New Mormon Channel Video on LDS Family and Homosexuality

[Just_A_Guy]

5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I agree, but the inevitable question then becomes (bolded part), what does being homosexual and chaste mean and look like in practice?  Is it just simply no sex? What about two guys holding hands? There is nothing unchaste about a boy and a girl holding hands.  But for two homosexuals?  I personally believe that homosexual relationships (not just the act are sin), therefore having two homosexuals walk into Church, sit in the pew and be cuddling is sin-in fact IMO it is flaunting sin. The same act that would be chaste for unmarried heterosexuals is not chaste for homosexuals.

And for the homosexual, we are talking about 1-2% of the population, a very small percentage.  IMO, someone who is an active member of the Church but who is leading a homosexual lifestyle should either be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. To do otherwise, is making a mockery of God's commandments.  One would disfellowship or excommunicate a bf/gf living together, it really is that simple.

I agree with all of this.  But as Dehlin, Snuffer, and Kelly have recently illustrated; no amount of legal hair-splitting can overcome the judgment of an inspired bishop.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with all of this.  But as Dehlin, Snuffer, and Kelly have recently illustrated; no amount of legal hair-splitting can overcome the judgment of an inspired bishop.

Totally agree. That is why they are called to be Judges in Israel.

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It needs to be. But it won't be. Not in our Facebook meme culture.

But it's also, imo, short on the idea of real, honest, absolute, change.

In theory, however, embracing half-truths as if they are truths will not achieve this end. What it does, instead, is sustain the lie that is the foundation of the apostasy in the first place.

Which lie is that? The "lie" that, at least in some cases, SSA cannot come completely eradicated in this life? (Not trying to be snarky, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way.  I'm just trying to pin down where, if at all, we disagree.)

Edited March 23, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Which lie is that? The "lie" that, at least in some cases, SSA cannot come completely eradicated in this life? (Not trying to be snarky, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way.  I'm just trying to pin down where, if at all, we disagree.)

Hmm.

Forgive the following if it bounces around a bit. Thinking through as I type......

I think in this instance the "lie" would be referencing the false part(s) of the half-truth being discussed. There are many, many lies (many in the form of half-truths) that accompany the ideas of homosexuality, tolerance for, what love actually is, etc. As it is, I believe that the idea that in "some" cases SSA cannot completely be eradicated in this life is another example of half-truth, with general opinion strongly favoring the false part of that half truth. But if anything that is only partially what I meant. My stronger concern is the idea that if others don't accept you fully as you are then they don't love you, that "tolerance" in-and-of-itself is a virtue, that homosexuality is "okay" with the exception of the fact that God says it's bad -- otherwise it's wholesome, and that it isn't a disease which, even if incurable in life, is still a disease that should be treated as such. (And before anyone gets their knickers wound too tightly over that, I mean more how the diseased person treats it than how we should interact with someone who is diseased. But as to how we should treat others who are diseased, I do not mean to imply, as some might infer, that this justifies some sort of callous casting off of the leper or some such. But if you love someone who is diseased then you would most certainly react differently -- how you seek help, how you care for, and, if contagious, how you even interact with, etc., etc. You don't just pretend everything is normal in most cases. (As to any who get their knickers wound by the idea that homosexuality is a disease...well...you all can continue to believe the lies if you so wish. That's up to you. I won't apologize for it)).

The lie is the idea that SSA is more akin to the example of having a taste for avocados than it is having a taste for eating dog doo. I can certainly love someone who has such a taste. But I'm not going to just accept that it's okay, that everything is fine, that the taste isn't a problem (even if they don't actually eat said dog doo), and that I shouldn't get them help somehow, maybe even against their wishes, because that is messed up!

[wenglund]

Love and compassion can often mean saying, "no...that is wrong, and is harmful, and I am not going to countenance it." I wish more people understood this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[NightSG]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with all of this.  But as Dehlin, Snuffer, and Kelly have recently illustrated; no amount of legal hair-splitting can overcome the judgment of an inspired bishop.

Unfortunately, however, bishops don't come with little indicator lights to clarify whether their decision is truly and purely inspired by the Spirit, or colored to whatever extent by their personal feelings.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Unfortunately, however, bishops don't come with little indicator lights to clarify whether their decision is truly and purely inspired by the Spirit, or colored to whatever extent by their personal feelings.

Irrelevant. Authority is authority.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Unfortunately, however, bishops don't come with little indicator lights to clarify whether their decision is truly and purely inspired by the Spirit, or colored to whatever extent by their personal feelings.

It's tough sometimes, in particular when they say or do things we might not agree with. I think we all need to remember that they are still men, subject to the same weaknesses and frailties that we all have. I think 90% of them still try to do their best. Their job isn't easy. 

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Unfortunately, however, bishops don't come with little indicator lights to clarify whether their decision is truly and purely inspired by the Spirit, or colored to whatever extent by their personal feelings.

Just like rank-and-file members don't come with a little light that indicates whether their mistrust of their bishops is borne of occasional good-faith differences, or just a massive chip on one's shoulder.  At some point, to paraphrase Justice Stewart, you know it when you see it.  

And for the immediate purposes of this discussion, the LDS ecclesiastical system seems to be working rather well.

[eddified]

10 hours ago, yjacket said:

This message of loving without condemning is sick.  We have been taught by prophets in the past, by scriptures what is righteous behavior and non-righteous behavior.  We can absolutely condemn the sin of homosexual behavior.  Shoot, just look at what the word condemn means: express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.

The statement that we should love without condemning is an absolute lie. Now this doesn't mean, we need to be jerks about it and go up to this guy who brings his bf to church and start telling him off. But it does mean we shouldn't shy away from unequivocally teaching in Sunday School lessons, Sacrament talks, etc. that this is gross sin.

We can absolutely and should absolutely condemn homosexual behavior, just like we condemn pre-marital sex, and a whole host of other gross sins. 

But that isn't the message of this article.  The message is to just "love".  And the implication of this is that people will start to shy away from teaching true doctrine in church.

I really agree with this. But I still wonder about the "condemning" part. Yes we should condemn sin. How do we do that without condemning people? To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said "Neither do I condemn thee." He didn't give a discourse about sexual purity to the woman. But He did tell her not to sin. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Irrelevant. Authority is authority.

Truth distilled to its essence. Gird yourselves for the Nazi comparisons.

[Mike]

On 3/21/2017 at 6:34 PM, MormonGator said:

I've known of some parents who never talk to their children after they tell them they are gay. That's harsh. I think it's sick. This is still your kid. I'm not a parent but I was staggered when I heard that. 

I remember when a kid shot up a school in Oregon. The father said "I still love him, he's still my son." But then there are parents who refuse to talk to a gay kid? I can't imagine it. 

I've heard lots of stories, and I know some parents (and of course I know their children) who have had to deal with the subject of this video. The people with whom I'm acquainted are much more like the parents in the video and much less like some of the negative opinions I've heard. As for me despite the negative opinions there just isn't any way I could turn away from my children (like the people you talk about in your post). 

[Mike]

 

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Irrelevant. Authority is authority.

Truth distilled to its essence. Gird yourselves for the Nazi comparisons.

Well, even if I felt it (which I don't) I wouldn't bring up Nazis at this juncture.   And I'm not one who's prone to criticizing Bishops and other Church Officials. But I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you saying no way, no how, not now, not ever, never?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Mike

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Well, even if I felt it (which I don't) I wouldn't bring up Nazis at this juncture.   And I'm not one who's prone to criticizing Bishops and other Church Officials. But I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you saying no way, no how, not now, not ever, never?

Sorry, Mike, not sure what you're talking about. I was responding directly to TFP's statement about legitimate authority, not to a contextual application of that idea. Can you be more specific?

EDIT: I think I understand your question, which I take to be: Am I saying that no one, no way, no how, never ever should question authority?

My answer is: Yes -- if by "authority" we mean legitimate divine authority. That includes the bishop who asks in a clumsy manner or who selects a sub-optimal path. We are to sustain our leaders. It is almost never a matter of right or wrong. If by sustaining our leaders we would violate our temple covenants -- if, for example, a bishop instructed a young married woman to leave her husband and become his plural wife -- then obviously we should not do that. But such examples are exceedingly rare. Generally speaking, we sustain our leaders, do as they ask, and try to help them to succeed in their callings.

Is it ever acceptable to decline a calling? Possibly. I'm not sure. I can think of some pretty convincing reasons, and I think it's always acceptable to tell the bishop your concerns. But let's face it, the vast majority of declined callings are declined because the called individuals simply don't want the headache. That's a step above accepting the calling and then simply not doing it, but still not the right thing.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Vort

[Mike]

Just now, Vort said:

Sorry, Mike, not sure what you're talking about. I was responding directly to TFP's statement about legitimate authority, not to a contextual application of that idea. Can you be more specific?

Yeah, sorry. When I saw your post responding (I think) to this exchange:

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

Unfortunately, however, bishops don't come with little indicator lights to clarify whether their decision is truly and purely inspired by the Spirit, or colored to whatever extent by their personal feelings.

Irrelevant. Authority is authority.

It appeared to me that @NightSG was saying in essence that Bishops are capable of making uninspired decisions and even decisions that are mistakes. So, I wasn't sure what TFPs response meant. I wasn't going to bother, but when I read your response I became curious what to make of it all. By the way @The Folk Prophet and @NightSG I'm not meaning to talk about either of you instead of to you, so please if you feel disposed help me understand. That's about as specific as I can be since I'm really only asking for elaboration so that I may understand. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yeah, sorry. When I saw your post responding (I think) to this exchange:

It appeared to me that @NightSG was saying in essence that Bishops are capable of making uninspired decisions and even decisions that are mistakes. So, I wasn't sure what TFPs response meant. I wasn't going to bother, but when I read your response I became curious what to make of it all. By the way @The Folk Prophet and @NightSG I'm not meaning to talk about either of you instead of to you, so please if you feel disposed help me understand. That's about as specific as I can be since I'm really only asking for elaboration so that I may understand. 

Thanks for the clarification. I think I figured it out on a second reading, so I edited my response above. Does that adequately answer your question?

[Vort]

There is such a thing as illegitimate authority, or authority that loses its divine sanction. See my "pervert bishop" example above. We are not expected to follow our leaders to hell. but that is almost never the case in reality; it's most often used as a worst-case excuse to attempt to justify disobedience.

[The Folk Prophet]

20 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yeah, sorry. When I saw your post responding (I think) to this exchange:

It appeared to me that @NightSG was saying in essence that Bishops are capable of making uninspired decisions and even decisions that are mistakes. So, I wasn't sure what TFPs response meant. I wasn't going to bother, but when I read your response I became curious what to make of it all. By the way @The Folk Prophet and @NightSG I'm not meaning to talk about either of you instead of to you, so please if you feel disposed help me understand. That's about as specific as I can be since I'm really only asking for elaboration so that I may understand. 

Sometimes it can be hard to follow the threads, by their very nature. Let me break it down.

The implication was that bishops have the right to NOT excommunicate someone who is actively homosexual. Someone else pointed out that bishops can be mistaken. My thread was to say that doesn't matter. A bishop has the right to NOT excommunicating someone by way of mistake because they have the authority to make that decision.

[Mike]

Thanks to all for your patience with my inquiry.