Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, if I start seeing kids wearing bullet proof vests and carrying knives and such after a lesson on the armor of God, I promise I will start to take this concern seriously.

I don’t like using war metaphors, but they are so ubiquitous I have a hard time believing someone will take them literally and think Elder Holland is telling them to defend the Church and Faith with guns.

IMO a person doesn't have to take a violence metaphor/hyperbole literally for it to still be harmful to the group at which it is aimed.

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

Do you think that there will be folks in the church who won't get the difference between metaphorical and literal?

Metaphorical and literal what?  Muskets?  Wielded by . . . BYU professors?

Do you think there are people who won't get the difference between "metaphorical and literal" as pertaining to HJW's use of the word "combat?"  And if they did ignore that distinction and resort to violence, would you blame HJW?  I sure wouldn't.

I'm curious about your thoughts on James Thomas Hodgkinson, the guy who in 2017 tried to murder a bunch of Republican politicians who were playing a baseball game.  Do you blame the Democrat Party for his actions?  Do you blame Bernie Sanders (Hodgkinson worked on his presidential campaign)?  I assume the answer to both questions is "no."  Could you explain your perspective?

And boy, if we're going to dilute the concept of "incitement" in this way, then there are all sorts of comments, including some on this board, that can be construed as inciting violence against the Latter-day Saints.  

Are our resident crop of antagonists ready, willing and able to take responsibility for their "inciting" statements?  I doubt it.  And I don't blame them.  I think diluting the concept of incitement to the extent we have seen in this thread is stupid, as is the notion of blaming X person because some irrational idiot miscontrues and decontextualizes a word like "combat" (used in a purely metaphorical sense) as an incitement to actual physical violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 26, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO a person doesn't have to take a violence metaphor/hyperbole literally for it to still be harmful to the group at which it is aimed.

I don’t disagree, but that is something different than claiming that a gun metaphor will trigger violence independently of mental illness…which can be triggered by innocuous comments or even looks (think stalkers who believe they have intimate connections just because someone smiles in their direction, for example.).  I do believe we need to be careful not to rev up aggressive behaviour, such as if one is in front of a crowd and hears immediate feedback that suggests aggressiveness, don’t go for the violent, over the top metaphors.
 

 My responses have been towards the claims that we should be concerned that some will take Elder Holland’s defined metaphor (he called it a metaphor, people didn’t even have to guess) literally.

The context of Elder Holland’s talk was not an aggressive, physical one where people were surrounding him yelling, etc.  It was an academic and religious setting.  Added: if anyone in that crowd did not understand what a metaphor was, they should demand their tuition money back or turn in their diploma. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Calm

[Duncan]

Just now, smac97 said:

Metaphorical and literal what?  Muskets?  Wielded by . . . BYU professors?

Do you think there are people who won't get the difference between "metaphorical and literal" as pertaining to HJW's use of the word "combat?"  And if they did ignore that distinction and resort to violence, would you blame HJW?  I sure wouldn't.

I'm curious about your thoughts on James Thomas Hodgkinson, the guy who in 2017 tried to murder a bunch of Republican politicians who were playing a baseball game.  Do you blame the Democrat Party for his actions?  Do you blame Bernie Sanders (Hidgkinson worked on his presidential campaign)?  I assume the answer to both questions is "no."  Could you explain your perspective?

And boy, if we're going to dilute the concept of "incitement" in this way, then there are all sorts of comments, including some on this board, that can be construed as inciting violence against the Latter-day Saints.  

Are our resident crop of antagonists ready, willing and able to take responsibility for their "inciting" statements?  I doubt it.  And I don't blame them.  I think diluting the concept of incitement to the extent we have seen in this thread is stupid, as is the notion of blaming X person because some irrational idiot miscontrues and decontextualizes a word like "combat" (used in a purely metaphorical sense) as an incitement to actual physical violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Probably 40 of us have read HJW use of the word "combat" so I think we're okay. How many LDS nutjobs do you think have read Elder Holland's words?

I've never heard of James Hodginkson or this incident. I don't see the connection his working on Bernie Sanders campaign, did Bernie tell him to do this? my guess is probably not. I have heard of The Jan. 6 incident when Trump incited a riot and somehow he got freed of any charges. I would guess though that the James Hodgkinsons and the rioters conflate terms and don't understand what metaphorical and literal mean, is why I ask I hope we don't have any James Hodgkinson's out there. 

I doubt though that people who would commit violence against LDS members read this board 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO a person doesn't have to take a violence metaphor/hyperbole literally for it to still be harmful to the group at which it is aimed.

At this point, I’m wondering how attentive you were or if you even bothered to read or listen to the speech. Elder Holland was not calling for war to be waged against the LGBT “community.” The point of the musket metaphor (quoted from an earlier talk given by Dallin H. Oaks) was fending off attacks from aggressors, as the Nauvoo Saints were obliged to do when their enemies wouldn’t let them be as they were trying to build the temple and, more broadly, God’s kingdom on earth. The trowel-and-musket (or sword) imagery thus expresses generally the idea of defending oneself against unjust attack (the sword or musket) while attending to good works (the trowel), whether it be by using words to counter falsehood, as we must do today, or withstanding physical force or violence, as God’s people were obliged to do anciently and in the early part of the latter-day dispensation. 

[MustardSeed]

Goodness.  Muskets?  A reference for violence?  I don't think so. 

All I care about right now is if BYU is delegitimized, where to send my son in his final year. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

And what makes your pronouncements as to what is illegal or immoral better??

Nothing.  You can feel it's immoral to use a metaphor about defending religious beliefs that include an example of a weapon from the 1800s.  I'm not going to take that seriously but you can definitely do it.

Quote

Reread the address, Elder Holland was absolutely implying through the metaphor that there were enemies and acceptable targets of the metaphorical muskets.

Was he implying that anyone do anything to harm them? No.  Or even treat them unkindly?  No.  Not even a little bit.  He's talking about defending against the doctrinal issues and arguments that often come up in regards to lgtbq+ topics.   People can and do disagree with that sentiment.  

It's hard to spin that as 'immoral', but people are sure giving it their best go, and that's why I lamented the current state of our society.  

Quote

I also seem to recall a certain user taking great offense at another user referring to a BYU woman and whistleblower as a girl .

Ok.  You should bring that up with that poster then (and maybe in a thread where that is relevant to the topic).

Quote

Again, it’s funny who gets to be outraged and over what.

There's a difference between outrage and disagreement.  I have no idea what you read from me that you interpreted as outrage but you've misunderstood. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Probably 40 of us have read HJW use of the word "combat" so I think we're okay. How many LDS nutjobs do you think have read Elder Holland's words?

Nutty enough to go out and shoot an anti-Mormon? I’m going to take a wild guess and say, oh, zero. 

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nutty enough to go out and shoot an anti-Mormon? I’m going to take a wild guess and say, oh, zero. 

or a homosexual at a rally, coworker etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Duncan said:

or a homosexual at a rally, coworker etc.

Same answer. 

[smac97]

Just now, Duncan said:

Probably 40 of us have read HJW use of the word "combat" so I think we're okay.

The point remains, though, that if one of the 40 who read it materially decontextualized it, irrationally took it as a call for actual physical violence, nobody would blame HJW.  

Just now, Duncan said:

How many LDS nutjobs do you think have read Elder Holland's words?

The same words that included this?

Quote

We hope it isn’t a surprise to you that your Trustees are not deaf or blind to the feelings that swirl around marriage and the whole same-sex topic on campus. I and many of my Brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the Church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.

And this?

Quote

In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope while keeping the gospel strong and the obedience to commandments evident in every individual life.

And this?

Quote

“In a way[,] [Latter-day Saint] scholars at BYU and elsewhere are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think,” Elder Maxwell went on to say, “this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”

Then Elder Oaks said challengingly, “I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.”[11] He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments, but the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Little did he know that while many would hear his appeal, especially the School of Family Life who moved quickly and visibly to assist, some others fired their muskets all right, but unfortunately didn’t always aim at those hostile to the Church. A couple of stray rounds even went north of the point of the mountain!

Was Elder Holland accusing BYU faculty of attempted murder here?

Just now, Duncan said:

I've never heard of James Hodginkson or this incident. I don't see the connection his working on Bernie Sanders campaign, did Bernie tell him to do this? my guess is probably not.

Same here.  So do you blame Bernie Sanders?  The Democratic Party?  

Just now, Duncan said:

I have heard of The Jan. 6 incident when Trump incited a riot and somehow he got freed of any charges.

I'm very much a law and order guy.  I have opposed unlawful protests/riots regardless of who has done them.  

But we're not really talking about the legal concept of "incitement," right?  I doubt even HJW would try to characterize Elder Holland's remarks as incitement in the legal sense.

Just now, Duncan said:

I would guess though that the James Hodgkinsons and the rioters conflate terms and don't understand what metaphorical and literal mean, is why I ask I hope we don't have any James Hodgkinson's out there. 

Same here.  But if such a thing were to happen, would you go along with HJW being accused of "incitement" because he used the word "combat?"

Just now, Duncan said:

I doubt though that people who would commit violence against LDS members read this board 

I sure hope so.  I am strongly opposed to violence of any sort, but violence based on political or religious disagreement seems to be pretty bad.  And often irrational.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Same answer. 

there are sadly people, LDS, who would hurt someone else given enough push. Guess well see, mind you tiki torches aren't terribly effective I would imagine as a weapon........

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO a person doesn't have to take a violence metaphor/hyperbole literally for it to still be harmful to the group at which it is aimed.

Who were you aiming at when you spoke of "combat?"  Seems like you were aiming at us.  Right?  Right?

So do you feel you have harmed us?

Or is this another one of those "It's not wrong when I do it" kind of things?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2021 by smac97

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it was.  

Rant: "to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave."

You didn't speak "violently," but "extravagantly?"  Yep.  "Wild or vehement?"  Big time.  "Rav{ing}?"  Nothing but.

No substance.  No evidence.  No argument.  No reasoning.  No attempt to persuade.  Just anger.  Vituperation.  Your personal opinion dressed up as fact.

I invite you to do some research on this topic.  And try to avoid the inevitable "No True Scotsman" fallacy that is pretty obviously on its way.

And even more because-I-say-so assertion of personal opinion as fact.

Reasonable minds can disagree about this.  Do you concur?

Sigh.  I'm not particularly interested in playing the No True Scotsman game with you today.

You have preemptively rejected anything I could say by way of substantive response.

What "personal beliefs on Blacks" from "current apostles" do you find problematic?

No, he wasn't.  

For the average fundamentalist (yep, you seem to be one), a red-letter approach to the bible might work.  But that's not how things work for the Latter-day Saints.  The New Testament is hardly the definitive source of what Jesus Christ taught, so I reject the notion that He was, or is, "silent on any homosexual issues."

Meh.  You have preemptively rejected any "revelation on gay marriage."  Anything you don't like you can just characterize as "just the opinion of fallible men."  

You have the ultimate cop-out.  

Look, if there was a way to reconcile homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage with the Restored Gospel, I really think the Brethren would do it.  And I would be fine with it.  I dislike all the hatred and venom spewed at me and mine because we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and because sexual behavior is, in the eyes of God, only authorized between a husband and wife.

Instead, the Lord has revealed things that are, these days, increasingly unpopular.  The Law of Chastity prohibits not only homosexual behavior, but also fornication and adultery (and pornography, and so on).  It's a pretty stringent standard of sexual ethics, particularly in a world that is becoming increasingly sexualized.  And yet I really believe these things come from God.  Not because, as you and yours so frequently and falsely and nastily insist, because we hate gay people, far from it.  We don't hate people who commit fornication either.  We just believe that God has prohibited forms of sexual behavior, and people like you can't stand that we believe that.

It would be easier to capitulate.  It would be easier to do as you do and just selectively disregard the tenets of our faith that are unpopular in the moment.  But I don't think we will.  As in John 6, we are called upon to accept and follow teachings that are unpopular, but right.

Again, I don't like all the vitriol being spewed about.  I don't like you coming to this board and endlessly disparaging me and mine and what we believe.  But I'll put up with it.  That's part of the gig of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  It ain't a popularity contest.

Boy, that's rich.  Coming from the guy who said this:

You didn't cite anything here, CB.  This is all you.  You and your beliefs.  You endlessly inject you and your personal life and personal sentiments into the discussion, and then say silly stuff like "this is not about what I believe."

If that's so, then why do you keep telling us what you believe?

Again: If the Brethren were to present a revelation to the Church that unequivocally and definitively codified marriage as between a man and a woman, that categorically rejected same-sex marriage, and that categorically prohibited homosexual behavior, you . . . would not accept it, right?  You would call it "just the opinion of fallible men" or something similar, right?

Yawn.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not going to bother responding to your rant.  I have made my point as clearly as I can.  Since there is no claim that this (and yours) interpretation of the Law of Chastity has been added by God, but rather by the brethren, I will make you an offer.

If you quit saying that prohibiting marriage of gay people is part of the Law of Chastity given by God, I will quit pointing out that no such addition has come from God.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I’ve had ttribe on ignore for quite a while now and hence haven’t seen his posts lately, but if memory serves, isn’t he wont to use silly memes in lieu of articulated argument? Pot meet kettle. 

That was the point, Scott.  I have been taken to task a number of times for using memes, and yet...no one has anything to say to Spencer.  Thank you for your assistance.

Edited August 25, 2021 by ttribe

[ttribe]

Dup.

Edited August 25, 2021 by ttribe

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The point remains, though, that if one of the 40 who read it materially decontextualized it, irrationally took it as a call for actual physical violence, nobody would blame HJW.  

The same words that included this?

And this?

And this?

Was Elder Holland accusing BYU faculty of attempted murder here?

Same here.  So do you blame Bernie Sanders?  The Democratic Party?  

I'm very much a law and order guy.  I have opposed unlawful protests/riots regardless of who has done them.  

But we're not really talking about the legal concept of "incitement," right?  I doubt even HJW would try to characterize Elder Holland's remarks as incitement in the legal sense.

Same here.  But if such a thing were to happen, would you go along with HJW being accused of "incitement" because he used the word "combat?"

I sure hope so.  I am strongly opposed to violence of any sort, but violence based on political or religious disagreement seems to be pretty bad.  And often irrational.

Thanks,

-Smac

Muskets though are sound bites, you provided quotations, ala the Gregory Smith tweet. If someone though "irrationally" committed violence, the 39 others or "nobody" would be involved and I hope the one got a good lawyer.

 

I don't blame Bernie or the democratic party anymore than I would institution of marriage for that man's situation in life.

so we're talking about legal and not legal but metaphorical but not literal is that right? As i say I hope no one takes a literal weapon and literally does something. 

[ttribe]

Dup.

Edited August 25, 2021 by ttribe

[california boy]

1 hour ago, jbarm said:

It would be nice if California Boy, his apparent alter ego Canadiandude and HappyJackWagon and the like would quit quibbling around the edges with these attacks on semantics of a speech by a GA and state what they really want, which is...

Unequivocal moral endorsement of gay sexual relations sanctioned by the Church.

Just say that is what you want and that you will not be satisfied until it happens. 

Anything else you say is just obfuscation of your real intent. 

Be up front and honest about your strategy and goals. Everything else is just noise. 

I can respect your opinion if you are at least honest about your real objectives. 

Sheesh.

Jb

Not sure why you are including me in this.  I haven't said anything about the whole musket issue.  Yes I think it was a poor choice of words.  No I don't thing Elder Holland meant it literally.  Yes I believe some people can take it literally (as has been pointed out, that actually has occurred).

What I am most surprised about is people defending his use of the word musket rather than just saying, Yeah, bad word choice.  As a gay person, this makes me feel like you are all ok with the use of that inflammatory suggestion.

My honest objective?  To point out that there has never been a revelation on this issue.  People that claim it is part of the Law of Chastity should point out that interpretation of the Law of Chastity came from Church leaders, not God.

I will confess, it is actually my own defending of the Priesthood Ban as coming from God when I was on my mission and in talking with those outside the Church as a motivating factor of becoming very clear where doctrine and policies come from. I deeply regret defending a doctrine that I thought came from God when in fact, it did not.  I am trying to rectify those actions by clearly pointing out that this policy also did not come from God.

Edited August 25, 2021 by california boy

[ttribe]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am a serious student of my faith and beliefs.  I think they are important and worth defending.

I have a pretty good sense of humor, but most of the time the discussions on this board are about serious topics, and also involve strongly-held sentiments, so generally I try to avoid levity.

But this thread has just gone off the deep end.

The accusation that Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (!) made a reference to "scholars" at BYU using "[metaphorical] muskets" to "defend" the "the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman" as an incitement to actual physical violence is, as I said before, astronomically stupid.

I generally give you critics a pretty broad latitude to have your say.  You and yours come to this board and say all sorts of offensive and awful, and often materially false or misleading or unfair, things about things that I hold be sacred and important.  But hey, it's a message board.  Free speech and all that.  And perhaps sometimes all the nastiness you guys bring here is part of a process of spleen-venting.  Well, okay.

And sometimes the points made about us, the criticisms and such, are fairly made.  I'll own that.  Your presence is a big part of why I have been on this board since 2004.  If I wanted to hang out in an echo chamber, there are plenty of places.  So this board is a pretty decent testing ground.  You and yours express your grievances and complaints and criticisms, and we analyze them.  Hash them out.  Parse out the legitimate points from the not-quite-legitimate ones.  

But every once in a while I find myself involved in a discussion that devolves to the point of absurdity.  To the point of unseriousness.  To the point where there is no substance, just stupidity.  This thread has become just such a discussion.

I have a pretty decent track record of addressing the substance of criticisms of my faith.  Of being willing to have a good faith debate or discussion.  Of generally backing up my position with evidence, argument, reasoning, logic, while also acknowledging that, in the end, we are often discussing unproven and unprovable matters of faith. 

But here, this discussion has devolved into rank stupidity and unreasonableness.  So a few memes seemed to be in order.

Thanks,

-Smac

My presence?  Oh, good grief, Spencer.  Do you remember the years I spent defending the church?  And referring to 'critics' as a homogeneous group is just wrong, and you know it.  If you really spent any time, whatsoever, looking at my posts over the years since my faith collapse, I believe you'll find the majority of my 'criticisms' are about apologetics and the tactics of apologists.  You don't see me spending great amounts of time criticizing church leaders or doctrines or policies.  There are exceptions, of course, but I don't really do that here.  Indeed, the only thing I've said about the 'muskets' issue is that I thought Elder Holland was, at best, unwise to use that terminology in the current environment.  That's pretty much it.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The musket metaphor implies that members should be "willing to defend the faith" with violence. Unacceptable. Accepting violence as a way to defend a person's religious views IS a moral issue. I'm surprised you don't agree.

 

If he was saying that, then I'd agree with you. 

But I'm incredibly surprised that you actually think that's what he was implying, especially considering all the talks he has ever given, which I know you've heard most of, if not all.  What has Elder Holland ever said that would lead you to believe that he would ever tell people to use violence?

Quote

The US has a strong gun culture and so does the church. Using a gun metaphor within such a culture, and implying it has nothing to do with violence is naïve.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.  Elder Holland was using a historical example, which makes sense since he was speaking about the early church members defending something.  Thinking that mentioning the common historical use of weapons for defensive, when speaking about the pioneers, is a call for violence today is overly dramatic.

Quote

At the very least Holland is appealing to people to defend the religion by talking about muskets and musket fire. There have already been online/social media responses championing this call to "grab your muskets". Perhaps you think they are mis-hearing/reading Holland by enthusiastically wanting to defend their religion with violence (even if hyperbolic) but they really aren't. That's what he said. It's somewhat similar to what a recent president did in stoking certain fires prior to a catastrophe and then acting like he was misunderstood. 

I have no doubt some of them are.  Like I said previously, it's the misreading (sometimes on purpose) and agenda-driven responses from both sides of the isle that is going to do us in.  

Quote

I am stating unequivocally that it is immoral to incite people to violence. One can always argue that the person didn't mean it that way, yet a person's words matter and they are culpable if someone listens and acts on it.

Not if the person acting on it has interpreted those words in a completely unreasonable manner.  

Quote

Hopefully no one will actually grab a musket and defend the church against someone waving a pride flag but it's not the craziest idea I've ever heard. At the very least what should a member of the LGBTQ community or ally think? They should think that Holland has declared them an enemy to the church to the point that Holland urged people to grab a musket.

I have no doubt that some will think that--and some of them will think that because of the type of things that you and others have said which will convince them that that's how they should take it--but I don't believe that is a reasonable way to take them.  

Quote

This is not political correctness run amok. I suppose non-violence could be considered an "agenda" but shouldn't we all want that? This is the denouncing of violence and violent rhetoric. I would fully expect all Christians to get on board with that. Obviously that is not the case and we wonder why things are getting worse.

Holland talking about musket fire is bad enough, but having members bend over backwards to pretend like that shouldn't matter is pretty disgusting.

Sigh.  Accusing everyone who disagrees with you or reacts to a situation differently than you do, as being immoral (or disgusting), is one of the reasons that things are getting worse.  We don't have to wonder about it.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not going to bother responding to your rant.  

Okay.  We seldom have substantive discussions anyway.

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since there is no claim that this (and yours) interpretation of the Law of Chastity has been added by God, but rather by the brethren, I will make you an offer.

Oh, goody.

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you quit saying that prohibiting marriage of gay people is part of the Law of Chastity given by God, I will quit pointing out that no such addition has come from God.

I will make you an offer.  I will not try to stifle or silence the free expression of your opinions, and I will ask that you reciprocate that sentiment.

The "Law of Chastity" is an amalgam of various portions of scripture and counsel from modern prophets and apostles.

You have long relied on an anything-I-don't-like-in-the-teachings-of-the-Church-I-summarily-declare-to-be-manmade line of reasoning, helped along with a few healthy doses of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

There is no reasonable dispute about what the Church teaches regarding the Law of Chastity and marriage as being between a man and a woman.  None.  It's pretty easy to find in any number of places.  The Church's website.  Various church manuals.  For the Strength of Youth, and so on.

Now, is there a reasonable dispute about whether these things are - as you put it - "given by God?"  Sure.  But then, pretty much everything we believe is, in the end, a matter of faith and choice.

Positivism.  Fundamentalism.  Hyper-literalism.  Proof-texting.  Legalism.  These are your go-to resources whenever same-sex marriage and/or homosexual behavior comes up on this board.  But they just don't work.  Your insistent "Show me chapter and verse where God descended from heaven and prohibited homosexual behavior" legalisms just don't work, any more than, say, someone trying to argue that injecting heroin is okay since it's not itemized in the Doctrine & Covenants, or that pornography is acceptable because it is not specifically prohibited in the scriptures, and on and on and on.

I also understand that you draw a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like.  For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly.  For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule.  

I've previously posted this:

Quote

We should study such things.  We should also be reasonable in differentiating not only between "opinion" and "doctrine," but between doctrine and "principles," and between doctrine and "applications."

Perhaps an illustration can help: God also knew that His people would live in an era where substance abuse is rampant.  And yet the Word of Wisdom says nothing about marijuana, or cocaine, or meth, or heroin, or GHB, and so on.  Why weren't any of these things mentioned in the Bible or Book of Mormon?  Or why haven't we received a canonized revelation about these substances?

The answer, I think, may be understood by applying the principles explained by Elder Bednar in two books, "Increase in Learning" and "Act in Doctrine."  This article summarizes things this way:

 

Quote

 

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

 

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/doctrines-principles-applications-760x488.jpg

To further illustrate here is  an excerpt from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Doctrine":

Quote

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

With these things in mind, how should I approach the Church's various policies pertaining to same-sex attraction, same-sex behavior, same-sex marriage, etc.?  Are these policies "doctrine," "principle" or "application?"

Consider how this question is answered relative to the use of harmful, addictive, and/or mind-altering substances.  Such things are generally governed by the Word of Wisdom.  I think the Word of Wisdom is pretty clearly "doctrine."  From there, the "principles" we glean from the Word of Wisdom pertain to healthy living, abstaining from certain specified things (coffee, tea, tobacco), and so on.  The "application" of the Word of Wisdom will proscribe things like heroin and cocaine, because using such substances cannot be squared with either the "principles" or the "doctrine" arising from the Word of Wisdom.

So let's turn to the Law of Chastity.  What about pornography?  Is it specifically prohibited in scripture?  No, but using it cannot be squared with the Law of Chastity (any more than using heroin can be squared with the Word of Wisdom).  Plus it has been specifically and emphatically and repeatedly condemned by modern prophets and apostles.  So the "application" of the Law of Chastity to the viewing of pornography is fairly clear-cut, even though we're speaking of principally of "application" (of a "principle" gleaned from a "doctrine").

Turning to your question regarding LGBTQ issues, I think there are "doctrines" in play, such as the Law of Chastity and various concepts pertaining to the nature and purpose of marriage.  From these we can/should/must glean "principles," and then develop appropriate "applications."  And by "we" I mean each of us needs to act withing our sphere of influence and stewardship.  For me, that's my family.  But for the General Authorities, they have stewardship over the entirety of the Church, and hence have a greater responsibility to formulate "principles" and "applications."  This is a pretty difficult thing to do, given the state of things.  We live in an era of sexual licentiousness, increased measures of apathy and irreligiosity, hostility toward religion, and other challenges.  Nevertheless, the General Authorities have a job to do.  They have a mandate.  They cannot remain silent.  Their duty is to preach the Gospel, including those parts of it that have become socially and politically unpopular in recent years.  In this they are doing a pretty good job.  Not perfect, and certaintly with past and recent mistakes having been made, but quite admirable over all.  The opposition to their efforts is fierce and wide-ranging.

The Law of Chastity being "doctrine," what "principles" should the General Authorities develop?  What "applications"?  Again, the Brethren are working on that, and I think they are doing a good job.  And if a Latter-day Saint, acting with sincerity and in good faith, with a desire to discern and understand and submit to the will of God, studies the scriptures and the messages of modern prophets and apostles, I think he will be able, for himself, to develop "applications" based on "principles" gleaned from "doctrine."  And when this process is complete, I think such a person will find himself standing with the Brethren on this issue, and also understand the "applications" and "principles" they have developed and implemented to those within their stewardship (which is to say, the entirety of the Church).

As pertaining to the issues of homosexual conduct and same-sex marriage, I think the Brethren are presently substantially correct in doctrine, in principle, and in application.  I also believe that the counsel we have received from them is substantially (though not necessarily perfectly) in accordance with the mind and will of God.  To the extent they have implemented a particular "application" in a way that did not work, they are taking appropriate measures to resolve the issue.  By way of example, I think the 2015 policy change was a reasonable "application."  The introduction of it was not done well, though, and the opposition to it was fierce.  So the Brethren have worked to resolve the issue.  Not by abandoning doctrine, or doctrinal principles, but by changing an "application."  That is within their purview.  And I think members of the Church need to acknowledge that the Brethren have some pretty broad discretionary authority in such matters, that they are working hard to utilize that authority properly and in good faith, and that the underlying doctrines remain.  

That some disaffected members of the Church, and criticis and enemies of the Church, are opposing what the Brethren are doing may merit some additional scrutiny, but not much.  Such folks do not, in my view, generally reflect a sincere or good faith effort at understanding the LDS Church or allowing it to function under what it understands its mandate to be.  Such folks also tend to harbor criticisms of the Church that, not coincidentally, follow the whims and vagaries of popular opinion.  Such opinions are, I think, at risk of fulfilling/exemplifying Mormon 5:18.  So I'll not give such opinions much credence.

Broadly speaking, I think you conflate "doctrine" with "principles" and "applications," and this conflation doesn't work, either for you or as a framework for those who, like me, actually believe in these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

This is the kind of talk that I think will leave the church standing alone without many of their youth.

Edited August 26, 2021 by CA Steve

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Probably 40 of us have read HJW use of the word "combat" so I think we're okay. How many LDS nutjobs do you think have read Elder Holland's words?

How many nut jobs do you know of who have heard a lesson on the armor of God?  Probably many, many more than those aware of Elder Holland using an antiquated gun as a metaphor.   A metaphor he even identifies as a metaphor. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Not sure why you are including me in this.  I haven't said anything about the whole musket issue.  Yes I think it was a poor choice of words.  No I don't thing Elder Holland meant it literally.  Yes I believe some people can take it literally (as has been pointed out, that actually has occurred).

What I am most surprised about is people defending his use of the word musket rather than just saying, Yeah, bad word choice.  

It needn't be an either/or.  

4 hours ago, california boy said:

As a gay person, this makes me feel like you are all ok with the use of that inflammatory suggestion.

What "inflammatory suggestion?"

In about .7 seconds you go from "bad word choice" and "Edler Holland {didn't mean it} literally" to "inflammatory suggestion" and a hint that you feel threatened ("as a gay person").

Good grief.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

My honest objective?  To point out that there has never been a revelation on this issue.  

First, yes, there have been revelations on this issue.

Second, even if there was, you wouldn't believe/accept it anyway, right?

Third, it's kind of hard to take you seriously when, on the one hand, you assert "there has never been a revelation" and, on the other, you preemptively declare anything you dislike as "{a}ssumptions {} made by fallible men."

Fourth, you endlessly declare that you don't care what the Church teaches, and yet on this board you endlessly dispute and complain about and criticize . . . what the Church teaches.

Fifth, your legalistic approach to revelations (apparently you have some sort of "Thus saith the Lord.."-style expectations about them) doesn't really work for us.  And it obviously doesn't work for you.  We don't believe it, and you don't accept it anyway.  So why bring it up over and over?

4 hours ago, california boy said:

People that claim it is part of the Law of Chastity should point out that interpretation of the Law of Chastity came from Church leaders, not God.

"People that claim {that smoking meth and injecting heroin violates the Word of Wisdom} should point out that interpretation ... came from Church leaders, not God."

"People that claim {that Jesus Christ is the Son of God} should point out that interpretation ... came from Church leaders, not God."

Man, I could go on all day.

Virtually everything we are given in the Restored Gospel has come to us through prophets and apostles.  We then seek confirmation and ratification of such things through personal revelation.  We also seek personal revelation for specific matters within our stewardship.

That you, a former member of the Church, have spent years trying to poo-poo the role of prophets and apostles on a message board populated by Latter-day Saints who believe in continuing revelation and living prophets and apostles is . . . pretty strange.

The whole "Church leaders, not God" dichotomy is a false one.  For pete's sake, what is the Bible if not a record about and by ancient religious "leaders" who nevertheless spoke for God?

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I will confess, it is actually my own defending of the Priesthood Ban as coming from God when I was on my mission and in talking with those outside the Church as a motivating factor of becoming very clear where doctrine and policies come from. I deeply regret defending a doctrine that I thought came from God when in fact, it did not.  

As I said before: "I also understand that you draw a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like.  For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly.  For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule."

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I am trying to rectify those actions by clearly pointing out that this policy also did not come from God.

What "policy?"

Not much to address here.  Again, no substance.  No evidence.  No argument.  No reasoning.  No attempt to persuade.  Just your unadorned, because-I-say-so personal opinion dressed up as fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 26, 2021 by smac97