My Response to Gene Schaer's "THE REAL “FOUNDATION” OF THE LDS CHURCH’S LGBT POLICIES: A RESPONSE TO GREG PRINCE"

[achilles]

I am very grateful that Mr. Schaer, and all those who firmly stand by his view in this article are not gay, and do not have to live that reality. It is very easy to ask difficult things of others, when you do not have to sacrifice yourself. Before settling on a stance of "tough love", I invite everyone so sure of the Church's position to engage their imagination, and empathize with those who are asked to make Herculean personal sacrifices to live the life path you can so casually expound upon. Imagine yourselves alone for the remainder of your lives--whether it is twenty, thirty, or fifty more years. Then ask yourselves "What have I done to love LGBT people today?"

I don't know if my comment will actually make it past moderation, but I wanted to share it here.

http://ldsmag.com/the-real-foundation-o ... eg-prince/

[achilles]

By the way, Brother Schaer was hired to defend Utah's attempt to quash gay marriage at the Federal level.

[Hagoth]

Thank you, Achilles. I couldn't read the whole article.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks acknowledges that “[p]erhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such [homosexual] feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others.” In that sense, then, homosexuality may not be completely “a matter of choice,” any more than having (in Elder Oaks’ words) “a taste for alcohol” or “a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger.”

That pretty much says it all. Perhaps there is an inclination to such abhorrent behaviors but ultimately it's no different than keeping the Word of Wisdom or not succumbing to road rage. He came just short of comparing it to the urge to marry a dog, which seems to be the eventual destination of this line of thinking. Every time Dallin Oaks opens his mouth he pushes me further out of the church.

He continues: “The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction.”

Actually, the church has put forth several ridiculous and embarrassing explanations. Maybe Elder Oaks is unfamiliar with the writings and talks of Spencer W. Kimball and Boyd K. Packer? I wonder if Elder Oaks considers bigotry, arrogance and priestcraft to also be susceptibilities or inclinations.

[Snowdrop]

I wonder if Elder Oaks considers bigotry, arrogance and priestcraft to also be susceptibilities or inclinations.

That was gold!

Achilles, your comment was beautiful and particularly timely.

[MoPag]

Achilles, that was a wonderful response. And it is something the readers of Meridian need to hear.

Hagoth, I am right with you about Oaks. He is like a Packer 2.0.

[Corsair]

I don't know if my comment will actually make it past moderation, but I wanted to share it here.

I don't see your quote on the page, but it is a sentiment I share. The final reason for any LDS doctrine comes down to having a testimony of Joseph Smith and the priesthood continuing with modern prophets, seers, and revelators. This explains translations, polygamy, the Book of Mormon, temples, chastity, and any other good or bad aspect of the LDS church. Gene Schaer's foundational claim comes back to this same reasoning which is repeated in this paragraph (emphasis mine)

The Church, moreover, teaches that any temptation—including gay members’ temptation to use their procreative structures in ways that violate God’s commands—can be overcome through the atonement of Jesus Christ. As Elder Oaks put it in his interview, the Church teaches that “through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation”—including, for all of us, the temptation to engage in sex outside heterosexual marriage.

Yes, the church does teach this and Elder Oaks entirely agreed in the referenced interview. If I lack a testimony of either of those as authoritatively speaking for God then I am deeply inclined to disagree with them. It's not compelling to me either when Pope Francis teaches against birth control or clergy marrying even though I largely like the guy. I don't fully buy those sources of wisdom except for when they overlap with my basic Christian humanist sensibilities.

If the LDS church wants to convince me that they are right they have to do the immensely difficult work of engaging me and the rest of the world upon logic and authority we agree upon. They are making a material claim that living authentically as a homosexual will make God angry and lead to LGBT persons sadder than the straight people. This claim has not been substantiated. Claiming to speak for God and calling it my fault when I am skeptical leaves both of us frustrated.

[Hagoth]

They are making a material claim that living authentically as a homosexual will make God angry and lead to LGBT persons sadder than the straight people. This claim has not been substantiated.

Well, it has been substantiated to some degree. If you admit to being LGBT and LDS you can be pretty certain that your church, family and peers will, intentionally or not, will perform their religious duty to make sure you are sad. What was the reason Elder Christoferson gave for the policy?

"It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years...We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

He's pretty much saying the church and its members are going to do harm to that child if they are allowed to try to engage as children of gay people. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but that is how they are unapologetically indoctrinating their membership to behave.

[orangganjil]

I don't know if my comment will actually make it past moderation, but I wanted to share it here.

I don't see your quote on the page, but it is a sentiment I share. The final reason for any LDS doctrine comes down to having a testimony of Joseph Smith and the priesthood continuing with modern prophets, seers, and revelators. This explains translations, polygamy, the Book of Mormon, temples, chastity, and any other good or bad aspect of the LDS church. Gene Schaer's foundational claim comes back to this same reasoning which is repeated in this paragraph (emphasis mine)

The Church, moreover, teaches that any temptation—including gay members’ temptation to use their procreative structures in ways that violate God’s commands—can be overcome through the atonement of Jesus Christ. As Elder Oaks put it in his interview, the Church teaches that “through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation”—including, for all of us, the temptation to engage in sex outside heterosexual marriage.

Yes, the church does teach this and Elder Oaks entirely agreed in the referenced interview. If I lack a testimony of either of those as authoritatively speaking for God then I am deeply inclined to disagree with them. It's not compelling to me either when Pope Francis teaches against birth control or clergy marrying even though I largely like the guy. I don't fully buy those sources of wisdom except for when they overlap with my basic Christian humanist sensibilities.

If the LDS church wants to convince me that they are right they have to do the immensely difficult work of engaging me and the rest of the world upon logic and authority we agree upon. They are making a material claim that living authentically as a homosexual will make God angry and lead to LGBT persons sadder than the straight people. This claim has not been substantiated. Claiming to speak for God and calling it my fault when I am skeptical leaves both of us frustrated.

Corsair, that was excellent and one of the best comments I've seen on this issue anywhere. Thank you.