Dallin H. Oaks talk

[Midwest LDS]

Ok we do have a disagreement here. I feel like our leaders have been exceedingly clear both about sin and it's consequences, and how we can avoid falling into sin. Let me give you some recent examples. Elder Lawrence of the Seventy said in his article "The war goes on" that Same Sex marriage is a counterfeit from Satan and will not bring exaltation. Here's the link, it's from the April 2017 Ensign https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/04/the-war-goes-on?lang=eng.

Let's find some other examples. Elder Anderson from his April 2014 Conference talk entitled "Spirtual Whirlwinds" talks about a young girl who courageously defended the Lord's standards of marriage against even fellow church members. He talks abput the evils of same sex marriage, while encouraging those who struggle with same gender attraction that they can remain clean by living the Lord's Commandments. And of course Elder Oaks spoke about this subject during this last Conference when refrencing the Family Proclamation as you mentioned earlier. I don't have time to go through all the references I found but I found these 3 examples with just a google search.

[The Folk Prophet]

For consideration:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” - Joseph Smith

I don't have a problem with being confused at the message or the approach of the brethren or even having some concern. I myself share in some of those concerns and confusions. I think, however, that we need to be very careful about how we word our confusion and concern where we do not step into the spirit of criticism. In doing so, we risk our souls.

[Midwest LDS]

The only difference I find with past statements on the subject by earlier prophets is that those who struggle with same sex attraction may not be able to overcome those feelings in this life. To me, I feel like the church is demonstrating that Same Gender attraction is related to Paul's thorn in the flesh from 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. Just because you have a burden that is not removed doesn't mean you can't be strengthened by the Lord to bear up that burden. To me the Church has been clear about that and I feel like He has extended His arm of mercy to our brothers and sisters who struggle with SSA. He is telling them through our leaders that they can be forgiven and they can lead lives in obedience to the Lord's commandments even if he doesn't remove the burden of SSA from them. To me that's a message of hope and tells me that we are led by continuing revelation as the Lord adds line upon line and precept upon precept to our understanding.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[NightSG]

12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Ok we do have a disagreement here. I feel like our leaders have been exceedingly clear both about sin and it's consequences,

Gee, there's a bold statement.  

Reminds me of the wife who accused her husband of sleeping through church.  She demanded that he tell her anything the preacher had talked about. 

"Well, he went on a bit about sin."

"You'll have to be more specific than that."

"He was against it."

[Midwest LDS]

Yep I'm fairly certain the 12 apostles are against sin, but don't quote me on that @NightSG?

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For consideration:

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” - Joseph Smith

I don't have a problem with being confused at the message or the approach of the brethren or even having some concern. I myself share in some of those concerns and confusions. I think, however, that we need to be very careful about how we word our confusion and concern where we do not step into the spirit of criticism. In doing so, we risk our souls.

I totally agree.  And I try to be careful, which is why it really frustrates me, it's why i am frustrated, ticked, etc. b/c I see the message, confused by it and what is currently being said and how it is being dealt with is not how is was said or dealt with in the past.  And it's plainly not the same.  The LoveLoud announcement was the trigger . . .b/c I'm said to myself wait just a second this is not in line with what I've been taught my entire life being in the Church.

Just because I have criticism does not fault finding make: fault-finding -continual criticism, typically concerning trivial things. 

The only things I have criticized have been over consistent issues.  I brought up Elder Ballard b/c yeah I have no clue as to what he is meaning or really meaning by it.  I tried searching on LDS.org for a better understanding and I couldn't find it so yeah I'd I really wish he would have been more clear; he was very clear in other portions of his talk and I liked that.  I totally believe they are called of God, but not everything they do or say or even every action is of God. I do my best to look at what they say and compare it to everything else and then see if it is of God or not.  Yes, sexism, racism, nationalism are loaded terms.

I love how Elder Cook put it . . .

"Anyone who claims superiority under the Father’s plan because of characteristics like race, sex, nationality, language, or economic circumstances is morally wrong and does not understand the Lord’s true purpose for all of our Father’s children.⁹

Unfortunately, in our day in almost every segment of society, we see self-importance and arrogance flaunted while humility and accountability to God are denigrated. Much of society has lost its moorings and does not understand why we are on this earth. True humility, which is essential to achieve the Lord’s purpose for us, is seldom evident.¹⁰

I00% totally agree. But sexism, nationalism, racism terminology is quite different.  

"We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism."

I guess where I'm going with this is that it's one thing to claim superiority because of race,language, culture, etc. and it's another to be in the modern term racist.  There is a quite a difference in the quotes.  Here is a practical example, in my life I've lived in neighborhoods where I'm the minority among other races and let me tell you it's a different culture and point blank I don't want to raise my children in that culture.  I claim absolutely 0 more self-worth or more importance to God than those of other races, but I'm definitely prejudiced to living among people that look like me and share my values.  I want to live in areas that share my same culture and my ethnicity.  In fact if you look at demographics, the vast majority of people do the exact same thing.  In modern parlance, I'm a "racist".  

Strife and conflict almost always occur out of differences in culture; until we have a common government under God, eliminating nationalism is like saying "world peace".  Inside God's kingdom, i.e. His Church, I agree we should all be members of the Church 1st rather than of a particular nation or creed.  Outside the Church . . .well that's a different story.

I severely dislike (that's not a strong enough word) how Elder Ballard put it (b/c the two statements are different).  I really like how Elder Cook put it.  If that's apostosy . . .

I don't see how matters concerning race, sex, nation (as they are hot topics these days) is a trivial matter.  Maybe it is . . .

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by JoCa

[BardahlSpl]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 2:29 PM, mirkwood said:

This:

 

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

So... a gay couple who are faithful to each other in marriage... do not abuse their spouse or children... and fulfill their family responsibilities... are good to go... yes?

[zil]

40 minutes ago, BardahlSpl said:

So... a gay couple who are faithful to each other in marriage... do not abuse their spouse or children... and fulfill their family responsibilities... are good to go... yes?

Feel free to read the entire document, which clearly answers your question.

[Just_A_Guy]

39 minutes ago, BardahlSpl said:

So... a gay couple who are faithful to each other in marriage... do not abuse their spouse or children... and fulfill their family responsibilities... are good to go... yes?

Erm... no.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, BardahlSpl said:

So... a gay couple who are faithful to each other in marriage... do not abuse their spouse or children... and fulfill their family responsibilities... are good to go... yes?

Oh, we are having a God's law/Man's law moment here.

Sure, a gay faithful couple who love their children and fulfill their family responsibilities, much better than a gay couple who abuse each other or children and don't fulfill responsibilities.  Obviously, the first one is better for society than the second.

But as I'm sure you're aware, this is an LDS board, where we talk about more than just what's good for society - we're interested in what God wants for us individually and collectively.  And, as you're probably aware, we LDS figure that God is still saying what He's always said - that His definition of marriage is one man and one woman, and any other definition isn't His, but man's.  So by that standpoint, no, LDS people aren't "good" with the normalization of what we consider to be re-defining marriage away from what God intended.  

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, BardahlSpl said:

So... a gay couple who are faithful to each other in marriage... do not abuse their spouse or children... and fulfill their family responsibilities... are good to go... yes?

@zil answered your question.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, JoCa said:

Where I go with the Church speaking out of both sides is that IMO the modern church over the last 10 years has become overly concerned with the fear of Man and the perception of the world. And let me be clear, just because I believe that does not in any way shape or form mean I'm falling away or apostate, etc. etc. etc.  God is not a God of confusion . . .yet there is confusion.

SSA:https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/protestantism/mormon/mormon-homosexuality

All one needs to do is just read what the Church said 15 years ago vs. today.

You said 15 years ago.  How about 19 years ago?

Quote

What is your Church’s attitude toward homosexuality?

In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.

--Gordon B. Hinckley Oct 1998 General Conference.

Most of the arguments I hear describing the "confusion" that you allude to is because people have such inflexible and narrow definitions that only inflexible and narrow comments would ever make sense.  

Because degrees of homosexuality are just as varied as degrees of sexuality in general, we have differing comments for different people.  But if one were to pigeon-hole all homosexuals into one mold, then many statements meant for a slightly different mold of homosexual would never make sense.

Many on this board are so inflexible on any ideas that they run the risk of counseling God on what homosexuality is or is not.  Just how many do you know personally?  I've known many.  I had a brother who was/is homosexual.  I got to know many of his partners.  I lived with a homosexual couple.  They are indeed varied.  The causes are equally varied.  I know this from experience and with associating with them and with getting to know them personally.  This isn't Hollywood or fundamentalist notions from simple tradition.  It is taking into account all Church publication that I've read about the topic from "To the One" to "Mormonandgay".

I believe that the apostles are inspired on the topic.  And if there is a broader meaning that can encompass all the statements and attitudes that I've read, then I'll believe that broader meaning.  If the narrow definition only causes confusion as I read the words of the apostles, it would seem to me that there is something wrong with my narrow definition rather than the prophetic counsel I hear and read.

But, of course, you have the freedom to choose to remain in confusion rather than change to reconcile yourself to the prophetic counsel.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, JoCa said:

Just because I have criticism does not fault finding make: fault-finding -continual criticism, typically concerning trivial things. 

Forgive me, but I believe that "they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth" and similar type statements is dangerous. I caution you.

I trust you're intentions -- I tend to agree with a lot of them. When we express things and HOW we express things changes our heart and mind -- bit by bit over time... Be careful. I do not want to lose a brother in Christ over this. Trust that God leads His church and that all will work for the best. I don't know how or have all the answers in these matters, but I know we can trust God, as I know you know as well, and that means that we can be at peace and not agitate where agitation is only going to hurt us.

[The Folk Prophet]

37 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Sure, a gay faithful couple who love their children and fulfill their family responsibilities, much better than a gay couple who abuse each other or children and don't fulfill responsibilities.  Obviously, the first one is better for society than the second.

Debatable. The one works to further legitimize that which shouldn't be viewed as legitimate. If all gays couples were abusive it would make the debate a lot easier for those opposed.

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You said 15 years ago.  How about 19 years ago?

Most of the arguments I hear describing the "confusion" that you allude to is because people have such inflexible and narrow definitions that only inflexible and narrow comments would ever make sense.  

Because degrees of homosexuality are just as varied as degrees of sexuality in general, we have differing comments for different people.  But if one were to pigeon-hole all homosexuals into one mold, then many statements meant for a slightly different mold of homosexual would never make sense.

Many on this board are so inflexible on any ideas that they run the risk of counseling God on what homosexuality is or is not.  Just how many do you know personally?  I've known many.  I had a brother who was/is homosexual.  I got to know many of his partners.  I lived with a homosexual couple.  They are indeed varied.  The causes are equally varied.  I know this from experience and with associating with them and with getting to know them personally.  This isn't Hollywood or fundamentalist notions from simple tradition.  It is taking into account all Church publication that I've read about the topic from "To the One" to "Mormonandgay".

I believe that the apostles are inspired on the topic.  And if there is a broader meaning that can encompass all the statements and attitudes that I've read, then I'll believe that broader meaning.  If the narrow definition only causes confusion as I read the words of the apostles, it would seem to me that there is something wrong with my narrow definition rather than the prophetic counsel I hear and read.

But, of course, you have the freedom to choose to remain in confusion rather than change to reconcile yourself to the prophetic counsel.

Many like to stick their heads in the sand and call it flexibility too.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, JoCa said:

And let me be clear, just because I believe that does not in any way shape or form mean I'm falling away or apostate, etc. etc. etc.

"Just because I believe our most senior authorities are leading us down paths of falsehood, that doesn't mean I don't sustain them! Oh, no! I'm TOTALLY on board with the program! I just am smarter than everyone else and can recognize when our leaders are wrong and should be disbelieved! Like they are now!"

Your testimony that you're not engaged in any level of apostasy or falling away is comforting indeed. But not very.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You said 15 years ago.  How about 19 years ago?

Most of the arguments I hear describing the "confusion" that you allude to is because people have such inflexible and narrow definitions that only inflexible and narrow comments would ever make sense.  

Because degrees of homosexuality are just as varied as degrees of sexuality in general, we have differing comments for different people.  But if one were to pigeon-hole all homosexuals into one mold, then many statements meant for a slightly different mold of homosexual would never make sense.

 

 

I just wanted to point out that degrees in behavior are a solid sign that such behaviors are cognitively controlled behaviors.  This means learned or acquired.  Acquired and learned behaviors can be modified or overridden with intelligence – that is assuming a species is intelligent. 

My personal main objection to many “homosexuals” is this innate insistence that anyone so disposed is void of will or agency in the matter but a slave unable to cope beyond some level of compliance with something that has been “imposed” upon them and they cannot do, think or consider otherwise.

I have come to understand in life that there is a very big difference and a vast wilderness between "I can not" and "I will not" even thought the result is exactly the same - Also there is no real exercize of  freedom or will with either.   But with one there is no will and the other will that is abandoned.

For myself I would rather fail exercizing my will than to succed without will or haveing to abandone my will and become a slave to succed.

 

The Traveler

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Traveler

[SpiritDragon]

7 hours ago, BardahlSpl said:

So... a gay couple who are faithful to each other in marriage... do not abuse their spouse or children... and fulfill their family responsibilities... are good to go... yes?

Quote

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

The very quote you used to bring up your question answers your question using the bolded words. Chastity and marital activities (read: anything sexual in nature) between gays are incompatible.

The underlined portion also happens to be exactly what Elder Oaks talk singled out, cohabitation and same sex marriage both of which are Satanic counterfeits of the God-ordained family.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

I just wanted to point out that degrees in behavior are a solid sign that such behaviors are cognitively controlled behaviors.  This means learned or acquired.  Acquired and learned behaviors can be modified or overridden with intelligence – that is assuming a species is intelligent. 

My personal main objection to many “homosexuals” is this innate insistence that anyone so disposed is void of will or agency in the matter but a slave unable to cope beyond some level of compliance with something that has been “imposed” upon them and they cannot do, think or consider otherwise.

I have come to understand in life that there is a very big difference and a vast wilderness between "I can not" and "I will not" even thought the result is exactly the same - Also there is no real exercize of  freedom or will with either.   But with one there is no will and the other will that is abandoned.

I completely agree. 

I have said in the past that some people are "born that way" and people immediately jump to the conclusion that I believe it to be a permanent, uncontrollable condition.  Not so.  I was "born" an angry person.  But I learned to control it.  It took a lot of effort and a lot of teaching and guidance.

If at any time I decided "that's just the way I am" or "God made me this way" then I never would have gotten a hold of it.  ANY behavior can be change through intelligent thought and action.  Some are more easily changed than others.

I also believe that people do not differentiate "reaction" and "response".  It is this distinction that says whether you "have same sex attraction" or if you "choose to be gay".  And that is an important distinction.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I have said in the past that some people are "born that way" and people immediately jump to the conclusion that I believe it to be a permanent, uncontrollable condition.  Not so.  I was "born" an angry person.  But I learned to control it.  It took a lot of effort and a lot of teaching and guidance.

Of course the problem with the born that way theory is that infants don't have any sexual preference at all. The very idea that pre-hormonal children can have a sexual preference has to sit upon that dung pile of lies that the world view is established upon. This includes the idea that certain characteristics are "gay". People seem to forget that at times in history, the manly men wore the high-heels and lace. Of course this is really more an argument concerning trans-whatever-ness. But still -- a 3 year old who likes to play with dolls or dress up with his sisters doesn't mean anything except that three year olds are -- you know -- three year olds.

I accept, of course, that people are born with proclivities that might lead them towards thinking and emotion that would tend them towards homosexuality. But that, imo, is not comparable to a temper.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course the problem with the born that way theory is that infants don't have any sexual preference at all. The very idea that pre-hormonal children can have a sexual preference has to sit upon that dung pile of lies that the world view is established upon. This includes the idea that certain characteristics are "gay". People seem to forget that at times in history, the manly men wore the high-heels and lace. Of course this is really more an argument concerning trans-whatever-ness. But still -- a 3 year old who likes to play with dolls or dress up with his sisters doesn't mean anything except that three year olds are -- you know -- three year olds.

I accept, of course, that people are born with proclivities that might lead them towards thinking and emotion that would tend them towards homosexuality. But that, imo, is not comparable to a temper.

I never said that infants had sexual preference.  Again, more jumping to conclusions rather than trying to understand what I'm saying.  Sexual preference has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (although this may be a semantic difference -- possibly an important one, though).  Infants don't even see past their mother's face.  So how can they even know what male and female are?  So, that's not what I'm talking about.

But if I had heterosexual attraction by the age of four (possibly younger) then is it not possible that someone else had homosexual attraction by that same age?  Was I "born that way"?  I believe so.  I certainly don't recall being told that I'm "supposed to be" attracted to girls.  I was told they had cooties.  But the attraction was certainly there.

Even with my anger issues, I'd say the same thing.  Was I "angry" as an infant?  I doubt it.  I probably cried just as any child would when he was hungry or uncomfortable, or in pain.  But when was I "angry".  Did I choose to be angry?  No.  Did I learn to be angry?  I don't think so.  But it was my initial nature.  That doesn't mean I was unable to change that nature into something better.  And that is where choice comes in.  Do I CHOOSE to change?  I did.  And so can those "born" with SSA.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I never said that infants had sexual preference.  Again, more jumping to conclusions rather than trying to understand what I'm saying.

Don't take everything so personally. I was talking generically about the idea of being born that way.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Don't take everything so personally. I was talking generically about the idea of being born that way.

I wasn't taking things personally.  Truly, if I took something personally, I'd usually tell someone to back off or I'll sick Gator on them. 

No, I was pointing out that the consistent push back from this position I've submitted comes from first, not understanding what my position actually is.  And instead of asking for clarification, I usually get a counter-argument that really wasn't what I was talking about in the first place.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The very idea that pre-hormonal children can have a sexual preference has to sit upon that dung pile of lies that the world view is established upon.

I believe myself living proof that you are mistaken. From my very early childhood, I wanted to be in love with a girl, hold her hand, kiss her, be close to her. As a four-year-old -- no lie -- I wanted to be married to a girl, to touch hands, cheeks, lips, and genitals (insofar as I understood that that's what you did to make babies). I had only the haziest and most childish idea of what constituted marriage, but I deeply felt that I wanted it. The idea of being "married" to another boy struck me as absurd, even without the feelings of revulsion toward the idea of homosexual sex relations that would arise later during puberty.

So I most strongly disagree. In my case, at least, my sexual preference was intact and well-formed by the time I was four years old, probably earlier. And though I know I am unusual in some aspects of my conscious realizations, I do not believe I'm atypical in my underlying desires.

[laronius]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

I just wanted to point out that degrees in behavior are a solid sign that such behaviors are cognitively controlled behaviors.  This means learned or acquired.  Acquired and learned behaviors can be modified or overridden with intelligence – that is assuming a species is intelligent. 

 

Agreed, but I don't think attraction can be considered a behavior. While there is much we do not understand about this subject (the Church doesn't have an official position on how SSA happens) I do think that a person can so pervert their natural affections so as to skew their attractions but for most in the Church I don't think that is the case. Perhaps nurturing has something to do with it but why does one child out of a large family experience it and not the others? I do think that many do not make a conscious decision to be gay. I personally don't have a problem with viewing it as just another thorn in the flesh some are called to bear. If that is not the case and a person through the atonement of Christ can change their attraction then I would think the Lord would be a little more forth coming in how that works. If its not a problem caused by sin then I don't think simply being righteous or obedient alone would change it.