Tyler Glenn is at it again

[sunstoned]

On 8/15/2016 at 10:01 PM, rockpond said:

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.

In my opinion, there is seldom just one thing that causes a significant paradigm shift in one's beliefs.  It is usually an accumulation of things over the weeks, months and possibly years.  I'm not sure that any of us really knows where Tyler is with his beliefs.  However, I think it is safe to say that he is hurting.   

[toon]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 3:16 PM, rockpond said:

For cohabitation it is permissible to not hold a council.  And I've seen that choice be made by a bishop.  Whereas a gay marriage doesn't give the bishop/SP a choice. 

As for your second point, which is valid, I've learned not to predict outcomes of disciplinary councils.  I know that what you are describing seems clear cut but once you are in that room and the spirit prevails... I've been surprised at the outcome. 

I thought the November policy defined as apostasy both same sex marriage and living in a same-sex relationship, requiring (not up to local leaders' discretion) excommunication.  Meaning that same-sex cohabitation was considered apostasy just as much as marriage.

[toon]

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 4:20 AM, Avatar4321 said:

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

Perhaps.  My understanding was that he was faithful, albeit struggling, up to the November 2015 policy change. He felt betrayed and minimalized by those changes, and then started examining other aspects of the Church, which lead to a greater feeling of betrayal and disillusionment.  That's at least my recollection of his story.

There's no doubt that he's not a faithful member now.  But I've yet to see or hear anything indicating that he wasn't at one time a faithful member.

I don't understand the seeming need to pooh-pooh his experiences and feelings.  That's as childish as someone who laughs at those who break down and cry when bearing their testimony.

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by toon

[Calm]

1 hour ago, toon said:

I thought the November policy defined as apostasy both same sex marriage and living in a same-sex relationship, requiring (not up to local leaders' discretion) excommunication.  Meaning that same-sex cohabitation was considered apostasy just as much as marriage.

No, just same sex marriage.

Cohabitation as well as marriage applies to the delaying of baptisms of children of parents living in a same sex marriage or cohabiting in a same sex relationship until 18, at which time the child decides, etc.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, toon said:

Perhaps.  My understanding was that he was faithful, albeit struggling, up to the November 2015 policy change. He felt betrayed and minimalized by those changes, and then started examining other aspects of the Church, which lead to a greater feeling of betrayal and disillusionment.  That's at least my recollection of his story.

There's no doubt that he's not a faithful member now.  But I've yet to see or hear anything indicating that he wasn't at one time a faithful member.

I don't understand the seeming need to pooh-pooh his experiences and feelings.  That's as childish as someone who laughs at those who break down and cry when bearing their testimony.

 

That's my understanding of Tyler's story as well. 

And I completely agree with your closing sentiments. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, just same sex marriage.

Cohabitation as well as marriage applies to the delaying of baptisms of children of parents living in a same sex marriage or cohabiting in a same sex relationship until 18, at which time the child decides, etc.

Yes. 

And the "etc" is that the child must disavow his/her parents' relationship.  

[Calm]

Ran out of time.  Thanks for adding the detail.

[Avatar4321]

On 8/12/2016 at 6:09 PM, Mystery Meat said:

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. 

The question is why would anyone ever assume that sinful behavior will be accepted in the first place?

[Avatar4321]

On 8/15/2016 at 6:12 PM, 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.

He is hurt and frustrated that sin continues to be sin? That we aren't going to baptize children and undermind their parents?  That seems to be the problem here. He is upset and frustrated that God isn't bending to His whims. Id like God to listen to what I want more often too but that doesn't lead me to attack Him and His Church. This isn't the behavior of someone who is faithful no matter what they claim

[Avatar4321]

On 8/15/2016 at 9:53 PM, 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.

Why settle with a GA when you can go above their heads to the Lord and discuss it with Him? Why is that never considered an option to the self professed faithful who attack the Church?

[Avatar4321]

12 hours ago, toon said:

Perhaps.  My understanding was that he was faithful, albeit struggling, up to the November 2015 policy change. He felt betrayed and minimalized by those changes, and then started examining other aspects of the Church, which lead to a greater feeling of betrayal and disillusionment.  That's at least my recollection of his story.

There's no doubt that he's not a faithful member now.  But I've yet to see or hear anything indicating that he wasn't at one time a faithful member.

I don't understand the seeming need to pooh-pooh his experiences and feelings.  That's as childish as someone who laughs at those who break down and cry when bearing their testimony.

 

He felt betrayed by the status quo being reinforced in written policy?

And who is Pooh poohing his experience? 

 

Who is responsible his actions? The church or himseld

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

The question is why would anyone ever assume that sinful behavior will be accepted in the first place?

I don't know anyone who assumes "sinful behavior" will be accepted.  Only people who believe that we might be mistaken in what we've defined as "sinful" when it comes to gay marriage.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

He is hurt and frustrated that sin continues to be sin? That we aren't going to baptize children and undermind their parents?  That seems to be the problem here. He is upset and frustrated that God isn't bending to His whims. Id like God to listen to what I want more often too but that doesn't lead me to attack Him and His Church. This isn't the behavior of someone who is faithful no matter what they claim

No.  If you listen to his story, he is hurt and frustrated that he was raised on and taught a false narrative in the Church.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why settle with a GA when you can go above their heads to the Lord and discuss it with Him? Why is that never considered an option to the self professed faithful who attack the Church?

Why do you think he hasn't gone to the Lord?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

He felt betrayed by the status quo being reinforced in written policy?

It wasn't the status quo... thus the need for a new policy.  But the November policy was only one small aspect of the betrayal that he felt.

 

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

And who is Pooh poohing his experience? 

People who are posting here.  Just read the thread.

 

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Who is responsible his actions? The church or himseld

He is responsible for his actions.  I've seen nothing to suggest that he doesn't think he is.

Likewise, the Church and its leaders are responsible for their actions.

 

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't know anyone who assumes "sinful behavior" will be accepted.  Only people who believe that we might be mistaken in what we've defined as "sinful" when it comes to gay marriage.

so you're expecting God to reveal that He has been lying to us on the matter for millennia? You seriously think this is a reasonable position to take?

the Lord isn't the one being called to repentance. We are. Any expectation that He is just going conform His positions on sin to us is arrogant and just plain irrational. The Lord is not going to make it so that we can find happiness in sin. It isn't in the program.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

so you're expecting God to reveal that He has been lying to us on the matter for millennia? You seriously think this is a reasonable position to take?

the Lord isn't the one being called to repentance. We are. Any expectation that He is just going conform His positions on sin to us is arrogant and just plain irrational. The Lord is not going to make it so that we can find happiness in sin. It isn't in the program.

No, I don't believe that God has been lying to us.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Why do you think he hasn't gone to the Lord?

because if he had he wouldnt be attacking the Church and we wouldnt be having this conversation about him nor would we be discussing the general authorities meeting with every critic who has a problem with a revelation

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

because if he had he wouldnt be attacking the Church and we wouldnt be having this conversation about him nor would we be discussing the general authorities meeting with every critic who has a problem with a revelation

Sorry, but you conclusion here is unsupported.  You are making much to large a leap.

Going to the Lord wouldn't necessarily have kept him from leaving the church nor would it have kept him from disagreeing the general authorities.