- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I did not want to interfere with the discussion on race, so thought it best to start this new thread. I really liked Ray’s comments on the race news release and was able to make some important points on a lds gay forum for parents I belong to because of Ray’s remarks. Read had said:
Old-Timer wrote:Frankly, I see the statement very differently, curt – and I think your general view is coloring your reaction significantly. I’m going to pull out my parser’s pen and explain why.
Here is the full text of the statement, with my comments in parentheses and bolded just to make them easier to see:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.
(
That’s a really good introduction for a statement on race.) People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood.
(
This is completely accurate, and it says explicitly that the ban did NOT start with Joseph Smith. That’s important to have in writing.) At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions.
(
An official statement that there were exceptions to the ban!! I’ve never seen that admission EVER in official writings in my lifetime. That’s a wonderful sentence!) It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.
(
That sentence is 100% accurate. I am quite positive it was due to the racism of the early leaders, and I think I know what inspired it, but I can’t be totally sure, since there simply are NO authoritative writings about it’s “precise” origin – the why, how or when. Frankly, however, I think it is impressive that the Church would state unequivocally that it doesn’t know why, how or when the ban began. That also is a huge step in the right direction, imo.) Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.
(
This also is 100% accurate, and, for a short press release that doesn’t have to include lots of notes about the process that led up to OD2, it does a good job of summarizing the result.) The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
(
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: That statement alone makes this statement amazing, imo. The operative word is “including”, which means it’s not “just” individual racism that the Church now condemns. It’s ALL racism that the Church now condemns. I know it’s not as explicit as saying, “The ban was racist, and we condemn it,” but the ban actually was racist by any reasonable definition, so this statement does, in reality, condemn it as worded.
:clap: :clap: )In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”
(
This is a perfect way to sum up the current church stance on anyone who expresses racism verbally.) Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:
“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”
(
Again, the first sentence is 100% accurate, as worded, and this additional statement clearly says all the justifications from our past were made without revelation – which means, implicitly, that they were not of God and that the Church now rejects them. That’s straightforward and wonderful to read.) Obviously, it doesn’t read exactly as you would like it to read, curt – but it’s about the farthest thing from white-washing the Church has issued regarding the ban.
One of the parents on my lds gay forum made a statement about the church by posting that “The churches teachings on this subject (homosexuality) have been consistent through the ages……” I refered to the news release on race and then I replied to this parent saying that just as the church has changed on the race issue, here are some of the changes they have made on the homosexual issue:
A 1974 church pamphlet excoriated homosexuality as evil and castigated parents of gays for having raised their children poorly. By 1992, a new teaching suggested that biological factors could be at work.
New church publication, “God Loveth His Children,” says gay feelings are neither learned nor chosen, and it counsels against rejecting a gay child. It repeatedly warns against feelings of guilt: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy.
It has also abandoned its history of encouraging gay members to enter heterosexual marriages. The new document says “the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life.”
Spencer W. Kimball’s book, The Miracle of Forgiveness. It had a chapter in it called I think, “Crime Against Nature”, and it described in very certain terms the evilness and sinfulness this condition. He used awful words to describe homosexuals and their feelings. He stated that these desires were pugnant, evil, disgusting, vial, malicious, and pernicious. I remember reading his book and cried as I read what was said about my son.
I am very happy the church has changed some of their teachings on this subject.
I then commented that even though, the church and this lds gay group does not see homosexuality the same as race, this brought up some thoughts and questions for me. 1) It is clear from this press release that church leaders do have their own cultural prejudices and hang-ups sometimes and that may bring about some church polices. The church has already changed some of its beliefs on homosexuality over the years and this is good. 2) The Prophet Brigham Young was very adamant on whites never marrying blacks and it was very frowned upon in society. In fact, it was against the law in many states. So my question is, “If gay marriage becomes legal in all states in the future, will the lds church whose 12th article of faith believes in obeying the laws of the land, recognize gay marriages in the church and accept them as it does civil marriages among straight people?
How would you all reply to my question?
bridget_night wrote:So my question is, “If gay marriage becomes legal in all states in the future, will the lds church whose 12th article of faith believes in obeying the laws of the land, recognize gay marriages in the church and accept them as it does civil marriages among straight people?
If by “recognize,” you mean to not excommunicate or shame gay “active members” involved in a committed gay marriage then I think that the church will not recognize gay marriages. Change may come, but I think that it will come at a slow enough pace that I won’t see this level of acceptance in my lifetime. Remember that there were political and practical ramifications for both the discontinuation of the priesthood ban and polygamy that pale in comparison to any bad press the church may get about its stance on homosexuality. I also think that if the church changes too fast on this issue there may be a push back from the more conservative membership. Kinda’ like a frog – one needs to warm the water slow so they don’t jump ship.
😈 Good points Roy. Thanks for your reply. These are the changes I have seen so far in the church in regards to homosexuality: A 1974 church pamphlet excoriated homosexuality as evil and castigated parents of gays for having raised their children poorly. By 1992, a new teaching suggested that biological factors could be at work.
New church publication, “God Loveth His Children,” says gay feelings are neither learned nor chosen, and it counsels against rejecting a gay child. It repeatedly warns against feelings of guilt: “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy.
It has also abandoned its history of encouraging gay members to enter heterosexual marriages. The new document says “the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life.”
Spencer W. Kimball’s book, The Miracle of Forgiveness. It had a chapter in it called I think, “Crime Against Nature”, and it described in very certain terms the evilness and sinfulness this condition. He used awful words to describe homosexuals and their feelings. He stated that these desires were pugnant, evil, disgusting, vial, malicious, and pernicious. I remember reading his book and cried as I read what was said about my son.
It is interesting because many years ago, I was talking to one of my old missionary companions who lives in Washington D.C. Before her mission she had waited for a missionary that she was very much in love with. When he got home he was struggling with SGA and went to his bishop about it. He was told to go ahead and marry his fiancé and his SGA would go away. He still did not feel right about it and told my old companion he could not go through with the marriage. She was devastated and went to talk to her dad, who was a stake President at the time in California. This stake president was good friends with Spencer W. Kimball and he arranged for his daughter to go talk to him. She said it was a very interesting meeting and Prophet Kimball was very kind to her. He told her that this bishop was wrong to advise this young man to marry because these feelings don’t just go away. Then he told her he did not understand why some people have this trial but he believed that it was like the story of the blind man in the Bible. That took me back because this is exactly what the Lord told me about my son.
>
> I had also listened to a tape my sister in law had sent me about the life of Spencer W. Kimball. I was surprised to hear that he had worked with many gay people and wrote many of them daily to help them come back to the church. The tape said that he had brought about 200 gay people back to the church. Brother Kimball may have used the harsh language of his time but really had a heart for them.
>
I am very happy the church has changed some of their teachings on this subject.
Bridget, thank you for the post. I learn something new about SWK. Mike from Milton.
The stories I’ve heard is that the Miracle of Forgiveness book was written to address the culture of the time, where there was so much “free love” mentality, that he tried to get the attention of people to get them to see some things do matter, and some things are wrong. In doing so, he may have taken a hard line in the book on many things. But later in his life, and towards the end of his life, many have expressed the kind and gentle nature of his heart, and that many things he backed off on, and did not take the hard line, because he loved others deeply.
The book, however, seems to be on the shelf for most bishops still today, and is still used often. Some parts of the book are beautiful, but some are out-dated and hurtful, IMO. But it does help to know the back story to it.
I agree with you and I have noticed these same changes. Roy wrote:I have been reading a book that was given to me for Christmas, very pro-LDS, titled “What Happened to the Cross? Distinctive LDS Teachings” by Robert L. Millet professor of ancient scripture and former dean of Religious Education at BYU. There is one passage that I feel has direct bearing on this thread.
Author Robert L. Millet wrote:“While serving as a priesthood leader many years ago, I had occasion to work with a young man who was struggling with same sex attraction. He had violated his temple covenants but sincerely wanted to change. Church disciplinary measures were taken, and he and I began to work together toward change. He spoke often of how difficult it was for him to be active in the Church, to attend all the activities, and in general to be a typical Latter-day Saint when he felt so very atypical. He committed himself to avoid inappropriate sexual activity but wrestled with his same-sex attraction. One day he asked me, “If I do the things you have asked me to do- go to Church, read the scriptures, fast and pray, plead for divine help, receive priesthood blessings when necessary, and be chaste- can you assure me that the Lord will take away these desires, these attractions? Can you promise me they will go away?” It was a tough question.
As I recall, I said something like this; “I know the Lord can indeed change you, change your heart, change your orientation. I know that he can do that instantaneously if he chooses to do so. I know that the power of change is in Jesus Christ and that dramatic and rapid change can take place. I do not know, however, whether the Lord will change you right away. I do know this, however: If you do what you have been asked to do, and you do it regularly and consistently from now on, God will change you, either here or hereafter. You may be required to deal with these feelings until the day you die. But I can promise you two things- first, these feelings will eventually be transformed; and second, if God does not choose to bring about a major change in your nature in this life, he will strengthen and empower you to deal with the temptations you will face. You don’t need to face this on your own.”
He then shared some scriptures about those who “overcome by faith” D & C 76:53 and “withstand every temptation of the devil, with their faith on the Lord Jesus Christ” Alma 37:33.What does this passage mean to you? By appearing in a book subtitled Distinctive LDS Teachings, how does this represent a departure from (or a continuance of) Gay/LDS teachings of the past? Whatever happened to this young man from “many years ago?”
I believe we have come from a place where we were sure that homosexual orientation was a choice (either to engage in the behavior itself or to open oneself up to Satan and have him control your life) and we have moved to a place where we say, “We don’t quite know.” I believe this change is positive and we may yet have future church authorities declaring that previous GA’s spoke against homosexuals with the limited light and knowledge of a former day. That is one of the wonderful things about believing in continuing revelation. I do not think that I will live to see it, but until a few years ago I didn’t think I would live to see a black US president….I’m glad I was wrong.
:thumbup: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2012/03/27/chastity-homosexuality/ I did a post on this topic earlier this week on Wheat & Tares (with a poll). I think our biggest obstacle to accepting homosexual marriage as a legitimate alternative is our church’s belief in gender essentialism. Also, compared to other cultures, the US and Europe are pretty progressive, and the outcomes are not predetermined. It will be interesting to see where this lands eventually.
Thanks for all your comments everyone. Hawkgirrl…I read this article early this week and really liked it. You mentioned my good friend (Mitch Mayne) who is the excutive sec. in SF ward in it and I showed it to him. You are a very good writer. This is a fantastic post. I enjoyed your artical Hawkgirl. Bridgett, I was wondering if you could let me know the name of this forum for LDS parents of gay children? I would like to point mine in that direction.
Here it is : http://northstarlds.org/resources_friendsfamily.php Thank you! My friend Mitch Mayne who serves as an openly gay Mormon in his bishopric as executive secretary posted this a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJXC_vgF4cM It shows the progress we have made.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.