Jesus reveals ban on LGBTs to LDS elder apostle Russell M. Nelson

[Prestor John]

That's pretty good, except the last line.

How is that?

 

[blue taylor]

How is that?

Very low success rate. Very low.

 

[Prestor John]

Very low success rate. Very low.

The rate of success depends on the process used and how committed the individual is.

Even if the success rate is low, how does that make what I said any less true?

 

[blue taylor]

The rate of success depends on the process used and how committed the individual is.

Even if the success rate is low, how does that make what I said any less true?

It's your church, do as you want. The success rate is so low it's not even worth trying. A lasting "conversion" as you say is at about 1%.

 

[Agondonter]

Everyone supports freedom of religion -- until a religion is opposed to what they believe and then all hell breaks loose. (Unless it's Islam because Islam will fight back.)

 

[Jabar]

Everyone supports freedom of religion -- until a religion is opposed to what they believe and then all hell breaks loose. (Unless it's Islam because Islam will fight back.)

False.

Unless you try to harm me i wont fight back and certainly the beliefs wont.

 

[Agondonter]

False.

Unless you try to harm me i wont fight back and certainly the beliefs wont.

My point exactly. Islam doesn't come under attack from sanctimonious "infidels" nearly as much as Christians.

 

[Prestor John]

It's your church, do as you want. The success rate is so low it's not even worth trying. A lasting "conversion" as you say is at about 1%.

Would you mind sharing your source?

 

[JoStories]

You have a PhD in theology? I'm impressed, seriously.

LDS revelation and the Catholic view of inspiration are similar, but there are differences too. If you consider what Joseph Smith recorded as well as all of the succeeding Apostles and Presidents until today, the claims of revelation are amazing, huge, and specific, beyond what I believe Catholics or other Christian churches would claim. We have hundreds of recorded claims of angels in person delivering messages, we have many visitations of Christ in the flesh as a resurrected being in broad daylight. I'm talking appearances that qualify the modern Apostles equally with the New Testament Apostles to bear eye witness testimony of the resurrected Christ. That is no small claim. We have more than one witness to the same experience at the same time. IMO this either happened or there is a serious conspiracy passed down from generation to generation by the church leadership

It would be hard for intelligent and sane men to misinterpret or imagine such experiences of this magnitude and repetition and with multiple witnesses. Furthermore, previously sincere and honest believers would have to inexplicably join the ranks of the liars as soon as they were asked to join the highest quorums in the church. I have many reasons to be convinced from a spiritual, intellectual, and experiential point of view that it's true. Trust me, if I didn't feel this way, I would not give my life to it. I can easily see why someone on the outside's initial conclusion would be that there is intentional deception. But if you knew these modern leaders and really understood their lives and service, you would see that deception or insanity are not reasonable explanations. This doesn't prove the validity of their revelations, but it should be food for thought for those who really want to understand what's going on in Mormonism. But people on the outside don't usually take the time to know or understand these leaders. They make assumptions based on policy pronouncements with which they strongly disagree.

Have you ever heard of Helena Blavatsky? Fascinating woman who started a lesser known 'faith' known as Theosophy. This faith is not as much a faith as a path, with the emphasis on introspection and education, as well as personal relationships with God. Ms. Blavatsky was the conduit for two Tibetan monks who were in direct, and this is alleged of course, communication with God. Do you wish to deny that these two men were not speaking with God? My dissertation was on mysticism, which is very similar to what you speak about here. IOW, a person, no matter who, who is alleged to have had direct communication with God. Did you know that every single faith recorded, and keep in mind that this is only those faiths that are considered 'real' faiths and would preclude cults and the like, has people who have been considered to be in direct communication with God? St Theresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, St. Francis of Assisi, Ibn al 'Arabi, and so on. This can be traced to the inception of all faiths that I researched and goes back as in history as I could also find. Would you deny that these people were in direct communication with God and then state that those associated with the faith of LDS or Catholicism are 'real'? The revelations of these men and women, and there are no demarcations with regard to gender in whom has had communications, in many cases have shaped the history of selected faiths, and in many cases, history itself. I will stop here because this topic is a passion of mine and I could continue for pages. I would be interested in your views of this.

 

[JoStories]

When I said it's hard for people to believe, but I'm that I'm certain, I was referring to my certainly in the sincerity, integrity, and intelligence of my leaders in the highest quorums. I don't believe that anyone who knows them would reasonably conclude otherwise. I believe the same would hold true for you. You'd conclude, "Wow these guys are for real. I don't believe as they do, but they are certainly sincere and competent".

There's nothing wrong with strong love for someone of the same sex. Friendship can be strong and loving and one can sorely miss such a departed individual. But, my church teaches and I believe that it's not appropriate for that relationship to be romantic/sexual. Yes, a person who is gay may repeat sex acts and still be able to repent and keep being restored in my church. If you wanted to be baptized as a Mormon, you would be asked a few questions regarding your beliefs in our faith and your commitment to do your best to live according to what we believe. If a person says they accept most of what we believe but have no intention of abstaining from sex, except in a heterosexual marriage, they would not be baptized. If such a person feels they were rejected and were unwelcome, I'm not sure how to respond. Our scriptures teach that in order for someone to be baptized they must demonstrate sincere repentance and a desire to keep the commandments. This doesn't mean they have to be perfect or that they will never make mistakes. Rather, it's simply a matter of having a converted heart and desire to follow the commandments. If a person says this is not what they want, then they will not be baptized. But this is not a spiteful rejection. They can come to church and enjoy the friendships and worship. But they will not receive the blessings of baptism until they make certain commitments. This is entirely driven by scripture.

Baptism is a covenant with God to keep his commandments. It would be sacrilegious for someone to cross their fingers behind their back while pretending to believe in this covenant and these commandments. Church leaders who hold the keys or authority to authorize baptism would be guilty, if they ignored the scriptures and sanctioned the baptism of people who by their own admission didn't believe in the covenants that they were about to make.

I respect that this is what you believe and you feel that anyone wishing to become a member of your faith should believe in and uphold these beliefs. I am a firm believer in honesty so I would be forced to agree with you that they should believe as you do, if they wish to join your faith. However, I do not believe as you do and have no interest in such a belief. IMO, its the exact opposite of what God is and stands for. But that is my view and I don't expect you to believe that. What I would request of your church and those members that hold these views is that you have enough respect to leave your beliefs out of mine. The SCOTUS has deemed that SSM is legal. You may not concur, which I know you don't but that doesn't change the law. So respect that please. I never understood the idea of polygamy, which I know is now outlawed, however, I did not disrespect that idea. All I ask is that you afford me the same courtesy.

 

[JoStories]

I want to focus on your comment about my stating that you were ignorant about this topic.

I will still comment on the other things you have said. I just don't want this to get overridden or ignored.

First, a question. If I had said that you did not know or understand enough about LDS beliefs to accurately comment on this topic, would you consider that a violation of the Terms of Service?

I ask this because the definition of ignorance means that someone does not know or understand a topic. My claiming that someone is ignorant of a particular topic is not me calling that person stupid, bad, dishonest nor is it even saying that that person's opinion is essentially "wrong". All it means is that I am claiming that the person does not know or understand enough about this particular topic to comment on it accurately.

Now, I brought up the definition of the word "ignorant" to make an accusation against you.

In your various comments on this thread you have stated that the leaders of the LDS Church do not know or understand the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Your argument was that if they had actually known or understood the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ then they would not have implemented the practices they have outlined.

You essentially claimed that the leaders of the LDS Church are ignorant of the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not only this but you also claimed that I was unaware of the "agenda" had by my own Church leaders and that I did not know or understand the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ enough to realize that the leaders of my Church were "condemning" and "damning" homosexuals and their children by denying them the right to worship the Lord Jesus Christ.

You essentially claimed that I am ignorant of the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the intention of my own Church leaders.

This leads me to ask you another question, "Where do you get the nerve to reference the Terms of Service in an attempt to reprimand me when you are guilty of the same behavior?"

That is very hypocritical of you.

Now I would like to mention that the claims you have made about LDS Church leaders "condemning" and "damning" homosexuals and their children by denying them the right to worship the Lord Jesus Christ are baseless.

The ideas of "condemning" or "damning" anyone is found nowhere in the sermon that this OP references and no one is denied attendance to LDS Sabbath Day services unless they are disruptive..

Your claims are false. You did not share a single reference to support your claims.

In light of these facts, would I not be justified in referencing this site's rules of "Trolling and Bullying" which claims that a member's attempts of "defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs" are unacceptable behavior?

Also, since it is apparent that you did not even read the sermon that was referenced by the OP and which I supplied a link to, how would I be incorrect in stating that you are ignorant on this subject?

Several points:
1, I have never called you or anything you have had to say 'ignorant'. I have expressed my opinion on what Christ taught and what I find to be a misrepresentation of what Christ taught by your leaders. Again, this is MY opinion and nothing more. I am calling them wrong only in the respect that I don't see what they are saying as what I believe was taught. This is a debate forum and I am allowed to express my views on what I see as having been taught. Just as you are.
2. the word 'ignorant' is a very volatile. It can and often does imply stupidity. How is that not wrong headed? Instead, I would choose a different word with much less volatility. Perhaps unaware? IMO, ignorant is synonymous with rude or boorish. Calling anyone stupid here is against TOS. Hence, my views of the term with regard to what I had to say. When you call my views or me ignorant, you are misrepresenting my views. That is what I was trying to impart.
3. It is definitely that what the elders have to say is not congruent with what Christ taught. Christ taught love and acceptance. These men are not teaching that, IMO. I understand you disagree and that is fine. I would not call you ignorant of my views on Buddhism. Why is my saying that I strongly disagree with these men ignorant? It is simply my opinion. No one opinion is either right nor wrong NOR ignorant. I am sorry if you don't understand where I am coming from here.

 

[JoStories]

So, if I say to you, "I am gay but I refrain from that temptation" and yet you reject me; then you stand opposed to the very teachings and example of the one whom you claim to follow. In this latter case, any who would proscribe to the underlined statement above, is an hypocrite.

While I would not use the word hypocrite, this is exactly what I was trying to say to Prestor John, which then he stated I was 'ignorant'. Apparently, you are also 'ignorant' to what Christ taught. Its fascinating to me that one can read a passage and glean very different views and those who find our views not in keeping with their own, we are then seen as unable to understand this same passage. I would wonder....in the history of the Christian church, the views on many passages are viewed in very different lights. Are they all then ignorant and only those who this person agrees with able to understand?

 

[JoStories]

You hit the nail on the head. That distinction is critical.

Now, I know that you do not like the idea of God speaking to Man, but it is my personal belief that so much "friction" has built up between homosexuals and organized religion over the centuries because these religions no longer believe in receiving revelation and rely only on past revelation, which may not be the best source on how to handle modern-day issues.

I personally believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints receives revelation today through Apostles and Prophets and it is because of this constant link to God that we can know His will concerning how to handle these modern-day situations.

What of those Christian churches that disagree with what your prophets state? Are they, too, wrong or worse, 'ignorant' of the Teachings? Furthermore, many faiths today continue to have people who have revelations from God, or so they say. Are they too, wrong? This is the slippery slope of which I was trying to speak of. As another poster so aptly stated, the beliefs of your church, where it pertains to my rights and views, should stop at the doors of your church.

 

[JoStories]

My point exactly. Islam doesn't come under attack from sanctimonious "infidels" nearly as much as Christians.

Seriously? One need only read the racist and prejudiced rhetoric that spews from the mouth of Trump is to see how people attack, wrongly I might add, the Muslim faith. I don't see Christians as being attacked in this manner anywhere near as much as Islam and its faith.

 

[Scott C.]

I respect that this is what you believe and you feel that anyone wishing to become a member of your faith should believe in and uphold these beliefs. I am a firm believer in honesty so I would be forced to agree with you that they should believe as you do, if they wish to join your faith. However, I do not believe as you do and have no interest in such a belief. IMO, its the exact opposite of what God is and stands for. But that is my view and I don't expect you to believe that. What I would request of your church and those members that hold these views is that you have enough respect to leave your beliefs out of mine. The SCOTUS has deemed that SSM is legal. You may not concur, which I know you don't but that doesn't change the law. So respect that please. I never understood the idea of polygamy, which I know is now outlawed, however, I did not disrespect that idea. All I ask is that you afford me the same courtesy.

Here's a link to a speech given by Dallin Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve. I don't know if you will find this as a surprisingly well reasoned approach or if you will see it as offensive. First I have a quote where he's referring to Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk we heard so much about:

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices... A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-oaks-court-clergy-conference

I respect the law and wish no ill to anyone who enters into a same sex marriage. I also understand and respect my church's approach to dealing with a difficult issue.

 

[blue taylor]

Would you mind sharing your source?

Schroeder & Shidlo: This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 202 people who have undergone conversion therapy. Eight of their subjects reported a change in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, seven of the eight were ex-gay counselors or leaders who statements may have been false. They are fairly certain that one of the 202 was able to change his/her sexual orientation They reported a conversion rate of 0.5%.

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual.

OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.

Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues told a Washington Post reporter in 2005: "There are probably a small number of people with some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change. Out of the hundreds of gay men I've treated, I've had one." If we assume that his term "sexual identity" is a synonym for "sexual orientation," and that Dr. Drescher has treated 200 gay men, then he would seem to estimate that about 99.5% of gay men have a fixed sexual orientation, and that only about 0.5% can change their orientation.

 

[Scott C.]

Have you ever heard of Helena Blavatsky? Fascinating woman who started a lesser known 'faith' known as Theosophy. This faith is not as much a faith as a path, with the emphasis on introspection and education, as well as personal relationships with God. Ms. Blavatsky was the conduit for two Tibetan monks who were in direct, and this is alleged of course, communication with God. Do you wish to deny that these two men were not speaking with God? My dissertation was on mysticism, which is very similar to what you speak about here. IOW, a person, no matter who, who is alleged to have had direct communication with God. Did you know that every single faith recorded, and keep in mind that this is only those faiths that are considered 'real' faiths and would preclude cults and the like, has people who have been considered to be in direct communication with God? St Theresa of Avila, Thomas Merton, St. Francis of Assisi, Ibn al 'Arabi, and so on. This can be traced to the inception of all faiths that I researched and goes back as in history as I could also find. Would you deny that these people were in direct communication with God and then state that those associated with the faith of LDS or Catholicism are 'real'? The revelations of these men and women, and there are no demarcations with regard to gender in whom has had communications, in many cases have shaped the history of selected faiths, and in many cases, history itself. I will stop here because this topic is a passion of mine and I could continue for pages. I would be interested in your views of this.

I'm not an expert on these religions or claims to revelation. But generally speaking, I accept that God has communicated his will via inspiration or otherwise to men and women from different nations and cultures over time. Of course where there are direct doctrinal conflicts between two faiths, both claiming to be revelations, they can't both be right. I believe in the Latter-day revelations to prophets in my church, most especially those revelations which are canonized. These revelations are my standard by which I measure the validity of inspiration that is reported to come from other faith sources.

We have versus in the Book of Mormon which say in effect that whatever persuades us to do good and to believe in Christ, is from God. Whatever persuades otherwise is not. This does not mean that a faith must specifically teach that Jesus is the Christ in order for me to believe that any part of it came by inspiration from God. I'm certain that the Buddha, for example, received inspired thoughts and those are reflected in his teachings. His teachings have been a blessing to millions of believers. Those believers lack the knowledge of their Savior, but that does not negate the value of that which they have. I accept that some people who don't know Christ, nevertheless have deep and inspired insights into life. I can learn much from them. But no matter how wise and inspired they are and how much they have to offer me, I possess something of great worth, which is believe in Christ. How or when such people will come into this knowledge, I don't know.

I do still believe that the revelatory claims of my church are unique in the intensity of revelation, nature of revelation, documentation, specificity, repetition, completeness, witnesses, and consistency. That may not prove their validity, but an honest investigation will impress the seeker.

 

[JoStories]

Here's a link to a speech given by Dallin Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve. I don't know if you will find this as a surprisingly well reasoned approach or if you will see it as offensive. First I have a quote where he's referring to Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk we heard so much about:

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices... A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-oaks-court-clergy-conference

I respect the law and wish no ill to anyone who enters into a same sex marriage. I also understand and respect my church's approach to dealing with a difficult issue.

I find this rather refreshing. All I would wish, from a bisexual woman's POV, is exacting what you have expressed here. I have no wish to infringe on your beliefs. Nor that of your church. I merely wish to have the same rights as you and everyone else. I would never ask to be married in a LDS church, given that it violates your tenets. But neither would I expect you to stop me from using a JP for a partner I chose to marry. I love that your church found Kim Davis in te wrong, because it was wrong. I have no read your link but I did bookmark it for later. Its 130 in the morning and my eyes are too tired but I will read it later.

 

[JoStories]

I'm not an expert on these religions or claims to revelation. But generally speaking, I accept that God has communicated his will via inspiration or otherwise to men and women from different nations and cultures over time. Of course where there are direct doctrinal conflicts between two faiths, both claiming to be revelations, they can't both be right. I believe in the Latter-day revelations to prophets in my church, most especially those revelations which are canonized. These revelations are my standard by which I measure the validity of inspiration that is reported to come from other faith sources.

We have versus in the Book of Mormon which say in effect that whatever persuades us to do good and to believe in Christ, is from God. Whatever persuades otherwise is not. This does not mean that a faith must specifically teach that Jesus is the Christ in order for me to believe that any part of it came by inspiration from God. I'm certain that the Buddha, for example, received inspired thoughts and those are reflected in his teachings. His teachings have been a blessing to millions of believers. Those believers lack the knowledge of their Savior, but that does not negate the value of that which they have. I accept that some people who don't know Christ, nevertheless have deep and inspired insights into life. I can learn much from them. But no matter how wise and inspired they are and how much they have to offer me, I possess something of great worth, which is believe in Christ. How or when such people will come into this knowledge, I don't know.

I do still believe that the revelatory claims of my church are unique in the intensity of revelation, nature of revelation, documentation, specificity, repetition, completeness, witnesses, and consistency. That may not prove their validity, but an honest investigation will impress the seeker.

Theosophy is more of a spiritual path than a religion. It is based on serious introspection and meditation. In this path, one can believe in God in any form, including Jesus as the Christ. However, they are also interested and learn from all faith's leaders, prophets and apostles. It is in some ways very similar to Buddhism in that way. Although the differences are more about enlightenment to join with God after we have learned all we can from God and have achieved enlightenment. I never would tell a person that what faith or the lack thereof, is wrong. It may be wrong for me but who am I to tell you that you are damned or any other thing that disparages your faith. If you find solace in Christ, mores the power to you and I think that is awesome. Where I have an issue is when people of whatever faith, and in this country it is most often Christians (no offense) tell me I am damned, or going to hell or any other thing they think is true and must then be true for me as well. One's spiritual path and that often does include a faith, is a very personal issue. I can no more tell you what is truth than you can tell me. Most people 'try' various religions before they find the one that best suits their beliefs. I have many things about the LDS church and its beliefs that I simply don't believe. Marriage to more than one woman, (Polygamy), the stance on gays, and more. But this is not to say that they are wrong. It merely states that your churches beliefs don't work for me. And I am finding this discussion refreshing and surprisingly civil. I do thank you very much for that Scott.

 

[Prestor John]

Schroeder & Shidlo: This study is aiming at analyzing the experience of 202 people who have undergone conversion therapy. Eight of their subjects reported a change in sexual orientation. Unfortunately, seven of the eight were ex-gay counselors or leaders who statements may have been false. They are fairly certain that one of the 202 was able to change his/her sexual orientation They reported a conversion rate of 0.5%.

Exodus International (1978): The ministry selected 30 of their 800 members as having changed from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual in orientation. Two outside psychiatrists interviewed the 30 and found that only three were actually heterosexual.

OCRT pilot study (2000): The sponsors of this web site surveyed each of the 36 websites of the GayChange WebRing. 3 These are mainly Internet sites created by individuals or small Christian ministries. From the sites' content, all appear to be Evangelical Christian in outlook. Of the 28 accessible web sites, only one reported what they felt were conversion success. They had two clients who entered therapy with a homosexual orientation, and decided during therapy to remain celibate. One entered therapy as a bisexual and has developed a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Neither actually changed their sexual orientation. The conversion rate of the Christian ministries sampled was 0%.

Jack Drescher is a New York psychiatrist and chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues told a Washington Post reporter in 2005: "There are probably a small number of people with some flexibility in their sexual identity who can change. Out of the hundreds of gay men I've treated, I've had one." If we assume that his term "sexual identity" is a synonym for "sexual orientation," and that Dr. Drescher has treated 200 gay men, then he would seem to estimate that about 99.5% of gay men have a fixed sexual orientation, and that only about 0.5% can change their orientation.

Thank you for the information.

I don't know how relevant these studies are to this discussion though.

The LDS Church does not advocate any particular approach.

We just believe that we can all change our sinful nature through the grace and Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I never claimed that all people who struggle with same-sex attraction could overcome it completely.

I only said that it is possible. People have done it. Other people are still struggling with it, but only have a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex.

Either way, whether the success rate is low or not does not change the fact that it is still possible.