Jeff Robinson on the LGBT issue at FairMormon

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.  

So you are ignoring the entire context of this discussion, then. Specifically where I said: 

Quote

I completely agree. It's interesting to me that the Church does not teach celibacy. I haven't yet seen that in official Church materials. That is a word generally used by critics. What the church does teach is Chastity. I accept that in some cases a commitment to chastity is equal to a functional celibacy. In some cases, no matter how hard an individual works or how much faith he or she has, the circumstances leading to marriage will not develop.  

Quote

 It certainly is possible to live in harmony with the Restored Gospel. And many individuals who have identified as gay or lesbian do have fulfilling heterosexual marriages.  But there is no guarantee that heterosexual marriage will work for everyone in this life.  I think that is what the Church has (appropriately) stepped back from. The Church still teaches that striving toward a celestial marriage is the best course of action. Even for those who have no expectation or hope of attaining that in this life, the goal of working towards that outcome, including remaining sexually chaste, is still taught as the ideal

Quote

This is part of why I think it is so important to have honest conversations about bisexuality and how prevalent it is.  I think it is important to acknowledge that youth who identify as gay or lesbian are more likely to identify as bisexual or even heterosexual later in life than to still identify as exclusively gay/lesbian.  That should factor into their decisions about what is possible and what isn't.

 

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

No. Yes. No. 

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

Celibacy is a foreclosure on the future possibility of romantic or sexual relationships. I'm saying that the God does not ask any members to do this. There is always a possibility that the necessary conditions will develop. Those odds are greater that your paradigm will allow you to admit. You seem content to limit Christ's power and authority. 

The CFR on the word celibacy stands, or withdraw the claim. I'll compile a list of questions you didn't answer. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So you are ignoring the entire context of this discussion, then. Specifically where I said: 

 

I agree that the church wants to just refer to it as chastity.  But inherent in the law of chastity is the goal of marriage. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. Yes. No. 

Good.  Some common ground. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Celibacy is a foreclosure on the future possibility of romantic or sexual relationships. I'm saying that the God does not ask any members to do this. There is always a possibility that the necessary conditions will develop. Those odds are greater that your paradigm will allow you to admit. You seem content to limit Christ's power and authority. 

The CFR on the word celibacy stands, or withdraw the claim. I'll compile a list of questions you didn't answer. 

Celibacy is abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.  I agree that the Brethren want to refer to it only as Chastity.  But if a gay member does not feel able to enter an opposite sex marriage than the church is asking them to abstain from marriage and sexual relations which is, by definition, celibacy.  That’s the answer to your CFR.

Could conditions change?  Sure. 

Is there any guarantee of them changing?  No. 

Will they change for all? No. 

 

[kllindley]

On 8/10/2018 at 5:39 PM, kllindley said:

Is that how you approached the question of whether gay couples should get married? What data did you rely on there?

 

On 8/10/2018 at 9:53 PM, kllindley said:

So the only data you are willing to consider are the risks?

 

On 8/10/2018 at 9:53 PM, kllindley said:

So you thought that by refusing to engage the entire paradigm of the OP you were addressing the substance?

Why insist on talking about gay youth as though that's all they are and all they'll ever be?  

 

On 8/10/2018 at 9:53 PM, kllindley said:

How is that any different than any other RM who has a desire to be true to his faith and commits to be monogamous with a woman? 

 

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

Your original claim was that the Church considers them less than. Are you retracting that claim?

 

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

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

 

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

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

 

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Celibacy is a foreclosure on the future possibility of romantic or sexual relationships. I'm saying that the God does not ask any members to do this. There is always a possibility that the necessary conditions will develop. Those odds are greater that your paradigm will allow you to admit. You seem content to limit Christ's power and authority. 

The CFR on the word celibacy stands, or withdraw the claim. I'll compile a list of questions you didn't answer. 

Nope, I am not content to limit Christ’s power and authority.  I know He could make gay people straight and yet I have watched over and over and over as many have prayed, fasted, and worked toward such a change and Christ has not granted it.  I have seen it enough that I now believe He is happy with them being gay. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taking your questions in order:

I've explained how I approached the question of whether gay couples should get married... quite a few times.  And I've referenced the data that I based that on.  You cited it as well.

I'm willing to consider all data, not just the risks.

I answered the question about the paradigm of the OP -- I thought that I was addressing the substance.  I understand that you disagree.  Not sure how to fix that.

I don't consider gay you as "that's all they are and all they'll ever be".  If you think that's how I see them, you have misunderstood me.

Regarding the two RM hypotheticals, both should enter marriage with the commitment to remain monogamous.  And it is wrong for either to fail to live up to that commitment.  Going into an opposite sex marriage as a gay person adds an additional level of difficulty.

I clarified my claim as being that I feel the Church treats them as "less than".

I originally didn't answer your last question because you had intentionally ignored all the questions I asked in that particular post you were responding to, but now that you've gone back an answered them, I'll answer your question.  I believe that Elder Holland does think he is asking all members, gay and straight, to just live the law of chastity.  But, I've explained why it amounts to celibacy for those who are gay and cannot enter an opposite sex marriage.  I'm going to decline to explain it again, however, since I've said it as many ways as I think I can.

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Celibacy is abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.  I agree that the Brethren want to refer to it only as Chastity.  But if a gay member does not feel able to enter an opposite sex marriage than the church is asking them to abstain from marriage and sexual relations which is, by definition, celibacy.  That’s the answer to your CFR.

Could conditions change?  Sure. 

Is there any guarantee of them changing?  No. 

Will they change for all? No. 

Addition mine: Are the odds that conditions will change greater than the odds that they will stay the same? YES.. 

So, you acknowledge that the Church has never used celibacy or celibate, but claim this is just a dishonest PR stunt.

By your definition, the Church also requires celibacy from all straight individuals who for any reason do not feel able to enter a marriage. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

So, you acknowledge that the Church has never used celibacy or celibate, but claim this is just a dishonest PR stunt.

By your definition, the Church also requires celibacy from all straight individuals who for any reason do not feel able to enter a marriage. 

No... I think they honestly see it as just chastity.

There are gay members who feel able to enter a gay marriage but instead have to choose between that and losing their membership or celibacy.  Straight members who feel able to enter a straight marriage do not have to make that choice.  For me, that is the equivalent analogy and why I see the Church as placing and extra requirement on gay people.  I understand you don't see it that way because you believe that most (?) gay members can enter into an opposite sex marriage (am I understanding that last part correctly?).

Do you have reputable data to suggest that the odds are greater that a gay person will become bisexual/straight later in life rather than remaining predominantly gay?  Or is that just your opinion?  My recollection is that you identify as a SSA man, is that right?  (If I"m wrong about this, please disregard the questions.)  Do you feel it may be the case with you that your sexual orientation will sway more toward bisexual or straight later in life and you will enter an opposite sex marriage? (You should feel free to completely ignore this question since it is VERY personal.  If I am overstepping in even asking, I sincerely apologize.  I'm just curious as to your thoughts.)

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nope, I am not content to limit Christ’s power and authority.  I know He could make gay people straight and yet I have watched over and over and over as many have prayed, fasted, and worked toward such a change and Christ has not granted it.  I have seen it enough that I now believe He is happy with them being gay. 

I've also seen Him not heal sick, suffering children despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be sick or suffering in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not cure pornography addicts despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be pornography addicts in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not bless poor people with wealth despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be poor in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not change a variety of personalities  despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe those harmful personalities will continue in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not find a spouse for lonely men and  women despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be alone in heaven. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I've also seen Him not heal sick, suffering children despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be sick or suffering in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not cure pornography addicts despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be pornography addicts in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not bless poor people with wealth despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be poor in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not change a variety of personalities  despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe those harmful personalities will continue in heaven. 

I've also seen Him not find a spouse for lonely men and  women despite fasting and prayer. I don't believe they will be alone in heaven. 

I agree on every account.

And, I believe that there will be gay couples in Heaven, sealed in eternal unions.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No... I think they honestly see it as just chastity.

There are gay members who feel able to enter a gay marriage but instead have to choose between that and losing their membership or celibacy.  Straight members who feel able to enter a straight marriage do not have to make that choice.  For me, that is the equivalent analogy and why I see the Church as placing and extra requirement on gay people.  I understand you don't see it that way because you believe that most (?) gay members can enter into an opposite sex marriage (am I understanding that last part correctly?).

Do you have reputable data to suggest that the odds are greater that a gay person will become bisexual/straight later in life rather than remaining predominantly gay?  Or is that just your opinion?  My recollection is that you identify as a SSA man, is that right?  (If I"m wrong about this, please disregard the questions.)  Do you feel it may be the case with you that your sexual orientation will sway more toward bisexual or straight later in life and you will enter an opposite sex marriage? (You should feel free to completely ignore this question since it is VERY personal.  If I am overstepping in even asking, I sincerely apologize.  I'm just curious as to your thoughts.)

Thank you for taking the time to answer the questions above. I see that door many of them you felt you had answered them, while I did not see those responses as addressing the question. However, thank you. 

I honestly don't know how to answer your first question. It depends on how you define gay. The fraction of a percent who consistently report exclusively same sex attraction? No I don't believe that they are likely to have successful heterosexual marriages. The vast majority of "non-straight" individuals? Yes I do believe that most can. A big part of the problem, is we cannot predict which "non-heterosexual" individuals are in which category until well past middle age. 

I've cited that data here before, but I'll do so again. Just not tonight.

Regarding the personal questions, I'm more than happy to answer and see them as relevant and completely fair to ask. I currently identify as bisexual. However, there were times in my teens and early twenties when I would have identified as completely gay.  I did enter an opposite sex marriage soon after my mission and before I'd come out to anyone, including my wife. I don't recommend this path at all! But I'm clear it was my decision, not something I was instructed to do. This is why I say that I'm grateful the Church has made some improvements. I do hope that individuals with same-sex attraction get to the point where they are open about that and do not enter marriages on pure hope that it will all work out. However, shortly after our wedding, I opened up to my wife, worked through an intense faith crisis, and survived a period of suicidal depression. 

Through a number of different efforts, I have had a significant change in orientation. Of course I still know how to "speak" attraction to men. But I'm much more fluent in attraction to women than in the past. I am very fulfilled in my marriage. I know this doesn't work for everyone. But I also know that if I'd been told I could have a relationship with a man, I never would have chosen the amazing life God had in store for me. As I see how our family grew and His hand in so many facets of our life, I can't imagine what would have happened to our dear children if I'd believed as a young man that I was just gay and things would never change.  

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree on every account.

And, I believe that there will be gay couples in Heaven, sealed in eternal unions.

I can respect that belief. It is not a believe I can share, however.  My testimony of the spiritual and metaphysical complementarity of male and female beings is simply too deep and settled. And I understand that to anyone without a similar conviction, many of my beliefs and thoughts on the matter likely seem conflicting or confusing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

So where does a person who is married to his same sex partner end up in the Plan of Salvation?

That really depends on what he wants the most -- a choice that is faced in one way or another by literally every man or woman to ever walk this planet: 'And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life'. This is the essence of Christian discipleship for all of us. I think we are all sorely tempted to say, 'Not thy will, but mine, be done'.

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That really depends on what he wants the most -- a choice that is faced in one way or another by literally every man or woman to ever walk this planet: 'And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life'. This is the essence of Christian discipleship for all of us. I think we are all sorely tempted to say, 'Not thy will, but mine, be done'.

Maybe I should have asked the question more clearly.  What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe I should have asked the question more clearly.  What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?

Is this supposed to elicit a different answer somehow? 

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe I should have asked the question more clearly.  What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?

Fiery demons torment them and then their souls are chopped into confetti and strewn upon a parade of justly suffering murderers and single mothers.

Edited August 12, 2018 by The Nehor

[CV75]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

 

CFR for the first line; and for the second line, well, as they say, “Good luck with all that!”

The Church does not teach celibacy as a religious principle. On the contrary, we are to keep the commandments of marriage given in the Garden of Eden (the man and woman are created as a couple to be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth, etc.).

As with any commandment, we are accountable only to the extent we are able in good faith to keep it according to our given circumstances. Thus Church also teaches, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” The ordinance of marriage can be received in the spirit world by proper priesthood authority.

If in this life only we have hope only in non-Mormon speak (i.e. understanding), we are of all men most miserable. 

Understanding the scope of chastity in relation to marriage and sexual relations is a far cry from teaching celibacy. We do not say that children and unmarried persons are to live a life of celibacy, but rather they are to live the law of chastity, understanding the doctrine of eternal marriage as a principle of chastity. We do not say that abstaining from marriage is an eternal, godly attribute in and of itself, but that contracting marriage is.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is this supposed to elicit a different answer somehow? 

Well you seem to want to school me on what the Plan of Salvation is if you are gay when you said this.

Quote

 

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.

 

I am interested in what I don't quite understand about the Plan of Salvation which is why I asked this question for complete clarification to one who seems to have it all figured out, which is why I asked:

 "Maybe I should have asked the question more clearly.  What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?"

Are you stating that the Plan of Salvation sends all gay couples as I have described to outer darkness?  I just want to be clear where I am headed.  

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fiery demons torment them and then their souls are chopped into confetti and strewn upon a parade of justly suffering murderers and single mothers.

Do you believe this as well?  I can usually tell when you are poking fun.  Not sure on this one, given Hamba's answer.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am interested in what I don't quite understand about the Plan of Salvation ...

Are you stating that the Plan of Salvation sends all gay couples as I have described to outer darkness?  I just want to be clear where I am headed.  

This isn't about 'gay couples' at all. It's about all of us. In the end (meant literally in this case) the choice before all of us is whether we accept the Saviour's offer of salvation, repent of all our sins, and fully accept the 'laws and ordinances' of the gospel. The alternative -- again, for every single one of us -- is not to accept the Saviour's offer of salvation, not to repent of all our sins, and not to fully accept the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

That's not what the Lord wants for us, which is why he will exhaust every possible opportunity to convince us otherwise first, even allowing us to get a foretaste of outer darkness by suffering for our own sins in a temporary hell if necessary -- but in the end (again, literally) if we prefer our ways to His, He will let us go.

Quote

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance ...

***

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well you seem to want to school me on what the Plan of Salvation is if you are gay ...

I'm not 'schooling' you. This is an LDS discussion board. If you're going to discuss matters with Latter-day Saints with any degree of mutual respect, you should at least expect us to point out where you've got our doctrine wrong.

And this is not 'what the Plan of Salvation is if you are gay'. It is, simply, what the Plan of Salvation is if you are human, which we all are.

I have seen you repeatedly on this board try to portray the teachings of Jesus Christ as somehow specially onerous to people who've acquired a homosexual sexual orientation. I don't expect you to ever alter that tactic, but it's nonsense. Basic Christianity is clear on this point: every single one of us is estranged from God in a multitude of ways. All sin is equal in the eyes of God. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. This means we are all equally in trouble.

Thankfully, Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins specifically to open up a space for us in which we can choose to repent, to deny ourselves of all ungodliness, to say, as He did when he was on the brink of a literal hell, 'Nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done'.

As C.S. Lewis so aptly noted:

Quote

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done', and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done'.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

"Maybe I should have asked the question more clearly.  What happens to a gay person who marries someone of the same sex for life and has no intentions of returning to the Mormon Faith because they don't believe Mormon leaders speak for God?"

It really, really depends. The Lord will judge "what happens" according to the terms of His atonement, which was ultimately for the advancement of agency and exaltation of all His children.

[Guest]

On August 8, 2018 at 8:26 PM, churchistrue said:

I haven't seen anything on this here and nothing in the blogosphere that I've noticed. I think if/when it hits the rounds, it could have the potential to explode. But I'm not sure. He seemed to be making an intellectual case based on scientific studies and his extensive clinical experience that gay LDS should reform and marry heterosexually. This seems to be an opinion that hasn't been voiced much for at least a decade. I thought even the church had moved past this. But maybe I misunderstood him. Honestly, his presentation was reasonably compelling to me. He's extremely experienced and seems to have an open mind to things. Based on what I read and understand, I tend to be on the progressive side of this issue and am anticipating change/revelation in the future, but it's not my field of expertise. 

 

When you say, "I thought even the Church had moved past this", it has when it comes to the idea that marriage can somehow heal those who are homosexual. But the Church is and always be pro-heterosexual marriage, for doctrinal and scriptural reasons. Also will continue to stress abstinence outside of marriage, and when possible for those who deal with same sex attraction, all of which are scripturally based doctrines. In fact all Faiths teach and admonish the same, and persons of all Faiths do this, and are successful in doing so.