Jump to content

kllindley

Members
  • Content Count

    1,425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,733 Excellent

1 Follower

About kllindley

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Idaho

Recent Profile Visitors

1,258 profile views
  1. I agree. No one said otherwise. Of course. I agree. You may remember that Elder Perry was raised by a single mother and spoke often honoring her. I highly doubt he was bashing her or any other different situations. Actually, the Proclamation acknowledges the need for individual adaptation and only condemns those who "violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities." The Church does teach that only marriage between a husband and wife had the potential to continue being this life. And they do teach that having a mother and father who honor marital vows is the best environment for children. That doesn't mean that even the worst mother/father are better than anything else. It also doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees is evil. See the next comment. Did you ever notice that Elder Perry's talk wasn't even about "other" marriages or families. It was about the idea that marriage and family were unimportant and optional. That is the counterfeit and alternative "lifestyle" he was talking about. The only examples he gives are "chosen singleness, personal freedom, cohabitation" and "recreational sex." Are those not counterfeit and alternatives to the joy that comes through commitment to family? Interestingly this is not what Elder Perry did. Again, not what anyone was saying. Counterfeit and alternative referred to lifestyles in opposition to family, not any specific family configuration.
  2. I agree that disagreement is normal. In my opinion it is even good. For instance, I am sure Daniel doesn't agree with the Church's position on marriage. However, his comment was very different in tone. I immediately commented on how much I appreciated it.
  3. He was actually very clear what he was talking about. He was talking about a culture that devalues marriage and commitment and loyalty and family. He never once referred to same-sex relationships. Which makes me amazed that so many people continue to assume that must have been what he really meant.
  4. No. No one suggested that disagreement should be shut up. I commented on the approach. If you don't think that sort of comment worked to marginalize his belief by making it sound more judgemental and extreme, what was the point? You are free to react to things I did not say however you see best. There was no attempt to control anyone who doesn't agree with me, nor did I in any way suggest that your viewpoint was not welcome. Calling out rudeness and polarizing comments is not the same as wanting you to shut up.
  5. Interesting that you seem focused on marriage. Wasn't one of the specific issues Elder Perry identified as a problem the idea that marriage is unnecessary or only about the adults?
  6. Individuals who have unprotected sex with no intention of being responsible parents, for one. Even Daniel's comment acknowledges that some structures are a result of a variety of sins. Is that offensive?
  7. What about when the belief itself hurts others? Do we have a responsibility to not express those beliefs?
  8. This is a perfect example of communication meant to silence and marginalize any belief that you disagree with. @rockpond, this is exactly what I think @Anonymous Mormon was referring to.
  9. So, if I'm understanding you, you believe that the two statements mischaracterize the individuals on the board who disagree with the Church's position on marriage. Is that correct? Specifically that 1) some people pounce on the word counterfeit when they really find the position itself offensive and immoral. And 2) that some insist that the Church isn't really showing love to LGBT individuals because the teachings are inherently harmful. You don't think anyone who comments on this board meets either of those criteria?
  10. I really respect and honor this effort. This is one of the best examples I have seen in a long time of engaging in dialogue by demonstrating a willingness to understand an alternative viewpoint and state it in a way that the other person agrees with. While I did not personally find the use of counterfeit offensive in this context, most attempts to "rewrite" the talk that I remember seeing followed @Rockpond 's approach which essentially required abandoning or at least refraining from teaching a core tenet. I came to the same conclusion as Anonymous Mormon that the truly offensive part was the doctrine regarding marriage. So, I felt no real motivation to condemn the word counterfeit. While I understand how it does communicate a specific view about marriage, I can also see how it creates unnecessary division and pain. So, thank you again.
  11. Really? How is stating how he or she perceived many on the board acting and then expressing appreciation for the thoughtful response that honored Church teaching offensive?
  12. I totally get that. My intent was not to target any specific person or comment. I specifically tried to avoid quoting anyone's comment or naming any names. My comment was an attempt to refocus the conversation without any blame. Thanks. I appreciate your respect. I'm not at all opposed to discussion of a tangent or subtopic. I just judged the direction of the conversation to be heading toward a repeat of past arguments that I don't see as having been helpful. I may have been completely wrong.
  13. This thread was about LGBT+ members bearing testimony of Christ and His Restored Gospel. Not about "allies" or disaffected individuals trying to rewrite the doctrine or sing praises of other religions.
  14. This is also my understanding. I also understand that a Stake President can request that an existing annotation be removed.
×
×
  • Create New...