of salvation, and the law of chastity. Yes, I can see how that would be hard. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

As for our gay brothers and sisters being considered less than... you don’t feel that way and that’s great.  But I know of many who do because they cannot participate, in this life, in all saving ordinances.  

So they feel less than "straight members," or the Church considers them less than? Your original claim was that the Church considers them less than. Are you retracting that claim?

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

They are told they must be celibate and that to do otherwise makes them apostates.  

Again, who is telling them they have to be celibate? Can you cite anywhere in Church materials that says this? 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm operating from the default that straight people have the greatest odds of a successful  relationship in an opposite sex marriages and gay people have the greatest odds of a successful relationship in same sex marriages.

So, if you are going to make a recommendation contrary to that, there should be some supporting data for it.  

If you disagree with that premise, we’ll likely find common ground on this. 

Well, yes. I disagree with that premise. I operate from the default that sexual orientation is not some abstract thing that separates people into gay and straight. Again, the gospel is not the source of the mindset that separates people into classes.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Faith in and a testimony of the Restored Gospel, except priesthood keys, prophetic authority, eternal family, plan of salvation, and the law of chastity. Yes, I can see how that would be hard. 

So they feel less than "straight members," or the Church considers them less than? Your original claim was that the Church considers them less than. Are you retracting that claim?

 

Again, who is telling them they have to be celibate? Can you cite anywhere in Church materials that says this? 

Well, yes. I disagree with that premise. I operate from the default that sexual orientation is not some abstract thing that separates people into gay and straight. Again, the gospel is not the source of the mindset that separates people into classes.

One can have a firm testimony and faith in all those things you list while still understanding that prophets can and do make mistakes and that the 11th article of faith is still an article of faith (IOW the restoration isn’t over).  I do  

I’ll phrase it this way, current church teachings, policies, and culture treat our LGBT brothers and sisters as less than straight members.

For a gay member who cannot, in good conscience, enter an opposite sex marriage the only other option (without losing their membership) is celibacy.  Do you disagree?

 

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

For a gay member who cannot, in good conscience, enter an opposite sex marriage the only other option (without losing their membership) is celibacy.  Do you disagree?

Yes. Strongly. Again I ask for any reference to celibacy. Maybe we need to make that a CFR. The other option is Chastity. 

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

One can have a firm testimony and faith in all those things you list while still understanding that prophets can and do make mistakes and that the 11th article of faith is still an article of faith (IOW the restoration isn’t over).  I do  

Do you maybe mean the 9th Article of Faith? Or are you claiming the privilege to worship what you may?

You'll forgive me for not abandoning my testimony because some anonymous fellow on the internet understands that the entire leadership of the Church is mistaken about such an important issue. 

 

[kllindley]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’ll phrase it this way, current church teachings, policies, and culture treat our LGBT brothers and sisters as less than straight members.

I do not believe this is an accurate claim. You have done nothing to demonstrate this, but continue to assert it as a fact despite being asked for references. 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Yes. Strongly. Again I ask for any reference to celibacy. Maybe we need to make that a CFR. The other option is Chastity. 

Do you maybe mean the 9th Article of Faith? Or are you claiming the privilege to worship what you may?

You'll forgive me for not abandoning my testimony because some anonymous fellow on the internet understands that the entire leadership of the Church is mistaken about such an important issue. 

 

Yes, I meant the 9th article.  Wasn’t thinking clearly.  Thanks. 

Chastity and celibacy are different.  Please don’t be coy with me.  Can a gay member date, holds hands with, dance with a member of the same sex and remain a member in good standing?  No.  Our gay brothers and sisters in the church are asked to either date members of the opposite sex and enter into straight relationships or be celibate.  

And I certainly do not want you to abandon your testimony.  Nothing I have said here could be reasonably construed as such.  Likewise, I haven’t abandoned mine. 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I do not believe this is an accurate claim. You have done nothing to demonstrate this, but continue to assert it as a fact despite being asked for references. 

You and I both understand the Church’s teachings related to homosexuality.  I assume you aren’t asking me to provide references on those.  I personally see them as treating our gay brothers and sisters as less than.  And I know many LGBT people who feel that way as well.  That’s my experience.  I can’t provide any other reference.  Your experience may differ. 

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Chastity and celibacy are different.  Please don’t be coy with me.  Can a gay member date, holds hands with, dance with a member of the same sex and remain a member in good standing?  No.  Our gay brothers and sisters in the church are asked to either date members of the opposite sex and enter into straight relationships or be celibate

I agree chastity and celibacy are different. You keep using the word celibacy.

I'm not at all trying to be coy. I believe the distinction between Chastity and celibacy is vitally important to understand. 

In an informal poll in an LGBT support group, over 90% reported that their bishops had told them that repentance was not needed for any romantic or physical conduct that a heterosexual couple wouldn't need to repent of. Some bishops discouraged that behavior as counterproductive, but were clear that it wasn't a sin needing confession. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by kllindley

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I agree chastity and celibacy are different. You keep using the word celibacy.

I'm not at all trying to be coy. I believe the distinction between Chastity and celibacy is vitally important to understand. 

In an informal poll in an LGBT support group, over 90% reported that their bishops had told them that repentance was not needed for any romantic or physical conduct that a heterosexual couple wouldn't need to repent of. Some bishops discouraged that behavior as counterproductive, but were clear that it wasn't a sin needing confession. 

So you think a gay member could come to church each week holding hands with his boyfriend as I did with my future wife when we were dating?   

And you think that a gay member could give his boyfriend a quick kiss after sacrament meeting as they head off to their different second hour callings?

And you think that a gay member could slow dance with a guy at the church dance each month?

And a gay member can court, date, and kiss his boyfriend?  All these things are considered acceptable within each law of chastity between members of the opposite sex. 

Finally a gay member can marry his boyfriend after staying chaste through their courtship and remain a member of the church in full fellowship?

Elder Holland’s quote is double-speak because you both know that intimacy between members of the same gender is looked at differently within the law of chastity than intimacy between members of the opposite sex.

[Jeanne]

Hmm...Holland:  We do not make a judgment about someone's attraction.  Are you kidding me?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not relevant to what we were discussing but, I agree. 

Of course you agree, but it is relevant because as you pointed out, chastity is commendable (and you would agree it is more than just “commendable,” especially in the context of the aforementioned covenants). There is plenty of opportunity for people to do what needs to be done to become sealed and exalted with spouses and families.

Let’s not be overly zealous to sell short those who haven’t accomplished this in the flesh  (the Church certainly doesn’t): the Atonement of Christ extends into both sides of the Veil an His timetable is much more merciful.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

You are asking the wrong person.  I don't think romantic feelings are ever sinful within the bonds of marriage or dating if you are single.

You are answering the wrong question. I asked, “At what point do you think a lack of judgement regarding moral or social behavior and having romantic feelings become sinful?” not asking when romantic you think romantic feelings are not sinful.

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So you think a gay member could come to church each week holding hands with his boyfriend as I did with my future wife when we were dating?   

And you think that a gay member could give his boyfriend a quick kiss after sacrament meeting as they head off to their different second hour callings?

And you think that a gay member could slow dance with a guy at the church dance each month?

And a gay member can court, date, and kiss his boyfriend?  All these things are considered acceptable within each law of chastity between members of the opposite sex. 

Finally a gay member can marry his boyfriend after staying chaste through their courtship and remain a member of the church in full fellowship?

Elder Holland’s quote is double-speak because you both know that intimacy between members of the same gender is looked at differently within the law of chastity than intimacy between members of the opposite sex.

Really? The best we can do is accuse Elder Holland of dishonesty? 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Of course you agree, but it is relevant because as you pointed out, chastity is commendable (and you would agree it is more than just “commendable,” especially in the context of the aforementioned covenants). There is plenty of opportunity for people to do what needs to be done to become sealed and exalted with spouses and families.

Let’s not be overly zealous to sell short those who haven’t accomplished this in the flesh  (the Church certainly doesn’t): the Atonement of Christ extends into both sides of the Veil an His timetable is much more merciful.

Yes, gay members who live the law of chastity their entire mortal existence (which in non-Mormon-speak translates to celibacy) get to be made straight in the next life. 

I look forward to the day that this doctrine will be disavowed. 

 

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Really? The best we can do is accuse Elder Holland of dishonesty? 

Did you intentionally ignore all my questions because you know the answers disassemble  your position?

Edited August 12, 2018 by rockpond

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Hmm...Holland:  We do not make a judgment about someone's attraction.  Are you kidding me?

Right. He wants everyone to live the law of chastity.  That’s true. 

What he doesn’t address is if he believes gay members should either date and marry members of the opposite sex or if he wants rhem to remain celibate.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Did you intentionally ignore all my questions because you know the answers disassemble  your position?

Like you ignored my earlier questions? Including an outstanding CFR?

No. I am not going to defend myself to someone who is determined to misunderstand me. 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Really? The best we can do is accuse Elder Holland of dishonesty? 

I would be interested in your answers to rockpond's questions.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I would be interested in your answers to rockpond's questions.  

Those questions are based on a paradigm I don't share. They start with a premise that counters what we have been talking about. They're gotcha questions. No thank you. 

[kllindley]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I look forward to the day that this doctrine will be disavowed. 

Which would be the day I would know the Church had fallen into apostasy. 

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Those questions are based on a paradigm I don't share. They start with a premise that counters what we have been talking about. They're gotcha questions. No thank you. 

They are straight forward questions.  If you can't provided answers, then maybe you need to reexamine your paradigm.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

They are straight forward questions.  If you can't provided answers, then maybe you need to reexamine your paradigm.

Define what he means by "could." Without social disapproval? Probably no to all. Without ecclesiastical consequences? Yes, yes, no, no, no. Could as in God would not let them? Yes to all. 

He starts with the assumption of a boyfriend. I already said this would counterproductive. It goes against the Law of Chastity.

If rockpond wants to ignore the context of Elder Holland's actual talk, or if he doesn't even give a damn to read what this apostle actually says, then no, they are not straightforward questions. 

You don't claim to believe in the Church or Elder Holland's apostolic mantle. So to you it may be straightforward to believe the popular, unscientific narrative that creates "gay" and "straight" people.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Like you ignored my earlier questions? Including an outstanding CFR?

No. I am not going to defend myself to someone who is determined to misunderstand me. 

If I’ve ignored a question, please let me know.  I try to answer questions asked directly to me though I know I miss some.  And I have tried to understand you.  I responded to your CFR (see my earlier response when you make the request). 

Your refusal or inability to answer those questions tells me that you understand my point about celibacy.  So no worries.  It’s the difference between what the Church wants to call Chastity and what the definition of celibacy actually is. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Those questions are based on a paradigm I don't share. They start with a premise that counters what we have been talking about. They're gotcha questions. No thank you. 

They are questions that would help clarify the difference between chastity and celibacy in practice. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Which would be the day I would know the Church had fallen into apostasy. 

So additional revelation that changes old doctrine is apostasy?  You know we’ve done that already, right?  Are we apostate now?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Define what he means by "could." Without social disapproval? Probably no to all. Without ecclesiastical consequences? Yes, yes, no, no, no. Could as in God would not let them? Yes to all. 

He starts with the assumption of a boyfriend. I already said this would counterproductive. It goes against the Law of Chastity.

If rockpond wants to ignore the context of Elder Holland's actual talk, or if he doesn't even give a damn to read what this apostle actually says, then no, they are not straightforward questions. 

You don't claim to believe in the Church or Elder Holland's apostolic mantle. So to you it may be straightforward to believe the popular, unscientific narrative that creates "gay" and "straight" people.

I meant without ecclesiastical consequences.  So by your answers you have clarified the difference between asking members to live the law of chastity and asking gay members to also be celibate.