Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

283 Excellent

About Gillebre

  • Rank
    Witness of Jesus Christ
  • Birthday 10/08/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Ogden, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,179 profile views
  1. I think that to boil this down to a simple "why would the Church oppose banning conversion therapy" would be inaccurate. That makes it seem like they're in favor of conversion therapy which I do not think is the case. I believe the Church means to point out related concerns connected to therapy in general, and that a broad ban on conversion therapy as proposed would overstep.
  2. I admit to not knowing any better, so I'll take you at your word, it was just an interesting thought.
  3. A woman on my mission told me that the song in D&C 84: 99-102 fit perfectly with Come, O Thou King of Kings.
  4. I've been reading from that hashtag for the last several months as there has occasionally been some valued insight. A lot of it that I've seen involves retweets criticizing some LGBT students at BYU who are known for walking the line between wanting the Church to be more lenient towards LGBT ideas (particularly at BYU and in that context) and sustaining the Prophet and Apostles. More often than not I've discovered that there is a spirit of resentment towards people, members or not, who are hostile towards the Church itself and teachings of Prophets. Their idea is that they are defenders of the good name of the Church and fight fire with fire when confronting false doctrine or wolves in sheep's clothing. They recognize the growing dissent among some Church members online who seem to hearken to the voice of bloggers and retweeters online with opinions galore rather than the still small voice. The DezNat hashtag does have several spiritually observant people, but I think a majority, from my view anyway, lack any compassion and are not measured or meek in most of the content shared and posted. As someone who is same-sex attracted myself, yet considers myself very committed to the Lord's Church, this hashtag caught my attention as it connects to their interaction with BYU students (@calvinjburke...not his real name) who are riding the fence between fully sustaining the Brethren, but wishing things were different. Calvin can be an incredible force for good, but he plays both sides as he tries to have compassion for the LGBT community he is part of while still sustaining the Prophets and not going too far. That's my take anyway. I am of the strong opinion that the association of DezNat with alt-right or white nationalism is an attempt to attack and de-legitimize the hashtag as a whole and create very real stigma. I've never encountered them being racist or advocating violence, perhaps fringe individuals, but they are very blunt and harsh, even hostile, towards those they perceive as trying to mislead others. They strongly defend the Family Proclamation. Their error is in having no compassion or love for their brothers and sisters that they oppose, there is no meekness and long-suffering. See this thread on Twitter for my take on it.
  5. I think you're right. I've found often enough the Lord using my own words to form the answer He wants me to consider. It's so easy for Satan or other influences to slip in, and if we don't dig around and expose them to the Light they'll fester like a spiritual infection. Ideally shouldn't we expose all ideals or concepts we ascribe to, to the Light, and the Holy Ghost? Then He can teach us the truth and show us how we should be looking at things.
  6. It's easier to choose to get back up if the journey back to where you were is only a few steps, including a broken heart, contrite spirit, and a game plan for victory when the next opportunity to choose righteousness and prayer over sin presents itself.
  7. My thought process being this: should I be feeling crushing weight from sins repented of and learned from? Or put my emphasis on repenting of this this, in the larger picture, small mistake, rather than yielding to the dark and evil feelings that come with ideas such as: you never really repented, there's no point because clearly you never had forgiveness at all, stop bothering the Lord.
  8. This is a perfect example. Thank you! Regarding that verse in D&C 82, does that apply to those who return to sin and refuse to repent and turn back? That's when the past sins return?
  9. I always appreciate the scriptures, thank you for sharing. My goal here is to make sure I'm not operating under false ideas of any kind. Having brought that verse forward, what do you make of all of this? Does this verse suggest we invalidate our previous repentance if we falter again in the future?
  10. I've been pondering lately about these three things and hope to get your thoughts and insight. For the longest time I've labored under the idea that if you repent of a committed sin, make real progress, and then stumble and sin again as before, then the weight, burden, and guilt of every past same sin rushes back as if you never repented of it at all. Would someone be willing to help me clear up the way I'm understanding/seeing this? I'd love any references to teachings from Scripture and/or modern Prophets that could shine a light on this potential misunderstanding. When the Lord forgives and repentance is complete, but you fall again, are you repenting from the fresh start the Savior so mercifully provided? Or are you again repenting of a now larger stack of the same sin? Some might see this idea as a cousin of once saved always saved, or you were never saved at all. This extends into the idea of whether one's repentance and the Lord's forgiveness make it as you never committed that sin, and this new instance is your "first" because the past sins were washed away, "remembered no more" by Him. I have a creeping suspicion that I've been vastly too harsh and perfectionistic by holding onto this understanding of sin and repentance. I really appreciate your thoughts.
  11. I always thought they'd be on different planets.
  12. I think it's interesting that this would also be during the year of the 200th anniversary of the organization of the Church, and the Restoration.
  13. I haven't made up my mind about this. I generally dismiss most things which use the word translation. It's just so easy for Satan to manipulate people, however I do think the phrase "you will be perfect" is interesting and thought provoking.
  14. I think you've put it very succinctly. The Church has judged that two types of family situations might present a greater challenge where family life and faithful activity meet: families of same-sex couples and those involved in polygamy. Since the precedent for this practice has already existed for years (and without the same attention this latest iteration has received), I feel like the connection and reasoning should be obvious. If I considered myself on the other side of the argument I'd want to ask, and know: what makes these kinds of families different, in the eyes of the Church, than other family types (part-member, inactive, etc...). As bluebell pointed out there is an distinction as it relates to Church membership and activity. Ignoring that distinction only demonstrates, in my opinion, that one is only perceiving part of the whole story. Why does it matter if polygamous families allow their children to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What might happen if there were no protocols for handling such situations? I can't imagine the difficulty this must pose for some couples and families, but I genuinely believe that their happiness and peace would not be helped in the long term we're this policy not in effect.
  15. I really struggle to understand and accept that people can't see the Church's reasoning for this policy. Perhaps see isn't the right word, but it's what comes to mind at this point. If this policy were not in force then there would be greater division among the families of same-sex couples over the long term, in my opinion. Those that would have their children taken to Church, either by their own hand or that of relatives or friends, would see firsthand how awful it'd be for their little ones to have certain religious expectations set that they cannot uphold or witness upheld in their closest family relationships. The child will hear an affirmation from the Family Proclamation about the sanctity of marriage, of gender, and perhaps the different roles men and women fill as parents. This will confuse them because their situation can be vastly different. They might feel singled out because it's not like it'll be a secret that their parents are a same-sex couple (married or not). There will be an increase of anxiety and tension as the example of their parents and immediate family stands apart and in contrast to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every single person on this earth, member or not, should be valued, respected, and treated with as much mercy and dignity as we can give, for that is how the Lord treats us. This policy, in my belief, is part of the Prophets looking forward with seership and prophecy and heading off a worse trial for members of the Church who are gay and their loved ones. All I ask is that if you have serious concerns about this policy then take this line of thought and continue it, and keep in mind that Satan will always try and tear families apart, ruin relationships, and tarnish the benefit of the doubt members of the Church give the Prophet. Make it a thought exercise: what might a family look like that shows, by example, one aspect of life, and then on Sunday at least some within the family will be taught and have it reinforced that romantic and sexual relationships between two people of the same gender will keep them from being like their Heavenly Parents and their Savior. They'll be taught it as an absolute because that's what we believe and what Prophets inspired of God have taught us (both by inspiration and revelation, as well as the Scriptures) while their parents don't see it as such. I would feel awful for couples in such a situation as to have beliefs they don't agree with or support taught to their children at least once a week. If they can't, in their own good conscience, be members of the Church, then why on earth would they permit their children to be (I realize that culture and tradition are important concepts to some)? Church membership and same-sex marriage are fundamentally opposite and opposed because of the Father's end design for His children: eternal marriage and offspring as numerous as the stars. Many things on earth are patterned after things in Heaven, in my opinion. The creation of children, on earth, is only possible by certain means, and possibly by extension the same is true in eternity. This is about the Father's big picture for us. More than anything I think it (a same-sex relationship) nurtures ideas and seeds in the heart during a mortal life such that the person won't want anything to do with exaltation because of their long-term same-sex relationship or marriage (assuming for the sake of argument that progression between kingdoms is possible). Christ can't exalt those who don't choose and accept it as it really is (and not as they'd wish it to be).
  • Create New...