Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

both cases, it could be said that strong social attitudes of the time were enough to discourage their willingness to shine in the kingdom, but with that assumption, I would think a man of sufficient integrity to serve as a president in this quorum would have asked God about his standing with regards to his sexuality or race.

Perhaps you are a minority and therefore have some insight into the roles one chooses for oneself in such a position, whether someone with a nontraditional sexuality or a racial minority that could ‘pass’ as white.  I do not and do not believe I have much ability to imagine what the internal process dictates for integrity, etc in those cases.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems it would matter to those who believe that sexuality affects the revelations the members of this quorum seek and receive. These men in each dispensation, dozens in this one so far, must have represented samplings along the spectrum of human sexuality, and yet we see that the policies, teachings and covenants they administered have remained the same.

This is an extension of the idea that had Black men been part of this quorum from the start, there would have been no ban. Since race is no more a factor than sexuality in the composition of this quorum, it wasn't eternal principle that kept Black men from being part of it. Some of the reasons are evidenced in the Church Essays on the topic. But in the case of sexuality, the odds are very high that non-strictly-heterosexual men were part of it, and we cannot tell who-was-what. Yet we have an analogous "ban" in the form of how we practice marriage and chastity, where sexual behavior is expressed only between husband and wife, irrespective of their sexuality.

 

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

How ever it may be that we cannot tell another’s sexuality, or how they might hide it, that person’s sexuality (attraction as you put it) still exists and is real, for them. These brothers were nevertheless married and had children, and I can’t imagine none of them in the last 194 years had sexual attractions for men or other matters of sexual and gender concern. So, each one did not self-select out of callings or got filtered out of callings through careful screening (what would be the rationale?). This comparison is with Black men prior to the ban. I don’t imagine each of them self-selected or got filtered out either.

In both cases, it could be said that strong social attitudes of the time were enough to discourage their willingness to shine in the kingdom, but with that assumption, I would think a man of sufficient integrity to serve as a president in this quorum would have asked God about his standing with regards to his sexuality or race. Joseph Smith’s experience (JH-S 1:25) was emulated by many early saints.

Some may say that all things being equal, the not-strictly heterosexual president could help the quorum seek revelation on how to structure the covenants as they pertain to expressing human sexuality. I'm sure they did and this is what we have in place today. The Black man would have had no need to help the others on racial ramifications on the covenants, for there was no ban.

You are seriously arguing that logically there probably was a closeted queer man in the First Presidency at some point and that they doubtlessly got a revelation about it and that is why things are as they are?

Yeah…..I am going to call this very very unlikely. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you are a minority and therefore have some insight into the roles one chooses for oneself in such a position, whether someone with a nontraditional sexuality or a racial minority that could ‘pass’ as white.  I do not and do not believe I have much ability to imagine what the internal process dictates for integrity, etc in those cases.

I am trying to imagine that a counselor in the First Presidency attending a meeting and saying: “So…….are we sure sodomy is a sin? Asking for a friend…..not me.”

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps you are a minority and therefore have some insight into the roles one chooses for oneself in such a position, whether someone with a nontraditional sexuality or a racial minority that could ‘pass’ as white.  I do not and do not believe I have much ability to imagine what the internal process dictates for integrity, etc in those cases.

I'm taking my cues from what people have posted on this board, that they have taken these matters up with the Lord for themselves. I take their doing so as a sign of integrity. If they have done it, then a Black man and non-strictly heterosexual men have also done the same thing all along. I think it very likely that those that have served in the First Presidency since 1830 included non-strictly heterosexual men. They too have been part of the restoration and revelatory process for the Church, and our covenants and policies have still come about accordingly. There were no Black men in the First Presidency before of the ban for other reasons.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are seriously arguing that logically there probably was a closeted queer man in the First Presidency at some point and that they doubtlessly got a revelation about it and that is why things are as they are?

Yeah…..I am going to call this very very unlikely. 

I think it naive to believe there were no non-strictly hetero men in the First Presidency. It is reasonable to expect that they likely asked God what to do vis-a-vis the covenants and their orientation (personally and for the Church), just as many people suggest they do today. I do not know what their answer was, but on the whole they contributed to the way things were and continue to be set up and they observed them.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am trying to imagine that a counselor in the First Presidency attending a meeting and saying: “So…….are we sure sodomy is a sin? Asking for a friend…..not me.”

Now this is ridiculous!  Not at all where I'm coming from. I'm sure you can rephrase this in active-listening mode.

Assumptions: this member of the First Presidency is observing marriage and chastity as taught by the Church. He has done some soul-searching as to his standing before the Lord vis-a-vis societal norms and his orientation/attractions. He found himself acceptable to the Lord for service. He is in a good place to seek revelation on any topic as guided by the Lord. His unique experience and insight, while perhaps a minority, is an asset. Many of this board would advocate that he put fort the kinds of questions upon which they want Church revelation, just as they do of our leaders today.

Given those assumptions, and that whether or what questions he brought up in council is unknown, we have the final product we see in Church policy and covenants today. I don't think this the only generation with these questions.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

think it very likely that those that have served in the First Presidency since 1830 included non-strictly heterosexual men.

I don’t see any reason to assume this given it’s not random selection.  

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He found himself acceptable to the Lord for service. He is in a good place to seek revelation on any topic as guided by the Lord.

If the system was working for him, why would he not assume this was the way it was meant to be?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Now this is ridiculous!  Not at all where I'm coming from. I'm sure you can rephrase this in active-listening mode.

Assumptions: this member of the First Presidency is observing marriage and chastity as taught by the Church. He has done some soul-searching as to his standing before the Lord vis-a-vis societal norms and his orientation/attractions. He found himself acceptable to the Lord for service. He is in a good place to seek revelation on any topic as guided by the Lord. His unique experience and insight, while perhaps a minority, is an asset. Many of this board would advocate that he put fort the kinds of questions upon which they want Church revelation, just as they do of our leaders today.

Given those assumptions, and that whether or what questions he brought up in council is unknown, we have the final product we see in Church policy and covenants today. I don't think this the only generation with these questions.

*Glances at Miracle of Forgiveness to see what that revelation that made him feel acceptable might have been*

Wow…….uhhhhhhh……nope.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

*Glances at Miracle of Forgiveness to see what that revelation that made him feel acceptable might have been*

Wow…….uhhhhhhh……nope.

That is what a glance will do. Do you know anyone who , because of pressures they faced socially, prayed about their acceptance before the Lord concerning their sexuality and willingness to accept a calling or otherwise participate in Church, keep covenants, etc.?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t see any reason to assume this given it’s not random selection.  

Of course, membership in the quorum isn’t random, it is inspired. And whether one accepts it as inspired or not, how is it that every member to ever be selected to serve in the First Presidency (or in the quorum of three presidents anciently in other dispensations) is 100% heterosexual, having zero sexual attraction to men?

The reasons for my assumptions are largely informed by posters on MDDB. Let’s empathize with them and see where the suggestion takes us.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If the system was working for him, why would he not assume this was the way it was meant to be?

Likewise, this assumes none of them ever prayed about their acceptability for service vis-à-vis their sexuality in the society in which they lived. How is it that none of them ever prayed about it – posters on MDDB have.

The last two posts are good ways to avoid discussing what many have pointed out is one of innumerable human experiences that the prophets have faced, whether themselves or in their family.

So, I would like to go back and visit the premise that some members of the First Presidency have had some degree of homosexual orientation – let’s say the same as the population at large. Given the comments over the years I’ve participated in threads on this subject, I have trouble believing that is a show-stopper.

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, I would like to go back and visit the premise that some members of the First Presidency have had some degree of homosexual orientation – let’s say the same as the population at large. Given the comments over the years I’ve participated in threads on this subject, I have trouble believing that is a show-stopper.

Id agree with this, since having attraction is not a sin, why would it preclude anybody from being selected by God as being a gen authority?  Besides that, I don’t think general authorities are without sin.  But again, attraction is not a sin.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Of course, membership in the quorum isn’t random, it is inspired. And whether one accepts it as inspired or not, how is it that every member to ever be selected to serve in the First Presidency (or in the quorum of three presidents anciently in other dispensations) is 100% heterosexual, having zero sexual attraction to men?

That is not what I claimed, though it is a possiblity.  Percentage wise, very few men have been members of the First Presidency of this dispensation.  If I counted correctly, it’s only 50 men in almost 200 years.  It wouldn’t be that difficult to get all heterosexuals.  Perhaps God didn’t want his highest leaders to be conflicted about teaching the Law of Chastity if the Law of Chastity is an accurate portrayal of his goals for humankind.

What I claimed is by your assumptions that whatever sexuality the person in the First Presidency has they are in a position where they see their behaviour as accepted before God, etc.  If so, they were quite likely comfortable with the status quo and assumed the current perception of homosexual was the correct one…otherwise they would not be in such a stable mental state.  If they were comfortable living the standard of their time, they would be much less likely to ask questions about the standard than someone who was struggling.

Quote

Likewise, this assumes none of them ever prayed about their acceptability for service vis-à-vis their sexuality in the society in which they lived. How is it that none of them ever prayed about it – posters on MDDB have.

From my understanding the posters prayed because of conflict between their internal state and the standards of the Church.  No significant conflict, why would they pray for revelation?

Edited June 17, 2024 by Calm

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

how is it that every member to ever be selected to serve in the First Presidency (or in the quorum of three presidents anciently in other dispensations) is 100% heterosexual, having zero sexual attraction to men?

How can you know that?  Don't apostles have weaknesses that they need to overcome just like the rest of us?  I wouldn't say it's out of the question that at one point one of the apostles needed to overcome this weakness just as so many members of the church have and do.

What can be said is that to the best of our knowledge none of the apostles have given in to this temptation.

[Kenngo1969]

In perhaps-related news (but, if not, feel free to ignore this): 

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2024/06/17/word-perfect-co-founder-bruce-bastian-dies/

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That is not what I claimed, though it is a possiblity.  Percentage wise, very few men have been members of the First Presidency of this dispensation.  If I counted correctly, it’s only 50 men in almost 200 years.  It wouldn’t be that difficult to get all heterosexuals.  Perhaps God didn’t want his highest leaders to be conflicted about teaching the Law of Chastity if the Law of Chastity is an accurate portrayal of his goals for humankind.

What I claimed is by your assumptions that whatever sexuality the person in the First Presidency has they are in a position where they see their behaviour as accepted before God, etc.  If so, they were quite likely comfortable with the status quo and assumed the current perception of homosexual was the correct one…otherwise they would not be in such a stable mental state.  If they were comfortable living the standard of their time, they would be much less likely to ask questions about the standard than someone who was struggling.

From my understanding the posters prayed because of conflict between their internal state and the standards of the Church.  No significant conflict, why would they pray for revelation?

From what I’ve seen explained on this board, it is more likely that these men were somewhere on the sexual orientation spectrum rather than all clustered at one end. And that they could experience any level of comfort and discomfort throughout the course of their lives and service in the quorum. President G. A. Smith had a terrible time (I’m not saying on this issue, not that there’s anything wrong with that) and received great revelations. On the other hand, they needn’t have been struggling, only empathizing with those who are, either as they once had, or in some cases, as they never had. Those with personal experience would more readily find it more reasonable to consider, and I think out of 50 men, there would be a fair sampling or personal experience, empathy, reasoning to lead them to pray about this topic.

I’m wondering why some approach this as though it is the only generation asking for a revelation on same-sex sealings. Especially when they keep bringing up examples where it was practiced and stories, statistics and reasoning proving our Church leaders are just as human as the general population.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How can you know that?  Don't apostles have weaknesses that they need to overcome just like the rest of us?  I wouldn't say it's out of the question that at one point one of the apostles needed to overcome this weakness just as so many members of the church have and do.

What can be said is that to the best of our knowledge none of the apostles have given in to this temptation.

Your first paragraph is my point. I was asking the question to someone who challenged, on the basis that they are not chosen at random, the assumption that First Presidency counselors included non-strictly heterosexual men. Except I’m not suggesting their experience constitutes a weakness. Those who may have had a weakness in keeping the law of chastity would have done well to overcome it, and my assumption is that they did.

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your first paragraph is my point. I was asking the question to someone who challenged, on the basis that they are not chosen at random, the assumption that First Presidency counselors included non-strictly heterosexual men. Except I’m not suggesting their experience constitutes a weakness. Those who may have had a weakness in keeping the law of chastity would have done well to overcome it, and my assumption is that they did.

Sorry, I missed the context of your remarks.

[Damien the Leper]

On 6/5/2024 at 11:35 AM, Nofear said:

While I can't speak for smac97, I myself believe prophets are a good check and balance. We humans are good at believing what we want to believe and learning to be humble enough to hearken to the Spirit irrespective of our inclinations is a lifelong challenge. But still, if the two colflict (after all, prophets are fallible too)? In most cases I personally would hold my personal opinion in abeyance and wait on the Lord to resolve the disparity.

The Holy Spirit puts prophets and apostles in check.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How can you know that?  Don't apostles have weaknesses that they need to overcome just like the rest of us?  I wouldn't say it's out of the question that at one point one of the apostles needed to overcome this weakness just as so many members of the church have and do.

What can be said is that to the best of our knowledge none of the apostles have given in to this temptation.

That is the point he was making.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Those who may have had a weakness in keeping the law of chastity would have done well to overcome it, and my assumption is that they did.

So why would they ask for a revelation as a member of the First Presidency when they had already personally experienced how to overcome any weakness?  Wouldn’t it be more likely they saw the result of their efforts as evidence of an answer the Church already had?

You don’t generally ask questions when you believe you already have the answer.

Edited June 17, 2024 by Calm

[MrShorty]

Re: the latest distraction about a hypothetical LGBTQ+ First Presidency member. I don't know if it has ever happened. If I try to guestimate the probability (probability theories were always my weakest), If I did the math right:

1. Assume: 5% probability that the pool from which the First Presidency is drawn is LGBTQ+ -> 92% probability that at least one member of the First Presidency has been LGBTQ+
2. Assume: 1% probability that the pool from which the First Presidency is drawn is LGBTQ+ -> 40% probability that at least one member of the First Presidency has been LGBTQ+

So, it seems to me that, assuming random chance, there is a reasonable possibility that at least one member of the First Presidency has been LGBTQ+, but I don't think that makes any difference (except as an interesting but meaningless discussion tangent). If such a hypothetical situation has occurred and prayers have been offered and revelation received, no one has dared publish those experiences. I find myself unwilling to be held accountable for believing in hypothetical unpublished revelations. It's hard enough, sometimes, to accept the published revelations (like when Samuel claims that God told him to tell Saul to slaughter his neighbors or when Moses claims that God told him to codify slavery in the law or when Brigham Young claims that God told him to segregate temple and priesthood rites along racial lines. I have trouble seeing any value in trying to understand the significance of unpublished revelatory experiences.

Quote

This I believe is an extremely understandable description of our model of revelation. The scriptures plainly teach what gets in the way of revelation and seeking the revelations the Lord desires to give.

I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand it all then. The description you linked to felt just as opaque to me as many others. When I go through the scriptures, I see a few things:

1. Our own stubbornness gets in the way (often called "The Samuel Principle").
2. Sometimes God is characterized as waiting anxiously to grant us revelation (see James 1:5) and other times He is withholding revelation until we really work for it (see Enos. I also note that Scott Woodward quoted something from Pres. Kimball about God holding back revelation until we are standing on our tiptoes trying to get it).
3. Sometimes God's revelations contradict other revelations (see Abraham and Isaac and Nephi and Laban).
4. Sometimes scripture suggests that God gives unusual revelations as pass/fail tests (see the account of the two prophets in 1 Kings 13, paying special attention to the JST about whether the one prophet was lying about receiving revelation).
5. As already noted (slavery genocide), there just seem to be places where scripture claims revelation for something that I don't believe could come from God.

Maybe I am missing the clear and unambiguous descriptions of our model of prophets and scripture and revelation. If so, I would be interested in reading and studying the clear and unambiguous stuff that resolves all of the contradictions and nuances and proves the contraries and so on.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

So why would they ask for a revelation as a member of the First Presidency when they had already personally experienced how to overcome any weakness?  Wouldn’t it be more likely they saw the result of their efforts as evidence of an answer the Church already had?

You don’t generally ask questions when you believe you already have the answer.

There is personal revelation, but in context of the quorum of three presidents, I'm referring to revelation for the Church. His personal revelations are for him, but his job is for the Church.  So, he is looking beyond his own decisions and practice and considering what to do for the Church, doctrine- and policy-wise, through his ministry in this quorum. You point out the possibility that he feels the Church has enough revelation so as not to seek for example, answers on the subject of same-sex sealings, and so explores the matter no further. He considers himself compliant with the covenants and blessed by them. He considers the Church to be correct on this matter and all the saints have the gift of the Holy Ghost to likewise know what to do in their circumstances. This suggests that no matter the quorum members' sexuality, the First Presidency has maintained the doctrines we are familiar with.

Yet, from the many threads on this topic over the years, people still think the First Presidency should seek something new on the topic as if they haven't had reasons to consider it prayerfully from various angles. But it seems they have, from both their personal and Church responsibility standpoints.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yet, from the many threads on this topic over the years, people still think the First Presidency should seek something new on the topic as if they haven't had reasons to consider it prayerfully from various angles. But it seems they have, from both their personal and Church responsibility standpoints.

You were talking historically speaking or so I thought as in taking into account all FPs since the Church started, not just recent years.  I would not be the least surprised one way or the other if the current First Presidency and the previous one have prayed about it for the Church.  But same sex sealings weren’t even on the radar of the vast majority of members until same sex marriage became legal because marriage or intent to be married legally has been generally required to be sealed even by proxy, so why would less recent First Presidencies have thought to consider it?

Edited June 18, 2024 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

On 6/10/2024 at 11:06 PM, The Nehor said:

Going back to page one when a gay Mormon complained about corporations ruining Pride please enjoy this helpful reminder that corporations don’t care about woke or unwoke and don’t care about old-fashioned values or racial equality or justice or anything but enriching shareholders.

 

This also includes The Corporation of the President or CEO or Board Members of [Insert church name here]. The bottom line and mass exploitation of the commodity of spirituality is their primary focus.