Dcharle wrote:Really? Modern Mormonism has clearly taught that individuals are not born gay, this is a slam dunk! This post is not about whether one should act on those tendencies, that's an entirely separate issue. Once again, words don't mean what they say, another system of apologetics I suppose.
Brad is not an apologist, quite the contrary.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
I understand the point you are making, that the Church still sees homosexuality as a temptation that can be resisted and that they have not wavered from that belief.
Do you see any change in the way the Church is describing the 'causes' of homosexuality?
Thanks. I can't see any change there, as I don't think the church accepts "homosexuality" as a valid description of a person. It wants to avoid accepting the notion that a person can "be" gay. So it only talks about "same sex attraction," which is a thing to be felt, as opposed "gay" which is a thing a person can be.
According to the web page, I think the answer to the cause of the attraction is: hell if we know. With maybe a subtext of "We just have to trust that this is part of god's plan."
Or something like that.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Dcharle wrote:I was sharpening the swords for battle, I am backing down.
Why? You and I disagree on interpretation of the church's current stance on homosexuality. What does it matter if I am a critic or a believer?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote: Thanks. I can't see any change there, as I don't think the church accepts "homosexuality" as a valid description of a person. It wants to avoid accepting the notion that a person can "be" gay. So it only talks about "same sex attraction," which is a thing to be felt, as opposed "gay" which is a thing a person can be.
According to the web page, I think the answer to the cause of the attraction is: hell if we know. With maybe a subtext of "We just have to trust that this is part of god's plan."
Or something like that.
I see signs they are moving in the direction that allows for it to be inborn or unavoidable for some. I think if you go back 40-50 years, discussions by the Church were framed in terms of avoidable behavior and reparative therapy. There was no distinction being made between behavior and inclinations. The thought that an avowed homosexual person would hold a calling or even a TR was ridiculous.The blame was placed squarely on the individual directly and on his family indirectly.
Now we see, similar to the stance on the blacks in the priesthood, that leadership just doesn't know why some are "afflicted" and even statements that indicate it was not their "choice". They are moving away from the blame game.
While we may not be talking about a doctrinal point changing, we certainly can see the approach changing, and in that change it is now possible to see how the doctrine itself could be changed. It's unfortunate that BKP will not live long enough to have his BRM moment.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Brad Hudson wrote: Thanks. I can't see any change there, as I don't think the church accepts "homosexuality" as a valid description of a person. It wants to avoid accepting the notion that a person can "be" gay. So it only talks about "same sex attraction," which is a thing to be felt, as opposed "gay" which is a thing a person can be.
According to the web page, I think the answer to the cause of the attraction is: hell if we know. With maybe a subtext of "We just have to trust that this is part of god's plan."
Or something like that.
I see signs they are moving in the direction that allows for it to be inborn or unavoidable for some. I think if you go back 40-50 years, discussions by the Church were framed in terms of avoidable behavior and reparative therapy. There was no distinction being made between behavior and inclinations. The thought that an avowed homosexual person would hold a calling or even a TR was ridiculous.The blame was placed squarely on the individual directly and on his family indirectly.
Now we see, similar to the stance on the blacks in the priesthood, that leadership just doesn't know why some are "afflicted" and even statements that indicate it was not their "choice". They are moving away from the blame game.
While we may not be talking about a doctrinal point changing, we certainly can see the approach changing, and in that change it is now possible to see how the doctrine itself could be changed. It's unfortunate that BKP will not live long enough to have his BRM moment.
I think you're right that the absence of any support for reparative therapy is movement. But was there a time when temple recommends were denied to a man who confessed to his bishop that he was attracted to men but not to acting on that attraction? Or was it more like mastrubation: it's okay if you're tempted, as long as you don't act on it. I've been out a while, so it's entirely possible my memory is fuzzy.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:I think you're right that the absence of any support for reparative therapy is movement. But was there a time when temple recommends were denied to a man who confessed to his bishop that he was attracted to men but not to acting on that attraction? Or was it more like mastrubation: it's okay if you're tempted, as long as you don't act on it. I've been out a while, so it's entirely possible my memory is fuzzy.
I too am going on fuzzy memory but I don't remember ever hearing the behavior vs inclination distinction before the late 1990's, I don't remember public statements that celibate gays could hold priesthood callings before 2000 and this is the first time I remember seeing an authoritative statement indicating that it not a choice. The Church is evolving on the issue, just like society, just 50 years behind. When you think about it that is not bad for a conservative religious organization controlled by geriatric men.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Brad - I'm not sure we disagree but for me, it is clear the Church is changing is stance, lets not forget Packers infamous talk:
October CR 2010, Boyd Packer, Cleansing the Inner Vessel During his original talk, Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”
Fence Sitter wrote: I too am going on fuzzy memory but I don't remember ever hearing the behavior vs inclination distinction before the late 1990's, I don't remember public statements that celibate gays could hold priesthood callings before 2000 and this is the first time I remember seeing an authoritative statement indicating that it not a choice. The Church is evolving on the issue, just like society, just 50 years behind. When you think about it that is not bad for a conservative religious organization controlled by geriatric men.
It looks to me like the only references to homosexuality are violations of the law of chastity, including acting on homosexual impulses. If you get a chance, I'd like to hear your take on the article.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Dcharle wrote:Brad - I'm not sure we disagree but for me, it is clear the Church is changing is stance, lets not forget Packers infamous talk:
October CR 2010, Boyd Packer, Cleansing the Inner Vessel During his original talk, Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”
Was this what Packer said at conference, or what was printed in the Ensign? Wasn't the talk modified when it was written. I would have to defer to the printed version as the official position of the church.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
