Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[longview]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There are so many competing and contradictory philosophical theories on the issues of morality that I'm not sure how you believe that you can solve this problem using reason. It hasn't been able to bridge the divide yet.

The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution went very deep in this discussion.  They knew that men (or government) could NOT be the source of morality.  Thus the founding documents had many references and reliance on the need for the almighty God.

[CA Steve]

17 minutes ago, longview said:

The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution went very deep in this discussion.  They knew that men (or government) could NOT be the source of morality.  Thus the founding documents had many references and reliance on the need for the almighty God.

Perhaps.

But the question then is which God?

[Teancum]

On 5/13/2021 at 8:15 PM, JLHPROF said:

I would prefer my child left the Church earlier in this situation.  Preferably before they wear the garment of the holy priesthood, are placed under the covenant of chastity or the marriage covenant.  Even preferably before receiving the Melchizedek priesthood.

I would far rather they choose to leave BEFORE they receive further light and understanding and make agreements they'd be breaking.

Repentance is more possible when less light is being sinned against.

I feel sorry for your children. 

Poster removed from thread

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

No, I would not agree. Even personal revelation must pass through my own filters and interpretations -- complete with the possibilities that I am not understanding my spiritual experiences correctly. When the prophet says "homosexual behavior is a sin" and the Spirit confirms to you that it is true and the Spirit tells me it is false, what do we do with the contradiction?

This is how Pres. Oaks described his experience with the reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban in his remarks at the Be One celebration in June of 2018. He did not receive a testimony of those reasons but determined to be loyal to the brethren.

As for his other talk, I notice that he opens by stating that he is not addressing questions of discerning truth from error, but focusing on "personal criticisms" of the Church and its leadership. After all is said and done, Pres. Oaks seems to prefer loyalty to the Church over eternal truth. I'm not comfortable nor satisfied with that conclusion.

One of our hymns says, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." If homosexual behavior really is contrary to God's will, then we need to continue in our current course. If homosexual behavior can be accommodated within God's will, then we ought to break from our traditions and figure out how to accommodate it. As it currently stands, it seems to me that we are currently divided over the issue and cannot come to a "unity of faith" on the issue, and so we endlessly debate the issue.

 

I used to think that, too, but it seems it isn't true. From the woman on my mission who was told by the Spirit that she should not continue reading the Book of Mormon and studying with the missionaries to issues like those we are discussing here, it seems that the Spirit is telling lots of people ideas that run contrary to what the Spirit is telling our prophets and apostles and many of you. Sometimes it feels like Pres. Oaks "teaching general principles and individuals can receive revelation that they are exceptions to those principles" sometimes feels like the best explanation, but then I wonder why we don't readily apply it to those same-sex couples who believe the Spirit told them they could marry.

I like Michael Ash's four legged stool idea, but it seems that those four legs still lead individuals to different conclusions. I remain unconvinced that we really know how to deal with those differences.

I also always find it interesting to use Joseph Fielding Smith in these debates, because he used these same ideas to argue for young-earth creationism and against evolution. Outside of that context, I agree with the sentiment, but it also seems that we have used the sentiment to argue against truth in the past.

I'm glad you are optimistic. I find myself less optimistic that we will come to a "unity of faith" on the issue. My first recollections of discussion around homosexuality were late '80s, early '90s. It's not hard to find pamphlets and such from the Church going back a couple of decades before that. Since then, we have seen the Proclamation on the Family issued (1995), various western nations legalizing same-sex marriage (SCOTUS decision was 2015, but there were several before that), and so on. Much like the issues around racism and segregation, this seems to be an issue that is taking decades to resolve. Maybe we eventually get there, I don't know.

Do you believe the many prophecies, found throughout the scriptures, that testify after a period of testing and tribulation the kingdom of God on earth will be totally unified and gloriously triumphant over the forces of sin, lies and death? 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, longview said:

The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution went very deep in this discussion.  They knew that men (or government) could NOT be the source of morality.  Thus the founding documents had many references and reliance on the need for the almighty God.

I think you are putting your Mormon spin on this.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Quote

I will agree, but, because all such revelation comes through a human intermediary,

{W}ould you agree that personal revelation comes directly from the Holy Spirit to the individual, rather than "through a human intermediary?"

No, I would not agree.

I'm not sure I follow.  Personal revelation flows from Party A (the Holy Spirit) to Party B (the individual).  There is no "human intermediary" between them.

Quote

Even personal revelation must pass through my own filters and interpretations -- complete with the possibilities that I am not understanding my spiritual experiences correctly.

Yes.  Hence the value of having multiple overlapping, cross-checking means of discerning truth. 

Quote

When the prophet says "homosexual behavior is a sin" and the Spirit confirms to you that it is true and the Spirit tells me it is false, what do we do with the contradiction?

I look to the "four-legged stool" described by Michael Ash.  If my perspective is at odds with that of the scriptures and the cumulative position of the General Authorities, then I think the risk that "I am not understanding my spiritual experiences correctly" is much more likely to be happening.

Quote

This is how Pres. Oaks described his experience with the reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban in his remarks at the Be One celebration in June of 2018. He did not receive a testimony of those reasons but determined to be loyal to the brethren.

I assume you are referencing these remarks: 

Quote

My dear brothers and sisters, there are some events that persist in almost everyone’s memory. If you were living at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, you remember where you were and what you were doing when you heard that terrible news. The same is true of the shocking attacks on what we call 9/11. For Latter-day Saints who were adults at that time, the 1978 revelation on the priesthood was an event of such magnitude that it is also etched in memory.

The news reached me on a telephone that seldom rang. My two sons and I were working in the yard of a mountain home we built as a place of retreat from my heavy responsibilities as president of Brigham Young University. These sons were between missions. The oldest had returned three weeks earlier, and the youngest was preparing to leave a year later. The earth was caving onto our driveway from a steep slope, and we were trying to stabilize the hillside. We were in the midst of this project, shovels in hand, when the phone rang inside the house. I knew it must be important. Only a small number of people had that telephone number, and all of them had agreed not to call me about anything that could possibly wait.

The caller was Elder Boyd K. Packer. He told me about the revelation on the priesthood, which was just being announced. We exchanged expressions of joy, and I walked back to the hillside. I sat down on the pile of dirt we had been moving and beckoned to my sons. As I told them that all worthy male members of the Church could now be ordained to the priesthood, I wept for joy. That is the scene etched in my memory of this unforgettable announcement 40 years ago — sitting on a pile of dirt and weeping as I told my sons of this divine revelation.

Why was the revelation on the priesthood such an occasion of joy? As a young man studying and working in the legal profession, I lived in the Midwest and the East for 17 years. The restriction on the ordination and temple blessings of persons of African ancestry — almost invisible to me as I grew up in Utah — was a frequent subject of my conversations in my life in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray — as promised from the beginning of these restrictions — that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now, on June 8, 1978, that day had come, and I wept for joy. Many Latter-day Saints felt joy at this news.

Am I correct?

If so, what is it you find problematic about what he said here?  How does this exhibit a disdain or contempt for truth by Pres. Oaks, as you suggest?  What alternative course of action would you have proposed?

Quote

As for his other talk, I notice that he opens by stating that he is not addressing questions of discerning truth from error, but focusing on "personal criticisms" of the Church and its leadership. After all is said and done, Pres. Oaks seems to prefer loyalty to the Church over eternal truth. I'm not comfortable nor satisfied with that conclusion.

I'm rather skeptical of the notion that "Pres. Oaks seems to prefer loyalty to the Church over eternal truth."  I've been listening to this man virtually my entire life, and your characterization of what he "seems" to believe is not remotely reflective of my grasp of him, his character, and so on.  Could you provide a link to this "other talk?"

Quote

One of our hymns says, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." If homosexual behavior really is contrary to God's will, then we need to continue in our current course.

Yes.

Quote

If homosexual behavior can be accommodated within God's will, then we ought to break from our traditions and figure out how to accommodate it.

Yes.

Quote

As it currently stands, it seems to me that we are currently divided over the issue and cannot come to a "unity of faith" on the issue, and so we endlessly debate the issue.

Interesting that you use the phrase "unity of faith."  I assume you are alluding to Ephesians 4:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.

It seems like the answer is given here.  The Lord has given us apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ" until "we all come in the unity of the faith," and so that were "be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness..."

In short, the path toward "unity of the faith" is to listen to the prophets and apostles.  Where they err, I believe the Lord will correct them.  

Quote

Quote

But in terms of basic truths, I don't think Spirit would speak X to one person and Not X to another person.  

I used to think that, too, but it seems it isn't true.  From the woman on my mission who was told by the Spirit that she should not continue reading the Book of Mormon and studying with the missionaries to issues like those we are discussing here, it seems that the Spirit is telling lots of people ideas that run contrary to what the Spirit is telling our prophets and apostles and many of you.

Earlier you spoke of "the possibilities that I am not understanding my spiritual experiences correctly."  That seems a more likely explanation of things that the Spirit confirming contradictory things to different people.

Quote

Sometimes it feels like Pres. Oaks "teaching general principles and individuals can receive revelation that they are exceptions to those principles" sometimes feels like the best explanation, but then I wonder why we don't readily apply it to those same-sex couples who believe the Spirit told them they could marry.

That is a very fair question.  I think Pres. Oaks had in mind "exceptions" that are still moral, still within the boundaries set by God.

For example, do you think the Lord would ratify, through the spirit, an adulterous relationship?  Or physical violence against a spouse?  

Quote

I like Michael Ash's four legged stool idea, but it seems that those four legs still lead individuals to different conclusions.

But I'm not sure those conclusions can all be traced back to God.

Consider 1 Corinthians 14:

Quote

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

You seem to be advancing the idea that God is the author of confusion.

Your reasoning would seem to be able to be used to justify all sorts of mischief.  Every individual is a law unto himself, as long as he says "the Spirit told me to do it."

There are, I suppose, extreme circumstances in which the Lord may suspend normative commandments and constraints.  The proverbial "Jews in the attic" scenario is an interesting examination of morality and ethics.  I think there are limited circumstances where a genuine moral conundrum can arise as pertaining to abortion (rape, incest, life of the mother). 

But these sorts of situational "no win" scenarios seem pretty rare.  I have a hard time conceptualizing a situation where the Lord would say "Thou shalt not commit adultery, except for you, Jimmy, and your little 'folly in Israel' side project with your co-worker..."  

Quote

I remain unconvinced that we really know how to deal with those differences.

What are your thoughts about Elder Oaks' 1987 article?  What does it leave out?

Quote

I also always find it interesting to use Joseph Fielding Smith in these debates, because he used these same ideas to argue for young-earth creationism and against evolution.  Outside of that context, I agree with the sentiment, but it also seems that we have used the sentiment to argue against truth in the past.

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them."

A sound principle that I think Pres. Smith would, upon having received further light and knowledge, have applied to himself.

Quote

I'm glad you are optimistic. I find myself less optimistic that we will come to a "unity of faith" on the issue.

Well, that's what Ephesians 4 is all about.  

I am reminded here of  a passage from Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë.  In this novel, the heroine, Jane, is a poor but intellectually astute, and also very moral, young woman who obtains employment as a governess in the household of a rich man, Mr. Rochester.  Mr. Rochester has had a stormy and mysterious past, and Jane and the readers come to discover some of the things he has done.  Nevertheless, Jane and Rochester develop a mutual respect for each other.

How is it that an upright, moral person such as Jane can get along with a seeming reprobate like Rochester?  I think the following passage sums things up rather well (at this point in the story, Jane has just discovered part of a great secret of Mr. Rochester's):

Quote

He laughed sardonically, hastily took my hand, and as hastily threw it from him.

"If I could do that, simpleton, where would the danger be? Annihilated in a moment. Ever since I have known Mason, I have only had to say to him 'Do that,' and the thing has been done. But I cannot give him orders in this case: I cannot say 'Beware of harming me, Richard;' for it is imperative that I should keep him ignorant that harm to me is possible. Now you look puzzled; and I will puzzle you further. You are my little friend, are you not?"

"I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right."

"Precisely: I see you do. I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face, when you are helping me and pleasing me — working for me, and with me, in, as you characteristically say, ' all that is right :' for if I bid you do what you thought wrong, there would be no light-footed running, no neat-handed alacrity, no lively glance and animated complexion. My friend would then turn to me, quiet and pale, and would say, 'No, sir; that is impossible: I cannot do it, because it is wrong;' and would become immutable as a fixed star.  Well, you too have power over me, and may injure me: yet I dare not show you where I am vulnerable, lest, faithful and friendly as you are, you should transfix me at once."

"I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right."  But how do we discern what "is right?"  As to a disputed issues pertaining to the Law of Chastity about which reasonable minds can disagree, I think we can and ought to defer to the uniform and consistent counsel found in the scriptures and from living prophets and apostles.  I repose more trust in the scriptures and in the cumulative counsel of the prophets and apostles than I do in contradictory ideas wrought by The World.  Were I undecided on these matters I would err on the side of following this counsel, as unpopular and difficult as it may be.  If the counsel is wrong, the Lord will set it right.  Meanwhile, however, I would not go looking for justifications and rationalizations to disobey the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage.

As it happens, however, I am not undecided.  The world is an increasingly wicked place.  I have spent many years listening to arguments for and against the Church's teachings about these matters.  I have found these teachings to be consistent, cohesive, and congruent with the scriptures, with my own understanding of the Plan of Salvation, and with what I have learned through the Spirit.  Conversely, the counter-arguments espouse things of the world, including rebellion against the things the Lord has given us (again, see Ephesians 4).

Quote

My first recollections of discussion around homosexuality were late '80s, early '90s. It's not hard to find pamphlets and such from the Church going back a couple of decades before that. Since then, we have seen the Proclamation on the Family issued (1995), various western nations legalizing same-sex marriage (SCOTUS decision was 2015, but there were several before that), and so on. Much like the issues around racism and segregation, this seems to be an issue that is taking decades to resolve. Maybe we eventually get there, I don't know.

I sure would like to see a revelation on these matters.  As it happens, this coincides with the counsel given by Elder Oaks back in 1987:

Quote

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference.
...
A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)
...
A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.”(Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister.
...
There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error.

A person who approaches a difference with a Church leader by praying about it keeps himself or herself in tune with the Spirit of the Lord. That person also goes directly to the One who can resolve the problem. It may be resolved by inspiration to the leader or by communication of added understanding, strength, or patience to the person who prays.

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek.

By following these procedures, Church members can work for correction of a leader or for change of a policy. Members who do so in the correct spirit will not grieve the Spirit of the Lord. They will not alienate themselves from their leaders or their brothers and sisters in the Church.

"We can pray for the resolution of the problem."  The "problem" at issue is way outside my stewardship.  It falls to those in authority to speak on behalf of the Lord to the Church.  It is not my place to do so.  If I thought they were wrong as pertaining to homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage, I would pray that the Lord would correct them, and otherwise continue on the Gospel Path.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2021 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

On 5/12/2021 at 8:15 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history, so my approach is certainly shaped by that. I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

• the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedence and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures
• same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development
• it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females
• it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!
• whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman
• the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

To which I add the following:

• God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him
• we are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times
• you are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity; I know because I have done the same
• don't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it
• NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations
• wherever you are in this process, I love you, and you are important to me
• it is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress
• remember that perception is reality, so when people believe things about themselves that aren't true, those things are true to them at that point in time; try to be someone people might listen to when they're ready to shift their perceptions

I've had several young men and at least one former missionary thank me for taking this approach with them. They report feeling empowered by knowing the truth.

Certainly this is valuable information for all of us who struggle with these questions, including certainly myself.

But I seek to overcome, not to rationalize myself as "normal"- yet being "normal" is certainly far better than seeing oneself as having some sort of patholical personality disorder, when one is struggling with guilt and depression.

But is being "normal" where we should stop our spiritual progression?

Is being a natural man, a "normal person" our goal in life??

Or is it to be one who overcomes all so that we, like Christ,can be more than a "normal human"?

Obviously, I hope, the question is clearly rhetorical.

[poptart]

1 hour ago, longview said:

The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution went very deep in this discussion.  They knew that men (or government) could NOT be the source of morality.  Thus the founding documents had many references and reliance on the need for the almighty God.

The Founding Fathers did have deists in their ranks, Freemasons too.

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity | Britannica

Also Jefferson did make his own edited version of the bible, one that meshed with his Enlightenment influenced worldview quite nicely.  

 

[carbon dioxide]

8 minutes ago, poptart said:

The Founding Fathers did have deists in their ranks, Freemasons too.

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity | Britannica

Also Jefferson did make his own edited version of the bible, one that meshed with his Enlightenment influenced worldview quite nicely.  

 

The good news is they all accepted the gospel in the spirit world as the 1890s.  They be all Mormons baby. 😁

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Right now our core values are largely similar, because we are very connected and share cultures across boundaries so we influence each other.   But 200 years ago, these core values didn't exist around the world.

Exactly, and much of what might currently be perceived as shared core values is really just a veneer in response to ongoing Western dominance. It results in part from the cultural and intellectual assimilation of non-Western political elites, precisely as was the case under colonial rule, but a very large part results from sheer coercion. (Just ask non-Western delegates to international conferences!) 

Beneath this veneer swirl strong currents of resentment and stubborn subaltern defences of competing values.

The naive appeal to some mythical universal humanity turns a blind eye to — and, essentially, enables — the reality, scope, and violence of the West’s current cultural dominance. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Do you believe the many prophecies, found throughout the scriptures, that testify after a period of testing and tribulation the kingdom of God on earth will be totally unified and gloriously triumphant over the forces of sin, lies and death? 

I'm not sure I see the relevance, but I guess I'll play along. Yes I believe God ultimately will triumph over all things through His Christ.

[california boy]

On 5/14/2021 at 7:41 AM, longview said:

Yes, that kind of love may be possible in the telestial kingdom.  But why call it holy?  Holy is when God's purposes and designs are met.  Men have certain attributes and women have theirs.  When "joined" together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  The work in the Celestial Kingdom in the top degree requires the union of the man and the woman.  There is nothing sacrosanct about biological urges.  It is like people worshiping the creation but reviling the Creator.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

You do realize that you have created a scenario where a whole lot people bigger than the number of Church members now want to strive for the Terestal Kingdom.  You made that kingdom sound heavenly than the Celestial Kingdom 

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly, and much of what might currently be perceived as shared core values is really just a veneer in response to ongoing Western dominance. It results in part from the cultural and intellectual assimilation of non-Western political elites, precisely as was the case under colonial rule, but a very large part results from sheer coercion. (Just ask non-Western delegates to international conferences!) 

Beneath this veneer swirl strong currents of resentment and stubborn subaltern defences of competing values.

The naive appeal to some mythical universal humanity turns a blind eye to — and, essentially, enables — the reality, scope, and violence of the West’s current cultural dominance. 

I certainly don't disagree that Western encroachment should be kept in mind. We certainly need to be aware of how power differentials impact how people communicate and thus how that impacts our perception. However you do seem to be rash in your apparent critique of my assertion that generally humans everywhere share some core values. Across time and space, we can reasonably say that human beings generally value 1) human life, 2)caring for children and the elderly, 3)honesty, 4)properly caring for their environment, to name a few ideals.

Surely your not saying that generally human beings do not share some normative ideals in common?

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

I feel sorry for your children. 

Because I don't want them breaking covenants with God?  Because I love them so much I would rather they never enter them than break them?

[california boy]

22 hours ago, rongo said:

It's complicated. We all know people who seem to be gay from a very early age, and we also know people who seemed not gay until later in life. Molested children have a very high incidence of struggling with all kinds of sexual issues, including homosexuality, so this appears to be a major factor in many cases. 

In situations where there is no access to women (e.g., prison), homosexuality skyrockets among men who previously had no inclination. That would argue strongly that at least a significant number of incidences are choice, or dictated by circumstances (i.e., not inborn). 

What I'm seeing in my 20+ year career as a school teacher is: an explosion of teens identifying as gay in some way, many of whom aren't. Most of these are girls, more rarely, boys. It's much higher than what even the gay community thinks is the actual percentage of the population, and it's pretty clear to me that it is a social phenomenon, not a biological one. Media and wide acceptance factor in. Many either change their self-identification to "bi" or switch back. They are very confused about a lot of things, not just gender and sexuality. This is borne out, for example, in head-scratchers like self-identifying gay teens having much higher teen pregnancy rates than straight teens.

http://www.startribune.com/gay-teens-have-higher-pregnancy-rates-than-their-straight-peers/320842991/

We had a girl, a student of mine, who came out and had a girlfriend. Then, she started the discussions and decided to be baptized. She confessed in her baptismal interview that she was pregnant. She now has several kids and still lives here, and considers herself to be 100% straight (which is what I always thought she was, even when she was holding hands with and kissing girls in the hall to show she had "come out.").

It's easy and cavalier to just say, "Well, all of these kids are clearly bi," but that's just moving the goalposts. They are confused, and society, the media, their parents, and their culture are not helping them as they are tossed to and fro in a sea of confusion. 

 

I think you like many confuse orientation with the act itself.  Just because someone has sex with someone of the same sex does not make that person gay anymore than a gay person is straight because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex

I was married for over 20 years and had sex with my wife yet I was NEVER straight   In fact the only reason I had sex with her is because church leaders told me that by doing so I would become straight   That proved to be false which the church now acknowledges 

there is an old saying:  Just because you are in a garage doesn’t mean you are a car  

Those men in prison are not homosexual, they are committing homosexual acts   Students that experiment with being with the same sex may be just experimenting and has nothing to do with their orientation 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by california boy

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you like many confuse orientation with the act itself.  Just because someone has sex with someone of the same sex does not make that person gay anymore than a gay person is straight because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex

I was married for over 20 years and had sex with my wife yet I was NEVER straight   In fact the only reason I had sex with her is because church leaders told me that by doing so I would become straight   That proved to be false which the church now acknowledges 

there is an old saying:  Just because you are in a garage doesn’t mean you are a car  

 

Ding, ding, ding!!! That makes sense!! 

[california boy]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

Whether people "go all the way" and have gay sex is a good way to weed out the "fellow traveler" phenomenon (those who are embracing "gay" because of social phenomena rather than actually being gay). Look at all of the in all other ways hetero- people who self-identify as "queer" --- it's just a woke way of showing solidarity and common cause. In my experience, the vast majority of the young people self-identifying are of this type. As you note, they rarely go beyond hand-holding or maybe kissing (usually, not even that). I also find that self-identified "bi" youth almost always manifest straight in their actions --- I think this is a form of showing common cause, akin to saying you're queer. If anyone says, I though you were gay, when you're PDA-ing with the opposite sex, you can just say, no I'm bi. 

This shrinks the field considerably.

see above post

 

20 hours ago, rongo said:

Like I said, there have always been people who are gay. While I know this is offensive to those who are gay and their advocates, I view this as a defect that will be fixed in the next life ("the body in its perfect form"), and akin to other physical defects that people are born with.

YES this is highly offensive. Just because you are straight doesn’t mean everyone else is defective and need fixing.  

20 hours ago, rongo said:

Theologically, I don't believe that these defects existed in the spirit world; they are a trial given to or chosen by people. I mean no offense in believing this, although I know that offense will be taken. I cannot believe that orientations beyond the binary male-female were in created spirit children of our heavenly parents. 

Your life experience comes from only one perspective so of course you need to build a religious construct around that perspective.  But it doesn’t make it right.  I think if you were gay you would have a completely different understanding of God and how you would view yourself 

20 hours ago, rongo said:

 

As far as self-identified bisexual people, since they are admittedly attracted to the other sex, they could deny themselves and focus on the plan of salvation course. That would be no different than people with pedophile or pederasty tendencies (many of whom are married with children) not giving in to these tendencies and resisting them. No one (other than NAMBLA) bats an eye at encouraging that. 

I do believe this is true. If you are bi then you could choose to be married to the opposite sex and live a very happy life.  It is probably why there isn’t such conflicts with doctrine around bi people 

[poptart]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The good news is they all accepted the gospel in the spirit world as the 1890s.  They be all Mormons baby. 😁

So they're fistbumping Hitler and Count Dracula right now?

[longview]

15 hours ago, CA Steve said:

15 hours ago, longview said:

The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution went very deep in this discussion.  They knew that men (or government) could NOT be the source of morality.  Thus the founding documents had many references and reliance on the need for the almighty God.

Perhaps.

But the question then is which God?

The Judaeo Christian heritage.  Sure there were many denominations.  But the Founders were able to come to a meeting of the minds.  The First Amendment prohibited the national government from favoring one denomination.  And also it prohibited the national government from infringing on the people's free exercise and expression of religious convictions (within reason) including the public square and teaching the Bible in school (recently outlawed but there are signs that it will be brought back to public schools in some limited instances).

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think you are putting your Mormon spin on this.

George Washington would disagree with you.  He actually had powerful spiritual experiences.  As did many of the common people at that time.

13 hours ago, poptart said:

The Founding Fathers did have deists in their ranks, Freemasons too.

The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity | Britannica

Also Jefferson did make his own edited version of the bible, one that meshed with his Enlightenment influenced worldview quite nicely.  

 

All true.  But I can't remember if any were atheists.  Was not Jefferson more of a Deist than a humanist?

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by longview

[rongo]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you like many confuse orientation with the act itself.  Just because someone has sex with someone of the same sex does not make that person gay anymore than a gay person is straight because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex

I was married for over 20 years and had sex with my wife yet I was NEVER straight   In fact the only reason I had sex with her is because church leaders told me that by doing so I would become straight   That proved to be false which the church now acknowledges 

there is an old saying:  Just because you are in a garage doesn’t mean you are a car  

Those men in prison are not homosexual, they are committing homosexual acts   Students that experiment with being with the same sex may be just experimenting and has nothing to do with their orientation 

This is a good point. Gay sex does not by itself equal homosexuality. There are complicated factors involved. I know a man who hated gay sex but engaged in it because it was a lot easier to hook up at Arizona State University in the gay subculture (I wouldn't know what to look for, but he said it's very easy if you know what to look for). Another man had a gay porn problem, but was not attracted to men at all. He was abused as a child in connection with gay porn, and there was a twisted relationship sort of Stockholm Syndrome there. His wife was really anguished ("My husband isn't gay, is he?). I assured her that he wasn't, even as he struggled with his problem (I had had some piercing talks with him about his problem). 

I will be more precise about making this distinction. Thanks for pointing it out!  

[poptart]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

The Judaeo Christian heritage.  Sure there were many denominations.  But the Founders were able to come to a meeting of the minds.  The First Amendment prohibited the national government from favoring one denomination.  And also it prohibited the the national government from infringing on the people's free exercise and expression of religious convictions (within reason) including the public square and teaching the Bible in school (recently outlawed but there are signs that it will be brought back to public schools in some limited instances).

George Washington would disagree with you.  He actually had powerful spiritual experiences.  As did many of the common people at that time.

All true.  But I can't remember if any were atheists.  Was not Jefferson more of a Deist than a humanist?

 

I doubt they were Atheist, likely deist or agnostic.  With Jefferson your guess is as good as mine.  My assumption always was considering the influence Freemasonry had on the founding fathers they'd never not believe in a deity of some sort.  Thing is, the WASP centered version of America that a lot of people nowadays like to talk about wasn't true, at least it isn't likely when you look at the Founding Fathers lives and the times they were in.  If anything due to religious corruption they were far more likely to think neutral of religion at best.  People take for granted just how great the Founding Fathers were, it was the conditions of the Enlightenment and things like the Freemasonry of the time that I think made the creation of men like that possible.  

[rongo]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

YES this is highly offensive. Just because you are straight doesn’t mean everyone else is defective and need fixing.  

I know it is, and I mean no offense, even while being aware how it comes across when describing homosexuality as being a defect. No one wants to be labeled defective. I do think it's akin to other defects (biological problems) that all kinds of people deal with --- birth defects, or later-onset defects. None of these make people less of a person. 

At its simplest, taking God out of it altogether, the point of sexual reproduction with male and female genders is to further the species, and the feedback loop and reward system is built around that. Homosexuality is defective from the standpoint of basic biology, form and function, perpetuation of the species, etc. 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Your life experience comes from only one perspective so of course you need to build a religious construct around that perspective.  But it doesn’t make it right.  I think if you were gay you would have a completely different understanding of God and how you would view yourself 

I have no doubt if I were gay I would see many things differently than I do now. 

[longview]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

On 5/14/2021 at 8:41 AM, longview said:

Yes, that kind of love may be possible in the telestial kingdom.  But why call it holy?  Holy is when God's purposes and designs are met.  Men have certain attributes and women have theirs.  When "joined" together, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  The work in the Celestial Kingdom in the top degree requires the union of the man and the woman.  There is nothing sacrosanct about biological urges.  It is like people worshiping the creation but reviling the Creator.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Expand  

You do realize that you have created a scenario where a whole lot people bigger than the number of Church members now want to strive for the Terestal Kingdom.  You made that kingdom sound heavenly than the Celestial Kingdom 

NOW wants to?  There have always been naysayers that do NOT want to be subjected to the refining process necessary to enter into the top degree.  Jesus (in BOTH the old world AND the new world) taught these precepts:

3 Nephi 14:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction (the telestial kingdom), and many there be who go in thereat;
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life (the TOP degree), and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

NOW wants to?  There have always been naysayers that do NOT want to be subjected to the refining process necessary to enter into the top degree.  Jesus (in BOTH the old world AND the new world) taught these precepts:

3 Nephi 14:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, which leadeth to destruction (the telestial kingdom), and many there be who go in thereat;
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life (the TOP degree), and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

I wouldn't say that the Telestial Kingdom is "destruction" Joseph Smith said that the Telestial Kingdom "surpasses all understanding" (DC 76:81, 89, 98). it's still a Kingdom of Glory, for some it's the only glory they have ever had. Plus, God, not you nor me, decides what is best for his children, he and he alone knows the conditions of mankind that he placed them in, societal attitudes, the options and choices available,  he alone knows how we deal with situations, he and he alone knows our genetic makeup and how we interact with society.

Do you think with homophobic and xenophobic attitudes that exist in the Church that someone , gay or straight, should find the gate? Why spend eternity with those folks? no thanks. I read the scriptures as saying that you should love your brothers and sisters, gay or straight, american or not.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, MrShorty said:

No, I would not agree. Even personal revelation must pass through my own filters and interpretations -- complete with the possibilities that I am not understanding my spiritual experiences correctly. When the prophet says "homosexual behavior is a sin" and the Spirit confirms to you that it is true and the Spirit tells me it is false, what do we do with the contradiction?

This is how Pres. Oaks described his experience with the reasons given for the priesthood and temple ban in his remarks at the Be One celebration in June of 2018. He did not receive a testimony of those reasons but determined to be loyal to the brethren.

As for his other talk, I notice that he opens by stating that he is not addressing questions of discerning truth from error, but focusing on "personal criticisms" of the Church and its leadership. After all is said and done, Pres. Oaks seems to prefer loyalty to the Church over eternal truth. I'm not comfortable nor satisfied with that conclusion.

One of our hymns says, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." If homosexual behavior really is contrary to God's will, then we need to continue in our current course. If homosexual behavior can be accommodated within God's will, then we ought to break from our traditions and figure out how to accommodate it. As it currently stands, it seems to me that we are currently divided over the issue and cannot come to a "unity of faith" on the issue, and so we endlessly debate the issue.

I used to think that, too, but it seems it isn't true. From the woman on my mission who was told by the Spirit that she should not continue reading the Book of Mormon and studying with the missionaries to issues like those we are discussing here, it seems that the Spirit is telling lots of people ideas that run contrary to what the Spirit is telling our prophets and apostles and many of you. Sometimes it feels like Pres. Oaks "teaching general principles and individuals can receive revelation that they are exceptions to those principles" sometimes feels like the best explanation, but then I wonder why we don't readily apply it to those same-sex couples who believe the Spirit told them they could marry.

I like Michael Ash's four legged stool idea, but it seems that those four legs still lead individuals to different conclusions. I remain unconvinced that we really know how to deal with those differences.

I also always find it interesting to use Joseph Fielding Smith in these debates, because he used these same ideas to argue for young-earth creationism and against evolution. Outside of that context, I agree with the sentiment, but it also seems that we have used the sentiment to argue against truth in the past.

I'm glad you are optimistic. I find myself less optimistic that we will come to a "unity of faith" on the issue. My first recollections of discussion around homosexuality were late '80s, early '90s. It's not hard to find pamphlets and such from the Church going back a couple of decades before that. Since then, we have seen the Proclamation on the Family issued (1995), various western nations legalizing same-sex marriage (SCOTUS decision was 2015, but there were several before that), and so on. Much like the issues around racism and segregation, this seems to be an issue that is taking decades to resolve. Maybe we eventually get there, I don't know.

I would offer another framework for deciding on what is given us of the Spirit:

I think what Elder/President Oaks is advocating here is consistent with 3 Nephi 11: 28 through 12: 2. Maintaining unity by giving heed to the authorized servants of God who serve and minister is how we avoid contention and division – the opposite of what the Lord has commanded and invited us to do. One of the keys His servants possess is that of receiving and dispensing doctrine according to the Lord’s timetable and terms for declaring it for His children to receive (11: 31 and 37).

Conversely, unity in Christ is obtained through His Atonement as introduced through ordinances and the visit of fire and the Holy Ghost (11: 35). Posted 18 hours ago

Whenever the doctrine of marriage is a point of contention, it is time to remember how the doctrine as taught by His servants ties back to the Atonement of Christ.

Edited May 16, 2021 by CV75