Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flameburns623

GLBT+ Protest planned for Fast Sunday?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Despite your claims and your decision on how to title the thread, it is not a protest.

It's not my thread, and I didn't title it.

But I agree with others that it seems like a de facto protest.

The Huffington Post piece ties it to opposition to the new policy. It states:

Quote

The Rainbow Mormon Initiative is an attempt to gain visibility for LGBT+ Mormon issues within wards where discussions about the policy have yet to begin.

If that's not a protest or political demonstration, I wonder what one looks like.

This sort of thing is intrusive and distracting in a sacred worship service. It is quite unwelcome.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

They know because I tell them. We shouldn't have to talk about LGBT youth specifically (even though we do) any more than we should talk about all other interest groups specifically. We are commanded to love and show love to all. I don't want to comment on or use my LGBT friends and family and my relationship with them on a public message board, so I will refrain from using specific examples. 

People can do any number of things to show their love. Co-opting a sacred meeting without authority is a form of apostasy, no matter how good they think their intentions are (I think they are bad), and should be discouraged. 

"Co-opting a sacred meeting"... by wearing a lapel pin?  Give me a break.  A bit of an over reaction.  And without knowing them or their intentions you've decided that they are "bad".  And yet you seem to believe that we, as a church, are already showing forth love and support to our LGBT members, right?

The reason that we need to talk specifically about/to our LGBT youth is because of the hidden suffering that they are passing through.  This initiative is a way of showing those who are in the shadows that we recognize them and their pain.  It doesn't take away from the love we show others, but I believe it is needed.  It isn't a protest.  It isn't a sign of "bad intentions".

Why do you feel the need to reject this effort by others to show that love and support?  If it's not the way you would do it, fine.  You should do things your own way, which you apparently don't want to talk about.  But there is no reason to criticize this effort by others, call it a protest when it isn't, and declare that they have "bad intentions" when they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

It is time to talk about things that really affect people now.  Whether in Sacrament Meeting or in Gospel Doctrine..yeah..lets treat people like adults and quit ignoring the elephant in the room  People are dying to talk about something else..and they can actually grow from it.  Same old..same old..at least have a night class or something so people can stimulate their minds with their hearts and spiritual desires.

We all struggle..and we talk about those struggles in our churches.  But I can just bet that half the membership doesn't have a clue what it is like to be LDS and gay.  If you want to be adamant about being fair and without subsets, then talk about it all! Yes, their people just like you..imperfect in the eyes of the church.  If you want same treatment for all..then discuss it!

What makes you think it is not discussed?  I think what you may be saying is that it is better to put the Church's position, the prophets and apostles' position aside and invite an active LDS who is gay and married in to discuss their lives and how their lives could be improved if the changes were made.  First, I have never met a married gay couple who was active in the church.  Second, the Church will not abdicate its responsibility to teach truth and repentance.  

Here is the problem - there is no way around sin.  It does not work.  An individual who is sexually active in the gay lifestyle is committing sin consciously.  There is no repentance process there is an forfeiture of their commitment to follow the Savior in place of feeding their passions.  This is not unique.  Straight people do this also.  Why should it be accepted of gay people or anyone else?  

The gay lifestyle is not compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and it never has been for 2,000 years.  Society has changed, but the gospel remains the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not my thread, and I didn't title it.

But I agree with others that it seems like a de facto protest.

The Huffington Post piece ties it to opposition to the new policy. It states:

If that's not a protest or political demonstration, I wonder what one looks like.

This sort of thing is intrusive and distracting in a sacred worship service. It is quite unwelcome.

Sorry... for some reason I thought you had started the thread.  I apologize.

If the originators of the initiative state that it's purpose is to show love and support, why would you put more emphasis on an implication made by the Huffington Post... we already know your feelings about their journalism.

How is wearing a lapel pin or ribbon "intrusive or distracting"?

Can you understand the value of communicating to our LGBT youth that they are loved and supported?  Can you suggest a better way to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry... for some reason I thought you had started the thread.  I apologize.

If the originators of the initiative state that it's purpose is to show love and support, why would you put more emphasis on an implication made by the Huffington Post... we already know your feelings about their journalism.

Huffington Post didn't write the piece. A woman who is on board with the cause did. She said:

Quote

And we want to offer ourselves as safe spaces to speak openly about difficulty with the policy change, about family members who are struggling, and about changing the Mormon church from within.

She very clearly states here that she and others of her movement are "about changing the Mormon church from within." I suppose we're to forget the paradigm of the Church being governed by Jesus Christ through revelation to prophets and apostles.

Do you really think she is not a reliable source regarding the purposes and intent of this thing?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

So if I wear my chainmail tie on Sunday would that be seen as support or opposition to this movement?

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Huffington Post didn't write the piece. A woman who is on board with the cause did. She said:

She very clearly states here that she and others of her movement are "about changing the Mormon church from within." I suppose we're to forget the paradigm of the Church being governed by Jesus Christ through revelation to prophets and apostles.

Do you really think she is not a reliable source regarding the purposes and intent of this thing?

Yet somehow this is not a co-opt, is not a protest, and is only about love...

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Huffington Post didn't write the piece. A woman who is on board with the cause did. She said:

She very clearly states here that she and others of her movement are "about changing the Mormon church from within." I suppose we're to forget the paradigm of the Church being governed by Jesus Christ through revelation to prophets and apostles.

Do you really think she is not a reliable source regarding the purposes and intent of this thing?

 

41 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Yet somehow this is not a co-opt, is not a protest, and is only about love...

:blink:

Nobody is suggesting that the church isn't governed by Christ.  I'm not sure what paradigm you subscribe to.  I'm working from the one described in 1 Cor 12 and D&C 58...

We need not be commanded in all things. As the body of Christ and the church we are to progress.  Change.  That doesn't mean that we are ignoring Christ as the head, it just means that we aren't slothful servants. 

Are either of you suggesting that no change is needed in the church?

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Nobody is suggesting that the church isn't governed by Christ.  I'm not sure what paradigm you subscribe to.  I'm working from the one described in 1 Cor 12 and D&C 58...

We need not be commanded in all things. As the body of Christ and the church we are to progress.  Change.  That doesn't mean that we are ignoring Christ as the head, it just means that we aren't slothful servants. 

Are either of you suggesting that no change is needed in the church?

I do not doubt that the Restoration will continue. But this is the Kingdom of God, not a local wedding cake bakery, Mozilla Firefox or even the puny United States Government. The Lord governs differently. Loyal opposition and social pressure tactics are not found in the Lord's system of government. Where advocacy might be an effective and entirely appropriate method for effectuating change in many other institutions, such is not the divinely appointed way in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Lord has chosen and called men (and women) to lead and guide His kingdom and every level. At the highest levels, we have a prophet/president who holds keys. There are fourteen other prophets, seers and revelators who are likewise called to manage the affairs of the Kingdom of God on Earth. While President Monson is the only person who is entitled to exercise all keys, the other fourteen hold them as well. It is in them that we must look for change. It is through them the Lord will reveal His will, such as the policy that was implemented in November. Please note, I do not hold keys. You do not hold keys. John Dehlin does not hold keys. Kate Kelly does not hold keys. No member of this movement holds the keys. The revelation required to make the changes that are being demanded will not come to any one, save it be the Lord's anointed and appointed. Welcome to LDS Church/Kingdom of God governance 101.

It tells me quite a bit about how people really feel about the Lord's anointed that they think such men are so stubborn and so blind to be closed off to the Lord's will on the matter. As if the only reason SSM has not been instituted in the Church and Kingdom of God is because these men are just old and their prejudices have closed their minds and hearts to the Lord's voice and will on the matter. No, in their minds the only way to change the Church is not by revelation and priesthood authority, but by manipulation, pressure and ridicule. Such have no faith in the Lord's anointed and no faith in the Lord's power to call those who wouldn't be so prejudiced or to reveal His will in such a way so that there would be no mistaking what he wanted to have done. No faith whatsoever. Instead, they lean on their own understanding. They trust flesh and the vain philosophies and feel-goodisms that are popular today. If God wanted SSM to be a thing, it would be a thing.

I wont repeat my oft repeated statements on arc steadying. My sig line should suffice. When you enter the waters of baptism or enter the chapel doors, you leave behind your politics and your silly citizenship and affiliations; there you are a citizen of a much higher order. This order is not beholden to the ways of the world, including its governmental, manipulative, pressure tactics. That is hard for many, who rather than trust in the Lord to do His own work, feel it is their duty, even their very right, to reach forth their hand and steady the arc (as if the Lord and his servants aren't capable of doing it on their own). You can trust who you will. I will trust the Lord, His ability to call those who will restore/reveal his divine will, and those whom he has called. 

Edited by Mystery Meat

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I do not doubt that the Restoration will continue. But this is the Kingdom of God, not a local wedding cake bakery, Mozilla Firefox or even the puny United States Government. The Lord governs differently. Loyal opposition and social pressure tactics are not found in the Lord's system of government. Where advocacy might be an effective and entirely appropriate method for effectuating change in many other institutions, such is not the divinely appointed way in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Lord has chosen and called men (and women) to lead and guide His kingdom and every level. At the highest levels, we have a prophet/president who holds keys. There are fourteen other prophets, seers and revelators who are likewise called to manage the affairs of the Kingdom of God on Earth. While President Monson is the only person who is entitled to exercise all keys, the other fourteen hold them as well. It is in them that we must look for change. It is through them the Lord will reveal His will, such as the policy that was implemented in November. Please note, I do not hold keys. You do not hold keys. John Dehlin does not hold keys. Kate Kelly does not hold keys. No member of this movement holds the keys. The revelation required to make the changes that are being demanded will not come to any one, save it be the Lord's anointed and appointed. Welcome to LDS Church/Kingdom of God governance 101.

It tells me quite a bit about how people really feel about the Lord's anointed that they think such men are so stubborn and so blind to be closed off to the Lord's will on the matter. As if the only reason SSM has not been instituted in the Church and Kingdom of God is because these men are just old and their prejudices have closed their minds and hearts to the Lord's voice and will on the matter. No, in their minds the only way to change the Church is not by revelation and priesthood authority, but by manipulation, pressure and ridicule. Such have no faith in the Lord's anointed and no faith in the Lord's power to call those who wouldn't be so prejudiced or to reveal His will in such a way so that there would be no mistaking what he wanted to have done. No faith whatsoever. Instead, they lean on their own understanding. They trust flesh and the vain philosophies and feel-goodisms that are popular today. If God wanted SSM to be a thing, it would be a thing.

I wont repeat my oft repeated statements on arc steadying. My sig line should suffice. When you enter the waters of baptism or enter the chapel doors, you leave behind your politics and your silly citizenship and affiliations; there you are a citizen of a much higher order. This order is not beholden to the ways of the world, including its governmental, manipulative, pressure tactics. That is hard for many, who rather than trust in the Lord to do His own work, feel it is their duty, even their very right, to reach forth their hand and steady the arc (as if the Lord and his servants are capable of doing it on their own). You can trust who you will. I will trust the Lord, His ability to call those who will restore/reveal his divine will, and those whom he has called. 

All of that because a group wants to show love and support for a struggling group of members by wearing a small ribbon to church?  I think you are reading far too much into the initiative.

And you didn't even answer my question. 

Edited by rockpond
Comment

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

All of that because a group wants to show love and support for a struggling group of members by wearing a small ribbon to church?  I think you are reading far too much into the initiative.

And you didn't even answer my question. 

No. This not because they want to show love and support. Go re-read the article. They want to change the church. This is one way among many they propose to do it. 

And I did answer your question. Re-read my post. This time carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

 

Nobody is suggesting that the church isn't governed by Christ.  I'm not sure what paradigm you subscribe to.  I'm working from the one described in 1 Cor 12 and D&C 58...

We need not be commanded in all things. As the body of Christ and the church we are to progress.  Change.  That doesn't mean that we are ignoring Christ as the head, it just means that we aren't slothful servants. 

Are either of you suggesting that no change is needed in the church?

Not the kind that comes about through open opposition to the anointed servants of God. Historically, that only results in schisms and apostasy.

The apostle Paul also said:

 

Quote

 

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

(Galatians 1:6-9)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So if I wear my chainmail tie on Sunday would that be seen as support or opposition to this movement?

I actually like the tie pictured in the stock photo in the blog post linked to in the OP. Too bad it has been ruined now by political activism.

Ah well, they can co-opt a style motif, but they can't co-opt the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
On June 1, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Mystery Meat said:

I do not doubt that the Restoration will continue. But this is the Kingdom of God, not a local wedding cake bakery, Mozilla Firefox or even the puny United States Government. The Lord governs differently. Loyal opposition and social pressure tactics are not found in the Lord's system of government. Where advocacy might be an effective and entirely appropriate method for effectuating change in many other institutions, such is not the divinely appointed way in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Lord has chosen and called men (and women) to lead and guide His kingdom and every level. At the highest levels, we have a prophet/president who holds keys. There are fourteen other prophets, seers and revelators who are likewise called to manage the affairs of the Kingdom of God on Earth. While President Monson is the only person who is entitled to exercise all keys, the other fourteen hold them as well. It is in them that we must look for change. It is through them the Lord will reveal His will, such as the policy that was implemented in November. Please note, I do not hold keys. You do not hold keys. John Dehlin does not hold keys. Kate Kelly does not hold keys. No member of this movement holds the keys. The revelation required to make the changes that are being demanded will not come to any one, save it be the Lord's anointed and appointed. Welcome to LDS Church/Kingdom of God governance 101.

It tells me quite a bit about how people really feel about the Lord's anointed that they think such men are so stubborn and so blind to be closed off to the Lord's will on the matter. As if the only reason SSM has not been instituted in the Church and Kingdom of God is because these men are just old and their prejudices have closed their minds and hearts to the Lord's voice and will on the matter. No, in their minds the only way to change the Church is not by revelation and priesthood authority, but by manipulation, pressure and ridicule. Such have no faith in the Lord's anointed and no faith in the Lord's power to call those who wouldn't be so prejudiced or to reveal His will in such a way so that there would be no mistaking what he wanted to have done. No faith whatsoever. Instead, they lean on their own understanding. They trust flesh and the vain philosophies and feel-goodisms that are popular today. If God wanted SSM to be a thing, it would be a thing.

I wont repeat my oft repeated statements on arc steadying. My sig line should suffice. When you enter the waters of baptism or enter the chapel doors, you leave behind your politics and your silly citizenship and affiliations; there you are a citizen of a much higher order. This order is not beholden to the ways of the world, including its governmental, manipulative, pressure tactics. That is hard for many, who rather than trust in the Lord to do His own work, feel it is their duty, even their very right, to reach forth their hand and steady the arc (as if the Lord and his servants aren't capable of doing it on their own). You can trust who you will. I will trust the Lord, His ability to call those who will restore/reveal his divine will, and those whom he has called. 

 

Bravo. Very eloquently stated.

And good sig line.

You could add the account of the incident when Aaron and Miriam tried to wrest authority from Moses, "the most meek of all men." (Numbers 12)

This is in the chapter just after Moses says, "Would that all Gods people were prophets and that he wold put his spirit on every one." Obviously, this doesn't mean people are permitted to usurp the authority of chosen servants of God.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

No. This not because they want to show love and support. Go re-read the article. They want to change the church. This is one way among many they propose to do it. 

And I did answer your question. Re-read my post. This time carefully.

From the article:

Quote

On June 5, 2016, a group of Mormons who are allies of their LGBT+ brothers and sisters will be launching an initiative to show their support and love by wearing rainbow ribbons to church (or wearing them on Sundays if they do not attend) and posting photos of themselves online. The Rainbow Mormon Initiative also encourages those who wish to participate to knit or crochet scarves, hats, or blankets to donate to Ogden Youth Futures, a shelter for homeless LGBT+ teens in northern Utah.

and

Quote

The simple act of wearing a rainbow ribbon does make a change for the better. It signals to others that we are safe spaces for those who are in crisis.

And my question was:

Quote

Are either of you suggesting that no change is needed in the church?

You indicated that the restoration would continue.  That isn't really what I asked.  Do you think change is needed in the church?  Can I assume from your response that the answer is "yes".

If so, why can't they encourage more support and outreach for LGBT members?  How is that arc steadying or any of the other things you are opposed to?

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Bravo. Very eloquently stated.

And good sig line.

You could add the account of the incident when Aaron and Miriam tried to wrest authority from Moses, "the most meek of all men." (Numbers 12)

This is in the chapter just after Moses says, "Would that all Gods people were prophets and that he wold put his spirit on every one." Obviously, this doesn't meant people are permitted to usurp the authority of chosen servants of God.

 

How are they usurping any authority by wearing a ribbon to church?

 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not the kind that comes about through open opposition to the anointed servants of God. Historically, that only results in schisms and apostasy.

The apostle Paul also said:

 

(Galatians 1:6-9)

What are they doing to openly oppose the anointed servants of God?

It's an effort to show love and support to a group who is hurting.  I think that is quite in line with what the anointed servants of God have been teaching us.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I actually like the tie pictured in the stock photo in the blog post linked to in the OP. Too bad it has been ruined now by political activism.

Ah well, they can co-opt a style motif, but they can't co-opt the Church of Jesus Christ.

The tie has been ruined?  Straight people can wear the rainbow but some may conclude that you are accepting of LGBT people.  Is that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rockpond said:

From the article:

and

And my question was:

You indicated that the restoration would continue.  That isn't really what I asked.  Do you think change is needed in the church?  Can I assume from your response that the answer is "yes".

If so, why can't they encourage more support and outreach for LGBT members?  How is that arc steadying or any of the other things you are opposed to?

Nice selective quote mining. Also from the Article:

Quote
Quote

And we want to offer ourselves as safe spaces to speak openly about difficulty with the policy change, about family members who are struggling, and about changing the Mormon church from within.

 

So no, in their own words, they are trying to change the Mormon church. You can keep distorting the reality and continue to claim that this is all about love. It is not. This is about trying to change the Mormon church, contrary to the established order.

As for change, my answer is, I will leave that up to the Lord. It is not my place or calling to decide what does or doesn't need to change. I trust the Lord to oversee His kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Nice selective quote mining. Also from the Article:

So no, in their own words, they are trying to change the Mormon church. You can keep distorting the reality and continue to claim that this is all about love. It is not. This is about trying to change the Mormon church, contrary to the established order.

It wasn't selective quote mining... those quotes are the ones that explain the change they want:  charity, support, safe spaces, and love.  What change do you think they are trying to make?

27 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

As for change, my answer is, I will leave that up to the Lord. It is not my place or calling to decide what does or doesn't need to change. I trust the Lord to oversee His kingdom.

So we should wait to be commanded in all things?  I also trust the Lord to oversee his Kingdom.  But that doesn't mean I don't need to do my part.

You seem to have seized upon the idea of "change" as if it is a bad thing.  When someone gives a talk in sacrament meeting, aren't they hoping to effectuate a change in the hearts of at least some of those who are listening?  When we teach a class at church, aren't we hoping to make a change in the lives of those who are there?  Or hoping that those who are listening might make a change in the lives of those around them?

Edited by rockpond
additional comments

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

How are they usurping any authority by wearing a ribbon to church?

 

Facile

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What are they doing to openly oppose the anointed servants of God?

It's an effort to show love and support to a group who is hurting.  I think that is quite in line with what the anointed servants of God have been teaching us.

Facile. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Facile

 

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Facile. 

 

No, it's you and MM who are making this more complicated than it actually is. 

And your inability to defend your statements is noted. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, rockpond said:

It wasn't selective quote mining... those quotes are the ones that explain the change they want:  charity, support, safe spaces, and love.  What change do you think they are trying to make?

I was not aware that the LDS church was against charity, support, and love.  

BTW,  speaking of  “safe spaces,”  what about “safe spaces” for church members who agree with the church?  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

I was not aware that the LDS church was against charity, support, and love.  

BTW,  speaking of  “safe spaces,”  what about “safe spaces” for church members who agree with the church?  

The LDS church isn't against charity, support, and love.  Could we use more?  Certainly.

Are there not currently sufficient safe spaces at church for members who agree with the church?  Is that a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...