MovieChat Forums > Latter Days (2004) Discussion > Gay/ Mormon book swap (offshoot of 'Brid...

Gay/ Mormon book swap (offshoot of 'Bridging the Gap'

posted 15 years ago by monya_baker
51 replies | jump to latest

This is an offshoot of the discussion Jiminy Cricket started called "Bridging the Gap: Mormons and the Gay Community." Jiminy is reading a book about a happy gay couple (or perhaps a series of pro-gay theological essays?). I'm reading two books by Mormon leaders, Our Search for Happiness by Russell Ballard and Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer Kimball. The first few exchanges of the book reading are in the thread "Bridging the Gap"
(Jiminy, DST: I can delete this new topic if you want to keep it all in the original thread, but getting to the end of all those is cumbersome.)

[–] monya_baker 15 years ago

Jiminy, I've sent you a PM on the bits you won't want to read up to pg 160.

Others: I forgot to say that Jiminy is reading The Commitment by Dan Savage (with an option to read essays by Andrew Sullivant if The Commitment feels to graphic)

[–] monya_baker 15 years ago

Jiminy, I've read up to page 236 and sent you a PM.

[–] monya_baker 15 years ago

Jiminy, I got to 291 (lots of white space in the last third of the book). Nothing I think you'll need to skip.

[–] jiminycricket-5 15 years ago

This was a good idea, Monya, I just wish you'd had it earlier. I agree, that thread has become a bit unwieldy. But at this point, since you've already posted responses to Our Search for Happiness and The Miracle of Forgiveness in the other thread, I'd prefer to keep the conversation going there. Especially since that thread seems to have an audience.

Technical tip: In addition to increasing the posts-per-page setting, you may also want to try out the "inline" display setting, as opposed to threaded, flat or nested. This will display posts in chronological order, so that the most recent posts are easy to find at the bottom of the list. Hope this helps!

Jim

[–] DSTgar 15 years ago

I'm following both posts (it's really not very busy here), and would actually prefer that this discussion be in its own thread. No complaint here about it being off-topic vis-a-vis the movie and IMDB "rules."

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] DSTgar 15 years ago

An offshoot of this topic: Dan Savage, the author of the book Jiminy has read (but not yet discussed) gives his view of marriage.
(disclosure: he does use some language here—one or two words—that might not be appropriate for all ears. nonetheless, his argument is extremely compelling)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tM0Pg_KKV8&feature=player_embedded

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] monya_baker 15 years ago

Thanks DST; Dan Savage makes a cogent argument as usual.

BTW: This isn't marriage, but it is a couple steps in the right direction:

LDS Church endorses gay rights legislation in Salt Lake City
http://www.examiner.com/x-17297-Rochester-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d13-Mormons-support-gay-rights
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/12utah.html

(In Miracle of Forgiveness, 1969, former Church leader expresses outrage that gay sex is even legal in some jurisdictions. So this is progress. My post on the reading of that book is here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345551/board/thread/122285362?d=148590212&p=12#148590212)

Voters in Seattle approve an "everything but marriage law" for gay couples
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/184263.asp

More sobering, the national organization of U.S. physicians (AMA) has stated that banning same-sex marriage (and open service in the military) harms gay people's health because it damages open communications between doctors and patients and prevents some people from getting heath insurance.

Not exactly news, but at least it's explicit:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6714313.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/gay-rights-.html

[–] DSTgar 15 years ago

The SLC news from the LDS is good news. They are, in this first small step at least, keeping their word when they said that they'd fight marriage to the bitter end but didn't have any problem with gay people. OK, so next they have to back a state-wide civil unions law?

One analysis I read surmised that the LDS church is recognizing that demonizing gay people is a losing battle (to be fought by ridiculous fringe types), but instead they're joining the Catholics to pitch the abortion battle once again, which battle is still seen as "mainstream."

David

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

Interesting. You seem quite bent on demonizing the church any way you can find. Even when you agree with something the church does, you insist on finding a way to cast it in a negative light. Why do you suppose that is?

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

Hi Jim,

Your thread is a victim of its own success. Navigating it is unwieldy, so I'm going here where things are shorter.
For those that also find this unweildy, here is my first response to Ballard's book:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345551/board/thread/122285362?d=146370078&p=5#146370078
Here is Jiminy's response to my response: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345551/board/inline/122285362?d=152186178&p=12#152186178

You're right. I assumed that, since Mormons believe God has granted humans the gift of free agency, they would also believe that governments have the obligation to protect human rights. But you deny that these ideas flow into each other, saying the role of government is to affix consequences to certain actions and so protect society.
>>>>I'd like to ask you, how far can the government carry this? Can government outlaw birth control or require me to have my husband's permission to work? What determines where these lines are drawn? And how can we protect minority rights?

A Mormon man once told me that the massacre on Tiananmen Square was justified because Joseph Smith said that all men must be subject to the laws of government and take the consequences of breaking the law. He was a bit of a blowhard, and I dismissed him as not representative of mainstream Mormonism, even though I know he taught Sunday School. I'm assuming that you don't believe governments should send tanks to run over unarmed students!

Re: Authority. I think we won't do much besides exchange aphorisms here. (Though I find your notion of absolute authority frightening, and I think it allows individuals to abdicate their obligations to think things through). You argue for one true divine source of authority saying that God is a God of order and a house divided against itself cannot stand. I say that a table with many legs is more stable. That insight and innovation come from varied viewpoints. That a tangled bank bursting with life is far more beautiful than a clipped lawn with only one kind of grass.

BTW: Even if the notion of free agency does not flow into the notion of human rights, I'd like to point out that Ballard says that the LDS Church does support human rights and tolerance:
Pg 98: “We may occasionally have to stand up for someone else’s right to a religious practice with which we don’t necessarily agree. But when it comes right down to it, religious tolerance doesn’t really have to do with commonality and shared beliefs, it has to do with getting along with each other despite our deepest differences, and working to protect one another’s rights to those differences.” So why not legally recognize cay couple's commitments and obligations to each other? Why deny them the rights that come with legal recognition of such commitments?

Okay, still waiting for your take on Kimball and Savage

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

Your thread is a victim of its own success. Navigating it is unwieldy, so I'm going here where things are shorter.

Fair enough. I agree, it has become very cumbersome rooting through all of those posts on the other thread. But if we are moving here, I ask that I be given the defense advantage. For the messages you posted on the other thread, I will respond on the other thread. Then you may respond here. In other words, I'd like the last word on that thread. I think that's fair, given the fact that you've had advantage in numbers, and given the fact that the tone, thus far, has been attacking the church, its leaders, its doctrine and its membership vs. defending them.

Jim

PS - The ever increasing "lot going on" in my life has taken a recent tragic turn. If you'll excuse me, I don't really have the heart to deal with this discussion right now or probably for a while. I'll be back sometime. Thanks.

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

Jim, For what it's worth, I wish you well, and I'll look forward to reading from you when it's right for you. m

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

Hello again. Hope everyone's doing well. I've decided to go ahead and resume posting here (and on the original thread and other threads) on a kind of a probationary basis despite the tragedy I mentioned before. I'm hoping there will be enough of a spirit of harmony that it isn't too taxing on my emotions to continue. I'm going to start with what I feel are some of the less controversial or divisive issues and try to kind of ease back into this. Please bear with me. Your patience and cooperation would be very much appreciated.

Jiminy

PS - The patience you've shown up to this point has not gone unnoticed. I thank you for it.

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Jiminy, please take care of yourself as you need to. In the grand scheme of things, this more-or-less 3-way conversation doesn't matter a whole lot. A casual visitor to this forum is unlikely to wander through all the previous discourse, and—based on our history together—it's unlikely that any of the three of us is going to budge much on this issue. Maybe we all take something away from it.

Go with God, and keep your eyes open.

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

Jiminy,
Ditto from DST. I'm glad to see you're back and doing better. And I usually like reading your posts even tho I usually disagree with them. :) Please do what works for you, and all the best. Monya

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Hey, for what it's worth, I finally got around to finishing Dan Savage's "The Commitment." Wonderful book. Typical Savage (and I'm sure way too "savage" for Jimmy's eyes, but I hope he could look through it to see the wonderful story).

Makes me think a little harder about whether my "husband" of over 25 years and I should do something to make it more formal, even if the state/nation doesn't yet recognize such unions.

I DO believe in marriage (which is the core of the book's lesson).

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

I still need to read Dan Savage's "The Kid".

Jiminy, if you're following, I'd love to know what you think.

DST< FWIW, I'm all for doing something formal, and have a celebration too.
One nice thing about same-sex weddings is how hard people think about what traditions and practices are really important.

My husband and I eloped, and the plan right now is to have the big party when we get to 25 years. (Don't care about the dress, do want the cake.) Doesn't staying together give you more to celebrate than signing a form?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Prop 8 led to same-sex marriage recognized across the country? God can work in mysterious ways.

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

As much as I'd love to invoke God here, I'd have to hope that the U.S. Constitution can work in mysterious ways! God may fully approve of my relationship (as I know she does), but I'd rather have social security benefits!

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

Hey Jiminy,
I think I found a book that might speak more to you. It's called No More Goodbyes by Carol Lynn Pearson, and it's a collection of stories from gay and lesbian Mormons and family members. It was moving (and confusing) to read about so many gay people who long to be attached to a church where so many people and policies reject them. It was powerful to hear of families who push through confusion and prejudice to love and support their gay sons, daughters, brothers, sisters.
It's at www.nomoregoodbyes.com.
Also, the author is sponsoring other projects along those lines, including a writing contest where gay Mormons and their family members can tell their stories.
http://propositionhealing.com/
**ADDED in: oops, I've mixed up the tolerant Mormon groups. The Road to Reconciliation Writing contest is sponsored by www.ldsapology.org ****

Hope all's well.

Monya

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

Hi guys. It's been a while. Hope all is well... and that you're still around here...

I don't remember much about our conversation anymore, and to be honest I don't feel very motivated to go back through everything to get back up to pace. I think our discourse was dividing us more than uniting us, which runs exactly against my hopes and my heart. I don't want to go back down that road. This seems like a great opportunity to start over and try to keep things a little more on track.

I do remember (or at least I think I remember... lol memory's going) that I never really responded to the book I read. What I remember about the book at this point is pretty general. I should warn you that my review isn't for the most part a positive one. The story itself was nice enough, but frankly I was horrified by some of the details. I remember that the book was quite sentimental and sweet in places, but very coarse and abrasive in others. More pointedly, I found that when he got around to making his case, the overwhelming majority of his arguments were weak and would quickly fall with the slightest wind of truth and reason. At almost every point the emotional component is favored over honest reasoning. Not surprisingly, I can't remember any of the arguments in the book. But perhaps you could help with that, DST, since you read the book more recently. I do remember that there was one point (seems like it was about 2/3 of the way into the book) that was much stronger than the others. I don't remember what it was, but I remember planning to come back to it to think about it some more. It would be wonderful if you could help me pinpoint that one and we could talk about that.

To recap I wasn't really a fan of, and for the most part didn't really agree with the book or the author, although I did enjoy the sentimentality of the story itself, and there was at least one point that seemed to have some merit. I guess even a blind monkey finds a banana now and then ;)

Jim

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Jiminy,

By "horrified by the details" I'll assume you were aghast that the author actually discusses his sex life, even to his mother! You live in a different world from most of us, my lad. You should (but probably never will) see the stuff that Dan Savage posts on his sex advice column. The Commitment is pretty tame compared to some of the stuff that people send in to Dan seeking his advice.

Since The Commitment wasn't your cup of tea, you should try either Virtually Normal or Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con by Andrew Sullivan. Both are available for little money at Amazon.com. The former is a well-measured personal opinion book; the latter is a compilation of points of view (while admitting that Mr. Sullivan is decidedly of the "pro" point of view). They may be a bit dry (although Andrew has that British wit going for him), but probably no worse than the book that Monya made it through at your behest. I'll admit to not having read these in entirety, but I have lived them and read Andrew's blog regularly (and have met him personally) to know that these are quality resource materials.

Here's a bio of Mr. Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/bio.html

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

Hi Jim,

Welcome back, and I'm glad you're feeling like posting again. I'm also glad you could enjoy aspects of the story and recognize it as sweet.

For me the emotional component is at the heart of honest reasoning. What possible good could it do society to discriminate against a loving, committed couple like Dan and Terry? (And if you want to invoke parenthood, you'll have to remember that Dan and Terry are parents and this long-married woman and her husband are not)

For my part, I recall that one of your arguments of keeping gay relationships in a second-class status was that the kingdom of heaven is organized, and that part of that organization requires households with a man in charge and a woman or women as helpmeet(s). That doesn't seem like an assertion based on truth and reason, but even, so, I don't think it is government's role to discriminate now based on assumptions about how we are to be judged after death.

Curious as to your thoughts,
Monya

DST: thanks for the Sullivan recommendations

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

Monya, thanks for the warm welcome.

I do remember mentioning at some point that God is a God of order, but it seems to me it was in a different context... or at least a different tone. Let's be careful to not twist one another's words. I believe, and we as a church believe, that although gender roles differ, neither is subservient to the other. We believe those roles to be equal to and compliment one another, as beautifully stated in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In fact, let me share that with you. I'll abridge it a little, including only those parts which in my estimation directly imply our discussion (which admittedly is most of the document), but you can find the proclamation in its entirety here: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d201 10VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004 d82620aRCRD. I quote:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

...

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

...

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity... By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners...

"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.

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." (emphasis added)

This is perfect truth and sound reason, and I think it answers your concern about government involvement. Biblical prophecies seem to indicate that society will continue its downward spiral, increasingly participating in the crumble of the family, but if we are to keep the sins of the world off our hands, if we are to do any good or be any help to anyone, we must continue to reach out, and raise the warning voice, and fight the erosion of moral values so far as we are able.

I don't really think it's fair to say I'm arguing to keep gay relationships in a second-class status. That puts words in my mouth that I would not say. Again, let's not put a negative spin on each other's words, okay? I don't think anyone here really intends any ugliness or offense.

I believe I understand what you are saying about the importance of the emotional component in honest reasoning -- you're right, we should approach these issues in all gentleness and compassion for our fellow men. There have probably been times in our dialog when I could've done better with that. But there is a stark contrast between what you are talking about and simply eliciting an emotional response, which, if memory serves, was Savage's go-to move. The former concept engenders unity by including emotional considerations in the reasoning process, or in other words, by considering people's feelings. The latter engenders enmity and fosters premature conclusions and rash decisions by keeping the audience focused on waves of powerful emotions such as jealousy, hatred or indignation (often at perceived wrongs born of contrived distortions), thus distracting the audience from reason (and usually truth).

DST, thanks for the referrals. I'll see if I can squeeze in some time for them.

Although I was referring to more than just the author's indiscreetness about things that ought to be kept private, that was certainly part of it. Yes, I know it's true, the world at large is very much different than the world I try to maintain for myself. And I'm sure you're right -- I'm sure there is plenty of filth out there much more filthy than the things he wrote in the book. That doesn't make the book innocent any more than the existence of a rapist makes a fornicator innocent. I do not believe morality to be relative in that way.

JC

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Jiminy,

You say you come here to bridge gaps, but you can't help but leap immediately to "filth" and "fornication" at the mere mention of sexual relationships. At every turn, it seems, you do exactly what you say you are not trying to do. Of COURSE you're arguing to keep gay relationships in a second-class status. If you are not, please post SOMETHING to back up your claim.

You post a "solemn proclamation" by one narrow-viewed bunch of esteemed gentlemen, and then claim that this is "perfect truth and sound reason" and therefore ought (by inference) be the law of the land. Or else we'll be smote as quoth the prophets of old. Really? That's how you wish to promote a message of tolerance by the LDS church?

I have tried, and admittedly failed too often, to be patient with you. I started to write a nice friendly post about how you only want vanilla ice cream on your cone (which is o.k., really). But then you say that everyone else seems to be eating something that you think looks like dog poop, and they really all have to switch back to vanilla. Well, I'm sorry; I'm eating a different flavor, and maybe you don't want to taste it, but it's a perfectly valid flavor and I shouldn't have to sneak into some awful dark alley (where the street signs say Filth and Fornication) just to have some.

(And no, this analogy is not meant in any way to imply that I could just simply choose to eat vanilla ice cream, just as I chose NOT to eat vanilla ice cream. You know what I mean.)

Our world is much bigger than vanilla ice cream. Our God (and yes, I believe that deep down we worship the same God) is bigger than the Council of 12 or any other religious body you or I can name. If you want to build bridges, you have to embrace that, and stop thinking you'll get anywhere by slinging your "solemn proclamation" vanilla ice cream at me.

David

P.S. (probably to Jeff, as Jim will likely not choose to answer me) What is the LDS position on birth by surrogate mothers or through use of sperm donors?

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

The church handbook (given only to leaders) says that surrogacy and sperm donation are "strongly discouraged". That's it. The sections are literally one sentence each although there is another section regarding in vitro fertilization that says it is "strongly discouraged" if the sperm or egg come from anyone other than the husband and wife. But it adds that this is a decision left between the couple.

So, if you take those three sections (surrogate motherhood, sperm donation, and in vitro) together I would interpret it to mean that we are discouraged from donating our sperm or from being surrogate mothers. But, if a married couple wishes to pursue those options as a means to having children -- it is between the couple alone.

As a side note and for a related perspective...

The handbook also says that vasectomies are strongly discouraged. I know many, many faithful members of the LDS church who have chosen to have vasectomies. After our fourth child, my wife and I jointly decided that I would get one (which I did). For us it was a simple decision: our family was complete and we chose what is generally regarded as one of the safest, cheapest (in the long run), and most reliable forms of birth control. We felt no need to consult our Bishop or any other priesthood leader (birth control, according to the handbook, is left to the discretion of the couple).

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

David,

Your name-calling and yelling and putting words in my mouth does not reflect negatively on me or the others you attack -- it reflects negatively on you, and it weakens your argument and position. I already made it clear that I found the precepts and morality of the book repellent, even putting the pro-gay-marriage theme aside. That does not go against anything I'm trying to do here.

My purpose has never been, nor have I claimed it to be, to change all of my views. My purpose was and is to heal any hurt/bad feelings that might be created by the movie and perceptions of recent events involving the church and the gay community by creating a safe place to state and discuss our true feelings and positions and come to a mutual understanding. For precisely that reason I do not intend to engage in any more mud-slinging contests.

I do not wish to make anyone feel "second-class" in any way. I would never use those words to describe anyone or any relationship. If you wish to attach that label your right to free speech enables you, but I have not authorized you to speak for me, so please leave my name out of it.

I do believe it would be to society's greatest good to enact laws that support the principles laid out in the Proclamation to the World, and I believe it to be one of the purposes of government to protect and act in the best interest of the people so far as it is able.

I'll share with you something of a parable that one of our leaders (Elder Mervyn B. Arnold of the Seventy) shared with the church this past weekend at our General Conference. It is a story from his wife's youth. Unfortunately the text archive of the conference is not yet ready, so I'll simply paraphrase. If you'd like to hear the audio archive of the speech (highly recommended, about 10 minutes in length), it is available here: http://lds.org/conference/sessions/display/0,5239,23-1-1298,00.html (Elder Arnold's address was in the Sunday Afternoon Session, which you'll find near the bottom of the page). When the video and text archives become available they will also be found there.

When she was young, Elder Arnold's future wife Devonna lived with her family on a ranch in the midwest. Her father charged her with caring for a small herd of cattle whose pasture bordered a wheat field. Because cattle that graze on wheat fields can become so bloated they actually suffocate, a fence was erected to keep the cows away from the dangerous grain. But one cow in particular kept trying to stick her head through the fence to eat the wheat. One morning Devonna rode out to the pasture to find that the cow had broken through the fence and had apparently been eating wheat for some time. The cow was already so bloated she looked like a balloon. The girl raced back to the farmhouse to get her father, but by the time they returned the cow was lying on her side in the wheat field, dead. The young girl's heart was broken at the loss of the cow she had tried to protect and save.

You may or may not agree, but if you'll excuse the somewhat less-than-flattering analogy, that reflects the situation we as members of the church see here. What we see in your push to legalize gay marriage is the cow trying to push over the fence. You want the wheat. You think it looks good. Perhaps you've had a taste of it and you like it. You believe the wheat will make you happy, but God, knowing that the wheat would destroy you, has forbidden it and built up a fence around it. You see the fence as an arbitrary boundary and an obstacle between you and happiness, but that fence was built to help protect you and others like you from a danger you do not see. For us to willingly take the fence down, however pure we may think our motives are, would be irresponsible and unwise, and would be a huge disservice to you.

Again, you may or may not see it that way (indeed the cow didn't see it that way), but I think it illustrates our perspective and motives well. I thought that might help clarify things and move us forward in bridge-building.

We have agreement that God is much bigger than The Council of the Twelve. Those men are chosen by God, but they are still men. So He leads the Church personally. Knowing all, and loving His children, He warns us of dangerous paths in every way He can - through the scriptures, through the Holy Ghost, through our consciences, and yes, through others, including and especially through His chosen and properly authorized servants. As the Bible says, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (KJV, Amos 3:7, http://scriptures.lds.org/en/amos/3). He has established proper channels of authority to help lead and govern His church, to warn of danger, and to teach the people of the world about Him, and He reveals to the leaders he chooses those things that pertain to their stewardship. Hence the church is led by God through men, including all of the leaders from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve all the way down to bishops, youth leaders, and even parents. He leads His people through righteous men and women and delegates responsibility and authority as He sees fit, involving us in His work for the sake of our growth and experience and to enable those still less acquainted with Him to receive important warnings and messages He has for them. This is why we believe so strongly in following the counsel of the leaders God has chosen for us.

Jim

PS - Thanks Jeff for your thorough treatment of David's postscript question. I appreciate the help.

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

My purpose was and is to heal any hurt/bad feelings that might be created by the movie

Jiminy, you're far worse than the movie. It was a Hollywood screenplay, with near-caricatures of good guys and bad guys, where you are real. Despite your pretty words and agonizingly inappropriate quotations from your church doctrine to make it sound as if you have a leg to stand on, you are simply a bully, along with NOM and their ilk, guilty of the trickle-down hatred that led to the suicides of a full handful of youths in the last two weeks. I really can't believe how absolutely clueless you are, or are you simply absolutely cruel?

I do not wish to make anyone feel "second-class" in any way. I would never use those words to describe anyone or any relationship.

Then please tell me what the heck you ARE doing? Again, completely clueless.

I thank our God for the true grace shown by Jeff here on this site. He has a clue; you should learn from him. In him I see Christ. If the future of the LDS church has a place for his voice, there is hope for "bridging the gap" (as you put it). But if you are the mouthpiece, or when one member of your council offers an olive branch (as happened last week), and the other elders of the council shortly put things "right" with regard to continued intolerance (as echoed in your message above), then there seems to be no point whatsoever. God help the LDS youth of the world, since their church offers them no help at all.

Time for this wheat-eating, second-class cow to waddle off into the sunset. Please keep all further insults to yourself.

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

By the way, Andrew Sullivan pointed me to this discussion (http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=3315) about the Sunday conference, and a group of women's responses to Elder Packer's diatribe in particular. Based on a skim of the responses, Jeff isn't the only reasonable Mormon out there.

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Jim,

The problem with your analogy is that the "wheat" that you wish to deny to gay people is love, companionship, intimacy, marriage, and family. Those are the things that we are taught, at home and in church, to desire above all else. They are put forth as the pinnacle achievements of our mortal life.

You and Boyd K. Packer aren't putting up a fence to keep all the cows from eating the wheat. What you are actually doing is telling all the cows how incredibly satisfying, good, and "ordained of God" the wheat IS but then telling a small minority of cows that they are not permitted to partake.

And, as if that is not bad enough, you try to simultaneously claim that we love the minority and treat them equally. That we "don't ask anymore of you" than we ask of the other cows.

And if you honestly believe that our government ought to protect its citizens by enforcing our religious beliefs regarding right & wrong, then you need to go study D&C 134. Joseph Smith had something quite different to say on the subject.

-Jeff

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Nice points, Jeff.

I think a good modification of the analogy would be:
First require that the fields outside the pens are planted with oats, and not wheat.
Then say that the "cows" inside the pen have plenty of wheat to eat. Everybody knows how good wheat is. There's a long history of people eating wheat, and a long history as well casting aspersions on people who ate grains other than wheat. They may be taught that they should only eat the wheat they need, and that excess is to be avoided. (I think this is fair: clearly there are harmful effects from excess consumption.)
Then, look at some of the "cows," who appear unwell and unhappy. They were born with celiac disease, which does not allow them to digest the gluten found in wheat. (OK, so gluten intolerance is not found in cows, but is found in dogs and other animals with simple stomachs.) They try to get by nibbling at the grass around the edges of the pen, but feel physical discomfort (at best) if they eat the wheat with the other cows.
So what do you say to those celiac cows? I'm sure you can come up with varied scenarios.

(actually, it's a pretty good analogy. Here's a clipping from a history of celiac disease.)

Experts speculate that Celiac disease has been around since humans switched from a diet consisting of meat, fruit and nuts to a cultivated diet including grains, like wheat. There were lots of new foods that had previously been unknown to man, including proteins from cow, goat and donkey milk, eggs and cereals. Most were able to adapt to this new diet but there were some who could not. In those who could not, food intolerances appeared and Celiac disease developed. It took around 8000 years to identify and name this disease. It has only been in the last 50 years that researchers have gained a better understanding of this condition.

Sound familiar? What did Joseph Smith know of celiacs? What does Boyd K. Packer know? Would he recommend that his followers either eat wheat or eat no grains at all, claiming that their inability to process the gluten protein was clearly a mental problem?

Do you know that, to this day, the Roman Catholic Church still requires that even low-gluten wafers of host (for the eucharist) must still contain some wheat, even though sharing it causes physical discomfort to those with the most severe cases of celiac disease?

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

I guess Monya isn't around. I was hoping she would post. Her presence seems to have a calming, balancing effect on our dialog.

Actually, I think the analogy I shared worked much better. Especially since it was founded in reality. But I'm glad that in your last post you stuck to the issue in place of the personal attacks, name calling, accusations, etc. It was really starting to seem like you were looking for things to be offended by. I'm happy to have something to respond to again.

If anything, perhaps my interpretation could use some tweaking. I think I talked about "us" taking the fence down, which implies that we, the members of the church, were the humans in the story. Allow me to correct that. The humans in the story would represent God. Members of the church would be represented along with you as cows. God puts up a fence around the grain because it represents a danger to all of us. He tells us we are all to eat the same type of plant - the grass of the field. You want us to get out of your way and let you knock down the fence. But if the fence is pushed over, there is a danger not only to the cow that broke into the wheat field, but also to those who were perfectly content and happy eating the safe, nutritious grass who now might wander onto the wheat field, eat of the wheat and be lost. We can't in good conscience stand by and watch that happen.

Again, this is how we see this. I feel this is truly the situation, but at the moment I'm not asserting that belief. I'm simply trying to show you our perspective to help you see that even putting aside that we believe God directed the church according to His will on the matter, our motives and the feelings behind them are not evil, hateful, or even hurtful.

Jeff, the problem with your response to my analogy is that it assumes that SSA people can only have "love, companionship, intimacy, marriage, and family" with a member of their own sex, and only in this life. The reality is none of us knows how many of them (if any or if all) actually could have stable, fulfilling relationships with a fullness of those things with a member of the opposite sex, and even those who couldn't (if any or if all) would likely find that after enduring well here they would be blessed with complete resolution there. Love, companionship, intimacy, marriage, and family are no more denied them than the thousands of others who don't marry in this life through no fault of their own.

None of us are permitted to eat the wheat because it would harm us. We all graze on the same grass. There is no double-standard in this. And what is expected of them (sacrificing a deep desire) is no more than is expected of the rest of us either. We must all be tried as Abraham. In the end, we must all choose between our own will and most prized possessions/desires and the will of God. Their choice is more blatantly deep than the choices most of us have, but if the rest of us are to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation, our choices will have to be tailored to us personally to be just as harrowing and difficult. And if we are unwilling to make that sacrifice, whatever it is, we will not be fit for The Kingdom.

I reread and studied D&C 134 as you suggested. Although I also see points that support the actions the church took, most notably that "all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest," I can see where you're coming from. But this Section seems to be a pet scripture for you. Let's remember other scriptures as well... scriptures often lend balance and clarity to one another. What make you of the Nephi-Laban story? That's a pretty hard-and-fast rule that the Lord commanded Nephi to break for the good of the people...

With your posts here, and having seen some of your other posts, frankly I'm starting to wonder if you're being honest about being a member of the church, but I'll take you at your word. Operating from that assumption, I can't help but be concerned about the continual excusing away of not only doubting your priesthood leaders (the Prophet himself, even), but also promoting that doubt to others. Many Prophets and Apostles have said that going against priesthood leaders is a sign that apostasy either has occurred or is not far off. If I were you, that would give me serious pause. In fact, it has stopped me in my tracks once or twice. Surely you want to protect your testimony. I hope your testimony is precious enough to you that losing your testimony over this issue would be like trading your birthright for a mess of pottage. Do you feel that way? Do you want your testimony to be endangered that way? You don't have to answer those questions, I just hope you'll think about them.

I tell you what... I obliged you by re-examining Section 134... How about you study a couple of talks from last week's General Conference? If I needed to study Section 134, then you need to study these talks. Elder Claudio R. M. Costa's Saturday Morning Session talk entitled, "Obedience to the Prophets" (http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-4,00.html), and Elder Kevin R. Duncan's Saturday Afternoon Session talk entitled, "Our Very Survival" (http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-12,00.html). Both talks draw their core principles from President Benson. I hope you'll take the time to study and ponder these talks and I hope you find them helpful.

JC

PS - David, I'm tired of your efforts to demonize me. You've revealed a lot about your character for which you ought to be ashamed. Interestingly, many of the things of which you've accused me are exactly the traits you've shown in yourself. That's not to say I haven't gotten any mud on myself, but I'm trying to do better. It seems obvious to me that you've been intentionally looking for things you could take offense to, just to try to make me look bad. Your tactics are poor form indeed. We've had our differences, but let's not pointlessly snipe each other, alright?

For clarity: Words are all we have to go on here. Seems to me pretty ones are by far favorable to ugly ones. -- There has been nothing inappropriate about the quotes I've used. -- You know nothing of either the church or the youth of the church. -- Last, the people you are suggesting as "reasonable Mormons" have only one thing in common as far as I can see, and that is struggles with wavering and doubt. There is no honor in that. Certainly nothing anyone would want to emulate. Saying that they're the only reasonable Mormons is essentially saying if a Mormon wants to be reasonable he has to doubt his religion. Fail.

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Jim,

You wrote:

But if the fence is pushed over, there is a danger not only to the cow that broke into the wheat field, but also to those who were perfectly content and happy eating the safe, nutritious grass who now might wander onto the wheat field, eat of the wheat and be lost.

This seems to imply that heterosexuals will somehow "convert" to becoming homosexual if homosexuality becomes "permissible". That's simply false and is based on logic that even the Brethren (for the most part) no longer follow.

our motives and the feelings behind them are not evil, hateful, or even hurtful.

I'm not prepared to call your motives evil or hateful, but there is no doubt that they are hurtful. I've watched it first hand.

The reality is none of us knows how many of them (if any or if all) actually could have stable, fulfilling relationships with a fullness of those things with a member of the opposite sex...

Seriously? You want to start talking "reality" now? The reality is that forcing gay members of our church to fit into our "heterosexual" mold has destroyed countless families and pushed countless people to suicide. The reality is that study after study after study has shown that change is not possible.

And what is expected of them (sacrificing a deep desire) is no more than is expected of the rest of us either.

False. We're not talking about some ancillary desire. We're talking about THE "plan of happiness". It's what we teach our children from the moment they are born. And then, if they happen to be gay, we tell them: "Oh, sorry. You don't get to participate. Now, go and try to find your place in a church that doesn't really have a place for you. And by the way, that already difficult task will come with a side order of bigotry and discrimination. Enjoy."

The quote you pulled from D&C 134 left off the ending phrase which reads: "...at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." Removing that part of the verse is quite significant in the context of our conversations. Clearly freedom of conscience would include the right of someone to believe that gay marriage is also ordained of God. And we are told to hold that freedom sacred.

But let me just try to understand your response: I am supposed to just ignore the scripture in D&C 134 with respect to this matter? Look towards other scripture? I don't think that the prophet has identified this as a Nephi-Laban situation and if we start to apply that logic on our own... whenever we please... we'll get ourselves into trouble. Maybe I should not take that whole "love thy neighbor" commandment so seriously.

Using your argument, should I also ignore the fact that a prophet of God said that we are duty bound to reject the prophets when they tell us something that contradicts scripture? What about when an apostle says that we can't impose our religious beliefs upon public policy? Do I disregard that as well? When will we retract that pesky article of faith that keeps getting in the way of our political actions? Or are we also ignoring that because Nephi needed to kill Laban? (See how well that works? We can just apply it to everything.)

Maybe I'm approaching apostasy. I don't know. But there were those (even among the Brethren) who, 50 years ago, believed that it was wrong to keep people of African descent from enjoying the full benefits of the gospel. Were they apostates? Were they still apostate after 1978? So is apostasy just a matter of timeframe?

The prophet and apostles have not been clear on this subject. Even Boyd K Packer's talk has now been edited in its printed form (they took out the most incendiary line that said homosexuality was a choice and could be changed). Since I'm approaching apostasy, maybe you could tell me what the current prophet has said with respect to homosexuality?

I most definitely value my testimony of the Savior and of the restored gospel. But if shunning our gay loved ones becomes required as a term of membership in the LDS church, I'll leave. I've watched gay youth that I've worked with in the church and I have four young children myself. If one of them happens to be gay - I won't allow them to feel the pain that the church currently brings into the lives of those gay youth. I just won't do it.

I'll read the two talks you highlighted as soon as I get a chance.

-Jeff

p.s. I don't think that David has demonized you at all. In fact, I think he's been very polite given your opinion of who he is. You like to couch it in pleasant sounding terms but you believe that who he is ought to be shunned by society, that his relationship ought to be illegal, and that his life is contrary to the will of God. Am I summarizing you incorrectly?

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Jeff,

I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Know that you have my support, and know that if you come to feel that the LDS church does not represent a true faith, you will find a welcome elsewhere.

Jim,

I'm sorry if you feel I'm pointlessly sniping at you. In fact, I wouldn't be doing this if I felt it were pointless. If you choose to call it sniping, so be it. Perhaps that's not far from the truth. I've not been a parent (like Jeff), so perhaps this is just my inexperienced way of dealing with someone who behaves so much like a child. I have, however, been a teacher. I recognize your tactic of passing off single-sided book learning as intellectual depth, and your attempts to cover up hateful attitudes in pretty words. Jeff and Moyna see this as well, although we respond to it in different ways. I feel I have the right, as a gay man persecuted by the kinds of authorities you hold so dear and true, to respond with some anger.

I tire of seeking new ways to penetrate your impermeable mind.

Below is a link to the sermon my pastor preached this morning. He himself was moved to tears (something rare in his preaching) as he read through the names of young gay men who have recently committed suicide in response to persecution within their communities. He alludes directly to last weekend's hateful speech from Mr. Packer.

The lesson introducing the sermon was Jeremiah 29. Perhaps you will find some word from God in here for you.
http://withoutwalls-fandc.blogspot.com/2010/10/it-gets-better.html

(Apologies in advance: there are also inside jokes here referring to some Delaware politics; perhaps you are aware of the candidate—with support in the southern half of the state—running for Senate here. Some other wording in here is taken from today's musical offerings [African-american spirituals].)

In here I heard a clear message that said I should persist in my efforts, whether or not that includes Jiminy (provided he doesn't walk away first). Still, everything I post here serves to prepare me for the larger battle. This is why I go to church. This is the Christ I serve.

David

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Great sermon by your pastor. I love that he included the current Trevor Project slogan. I wish we could preach the "it gets better" message here in the LDS church.

[–] DSTgar 14 years ago

Be sure to visit the new site for the project: http://www.itgetsbetterproject.com/.
You can search videos (e.g. for "mormon"). Not sure how well that works, but worth a try.

Here's one example. Doesn't seem typical, perhaps, but maybe this is the direction of folks in the bigger cities but outside the inner circle?
http://www.youtube.com/v/Rb9LbW1lFLo

David

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

Yes, you are summarizing me incorrectly. This seems to be the new vogue in this discussion -- taking my words, setting aside what I say they mean and/or how I obviously mean them, and assigning to me the most horrible meanings and opinions and feelings you can think of in the stead thereof. The pattern seems to be replicated against the leaders of the church as well. ...At least I'm in good company.

Making relationships illegal has not even been brought up in this conversation so far as I can remember, and I have continuously and explicitly condemned shunning and other cruel treatment. I have also not said that David's life is contrary to the will of God, only his choices in this particular area. Everyone's choices fail that test in one area or another, so that shouldn't be quite the slap in the face you're implying it is.

Furthermore, my opinion of who David is at this point is based solely on what he's told me about himself and his behavior on this board. In discussions like this, personal attacks are not excusable just because someone's view opposes your own. But then, you said that you don't think he has demonized me at all, which simply amazes me. Are we reading the same posts??? Jeff on that one, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are trying to justify it by further vilifying me yourself. Actually, now that I look at it more closely, looks like you're really doing both, which is quite an innovative oxymoron. What you said looks like this: "David hasn't demonized you. The things that he has said about you are your fault because of all the horrible beliefs you have [read: we've assigned to you] that we disagree with." Surely you don't really think it works like that?

I was about to go through and respond to each of your points, but let me just say this instead:

Jeff, I expect this kind of approach from nonmembers, but I think the Lord expects more from members. Especially members whose testimonies are strong enough to withstand feeling pulled in both directions for so long, as you seem to feel. You must have great faith. I'd really like to see you employ that here. Don't you think we ought to approach situations like this on the footing of our testimonies, using our faith and trusting that the Lord is still at the helm and would never allow his earthly mouthpiece to lead the church astray -- trusting not in the arm of flesh, neither in man's reasoning (including our own), but in the Lord and His timing -- ? All the inklings of doubt that the devil puts into our hearts we should immediately balance out by reminding ourselves of the testimony we have received by the Spirit, and realizing that our perspectives and understanding are at very least often incomplete.

I feel a bit as I imagine Nephi must have felt when he was dealing with his brothers... Truly, it grieveth me that I must speak concerning these things, for if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to use faith, ye would know that ye must use faith, for the devil spirit teacheth not a man to use faith, but teacheth him that he must not use faith.

I'm reminded of Joseph Smith and Nauvoo Expositor. Joseph apparently found out that some in the church felt it was unwise of Him to order that press destroyed, but he said (as best I can remember it), "The Lord showed me at daylight [meaning this was not just a dream in the night] what would happen if that press were not destroyed, and that the blood of the saints might not be spilled, I have done what I have done."

Who is to say President Monson hasn't had such a presentiment in this case? Would it be surprising that he wouldn't come out and openly share it in the present climate? I remind you of what followed in the story I just shared and ask again, do you think it would be wise for him to share it? We do not have the vantage point the Prophet has. The Lord has not appointed us to lead his church.

I am prepared to answer your points if you are not willing to do it, but I would like to see how you would answer those points if you were in my shoes. How might you approach this differently if you were to apply your faith and trust in God (which are synonyms in my book) in the way I've described?

JC

[–] jeffwcos 14 years ago

Jim,

You seem to believe that I am not employing my faith and yet my previous post was grounded in scripture, church history, and apostolic quotes. It represents my testimony and answers that were the results of countless hours of prayer.

Since I asked a lot of questions in the last post and you didn't seem to want to answer them, I'll go with one simple one here: What has President Monson said regarding the subject of homosexuality? I'm not really aware of his having addressed us on the subject.

As for whether I summarized you incorrectly regarding David... Do you believe that he should be allowed to legally marry his partner and do you believe that God would sanction such a union?

[–] monya_baker 14 years ago

Hi DST, Jeff, Jim,

Sorry for not being silent for so long. I've been horribly busy with work, and somewhat dismayed by the conversation.

Jim, I do think some of your objections get in the way of honest discourse, and you sometimes do neglect to answer questions. You say you would never argue to keep David's relationship in a second class status because the language is ugly, but you surely do not want his relationship on the same status as mine. How else would you characterize it?
{I think the language is ugly because the idea is ugly FWIW, so I'm not sure what alternative you can work with, but "second-class" might be the nicest words I can find.)

I think you have addressed the question of "what possible interest could a government have in preventing gay marriage." I disagree with it. I think the government has a stronger interest in supporting all families and in preventing suicide than in promoting traditional gender roles, but I do think you addressed the point without slippery language.

So that leaves the question of whether the government should have the right to discriminate because of a notion of what is good for its citizens.

The barnyard analogy doesn't work for me. Unlike cows, we human beings have free agency; we are responsible to decide whether we need oats or wheat. And I object to the notion of the government acting as a proxy for God to build these fences. Whose god does the government represent? What other fences would you have the government build? Who decides what plants are dangerous and for whom?

Jim's prophets say that a woman's primary responsibility is to nourish children and the man's to protect and provide. Does it follow that the government/God should put up a protective fence that prevents women from holding jobs or using birth control? What if I proclaimed that small families are happier and built fences/passed laws that would discourage large families by failing to recognize third, fourth, fifth,nth children? (I'm not advocating this, but I'd imagine you'd object to it just as much I I object to not recognizing same-sex unions.) Who gets to say what fences represent "perfect truth and sound reason" in a democracy that respects human rights?

Jim, I'm really touched that you wanted to hear my thoughts. One reason for the delay was that I do think your dialectic can be imprecise, and I wasn't sure the best way to say so. I'm also sadly short on time and sleep. I am reading at least on the weekends, just not always posting.

Best, Monya

[–] jiminycricket-5 13 years ago

I've done some soul-searching over the past few months about the trajectory of this discussion and subsequently my motives for continuing it. It has been abundantly clear for some time that this discussion has no hope of fulfilling the intended purpose, at least not among its participants, yet I've continued to post. Although I posted the original OP out of concern and a desire to catalyze healing and reconciliation, I've allowed the dynamics of the discussion to cloud my focus. My posts have gradually become more motivated by an irritated and selfish desire to prove myself right and defend the truth and justice of the church's positions than by a desire to reach any mutually desirable and truly worthwhile goal. Perhaps that rings true on both sides. I've fought within myself against that trend, but most of the victories I've won haven't had much staying power. I apologize for allowing my motives to be corrupted in that way, and for the resulting tone of my posts.

With that, an announcement: It saddens me to say that I've decided to stop posting here. I made this decision a while back, but pandered on whether I should post any kind of concluding remarks or just quietly abandon the board. In the end I felt it would be impolite to leave without saying anything so here I am.

Before I leave, there are a few things I'd like to put on the record... some additional factors that contributed to my decision to stop posting... some evidences of the inextricably hopeless state of this discussion. In other words, I'm going to vent some frustrations. Don't take them personally; it's the kind of stuff that's going to happen when the subject of an argument is this emotionally charged. I just want it on the record.

First, this has hardly been a fair discussion. Three against one was about as close to fair as it got. Of course, when I posted the original OP I wanted a lot of responses - the more the merrier - and I didn't expect much (if any) help answering them considering the location of the message board. But I also didn't expect the responses to be so hostile or the conversation to turn into more of an argument as it has. I feel a little bit like a kid on a playground who's approached a group of kids to make friends but when they hear him they turn around with scowls on their faces and clinched fists and gang up on him. At any rate, the "at least three hostile full-length responses to every message I post" thing gets wearing, has made a mess of the original discussion, and is altogether frustrating. And then on top of that I get complaints that I haven't answered every question or addressed every point, or that my dialectic is imprecise. I'm sure you can imagine how I feel about that.

Second, the level of hostility and closed-mindedness I've encountered is astonishing considering my target audience is a group of people who tirelessly condemn those attitudes in others and point to them as the root of their persecution. This discussion has gone on tangents of tangents to the nth degree because rather than accepting a point on its merits or accepting a statement as it's intended and moving the conversation forward, the consensus is to waste time twisting my words, putting an artificially negative spin on everything I say and scrutinizing every little component I use to make a point. It's exhausting and pointless.

/end_rant

For the information of the audience, having recorded all of the sessions of General Conference by satellite DVR, I was able to check the printed version of the aforementioned talk by President Boyd K. Packer against the live version and found the printed version to be accurate and complete. There were no revisions, as has been asserted previously in this thread. Perhaps "the most incendiary line that said homosexuality was a choice and could be changed" was really your interpretation of or reaction to something he said, Jeff, and your memory has tricked you into ascribing that to him?

No hard feelings, anyone. And all the best. May you find the end of your rainbow and discover there the things that are worth more than gold. May your cup run over.

Sincerely,
Jim

PS - If you're disposed, Jeff, I would like to continue our conversation. On a new thread or via PM if you prefer. Both being Mormon, we can understand each other maybe a little better than might be possible with others here. I think there's hope that we could see eye-to-eye and make a connection that we could both benefit from (Perhaps my perspective could help with the inner conflicts you're dealing with, and I feel certain I could learn from your experience). What do you say?

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

For the information of the audience, having recorded all of the sessions of General Conference by satellite DVR, I was able to check the printed version of the aforementioned talk by President Boyd K. Packer against the live version and found the printed version to be accurate and complete. There were no revisions, as has been asserted previously in this thread. Perhaps "the most incendiary line that said homosexuality was a choice and could be changed" was really your interpretation of or reaction to something he said, Jeff, and your memory has tricked you into ascribing that to him?

My memory did not trick me as I'll demonstrate below. I would be happy to continue a one-on-one discussion with you, you can email me at [email protected]. But, I am going to respond regarding his talk here and you can continue via email or PM.

On October 8th, Scott Trotter, LDS Church Spokesman, acknowledged the changes to Boyd K. Packer's talk: “The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker’s intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent."

To the best of my knowledge, two portions of his talk were changed. Here's the first:

Spoken version --
Some suppose that they were preset 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 Heavenly Father.

Written version --
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

The second portion that was changed is as follows:

Spoken version --
Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," the fifth proclamation in the history of the church. It qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation and it would do well that members of the Church would read and follow.

Written version --
Fifteen years ago, with the world in turmoil, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," the fifth proclamation in the history of the church. It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow.

Those are the facts without any interpretation and you should be able to easily verify those facts. But here is my interpretation and opinion...

I don't believe that Packer voluntarily changed those statements. What he said or implied (about God not creating anyone with homosexual tendencies and that those tendencies cannot be overcome) is consistent with his spoken position over the past few decades. I believe that LDS Corp required the changes because what he said was inconsistent with the current position of the church regarding homosexuality. That current position of the church has been clarified by apostles and our previous prophet.

It also becomes quite interesting that either he or someone else corrected his statement that referred to the Proclamation as a "revelation". It was changed to "guide". That's not an insignificant adjustment.

Jim - You have my email, please feel welcome to reply at anytime if you wish to discuss this or anything else I've commented on.

Everyone else - You can reply here or to my email.

[–] jiminycricket-5 13 years ago

I'm going to take a little license here and write one more quick post to cede my statement. I was clearly wrong about there being no changes in the printed version of the talk.

In explanation, when I compared the two versions I was listening for the particular change you noted, and that in the more explicit language you used to describe it. I agree that the second change you cited in that last post is ideologically significant and I like it more in the written version. To me, the proclamation on the family is more just that -- a proclamation of truths that had already been established.

The first change you cited is I think where you and I will differ a bit. I see that as a subtle change - a tweak, really - of President Packer's meaning. First the word tendencies is replaced with temptations. I struggle to see a real difference in meaning there other than a reinforcement of the church's position that to act on the tendency is sin. Second the removal of the exclamatory question, "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?", which it seems to me was really just a bit of a "rhetorical flourish" as Obama would say. I think it was removed because it is so easily misinterpreted in a painful way. I took him to mean, "Why would our Heavenly Father give anyone a struggle they cannot overcome?" In its intended rhetoric, this question promotes faith in God and is supported by scripture. But I think the question is easily taken to mean, "Why would our Heavenly Father give anyone a temptation/tendency toward the impure and unnatural?", which is (again, in the intended rhetoric of the question) not only doctrinally unsound but also probably pretty painful to consider for any who are struggling with these temptations.

So here, I think (and hope you'll agree) that what we really have is again a difference of interpretation and approach. You saw his words as incendiary, and I think that is very understandable and is perhaps the reason that he and/or the brethren felt it should be revised. (We could speculate all day about what might have gone on behind closed doors, but at the end of the day it's just that -- speculation. It can't be considered to have any real weight.)

If you like, Jeff, we could also continue our discussion on this board. However you want to do it. The only reason I left that option out before is I'd like to avoid drowning in 4 or 5 responses to every message I post again, but if others can agree to allow it to be an A-B conversation, I'm fine with it.

Jim

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

First the word tendencies is replaced with temptations. I struggle to see a real difference in meaning there other than a reinforcement of the church's position that to act on the tendency is sin.

Yes, I agree that the editing was done in an attempt to get Packer's words to align more closely with the current position of the church. But, in the context of what he was saying do you not agree with me that Packer's assertion was that homosexual people CAN overcome or change their orientation?

When he said "what they FEEL are inborn tendencies" was he not implying that while people may believe they are "born" gay, they are not?

He was making (or attempting to make) a doctrinal statement that is in line with his past preachings that people are NOT born gay even though our previous prophet, followed by other apostles, said that we DO NOT KNOW.

Further, did Packer not reinforce his belief with what you are dismissing as "rhetorical flourish"?

That little "flourish" came from the President of the Quorum of the Twelve at the pulpit of General Conference. That's not really a place for rhetoric. If an apostle is going to say that God wouldn't create people with homosexual tendencies, you had better believe that many members of the church will (and have) decided that to be doctrine. Not rhetorical flourish.

Let's also not forget that he referred to those inborn tendencies as impure and unnatural. Obviously that stands in opposition to what previous prophets and apostles have taught. So, it was removed. But, the correction doesn't offer much improvement either.

We could parse and analyze his words for a long time. And I'm happy to continue working our way through that if you'd like. It's a learning process for me. But here's the even more important issue for me from that fateful conference session that began building a wall between me and the religion that I loved...

A man who is supposed to be an apostle, even the leader of the Quorum of the 12, stood in our General Conference and taught his opinion as if it was doctrine. He had to be corrected but there wasn't an announcement sent through the church to let people know that something incorrect had been preached from the pulpit. He didn't apologize. And the video/audio versions are still available with the errors.

His talk upset many people both inside and outside of the church. Were any attempts made to make amends?

When the HRC petition was delivered to SLC the church spokesman made a statement. The statement itself was fine but I'm very confused about this concept of a "church spokesman". I thought that the prophet was the spokesman of the church? Yet, after hurtful and incorrect remarks were made at a general conference that followed a month of suicides by gay teens - did we hear from the prophet?

We have not yet had a revelation on the matter and yet our apostles and prophets continue to say things that destroy lives. I am confident that most of them are doing their best with the knowledge that they have but I have yet to figure out how their teachings on homosexuality amount to anything more than the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.

[–] jiminycricket-5 13 years ago

...in the context of what he was saying do you not agree with me that Packer's assertion was that homosexual people CAN overcome or change their orientation?

When he said "what they FEEL are inborn tendencies" was he not implying that while people may believe they are "born" gay, they are not?

This is what I was trying to say. This is exactly where our interpretations diverge. My answer to both of those questions is "no."

In the case of the first question, I would assert that the words "overcome" and "change" are not interchangeable. I understood President Packer to be saying that same sex attracted people can overcome the TEMPTATION to ACT on the tendency. Looking a bit closer, the changes President Packer made in the transcription seem to agree with that interpretation. He changed the direct object of the word "overcome" from "tendencies" to "temptations", clarifying that it is not the tendencies themselves but the resulting temptations that can assuredly be overcome. That meaning would then carry over to the rhetorical question which followed that statement in President Packer's talk. As I tried to say before, I think what he meant was, "Why would Heavenly Father allow anyone to experience temptations they cannot overcome?" This interpretation explains the changes rather neatly.

In the case of the second question, I would've sworn I had already addressed that, but was unable to find it on the record. I guess I was planning to address it and forgot. Let's fix that.

Since the phrase that you're taking issue with is "...what they feel are...", for the sake of argument let's remove it. What we're left with is, "Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural." That would also be a diversion from the "we don't know" position you mentioned. That would be saying, "it is an inborn tendency." Obviously that's no good, so you have to find a way to put it that doesn't support or assert either opinion. President Packer's language acknowledges the opinion these people hold, without either endorsing or decrying it.

Let's also not forget that he referred to those inborn tendencies as impure and unnatural. Obviously that stands in opposition to what previous prophets and apostles have taught. So, it was removed. But, the correction doesn't offer much improvement either.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on this. President Packer's teachings on this point are not in opposition to the teachings of any apostles or prophets, past or present. In fact, they fall right in line with them. Even his terminology is scriptural (see, for instance, Romans Ch. 1 -- http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/rom/1?lang=eng). And the point you are referring to was not removed in the edit even as you quoted it. Did you misspeak, or am I misunderstanding you?

Just for clarity's sake, exactly what matter is it you're referring to when you say, "We have not yet had a revelation on the matter"? Are we on the same page about sexual relationships between same-sex individuals being sin? I keep getting the feeling we're not.

FWIW, my take on the concept of a church spokesman is really simple. It's a delegation of responsibility from the Prophet. I don't really know if I'm right about that, but it makes sense to me.

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

Jim,

I think that your interpretation of Packer's phrase "overcome the tendencies" has merit. Not that I necessarily agree, but I certainly cannot tell you that your are incorrect. He may have meant: overcome the temptation to act on the tendency but it isn't what he said (or wrote... he was following a teleprompter and the translators apparently had the word "tendency" in front of them as well). Overcoming the actual tendency is something different. At least to me.

Regarding Packer's phrase: "what they feel are inborn..."

President Packer's language acknowledges the opinion these people hold, without either endorsing or decrying it.

Well, that's certainly a politically correct interpretation. But, if you take what he said in light of what he has taught previously, he clearly believes that it is NOT an inborn trait.

Someone made the decision to change it from tendencies to temptations because they probably recognized how it sounded. You are welcome to believe that it was Packer himself who made the change. I don't believe that given his previously stated positions. But it's possible.

As for calling the tendency impure or unnatural that does stand in contrast to the current Church position as stated by Elder Holland.

http://lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

That Ensign article linked above later became the pamphlet "For God So Loveth His Children" which is used as the church's foremost statement on homosexuality.

He clarifies that the tendency itself is NOT a sin. To call it impure and unnatural as Packer did, implies that it is a sin. I recognize that you interpret his words as the "temptation to act on the tendency" but, again, it isn't what he said (or wrote).

As for Romans 1... those verses have long been of questionable interpretation. Many believe that Paul was clearly referring to how Greeks were incorporating sexual practices into their temple worship. Which brings us to the next point...

We have that one scripture in the New Testament that *possibly* condemns homosexuality. Nothing in the Book of Mormon and nothing in the Doctrine & Covenants. You'd think that some clarifying modern revelation would be in order, especially considering how divisive an issue this has become.

Just for clarity's sake, exactly what matter is it you're referring to when you say, "We have not yet had a revelation on the matter"? Are we on the same page about sexual relationships between same-sex individuals being sin? I keep getting the feeling we're not.

Yes, the matter I am referring to is homosexuality.

In the above reference talk, Elder Holland said to a gay young man: "As for why you feel as you do, I can’t answer that question. A number of factors may be involved, and they can be as different as people are different. Some things, including the cause of your feelings, we may never know in this life."

That is the church's latest official position on homosexuality. We may never understand it in this life. I'm sure that comes as a great consolation to gay and lesbian members of the church being asked to live a life of complete celibacy.

Packer himself, referring to homosexuality, stated: "When we understand fundamental moral law better than we do, we will be able to correct this condition routinely..." Well, we must not yet have the revelation which provides us with that understanding because we clearly cannot "correct this condition"

So then we look beyond the nature of homosexuality (since we don't have a revelation on that) and wonder if there is a revelation that tells us why homosexuals cannot have intimate relationships, assuming they otherwise follow the law of chastity. Can you point to such a revelation? I'm not aware of one. Which is why I say that when it comes to this matter, they are preaching the philosophies of men. Especially given the fact that those philosophies have changed so drastically over the past 50 years.

FWIW, my take on the concept of a church spokesman is really simple. It's a delegation of responsibility from the Prophet.

That was always my thought as well. And in some cases it makes sense. But in other cases, like when a large group of people comes to the church office building saying "Hey, we're really concerned that what is being taught over the pulpit is contributing to the suicides of our kids..." you might think that the prophet would choose to respond to that one himself. Or, at least delegate it to an apostle. But, that's just my opinion and a personal pet peeve of mine that I really dislike when the church acts like a corporation, rather than a church. Although, in its defense -- it IS a corporation.

[–] jiminycricket-5 13 years ago

So, again, let's be very clear. If I understand you correctly, you feel that it is not a sin for a man to have sexual relations with another man or for a woman to have such with another woman. Correct? Or do you just feel that we don't know?

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

If I'm going to be very clear, I'm probably going to need to break it up into several different opinions. And I don't mean for that to sound sardonic, even though it probably does. Sorry.

My personal opinion is that sexual relations between two gay men or two lesbian women are okay in the eyes of God if they are in a committed relationship (I would prefer to say "married" but we "Christians" have made that extremely difficult for them).

Then there is the opinion of LDS Corp... the place you and I worship every Sunday. I'm under no delusions that they currently believe sexual relations between two men or two women are sinful. An excommunicable offense. That is, without a doubt, the current "doctrinal" position of LDS Corp.

But, my wording is important. I say "current" because the LDS Corp view of homosexuality has changed over the past 50 years (not that gay sex was ever NOT a sin, but other general understanding has changed or evolved).

And I use the term LDS Corp because what really matters is not what "the church" says but what God has to say on the matter.

I only have the knowledge that God has given to me, alone, through personal revelation and I've reflected that in my stated opinion above. I don't presume to speak on his behalf. That is certainly not my calling.

But, I am not aware of any scriptural clarity on the matter (the matter being your direct question to me). So, I look to our latter-day prophets and still I see no revelation dealing with said question. Yes, they have taught, written, and preached about homosexuality but I have yet to see anything that would qualify as revelation.

In my last post, I tried to limit the questions that I asked you. I actually narrowed it down to just one... this one:

So then we look beyond the nature of homosexuality (since we don't have a revelation on that) and wonder if there is a revelation that tells us why homosexuals cannot have intimate relationships, assuming they otherwise follow the law of chastity. Can you point to such a revelation?

Your inquiry of me leads us back to that question... we've got my opinion, we've got your opinion (which is?), and we have LDS corp's opinion. What I'd really like to know is what the Lord has to say.

Until we're blessed with that knowledge, I gotta go with Luke 10:27 and Matthew 7:1.

[–] DSTgar 13 years ago

Jim and Jeff,

Thank you for the continued conversation. I am happy to stay out of it.

I offer only this: on the matter of the Lord's opinion on opening his kingdom to all his (human) creation, I also turn to Acts 10. "God knows no partiality." (v. 34, in the NRSV translation. I also like the wording in "The Message:" "God doesn't play favorites.") Now, if one means to parse "does what is right" in v. 35 (literally translated as "is working righteousness") to include "holds strictly to particular sexual behaviors"—just after Peter has received the revelation that all the food he had been taught is unclean is perfectly good to eat—then I feel that's being particularly stingy with God's revelation.

Peter and Paul both constantly talked of new revelation ("now I see through a glass dimly," etc.). Peter was blessed by revelation such as the Acts 10 story, but still didn't always "get it." Paul, I think, had a tendency to punt when he didn't know the answer, much to the detriment of the long-standing church.

Blessings on you both. I'm just between trips to South Africa and Brazil, where, in my own way, I hope that I am "working righteousness" by helping the poor gain access to needed medicines. (which reminds me of Micah: "What does the Lord require? Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.")

Not garnished? Not finished!

[–] jeffwcos 13 years ago

David,

Great post, thanks.

I'm giving a talk* in church a week from today and that passage from Micah will fit in VERY nicely. I'm glad you reminded me of it.

-Jeff

* Since I'm not sure how familiar you are with Mormon practices, I'll clarify: Since we have a lay ministry, our Bishop and/or one of his two counselors invite members to spend 15-20 minutes giving what most of the Christian world refers to as a sermon in our Sunday Sacrament meeting (we call them "talks"). Usually we are asked to speak on a certain topic but everything beyond that is left up to the individual and is expected to be a matter of personal prayer and pondering.

In case you are interested, my topic comes from a Book of Mormon scripture:

"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." -- 1 Nephi 3:7

The speaker prior to me is speaking on hope and faith. My topic is to elaborate on how we take that hope & faith and then "go and do".

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jiminycricket-5 14 years ago

No Message

[–] monya_baker 12 years ago

Hi everyone,
I hadn't anticipated this when I started posting on this thread, but I'm now blogging for Affirmation, a support group for gay and lesbian Mormons.

You can see the post that grew out of these discussions here:
http://blog.affirmation.org/2011/11/reading-the-miracle-of-forgiveness-in-the-21st-century/

And my first post here:
http://blog.affirmation.org/2011/07/an-unconventional-testimony/

Best,
Monya