What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[jerryp48]

On 9/21/2021 at 10:04 PM, The Nehor said:

The numbers are negligible. So those who fit into those categories are basically damned by default with very few exceptions? Interesting take. I wouldn’t bring it up if you are trying to make an argument for God’s goodness.

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm ONLY sympathetic to faithful LDS members with same-sex attraction.  My point is that the most vocal and loudest protests are coming from those who would rather see the church disappear.  The input of groups outside the church should be far less relevant than those inside.  Granted many views of homosexuals inside might align with those outside but motives would be different.

[california boy]

On 9/21/2021 at 5:39 PM, jerryp48 said:

I'm late to this thread and so my apologies if this has been addressed but here's my take.  These are all my opinions and I'm open to being wrong.  I'm speaking very generally here and being intentionally blunt.

1) The numbers of LGBTQ+ members who accept the divinity claims of the LDS church are negligible and most are hostile to its existence.  

2) Since the LGBTQ+ community views the church as a wholly human institution anything short of the church changing its doctrine about homosexual sex or union is homophobic.

3) If given an option to either A) have the church change its doctrine or B) wipe the church from existence, they'd unflinchingly choose B.

4) Many who are hostile towards the church yet lukewarm to the LGBTQ+ community swell the numbers of the LGBTQ+ advocates in church matters mostly for the sake of subversiveness.  Those most vocal protesters would be the first ones criticizing the church as a human institution that bows to social pressure.

5) If the church changed its doctrine to appease the LGBTQ+ community it would do far more damage to the membership but it's doubtful that one tear would be shed by the LGBTQ+ community.

Speaking to the very few who have same-sex attraction AND believe in truth of the church I honestly can't say how they can achieve ultimate peace except through personal revelation and hopefully revelation forthcoming.

This is a pretty twisted view of things.  I don't think the LGBT community cares one bit what the Church does.  Honestly it is pretty insignificant to them and hardly anyone even pays any attention to what the Church does.  The only group I hear wanting the Church to change it's doctrine are some members who think their should be a place in the Church for gay couples.  Most in the LGBT community, and frankly most outside the Church just view it as homophobic and unaccepting of gay people.  If the Church changed it's LGBT policy, I doubt very much would even care or notice after the news cycle was over.  It is not like they would be hammering at the door to let them join. 

 

[ttribe]

On 9/21/2021 at 5:39 PM, jerryp48 said:

I'm late to this thread and so my apologies if this has been addressed but here's my take.  These are all my opinions and I'm open to being wrong.  I'm speaking very generally here and being intentionally blunt.

1) The numbers of LGBTQ+ members who accept the divinity claims of the LDS church are negligible and most are hostile to its existence. 

You don't KNOW this, at all.  There is no empirical evidence supporting this claim.  Indeed, given the atmosphere in the church for LBGTQ+ people, the amount of under-reporting of people who are LGBTQ+ would create an inherent bias in accurately measuring this, anyway.  If you want to make it a numbers game, I'll just remind you of this - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/luke/15.4?lang=eng&clang=eng#p4

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm ONLY sympathetic to faithful LDS members with same-sex attraction.

Good to know. Also, not so good to know.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a pretty twisted view of things.  I don't think the LGBT community cares one bit what the Church does.  Honestly it is pretty insignificant to them and hardly anyone even pays any attention to what the Church does.  The only group I hear wanting the Church to change it's doctrine are some members who think their should be a place in the Church for gay couples.  Most in the LGBT community, and frankly most outside the Church just view it as homophobic and unaccepting of gay people.  If the Church changed it's LGBT policy, I doubt very much would even care or notice after the news cycle was over.  It is not like they would be hammering at the door to let them join. 

 

I think this is true for current couples/individuals in the LGBTQ community (and their allies).  But IF the church changed its stance today, in future years I think members of the LGBTQ community may become more interested. In other words, if they remove the homophobic language and rules, then it wouldn't be viewed as homophobic. If people feel more accepted and wanted I could see some coming back. Right now it just looks like the church is flipping the LGBTQ community the bird so the majority of the LGBTQ community ignores the church. 

Does that seem like a possibility?

3 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm ONLY sympathetic to faithful LDS members with same-sex attraction.  My point is that the most vocal and loudest protests are coming from those who would rather see the church disappear.  The input of groups outside the church should be far less relevant than those inside.  Granted many views of homosexuals inside might align with those outside but motives would be different.

This is a pretty extreme statement IMO. If the church was more welcoming I don't think people would want the church to disappear. I think the loudest people are those seeking change. For those who don't expect change or have written off the church, I don't think you'll hear much from them at all because...they just don't care about the church.

[jerryp48]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a pretty twisted view of things.  I don't think the LGBT community cares one bit what the Church does.  Honestly it is pretty insignificant to them and hardly anyone even pays any attention to what the Church does.  The only group I hear wanting the Church to change it's doctrine are some members who think their should be a place in the Church for gay couples.  Most in the LGBT community, and frankly most outside the Church just view it as homophobic and unaccepting of gay people.  If the Church changed it's LGBT policy, I doubt very much would even care or notice after the news cycle was over.  It is not like they would be hammering at the door to let them join. 

 

That’s not been my experience.  They go where they perceive injustice.

[jerryp48]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

You don't KNOW this, at all.  There is no empirical evidence supporting this claim.  Indeed, given the atmosphere in the church for LBGTQ+ people, the amount of under-reporting of people who are LGBTQ+ would create an inherent bias in accurately measuring this, anyway.  If you want to make it a numbers game, I'll just remind you of this - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/luke/15.4?lang=eng&clang=eng#p4

Hence right before that I said “these are all my opinions”

I can’t conceivably see faithful gay members expecting the church to reverse its position on gay marriage much less temple marriage.  If so they might be informed by social morays but certainly ignorant to core doctrine.

[jerryp48]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is a pretty extreme statement IMO. If the church was more welcoming I don't think people would want the church to disappear. I think the loudest people are those seeking change. For those who don't expect change or have written off the church, I don't think you'll hear much from them at all because...they just don't care about the church.

I don’t know how much more welcoming the church could be short of bowing to their requests.  How accommodating can the church be as society changes without compromising it’s doctrine and principles?

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

That’s not been my experience.  They go where they perceive injustice.

Those monsters!

27 minutes ago, jerryp48 said:

I don’t know how much more welcoming the church could be short of bowing to their requests.  How accommodating can the church be as society changes without compromising it’s doctrine and principles?

I think what most ex-members in the group want is some knowledge of their status within our teaching. What is their fate? Attraction changed on death or the resurrection? Amplified?

Ironically other Christian churches have an easier time being accommodating to divergent sexual attraction because it is not critical in the next life. In our doctrine it VERY MUCH is critical. It is perhaps unfair to Church leadership to be expected to answer this question if God has been silent but I think the best response is a fairly standard one. Pray for revelation. I don’t mean just the apostles either. If the combined membership of the church pleaded with God for answers I suspect God would answer. As previous prophets have said God doesn’t usually open doors we aren’t willing to walk through.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this is true for current couples/individuals in the LGBTQ community (and their allies).  But IF the church changed its stance today, in future years I think members of the LGBTQ community may become more interested. In other words, if they remove the homophobic language and rules, then it wouldn't be viewed as homophobic. If people feel more accepted and wanted I could see some coming back. Right now it just looks like the church is flipping the LGBTQ community the bird so the majority of the LGBTQ community ignores the church. 

Does that seem like a possibility?

This is a pretty extreme statement IMO. If the church was more welcoming I don't think people would want the church to disappear. I think the loudest people are those seeking change. For those who don't expect change or have written off the church, I don't think you'll hear much from them at all because...they just don't care about the church.

Well yes, things would improve.  Just how much, I don't think anyone knows.  After all, the priesthood ban was 40+ years ago and some still view the Church as racist.  But on the other hand, look at the Church growth in Africa.  It will take a while to overcome what happened with Prop 8.  Perhaps the most likely thing to happen is for those who have left the Church over this issue would reconsider their position.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, jerryp48 said:

That’s not been my experience.  They go where they perceive injustice.

Not sure what that means.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

I don’t know how much more welcoming the church could be short of bowing to their requests.  How accommodating can the church be as society changes without compromising it’s doctrine and principles?

Can you describe to me what the church has done to be welcoming to LGBTQ community? How are they welcoming? I seriously want to know how you see that because I can't see it at all. Specifically, how are they welcoming? What have they done? What are they doing?

[MrShorty]

This may not be well received, I don't know, but as this thread reaches another lull, how about a different direction?

When I first saw the title of this thread a month ago, my first thought was that the OP was going to be about what the Church's goals are for its LGBT policies (not so much about the critics'/progressives'/LGBT lobby's goals for the Church). If the group is interested, I will pose the question I thought the OP would be about -- what are the Church's goals behind its LGBT policies?

At the risk of opening old wounds, decades ago, it seemed that the Church (like much of the rest of society) saw homosexuality as an illness to be cured, so its policies and practices were oriented towards curing a pathology. Later, around the turn of the century, it seemed that most of the emphasis was on resisting the legalization of same sex marriage. Here we are, 6 years after SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage in the US (some other nations had legalized it earlier, others have not yet legalized it). What are the goals now?

At the most basic level, I expect it is rooted in Moses 1:39, but I think there must be something more to an answer here. If the ultimate purpose is salvation and exaltation, how do you think the Church's policies lead towards that ultimate end goal?

Edited September 25, 2021 by MrShorty

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

This may not be well received, I don't know, but as this thread reaches another lull, how about a different direction?

When I first saw the title of this thread a month ago, my first thought was that the OP was going to be about what the Church's goals are for its LGBT policies (not so much about the critics'/progressives'/LGBT lobby's goals for the Church). If the group is interested, I will pose the question I thought the OP would be about -- what are the Church's goals behind its LGBT policies?

At the risk of opening old wounds, decades ago, it seemed that the Church (like much of the rest of society) saw homosexuality as an illness to be cured, so its policies and practices were oriented towards curing a pathology. Later, around the turn of the century, it seemed that most of the emphasis was on resisting the legalization of same sex marriage. Here we are, 6 years after SCOTUS legalized same sex marriage in the US (some other nations had legalized it earlier, others have not yet legalized it). What are the goals now?

At the most basic level, I expect it is rooted in Moses 1:39, but I think there must be something more to an answer here. If the ultimate purpose is salvation and exaltation, how do you think the Church's policies lead towards that ultimate end goal?

I think you've put this well. If the ultimate goal of the Church is exaltation for as many as possible, then the Church will hold the line on the law of chastity forever. There will be PR attempts to avoid criticism and unrest, but the bottom line (active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation) will remain. If the ultimate goal is societal accommodation and minimizing defections over this issue, then there will be policy and doctrinal changes ("this does not constitute a change in doctrine"). It will be obvious to everyone what the Church is trying to do. 

[blueglass]

On 9/23/2021 at 6:38 PM, jerryp48 said:

I don’t know how much more welcoming the church could be short of bowing to their requests.  How accommodating can the church be as society changes without compromising it’s doctrine and principles?

What is the church doctrine of marriage?  If we don't believe that Jesus is married then we don't have a doctrine.  I can't find Adam's mother anywhere in the scriptures.  Eve was born of ?  Jesus was born of a virgin.  If we asked Jesus to take a DNA test what would we find?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think you've put this well. If the ultimate goal of the Church is exaltation for as many as possible, then the Church will hold the line on the law of chastity forever. There will be PR attempts to avoid criticism and unrest, but the bottom line (active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation) will remain. If the ultimate goal is societal accommodation and minimizing defections over this issue, then there will be policy and doctrinal changes ("this does not constitute a change in doctrine"). It will be obvious to everyone what the Church is trying to do. 

I don't think the bold is at all a given.  Holding the line on the law of chastity as it pertains to homosexuality could lead to fewer people being exalted, if it pushes people out of the church and away from the gospel when a different approach might have kept more people in and allowed them to be converted.

The bold assumes that how some of us view the path to the exaltation is exactly how God views that path (and I'm not talking about baptism and the strait and narrow), but I don't know that we can make that assumption.

While I do believe there is only one road that leads back to Christ and exaltation--and I do believe it is through the church--I don't think we are open enough to the myriad of ways that people gain a testimony that that it is the road they want to be on.  

 

[bluebell]

On 9/24/2021 at 7:30 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you describe to me what the church has done to be welcoming to LGBTQ community? How are they welcoming? I seriously want to know how you see that because I can't see it at all. Specifically, how are they welcoming? What have they done? What are they doing?

I think we want to be welcoming but we don't know how.  We don't know what we have to offer them exactly.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

There will be PR attempts to avoid criticism and unrest, but the bottom line (active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation) will remain.

So you see the goal/purpose of the Church's policies are mostly PR goals?

I think that we often assume the "active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation" is axiomatic. I think much of the controversy is challenging whether or not this is an eternally true axiom or not.

In many ways, I agree with @bluebell that one of our goals is to welcome LGBT into our community, but there is a tension between the goal of welcoming and insisting on "homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation". Sometimes it feels like we are torn between the two seemingly contrary positions. I sometimes wonder if some of the policy reversals and confusion are simply a reflection of incompatible goals.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

In many ways, I agree with @bluebell that one of our goals is to welcome LGBT into our community, but there is a tension between the goal of welcoming and insisting on "homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation". Sometimes it feels like we are torn between the two seemingly contrary positions. I sometimes wonder if some of the policy reversals and confusion are simply a reflection of incompatible goals.

That's a great way to put it.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we want to be welcoming but we don't know how.  We don't know what we have to offer them exactly.

To me, this is exactly the problem.  Perhaps if one was raised in the church and then came out gay etc. It would be one thing, but quite another thing for prospective converts.  But maybe that has been already discussed 

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think that we often assume the "active homosexuality is incompatible with the plan of salvation" is axiomatic. I think much of the controversy is challenging whether or not this is an eternally true axiom or not.

But who exactly could make it NOT "axiomatic?"

Who then has what IS eternally true if no one has it?

That means the Restoration never happened!

To change God's nature would be to change what is different in Mormonism, embodied Gods and Goddesses who make spirit babies, and make us unique! We would simply become like the rest of churches who accept alternative behaviors as acceptable 

They do not believe in embodied Gods or that human children can become Gods

Maybe that would be good, but then why even have a church?

What would distinguish us as being "us"?

Edited September 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 9/23/2021 at 4:11 PM, The Nehor said:

 

Ironically other Christian churches have an easier time being accommodating to divergent sexual attraction because it is not critical in the next life. In our doctrine it VERY MUCH is critical. It is perhaps unfair to Church leadership to be expected to answer this question if God has been silent but I think the best response is a fairly standard one. Pray for revelation. I don’t mean just the apostles either. If the combined membership of the church pleaded with God for answers I suspect God would answer. As previous prophets have said God doesn’t usually open doors we aren’t willing to walk through.

Exactly!

But if WE don't have the "correct" Doctrine, there was no Restoration

Without embodied human Gods, explaining how three different bodies can be one person we are Trinitarians and have a God without body, parts and passions

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 8/27/2021 at 10:00 AM, Stormin' Mormon said:

This is an honest question.  Not picking a fight.  Just wanting to understand. 

No need to make it a fight,  I just want some logic on how the LDS paradigm retains any of its Doctrine coherently, especially the Restoration and how Joseph got it all so terribly wrong

We need a whole new coherent paradigm about the plan of salvation to make their unstated goals fit, I believe.

So who's got it figured out?

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pray for revelation. I don’t mean just the apostles either. If the combined membership of the church pleaded with God for answers I suspect God would answer.

But who would he answer?

Each member?  I'm ok with that, but there goes "there is a prophet on the earth"

You gotta watch out messing with paradigms because one part is always inextricably connected to the whole 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think the bold is at all a given.  Holding the line on the law of chastity as it pertains to homosexuality could lead to fewer people being exalted, if it pushes people out of the church and away from the gospel when a different approach might have kept more people in and allowed them to be converted.

The bold assumes that how some of us view the path to the exaltation is exactly how God views that path (and I'm not talking about baptism and the strait and narrow), but I don't know that we can make that assumption.

While I do believe there is only one road that leads back to Christ and exaltation--and I do believe it is through the church--I don't think we are open enough to the myriad of ways that people gain a testimony that that it is the road they want to be on.  

This assumes that mere nominal membership exalts, regardless of what God insists. Under this assumption, it would make sense to try to keep as many people as possible from leaving, even if it meant constantly changing doctrine and ordinances and disavowing past teachings. Of course, that would lead to others leaving because there would be no bedrock foundation, only shifting sands.  

When I said "as possible," that presupposed that it would be exaltation according to God's standards. If --- for the sake of discussion here --- homosexuality were completely incompatible with the plan of salvation eternally, then trying to keep people "in the boat" by not teaching or enforcing that wouldn't actually be exalting them. It would be leading them away from it (Elder Johnson's rationale in the response to the BYU gay dating controversy last year). 

I do think that the foundational question of homosexuality and the plan of salvation is something that the president could inquire through his keys, but I don't think that has been done (the answer is also not "on demand." God may not answer it at this time). I think the Church so far has been reactionary, with tradition being the default setting.