Tyler Glenn is at it again

[Avatar4321]

On 8/10/2016 at 5:46 PM, rockpond said:

You don't need to care.

As a member of the church, you might want to care given that he was a faithful gay church member who felt betrayed by both the Nov policy and the false narrative he was raised with.  If nobody you are close to have been similarly affected, consider yourself fortunate.

Faithful members dont attack the church. Especially when we receive Revelation on a topic

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm so sorry that Lev 20 represents the God you believe in. 

Um other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who revealed that chapter, who are we supposed to believe in? And why do you think we should rejecting the Lord to believe in this unscriptural god?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Faithful members dont attack the church. Especially when we receive Revelation on a topic

I said he WAS a faithful member of the church.  The November policy was the trigger that led to a deep dive into church history.  He was out before Elder Nelson tried to blanket the policy in "revelation". 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Um other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who revealed that chapter, who are we supposed to believe in? And why do you think we should rejecting the Lord to believe in this unscriptural god?

The God of the New Testament.  You should believe however the Spirit testifies to you.  As for me, I'm done believing in the literal correctness of stuff like Leviticus 20.  I won't condemn a group of people on the hope that those verses were received, written, interpreted, and translated correctly over the millennia. 

[Avatar4321]

On 8/12/2016 at 2:06 PM, rockpond said:

I said he WAS a faithful member of the church.  The November policy was the trigger that led to a deep dive into church history.  He was out before Elder Nelson tried to blanket the policy in "revelation". 

so president nelson Is lying about revelation?

people don't just go from faithful to faithless.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The God of the New Testament.  You should believe however the Spirit testifies to you.  As for me, I'm done believing in the literal correctness of stuff like Leviticus 20.  I won't condemn a group of people on the hope that those verses were received, written, interpreted, and translated correctly over the millennia. 

no one asked you to condemn anyone. That doesn't change that the Lord revealed the law of Moses to the people. The God of the old and new testament are the same. Though I am sure there is someone who wants you to think differently.

[mnn727]

 

Quote

 

Tyler Glenn is at it again

 

 

 

Who? Never heard of him.

[Gray]

On 8/11/2016 at 2:09 PM, bluebell said:

For good or bad, i think this was part of the reason for the policy change.  I think, and as you've stated as well, that people were starting to feel like the church was moving towards eventual acceptance of SSM and actively (for lack of a better term) gay members.  The policy re-drew some lines in the sand that those people had previously thought were starting to fade.

But I don't think the policy was really anything new.  Just newly worded, maybe?  

A couple of new things from the policy:

• Defining gay people in same sex relationships as apostates and prescribing mandatory discipline. Neither of those applied previously
• Initially the policy as written would have forbidden any child from being baptized if either parent had EVER been in a gay relationship. The policy was later clarified to only apply to kids with a custodial parent currently in such a relationship. Both of those rules were brand new

Edited August 12, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The God of the New Testament.  You should believe however the Spirit testifies to you.  As for me, I'm done believing in the literal correctness of stuff like Leviticus 20.  I won't condemn a group of people on the hope that those verses were received, written, interpreted, and translated correctly over the millennia.

False separation and you know it.
It's the same God.
An unchanging, eternal God bound by the laws of the universe.

Unless you can show that there was an error in doctrine in Leviticus, the principle of right and wrong that that law and penalty were based on came from God too, even if the penalty and law appear to have changed under Christ.

Moses was God's prophet.  God sentenced those guilty of that crime to death.  Moses and the Children of Israel presumably executed that penalty on occasion without losing favor in the sight of God.  The Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ but there is no evidence the principle that brought about the law changed in the eyes of God.

Saying "Oh, that's Old Testament and can be ignored" shows a complete lack of understanding of the New Testament.

[Danzo]

On 8/10/2016 at 3:14 PM, Rain said:

It's possible he doesn't actually know who it is.  I didn't till I read about him here on the last thread.  I knew some of the songs he had,  but couldn't have told you the name of the group and definitely not the names of the musicians. 

I only heard about him here as well.

I guess I need to listen to the radio more.

[Mystery Meat]

I think part of the problem here and for so many others is that the actions the Church took in regards to LGBT in the years after Prop 8 and before the November revelation on these unique circumstance families, is that there was this perception that the Church softening its stance on SSM. In some minds, and I am not arguing that this was necessarily unreasonable, they were starting to see a path towards full recognition of SSM within the Church itself. The November revelation showed not that the Church had ever changed its stance on SSM and homosexuality, but that it was trying to reach out to a community of sinners who was in particular need of out reach. Wounds needed healing and bridges needed mending. But with the official legalization of SSM and its growing popularity, new challenges were sure to arise. The Church could not redefine what God had previously defined. They could not call "good evil, and evil, good." 

This put a road block in the way of some's vision of full inclusion and recognition, if not a permanent obstacle. As one poster recently wrote, it was as if the boats were burned at this point and there was no going back.

I believe that this belief that the Church was moving towards a change is what caused a good portion of the heated reaction back in November. It crushed a dream and made the revelation, the Church and the implications seem like a betrayal. I also believe that when anyone teaches, claims (whether publicly or privately, via this board, others like it or in conversation), or espouses their belief that the Church will change this "policy" is doing a great disservice to themselves and to others. I do not believe that the Church's stance on SSM will ever change. I also believe that the longer it remains in place and the more people say it will change, the more angry those who believe it will change are going to be. 

My advice to such, is to operate and the assumption that it will never change, at least not in the way hoped for. 

[Rivers]

Now that the church has drawn this line in the sand concerning gay marriage, we can have more realistic conversations about this topic.  It is unrealistic to hope that the church will change on this one. 

[rockpond]

22 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

so president nelson I lying about revelation?

people don't just go from faithful to faithless.

I don't think he was lying.  I also don't believe it was revelation in the way I understand revelation. 

And, yes, people do go from faithful to faithless.  Have you listened to or read Tyler's story?

Edited August 13, 2016 by rockpond

[rockpond]

22 hours ago, Gray said:

A couple of new things from the policy:

• Defining gay people in same sex relationships as apostates and prescribing mandatory discipline. Neither of those applied previously
• Initially the policy as written would have forbidden any child from being baptized if either parent had EVER been in a gay relationship. The policy was later clarified to only apply to kids with a custodial parent currently in such a relationship. Both of those rules were brand new

And the policy still exists, in its original form without the "clarification", in the handbook. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by rockpond

[rockpond]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

False separation and you know it.
It's the same God.
An unchanging, eternal God bound by the laws of the universe.

Unless you can show that there was an error in doctrine in Leviticus, the principle of right and wrong that that law and penalty were based on came from God too, even if the penalty and law appear to have changed under Christ.

Moses was God's prophet.  God sentenced those guilty of that crime to death.  Moses and the Children of Israel presumably executed that penalty on occasion without losing favor in the sight of God.  The Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ but there is no evidence the principle that brought about the law changed in the eyes of God.

Saying "Oh, that's Old Testament and can be ignored" shows a complete lack of understanding of the New Testament.

I do think "condemn" is a fitting word for the belief you hold to.  And I stand by my previous statement:

I'm done believing in the literal correctness of stuff like Leviticus 20.  I won't condemn a group of people on the hope that those verses were received, written, interpreted, and translated correctly over the millennia.

[rockpond]

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

I only heard about him here as well.

I guess I need to listen to the radio more.

His band is (or was?) Neon Trees.  While you may have heard their songs on the radio, you'd have to really be following the group to know the lead singer's name. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

Now that the church has drawn this line in the sand concerning gay marriage, we can have more realistic conversations about this topic.  It is unrealistic to hope that the church will change on this one. 

You and MM can call me unrealistic but I will continue to believe that it will change.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

And the policy still exists, in its original form without the "clarification", in the handbook. 

I didn't know this.  I thought that the clarification would some how be included..at least.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I didn't know this.  I thought that the clarification would some how be included..at least.

No, they didn't change the language in the handbook.  Which is odd since its digital and could easily be updated.

Bishops are supposed to keep all of the letters in their office for reference.  But in over four years as a bishop's counselor and in many more years than that of having served in other bishopric callings, I never saw a bishop cross-reference the handbook with past letters.  It's unrealistic to expect such, especially these days when we access it directly online. 

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, they didn't change the language in the handbook.  Which is odd since its digital and could easily be updated.

Bishops are supposed to keep all of the letters in their office for reference.  But in over four years as a bishop's counselor and in many more years than that of having served in other bishopric callings, I never saw a bishop cross-reference the handbook with past letters.  It's unrealistic to expect such, especially these days when we access it directly online. 

Thank you for the information.  You would think this would be the one thing they would add the handbook.  Waiting for change???

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you for the information.  You would think this would be the one thing they would add the handbook.  Waiting for change???

There are rumors that the handbook is being updated.  A new version being published.  But they added the new section on children of gay marriage and the update to the apostasy definitions and then sent a letter changing the language just one week later.  I can't figure out why they wouldn't have updated the language that said something different than their intent.  Unless they either 1) need the original language in the handbook for legal protection, as has been theorized -or- 2) a new revamp/publication is forthcoming that will significantly alter the children of gay marriage and apostasy sections.

ETA:  On the "plus" side from the Church leadership perspective -- the November policy and accompanying publicity may have had the effect of making the policy even less important because it pushed away so many gay members and allies.  I think it is far less likely that children of gay parents will want to get baptized or that gay parents will even allow it.

Edited August 15, 2016 by rockpond

[sunstoned]

On 8/12/2016 at 5:20 AM, Avatar4321 said:

Faithful members dont attack the church. Especially when we receive Revelation on a topic

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I feel Tyler is very hurt and frustrated. He is trying to be heard.  Perhaps if the Q15 has some type of process in place where there could be a communication between them and individual memembers, these public type of things might be avoided.

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I feel Tyler is very hurt and frustrated. He is trying to be heard.  Perhaps if the Q15 has some type of process in place where there could be a communication between them and individual memembers, these public type of things might be avoided.

To what end though?
I agree that members that are hurt and frustrated by things in the Church should have a channel to be heard through.
But any expectation of a change against principles is just going to lead to more hurt and frustration.  If all the meetings and discussion in the world were to occur it still won't change doctrinal principle without a revelation (and maybe not even then).

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To what end though?
I agree that members that are hurt and frustrated by things in the Church should have a channel to be heard through.
But any expectation of a change against principles is just going to lead to more hurt and frustration.  If all the meetings and discussion in the world were to occur it still won't change doctrinal principle without a revelation (and maybe not even then).

Perhaps.  But I can't help thinking a face to face meeting with a GA would go a long ways to promote understanding.  Yes, the message might be the same, but maybe a honest discussion on how the decision was reached would help.  I am just thinking out loud here.  Right now there is an attitude (right or wrong) that the GA's are untouchable and are disconnected with reality.  That isn't a perception that a good leader should tolerate.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps.  But I can't help thinking a face to face meeting with a GA would go a long ways to promote understanding.  Yes, the message might be the same, but maybe a honest discussion on how the decision was reached would help.  I am just thinking out loud here.  Right now there is an attitude (right or wrong) that the GA's are untouchable and are disconnected with reality.  That isn't a perception that a good leader should tolerate.

Agreed.

And it is important to note, because I'm not sure it is understood by everyone here, that the November policy may have been a catalyst but it was not necessarily THE thing that made him lose his testimony and leave the church.