Jump to content

What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Obviously, not eligible for discussion here.

That’s fair and I apologize. I forgot myself there.

Wouldn’t these changes have been made through revelation though?

I mean, can orthodox members really ever pick and choose what changes are simply cosmetic or not?

Have the Brethren said that the changes are simply cosmetic and will be changed in futurity?

If you cannot discuss these issues further I understand, but when you mentioned them,  I’ll admit my curiosity was piqued.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

That’s fair and I apologize. I forgot myself there.
Wouldn’t these changes have been made through revelation though?

That's certainly the claim about every change made.

7 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I mean, can orthodox members really ever pick and choose what changes are simply cosmetic or not?

There were literally member surveys that brought many of them about.

7 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Have the Brethren said that the changes are simply cosmetic and will be changed in futurity?

The cosmetic reasoning (or "presentation only" argument) is usually a member explanation.  I don't think the Brethren have ever stated a position.  But this has led to willing acceptance of future changes as long as revelation is claimed or assumed.
Changes will continue to be made in the Church.  Progressives will probably like some of them.  Revelation will be claimed or assumed on all of them.
Whether God approves or it's a step to apostasy remains to be proven.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There were literally member surveys that brought many of them about.

Can’t authentic revelation be preceded or possibly inspired by bottom-up feedback though?

The Word of Wisdom and Emma’s dissatisfaction over the effects of certain substances.

The Ordinance & Priesthood Ban and race.

Preservation of temple murals.

just to name a few? And of various levels of importance.

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The cosmetic reasoning (or "presentation only" argument) is usually a member explanation.  I don't think the Brethren have ever stated a position.  But this has led to willing acceptance of future changes as long as revelation is claimed or assumed.
Changes will continue to be made in the Church.  Progressives will probably like some of them.  Revelation will be claimed or assumed on all of them.
Whether God approves or it's a step to apostasy remains to be proven.

That sounds confusing- especially for members, old and new, in deciphering what revelations can be doubted or nominally critiqued.

 

Edited by Canadiandude
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Can’t authentic revelation be preceded or possibly inspired by bottom-up feedback though?

The Word of Wisdom and Emma’s dissatisfaction over the effects of certain substances.

The Ordinance & Priesthood Ban and race.

Preservation of temple murals.

just to name a few? And of various levels of importance.

Situations can lead to the prophet inquiring of heaven based on questions of members.  Sure, that has happened repeatedly.
But the idea that members dissatisfaction can lead to contradictory revelation is not in keeping with correct principle as stated by the prophet Joseph.
For example, because somebody has a fear of water, God isn't going to provide a new revelation changing the manner of baptism.

  • "For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men." (D&C 3:2-3.)

 

25 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

That sounds confusing- especially for members, old and new, in deciphering what revelations can be doubted or nominally critiqued.

It is my experience that these days revelation is assumed far more than it is doubted.  But I don't think doubting actual revelations (such as those in scripture) is a good idea.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Situations can lead to the prophet inquiring of heaven based on questions of members.  Sure, that has happened repeatedly.
But the idea that members dissatisfaction can lead to contradictory revelation is not in keeping with correct principle as stated by the prophet Joseph.
For example, because somebody has a fear of water, God isn't going to provide a new revelation changing the manner of baptism.

  • "For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men." (D&C 3:2-3.)

 

It is my experience that these days revelation is assumed far more than it is doubted.

Okay. On the matter of the undisclosed ordinance changes though, how can one be certain that this isn’t another permanent change like that of the annulment of the Ordinance & Priesthood Ban, as opposed to a temporary change like polygamist marriages, which are expected to one day be continued again here on earth? 
 

Furthermore, how could a prophet/apostle say something was revelation, even though it wasn’t, and not be divinely removed, and their authority then revoked?
 

I mean, I grew up reciting the oath and covenant of the priesthood- incorrect action/purpose causes one’s authority to cease.

I’m admittedly avoiding terms like policies and principles as these are sometimes difficult parse from one another; especially if change is couched in the language of ‘further light and knowledge’, rather than ‘we do this for our temporary survival’.

Also, if it’s acceptable for leaders to fudge on the truth on a shift’s revelatory nature, how is one to be certain of any doctrine or practice within the church?

How is one to know the difference between prophetic revelation, and a ‘wink and a nod’?

Edit: I apologize for all my questions at once. 

Edited by Canadiandude
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Okay. On the matter of the undisclosed ordinance changes though, how can one be certain that this isn’t another permanent change like that of the annulment of the Ordinance & Priesthood Ban, as opposed to a temporary change like polygamist marriages, which are expected to one day be continued again here on earth? 

For me it's relatively simple.  If God revealed something by revelation, there won't be a revelation changing it. (Ordinances).  If there is not a revelation for something then a revelation wouldn't contradict God's word, it would be new light.  (Like the priesthood ban).
For other's it's much less simple.  Many feel God can change his mind whenever he wants.  I think that goes against what it means to be God.

Quote

Furthermore, how could a prophet/apostle say something was revelation, even though it wasn’t, and not be divinely removed, and their authority then revoked?
Also, if it’s acceptable for leaders to fudge on the truth on a shift’s revelatory nature, how is one to be certain of any doctrine or practice within the church?
How is one to know the difference between prophetic revelation, and a ‘wink and a nod’?

Several points here.

1. Many have received what they thought was revelation but wasn't.  It doesn't have to be a 'wink and a nod' to be an error in judgement.  The definition of revelation has softened.  I think they are very sincere when they claim revelation, but it's easy to see that the revelations claimed by the first 5 or 6 prophets of the restoration look very different than the revelation claimed today.  Did Pres. Monson get a revelation to emphasize "Mormon" and Pres. Nelson get another revelation to change it?  I don't think God works that way.

2. I don't know what you think removal or revocation would look like.  Joseph was chastised for taking wrong steps without being removed.  When the great apostasy occurred God didn't do anything to prevent the leaders of the Early Christian Church implementing all sorts of changes.  Brigham was allowed to teach personal opinion doctrines that have since been repudiated without being removed.
Why would it look any different today if President Nelson were to teach something false and call it revelation?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, bOObOO said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I am often inspired by how much good other people try to do in their lives even in the midst of opposition.  Doing all we can do to be good and be like Jesus is relative from person to person, with some able to do more than some others. , 

Fair enough.  BTW, I did praise the LDS faithful, it's the current condition of Christiandom here in the states I have issues with.  Not all Mormons are the same but in general from what i've seen?  Yeah they do try to help people member and non member alike.  Something to keep in mind, not everyone is as fortunate as you sound, the fact that you think enough of your family to have life insurance says a lot about you.  Unfortunately, especially within the past few generations a lot of people grow up in broken, violent households.  To make matters worse, from what i've seen it's usually the privileged who have that it takes a village for me rugged individualism for thee attitude then wonder why so many people esp. millenials become bitter and antagionistic.  Not saying it's you and yours but it sure is a lot of people in this country nowadays.  Something else I do think about, anymore people love moving to LDS neighborhoods in Utah and taking advantage of them.  You're right, many of you do try to do as much good as possible, unfortunately the more opportunistic in this country see that and want to exploit and as always ruin it for everyone.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

For me it's relatively simple.  If God revealed something by revelation, there won't be a revelation changing it. (Ordinances).  If there is not a revelation for something then a revelation wouldn't contradict God's word, it would be new light.  (Like the priesthood ban).
For other's it's much less simple.  Many feel God can change his mind whenever he wants.  I think that goes against what it means to be God.

Several points here.

1. Many have received what they thought was revelation but wasn't.  It doesn't have to be a 'wink and a nod' to be an error in judgement.  The definition of revelation has softened.  I think they are very sincere when they claim revelation, but it's easy to see that the revelations claimed by the first 5 or 6 prophets of the restoration look very different than the revelation claimed today.  Did Pres. Monson get a revelation to emphasize "Mormon" and Pres. Nelson get another revelation to change it?  I don't think God works that way.

2. I don't know what you think removal or revocation would look like.  Joseph was chastised for taking wrong steps without being removed.  When the great apostasy occurred God didn't do anything to prevent the leaders of the Early Christian Church implementing all sorts of changes.  Brigham was allowed to teach personal opinion doctrines that have since been repudiated without being removed.
Why would it look any different today if President Nelson were to teach something false and call it revelation?

Interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective. 
 

I was taught through the manuals and lessons that the Lord would never let the prophets lead the church astray in the modern era, which admittedly has tons of problems. 
 

Even today that idea is often circulated.
 

Interestingly Christ’s position on the family didn’t seem to be much of a focus within the Gospels, and he didn’t dwell on the subject of homosexuality at all. His apostles mention it from time to time, but it’s oft included with exhortations and policy that are not practiced by today’s church, nor held as doctrines per se. 
 

As I’ve said previously in other posts, it will definitely be interesting to see what happens in the next century or so years. While I might not agree with your pronouncements on the long-term consequences or interpretation of any future churchwide policy change towards gender and sexual minorities, I agree that such changes could very well happen one day, perhaps even within my lifetime, and lots of people may leave as a result of their becoming more hardline or less. Regardless.

Furthermore- even if it does change so drastically, I suspect I’ll likely be an old man by then. When I look at the Brethren most likely to lead the church over the next several years, I actually suspect deeper retrenchment, at least for a while.

 

Edited by Canadiandude
Grammar
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Interestingly Christ’s position on the family didn’t seem to be much of a focus within the Gospels, and he didn’t dwell on the subject of homosexuality at all.

Perhaps it wasn't an issue at the time.  All prophets focus on teaching what is needed by the people that they have stewardship over. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Situations can lead to the prophet inquiring of heaven based on questions of members.  Sure, that has happened repeatedly.
But the idea that members dissatisfaction can lead to contradictory revelation is not in keeping with correct principle as stated by the prophet Joseph.
For example, because somebody has a fear of water, God isn't going to provide a new revelation changing the manner of baptism.

  • "For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men." (D&C 3:2-3.)

 

It is my experience that these days revelation is assumed far more than it is doubted.  But I don't think doubting actual revelations (such as those in scripture) is a good idea.

Except it was at least in part due to Emma's dissatisfaction that Joseph inquired and received the word of wisdom. Right? You already acknowledged that when leaders recognize a potential problem the prophet can take it to the Lord. Does it really matter HOW a leader comes to recognize a problem? Could it be via a wife upset about cleaning up tobacco spit, or a survey of members, or even a protest? Generally speaking the prophet must first think to ask a question before receiving specific revelation and I don't understand why some reasons for asking may be more appropriate than others.

You often talking about cultural changes that are the reasons for changes to doctrines and ordinances. I think that is fair. As people change it only seems natural that leaders would try to reconcile God's will with the culture in which religion exists. In fact, isn't that a major argument about why a modern prophet is needed at all? Again, I think you are right that the church has changed dramatically over the years, whether it be in the styles of temple garments/clothing and even specifics of the ordinances, but I think it's also important to remember that those things were also implemented within a specific culture by leaders who existed within that culture. So the "original" doctrines and ordinances were just as influenced by culture as were the changes.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Except it was at least in part due to Emma's dissatisfaction that Joseph inquired and received the word of wisdom. Right? You already acknowledged that when leaders recognize a potential problem the prophet can take it to the Lord. Does it really matter HOW a leader comes to recognize a problem? Could it be via a wife upset about cleaning up tobacco spit, or a survey of members, or even a protest? Generally speaking the prophet must first think to ask a question before receiving specific revelation and I don't understand why some reasons for asking may be more appropriate than others.

You are referring to NEW light, not CONTRADICTORY light.
For example, Emma and the WoW led to Joseph inquiring of the Lord.  There wasn't a previous revelation saying "smoke and drink all you want" that the WoW contradicted.
I stand by what I said.  Member dissatisfaction doesn't cause the Lord to go back on his prior word.   God doesn't say one thing is true and then say something completely different is now true.

Quote

You often talking about cultural changes that are the reasons for changes to doctrines and ordinances. I think that is fair. As people change it only seems natural that leaders would try to reconcile God's will with the culture in which religion exists. In fact, isn't that a major argument about why a modern prophet is needed at all? Again, I think you are right that the church has changed dramatically over the years, whether it be in the styles of temple garments/clothing and even specifics of the ordinances, but I think it's also important to remember that those things were also implemented within a specific culture by leaders who existed within that culture. So the "original" doctrines and ordinances were just as influenced by culture as were the changes.

That's a matter of faith.

Taking for example the one you use, the garments: (reminded me of a fascinating poll from years ago)

It's a matter of faith if you believe the original design was implemented based solely on the culture of the leaders at that time.  That is what was said when the first changes were made - President Heber J. Grant  issued a letter on June 14, 1923 stating that “no fixed pattern of the temple garment has ever been given”.  Historical records from the time indicate these changes came due to member complaint.

However, for some the faith is in a more heavenly origin:

  • The Lord has given us garments of the Holy Priesthood, and you know what that means...They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern which God gave them.
    And "The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.  - Joseph F. Smith

  • The whole garment to be a covering and a protection from the enemy.  The sleeves reaching to the wrist, and to the ankles.  This pattern was given to Joseph Smith by two heavenly beings.  - Zebedee Coltrin

  • The first garments were made by Eliza R. Snow and Zina Young. They were cut out by the Prophet Joseph Smith and under his direction. They then asked him who showed him how, and he said. "An angel of the Lord." He stood over them while they were cut out. He also said, "The angel Moroni drew aside his robe and showed his marks."  - George Albert Smith

  • It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my grandmother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments. They spread unbleached muslin out on the table and he told her how to cut it out. She had to cut the third pair, however, before he said it was satisfactory.  - James Allred History

So you see, you can claim the original ordinances were merely a product of the culture or you can believe they were heaven sent.
The original garments before all the changes - heaven sent or culturally based?  It's a matter of faith.
 

 

 

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
On 9/9/2021 at 11:13 AM, JLHPROF said:

Well, if you truly believed that the Church was accepting something God considered immoral would you accept that organization as a moral compass for God's will?

I wouldn't stay in the Church if they condoned murder, abortion, abuse.  Many have chosen to leave the Church over plural marriage, SSM, tithing use etc.
We ALL expect our chosen faith to be a moral standard.  If our moral beliefs and the Church come in conflict I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving.

A main question of religion (among many questions) has always been, what does God consider right and wrong?

I wasn't opining on whether or not it would be right or wrong to leave the church if it accepted LGBTQ peeps.  Actually, I think it would be justified from a position of orthodoxy.

Link to comment
On 9/10/2021 at 1:56 PM, JLHPROF said:

You are referring to NEW light, not CONTRADICTORY light.
For example, Emma and the WoW led to Joseph inquiring of the Lord.  There wasn't a previous revelation saying "smoke and drink all you want" that the WoW contradicted.
I stand by what I said.  Member dissatisfaction doesn't cause the Lord to go back on his prior word.   God doesn't say one thing is true and then say something completely different is now true.

That's a matter of faith.

Taking for example the one you use, the garments: (reminded me of a fascinating poll from years ago)

It's a matter of faith if you believe the original design was implemented based solely on the culture of the leaders at that time.  That is what was said when the first changes were made - President Heber J. Grant  issued a letter on June 14, 1923 stating that “no fixed pattern of the temple garment has ever been given”.  Historical records from the time indicate these changes came due to member complaint.

However, for some the faith is in a more heavenly origin:

  • The Lord has given us garments of the Holy Priesthood, and you know what that means...They should hold these things that God has given unto them sacred unchanged and unaltered from the very pattern which God gave them.
    And "The Saints should know that the pattern of endowment garments was revealed from Heaven and that the blessings promised in connection with wearing them will not be realized if any unauthorized change is made in their form or in the manner of wearing them.  - Joseph F. Smith

  • The whole garment to be a covering and a protection from the enemy.  The sleeves reaching to the wrist, and to the ankles.  This pattern was given to Joseph Smith by two heavenly beings.  - Zebedee Coltrin

  • The first garments were made by Eliza R. Snow and Zina Young. They were cut out by the Prophet Joseph Smith and under his direction. They then asked him who showed him how, and he said. "An angel of the Lord." He stood over them while they were cut out. He also said, "The angel Moroni drew aside his robe and showed his marks."  - George Albert Smith

  • It was while they were living in Nauvoo that the Prophet came to my grandmother, who was a seamstress by trade, and told her that he had seen the angel Moroni with the garments on, and asked her to assist him in cutting out the garments. They spread unbleached muslin out on the table and he told her how to cut it out. She had to cut the third pair, however, before he said it was satisfactory.  - James Allred History

So you see, you can claim the original ordinances were merely a product of the culture or you can believe they were heaven sent.
The original garments before all the changes - heaven sent or culturally based?  It's a matter of faith.

 

Is it impossible for them to be both?

Isn't it possible that heaven sent directions were designed to fit with the culture of the time, just as Joseph's language could be a reflection of both heavenly revelation and his culture. After all, the receiver has to understand the directions right, therefore language and culture must undoubtedly play into the revelation, wouldn't you think?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After all, the receiver has to understand the directions right, therefore language and culture must undoubtedly play into the revelation, wouldn't you think?

I think this is what's behind some of the recent changes at the temple.  When the words and symbols used by previous generations are no longer understood in the same way then what is intended to be taught is at risk of being lost.  New words and new symbols can be developed to facilitate learning without changing the nature of the covenants entered into.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think this is what's behind some of the recent changes at the temple.  When the words and symbols used by previous generations are no longer understood in the same way then what is intended to be taught is at risk of being lost.  New words and new symbols can be developed to facilitate learning without changing the nature of the covenants entered into.

I think that mindset allows for everything to be lost and nobody to even notice.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it impossible for them to be both?

Isn't it possible that heaven sent directions were designed to fit with the culture of the time, just as Joseph's language could be a reflection of both heavenly revelation and his culture. After all, the receiver has to understand the directions right, therefore language and culture must undoubtedly play into the revelation, wouldn't you think?

Of course.  But just because people live in an arid region Baptism doesn't change from immersion.  Which brings us full circle to the presentation vs ordinance discussion again.  🤷

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course.  But just because people live in an arid region Baptism doesn't change from immersion.  Which brings us full circle to the presentation vs ordinance discussion again.  🤷

But couldn't it? Baptism by immersion is symbolic. If there was no opportunity to baptize by immersion I would fully expect God to change the ordinance to fit the needs of the people. The outward expression of the ordinance doesn't change the meaning behind it.

There seems to be a risk of the symbol becoming more important than the meaning behind it. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think that mindset allows for everything to be lost and nobody to even notice.

I understand what you're saying.  However, I think it's possible to change language and symbols and still keep the sacred covenants unchanged.  I think without change there is a risk of having a reading the book of Isaiah experience.  Where one can read all the words but doesn't understand the meaning.  I believe the Lord intends the temple experience to be challenging and instructive, but still understandable for the average saint.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But couldn't it? Baptism by immersion is symbolic. If there was no opportunity to baptize by immersion I would fully expect God to change the ordinance to fit the needs of the people. The outward expression of the ordinance doesn't change the meaning behind it.

There seems to be a risk of the symbol becoming more important than the meaning behind it. 

Somewhere along the line we began to believe symbolism was just a symbol, not the thing.
Sometimes the symbol IS the thing.

Actually, this is a very interesting gospel principle.  So interesting, I think I'm going to start a thread on the subject.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Somewhere along the line we began to believe symbolism was just a symbol, not the thing.
Sometimes the symbol IS the thing.

Actually, this is a very interesting gospel principle.  So interesting, I think I'm going to start a thread on the subject.

Yeah- I don't agree that the symbol IS the thing.

That will be an interesting thread.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Somewhere along the line we began to believe symbolism was just a symbol, not the thing.
Sometimes the symbol IS the thing.

Isn't the symbol a reminder of the principle being taught by that symbol?  

Lehi describes a tree with white fruit.  If all that is understood is that the white fruit is very, very good then what is being taught is lost.

If this story is introduced to a people who have no knowledge of trees bearing fruit then that part of the story has no meaning. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Esrom said:

lumping all LGBT together as a monochrome category?

 

18 minutes ago, Esrom said:

assume that all LGBT think alike.

 

“Most gay members realize the church has nothing for them and leave.”

Most does not equal all. And I will note that in a recent podcast (shared by Robert on another thread), Tom Christofferson said Elder Holland’s talk left him feeling like his legs were swept out from under him. He described how offensive he finds the idea that he will be straight in the eternities (comparing it to the doctrine that everyone will be white in heaven). 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

 

“Most gay members realize the church has nothing for them and leave.”

Most does not equal all. And I will note that in a recent podcast (shared by Robert on another thread), Tom Christofferson said Elder Holland’s talk left him feeling like his legs were swept out from under him. He described how offensive he finds the idea that he will be straight in the eternities (comparing it to the doctrine that everyone will be white in heaven). 

He was recently interviewed but can't remember where, I was going to watch but didn't.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...