Asked to teach a class about answering and dealing with hard questions

[cinepro]

29 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

That reminds me of another point rongo could raise in a WoW discussion. Ask the youth which faith group lives the longest. Someone will say "Mormons." Then correct them and explain how Adventists actually live longer, in large part because they obey the "eat meat sparingly" instruction much better than Mormons. FWIW, I don't recommend teaching this to adults as you'll have to run for your life.

Hopefully none of them point out that they are in violation of D&C 49:18.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds good.  I think what you say above was word for word said by my youth leaders back in the late 80s/early 90s era, interestingly enough.  of course you'd have to set the dates back a decade or two for it to work.  I dont' know how many girls from high school got pregnant, but I also don't recall anyone making a big deal about those who did.  My son on the other hand has mentioned to me each time a teenage girl gets pregnant, it seems. 

My mother got pregnant with me out of wedlock in the late 70s.  I know people who got pregnant out of wedlock in the 50s.  Anyone who thinks that society is the same now as it used to be in regards to premarital sex and out of wedlock children is confused.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My mother got pregnant with me out of wedlock in the late 70s.  I know people who got pregnant out of wedlock in the 50s.  Anyone who thinks that society is the same now as it used to be in regards to premarital sex and out of wedlock children is confused.

huh? 

[cinepro]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm not talking about the teachings, but society's reaction to the teachings.

As far as our current society is concerned, the idea that two consenting adults can do something that is a sin and immoral is a completely outdated belief system.  

A few decades ago, society and the church's teachings on sex before marriage were pretty equal.  Now, they are contradictory.  That in itself does not mean that the church needs to change though.  The fact that the church's teachings might be a bad joke to today's teenagers really means absolutely nothing in regards to whether or not they are true or false teachings.

I think that line of thinking misses the point regarding the younger generation's attitudes towards homosexuality and Church teachings on such behaviors.  

More traditionally-minded members of the Church can keep telling themselves that it isn't different with the confidence that they see what is happening and have chosen the proper course of action.  And they may be right.  

I'm just saying that from what I can see, it is fundamentally different.  And I suspect the more traditionally-minded will stay the course if only because there is no other alternative  (there can't be an Official Declaration 3 to fix the issue).

Only time will tell.

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think that line of thinking misses the point regarding the younger generation's attitudes towards homosexuality and Church teachings on such behaviors.  

More traditionally-minded members of the Church can keep telling themselves that it isn't different with the confidence that they see what is happening and have chosen the proper course of action.  And they may be right.  

I'm just saying that from what I can see, it is fundamentally different.  And I suspect the more traditionally-minded will stay the course if only because there is no other alternative  (there can't be an Official Declaration 3 to fix the issue).

Only time will tell.

I don't think that the more traditionally-minded stay the course because they have no choice (i.e., because the ships were burned on the shore, and there's no turning back. Or, like you put it, because there can't be an OD3 to fix it). I think, by and large, the traditionally-minded stay the course because they believe in the traditional morality. And, despite society's big shift in favor of the sexual revolution, there are still lots of people (including young people) who are traditionally-minded and yearn for traditional morals. 

When Elder Perry said in 2009 (in answer to a question on why the Church got involved with Prop 8 ) that the Lord had told them to move then and there, he also said that the Church impressed individuals who would remember that, and who were disenchanted with the slide in society and churches' failure to stand up against it. The Church's stance on moral issues will continue to be a beacon to people like that who yearn for traditional morality, but find it increasingly mocked and discounted. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I think that line of thinking misses the point regarding the younger generation's attitudes towards homosexuality and Church teachings on such behaviors.  

More traditionally-minded members of the Church can keep telling themselves that it isn't different with the confidence that they see what is happening and have chosen the proper course of action.  And they may be right.  

I'm just saying that from what I can see, it is fundamentally different.  And I suspect the more traditionally-minded will stay the course if only because there is no other alternative  (there can't be an Official Declaration 3 to fix the issue).

Only time will tell.

If it misses the point, then what is the point?

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

That reminds me of another point rongo could raise in a WoW discussion. Ask the youth which faith group lives the longest. Someone will say "Mormons." Then correct them and explain how Adventists actually live longer, in large part because they obey the "eat meat sparingly" instruction much better than Mormons. 

Can you give me a reference for that?

I believe you, but I always like to have references to these kinds of facts before sharing with others.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think that the more traditionally-minded stay the course because they have no choice (i.e., because the ships were burned on the shore, and there's no turning back. Or, like you put it, because there can't be an OD3 to fix it). I think, by and large, the traditionally-minded stay the course because they believe in the traditional morality. And, despite society's big shift in favor of the sexual revolution, there are still lots of people (including young people) who are traditionally-minded and yearn for traditional morals. 

 

To use the analogy of OD2, in 1976 there were members of the Church who weren't happy about the ban.  There were also people for whom the ban wasn't as much of a problem.  It was a struggle for the first group to reconcile the ban with the other doctrines of the Church and its teachings about the nature of God.  Teenagers may have raised their hands and asked questions about it.  But that issue was able to be resolved to a great degree because OD2 allowed change to happen in the context of Church doctrines.  The "traditionally minded" who believed in a "traditional curse" for black people didn't have to stay the course because the Church was able to change course.  

Now, the Church has effectively established a doctrine (and policy) of a "homosexual curse".  There are those for whom these doctrines and policies and teachings aren't much of a problem.  They might know some gay people, or have friends or family members who are gay, and they might have compassion for them and sympathy or empathy, but they're at peace with the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality, so it's not an area of concern.

What I'm talking about are the members of the Church (and in the context of this thread, the teenagers) for whom the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality are not consistent with their personal experience (and, dare I say, spiritual witness) about the nature and consequences of homosexual behavior.

An example:  there is a very "orthodox" family in my Stake.  The kids are what would be called "Molly Mormons" or "Peter Priesthoods"; the parents are salt-of-the-Earth builders of the Kingdom.  But the family has a homosexual relative who was a great friend and role model to the children growing up.  And a few years ago, this relative got married.  And the family went to the wedding to support her.  And it was a great experience for everyone.  The relative and her spouse continue to be a positive part of this family's lives.

Fast forward to this year in Seminary, where my daughter is in the same class as the daughter from this family.  During a lesson, the subject of homosexuals came up, and the teacher (not the most tactful woman, to be sure) felt it was a good time to share the Church's doctrines about homosexuality and gay marriage.  Obviously, the daughter had heard this stuff before, but apparently she finally connected the dots and took great offense at what the teacher was saying.  Because the teacher wasn't talking about the homosexual degenerates who haunt the shadows and try and recruit unsuspecting young men into their perversions.  She was talking about this girl's beloved relative, who she knows isn't perfect but who didn't fit the brand being placed on her by the teacher (and the Church). And she let her objections be known (to the shock of the teacher, who did not expect this from that student).

So that's great that there are LDS (maybe lots of them) who are okay with the Church's doctrines, policies and teachings on homosexuality and are willing to carry the banner on for decades and generations to come.  The problem is that there are no doubt more and more who aren't so happy with it.  To paraphrase Alma, they have "planted the seed" of the Church's teachings, allowed it to grow, and found it to be a rotten fruit.  In the past, they would keep their mouths shut.  But if that day in Seminary is any indication, that time is coming to an end.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Can you give me a reference for that?

I believe you, but I always like to have references to these kinds of facts before sharing with others.

It's tough to search at the moment since I'm on a mobile but here is one place to start. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5638098

[california boy]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

To use the analogy of OD2, in 1976 there were members of the Church who weren't happy about the ban.  There were also people for whom the ban wasn't as much of a problem.  It was a struggle for the first group to reconcile the ban with the other doctrines of the Church and its teachings about the nature of God.  Teenagers may have raised their hands and asked questions about it.  But that issue was able to be resolved to a great degree because OD2 allowed change to happen in the context of Church doctrines.  The "traditionally minded" who believed in a "traditional curse" for black people didn't have to stay the course because the Church was able to change course.  

Now, the Church has effectively established a doctrine (and policy) of a "homosexual curse".  There are those for whom these doctrines and policies and teachings aren't much of a problem.  They might know some gay people, or have friends or family members who are gay, and they might have compassion for them and sympathy or empathy, but they're at peace with the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality, so it's not an area of concern.

What I'm talking about are the members of the Church (and in the context of this thread, the teenagers) for whom the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality are not consistent with their personal experience (and, dare I say, spiritual witness) about the nature and consequences of homosexual behavior.

An example:  there is a very "orthodox" family in my Stake.  The kids are what would be called "Molly Mormons" or "Peter Priesthoods"; the parents are salt-of-the-Earth builders of the Kingdom.  But the family has a homosexual relative who was a great friend and role model to the children growing up.  And a few years ago, this relative got married.  And the family went to the wedding to support her.  And it was a great experience for everyone.  The relative and her spouse continue to be a positive part of this family's lives.

Fast forward to this year in Seminary, where my daughter is in the same class as the daughter from this family.  During a lesson, the subject of homosexuals came up, and the teacher (not the most tactful woman, to be sure) felt it was a good time to share the Church's doctrines about homosexuality and gay marriage.  Obviously, the daughter had heard this stuff before, but apparently she finally connected the dots and took great offense at what the teacher was saying.  Because the teacher wasn't talking about the homosexual degenerates who haunt the shadows and try and recruit unsuspecting young men into their perversions.  She was talking about this girl's beloved relative, who she knows isn't perfect but who didn't fit the brand being placed on her by the teacher (and the Church). And she let her objections be known (to the shock of the teacher, who did not expect this from that student).

So that's great that there are LDS (maybe lots of them) who are okay with the Church's doctrines, policies and teachings on homosexuality and are willing to carry the banner on for decades and generations to come.  The problem is that there are no doubt more and more who aren't so happy with it.  To paraphrase Alma, they have "planted the seed" of the Church's teachings, allowed it to grow, and found it to be a rotten fruit.  In the past, they would keep their mouths shut.  But if that day in Seminary is any indication, that time is coming to an end.

Many will reject what you said and base their objection to the law of chastity never changing.  But the problem the church is having with the youth and many others is that they can not understand why a gay couple is not entitled to marry and sex within those bounds of marriage.  Everyone is entitled to a happy and fulfilling life.  When the church tries to teach that gays are not entitled to that same life, then some will push back or simply leave.  Yeah, it is that simple.

[Buckeye]

15 hours ago, Danzo said:

Can you give me a reference for that?

I believe you, but I always like to have references to these kinds of facts before sharing with others.

Here's a better source than the one I previously provided: http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2014/02/death-by-veggiephobia.html

Note the key findings regarding vegetarianism. Most Adventists are not vegetarians, but do abide by a health code similar to LDS. Their lifespans are similar to LDS lifespans. The Adventists who are vegetarians, particularly those who live the lifestyle for many years, have an even greater lifespan than LDS. This is good evidence that LDS are blessed with longer lifespans by living portions of the WoW, but that we are giving up some blessings by not abiding by the instruction to eat meat sparingly and only in times of winder cold, or famine.That part of the law is still treated as just an encouragement, not a commandment.

[Buckeye]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

To use the analogy of OD2, in 1976 there were members of the Church who weren't happy about the ban.  There were also people for whom the ban wasn't as much of a problem.  It was a struggle for the first group to reconcile the ban with the other doctrines of the Church and its teachings about the nature of God.  Teenagers may have raised their hands and asked questions about it.  But that issue was able to be resolved to a great degree because OD2 allowed change to happen in the context of Church doctrines.  The "traditionally minded" who believed in a "traditional curse" for black people didn't have to stay the course because the Church was able to change course.  

Now, the Church has effectively established a doctrine (and policy) of a "homosexual curse".  There are those for whom these doctrines and policies and teachings aren't much of a problem.  They might know some gay people, or have friends or family members who are gay, and they might have compassion for them and sympathy or empathy, but they're at peace with the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality, so it's not an area of concern.

What I'm talking about are the members of the Church (and in the context of this thread, the teenagers) for whom the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality are not consistent with their personal experience (and, dare I say, spiritual witness) about the nature and consequences of homosexual behavior.

An example:  there is a very "orthodox" family in my Stake.  The kids are what would be called "Molly Mormons" or "Peter Priesthoods"; the parents are salt-of-the-Earth builders of the Kingdom.  But the family has a homosexual relative who was a great friend and role model to the children growing up.  And a few years ago, this relative got married.  And the family went to the wedding to support her.  And it was a great experience for everyone.  The relative and her spouse continue to be a positive part of this family's lives.

Fast forward to this year in Seminary, where my daughter is in the same class as the daughter from this family.  During a lesson, the subject of homosexuals came up, and the teacher (not the most tactful woman, to be sure) felt it was a good time to share the Church's doctrines about homosexuality and gay marriage.  Obviously, the daughter had heard this stuff before, but apparently she finally connected the dots and took great offense at what the teacher was saying.  Because the teacher wasn't talking about the homosexual degenerates who haunt the shadows and try and recruit unsuspecting young men into their perversions.  She was talking about this girl's beloved relative, who she knows isn't perfect but who didn't fit the brand being placed on her by the teacher (and the Church). And she let her objections be known (to the shock of the teacher, who did not expect this from that student).

So that's great that there are LDS (maybe lots of them) who are okay with the Church's doctrines, policies and teachings on homosexuality and are willing to carry the banner on for decades and generations to come.  The problem is that there are no doubt more and more who aren't so happy with it.  To paraphrase Alma, they have "planted the seed" of the Church's teachings, allowed it to grow, and found it to be a rotten fruit.  In the past, they would keep their mouths shut.  But if that day in Seminary is any indication, that time is coming to an end.

For me, I would apply the seed analogy a little differently. I wasn't converted to support SSM because of rottenness in church teachings, but by inherent goodness in SS relationships. I opened my heart to know SS couples (co-workers, friends, family). As I did so, I gained knowledge as to their SS relationships. Over time, I judged those relationships to be good because the fruit is good. And to be clear, I'm not just talking about "good" coming from connections or fellowship or companionship, I'm talking about "good" coming directly from the sex. Just as heterosexual sex is a good within the proper bounds, in my judgment homosexual sex is a good within those same bounds. 

FWIW, I'm intrigued by Elder Oaks' recent remarks in Arizona where he felt compelled to reiterate that LDS doctrine is not changing as to SSM (see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865671741/Elder-Oaks-urges-all-Church-members-to-defend-religious-freedom.html). In the past, such a statement would strike me as unnecessarily obvious.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, cinepro said:

To use the analogy of OD2, in 1976 there were members of the Church who weren't happy about the ban.  There were also people for whom the ban wasn't as much of a problem.  It was a struggle for the first group to reconcile the ban with the other doctrines of the Church and its teachings about the nature of God.  Teenagers may have raised their hands and asked questions about it.  But that issue was able to be resolved to a great degree because OD2 allowed change to happen in the context of Church doctrines.  The "traditionally minded" who believed in a "traditional curse" for black people didn't have to stay the course because the Church was able to change course.  

Now, the Church has effectively established a doctrine (and policy) of a "homosexual curse".  There are those for whom these doctrines and policies and teachings aren't much of a problem.  They might know some gay people, or have friends or family members who are gay, and they might have compassion for them and sympathy or empathy, but they're at peace with the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality, so it's not an area of concern.

What I'm talking about are the members of the Church (and in the context of this thread, the teenagers) for whom the doctrines, policies and teachings of the Church about homosexuality are not consistent with their personal experience (and, dare I say, spiritual witness) about the nature and consequences of homosexual behavior.

An example:  there is a very "orthodox" family in my Stake.  The kids are what would be called "Molly Mormons" or "Peter Priesthoods"; the parents are salt-of-the-Earth builders of the Kingdom.  But the family has a homosexual relative who was a great friend and role model to the children growing up.  And a few years ago, this relative got married.  And the family went to the wedding to support her.  And it was a great experience for everyone.  The relative and her spouse continue to be a positive part of this family's lives.

Fast forward to this year in Seminary, where my daughter is in the same class as the daughter from this family.  During a lesson, the subject of homosexuals came up, and the teacher (not the most tactful woman, to be sure) felt it was a good time to share the Church's doctrines about homosexuality and gay marriage.  Obviously, the daughter had heard this stuff before, but apparently she finally connected the dots and took great offense at what the teacher was saying.  Because the teacher wasn't talking about the homosexual degenerates who haunt the shadows and try and recruit unsuspecting young men into their perversions.  She was talking about this girl's beloved relative, who she knows isn't perfect but who didn't fit the brand being placed on her by the teacher (and the Church). And she let her objections be known (to the shock of the teacher, who did not expect this from that student).

So that's great that there are LDS (maybe lots of them) who are okay with the Church's doctrines, policies and teachings on homosexuality and are willing to carry the banner on for decades and generations to come.  The problem is that there are no doubt more and more who aren't so happy with it.  To paraphrase Alma, they have "planted the seed" of the Church's teachings, allowed it to grow, and found it to be a rotten fruit.  In the past, they would keep their mouths shut.  But if that day in Seminary is any indication, that time is coming to an end.

Well said. This is why I think that given enough time the ban on gay couples will come to an end. 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Here's a better source than the one I previously provided: http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2014/02/death-by-veggiephobia.html

Note the key findings regarding vegetarianism. Most Adventists are not vegetarians, but do abide by a health code similar to LDS. Their lifespans are similar to LDS lifespans. The Adventists who are vegetarians, particularly those who live the lifestyle for many years, have an even greater lifespan than LDS. This is good evidence that LDS are blessed with longer lifespans by living portions of the WoW, but that we are giving up some blessings by not abiding by the instruction to eat meat sparingly and only in times of winder cold, or famine.That part of the law is still treated as just an encouragement, not a commandment.

Thanks

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/7/2017 at 11:40 AM, hope_for_things said:

 Too bad the policies of the church tell a different story.  

 

It is a difficult balance to show love and compassion for those that struggle with things while maintaining  the eternal principle that Lord can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.  The Church has to show love while not giving anyone the idea that homosexual behavior can ever be acceptable to God

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/7/2017 at 1:35 PM, Buckeye said:

That reminds me of another point rongo could raise in a WoW discussion. Ask the youth which faith group lives the longest. Someone will say "Mormons." Then correct them and explain how Adventists actually live longer, in large part because they obey the "eat meat sparingly" instruction much better than Mormons. FWIW, I don't recommend teaching this to adults as you'll have to run for your life.

Which then should be an opening to correct the idea that living the WOW translates to living a longer life.  It might but that is not the point of it and even if it was, what real advantage does one have by living 95 years over 88 years? 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Which then should be an opening to correct the idea that living the WOW translates to living a longer life.  It might but that is not the point of it and even if it was, what real advantage does one have by living 95 years over 88 years? 

Answer: 7 years. 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It is a difficult balance to show love and compassion for those that struggle with things while maintaining  the eternal principle that Lord can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.  The Church has to show love while not giving anyone the idea that homosexual behavior can ever be acceptable to God

First and foremost, I don't think its a balance to show love and maintain a principle.  What is the great commandment, and the central pillar of Christianity?  Love God and love your neighbor.  So Love first, and let rules about the sexuality of others take their place on the priority list, and thats much much lower down, so no need to feel like you have to balance anything, your great commandment says to Love and you should focus on that.

Secondly, I believe the church is wrong about its interpretation of a few obscure scriptural passages on the subject of homosexuality.  And I think history will play out very similar to how it did with blacks, eventually people will be enlightened to the errors of the past and cultural influenced prejudices that made their way into scripture and into past leaders perceptions.   

[rongo]

I'm trying to look at the overall big picture of "hard questions," or questions that people have concerns about. Am I missing any big categories, or are these pretty much the five general categories that all concerns and questions can be sorted into?

1. Social issues

2. Doctrinal issues

3. Policy issues

4. Church Historical issues

5. Scriptural issues 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I'm trying to look at the overall big picture of "hard questions," or questions that people have concerns about. Am I missing any big categories, or are these pretty much the five general categories that all concerns and questions can be sorted into?

1. Social issues

 

2. Doctrinal issues

 

3. Policy issues

 

4. Church Historical issues

 

5. Scriptural issues 

 

That should cover it all..and need I say that I would love to be in your class!!  Could I please dress up as a sixteen year old and attend?  You still need 3 hours...and you will want to do this again. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm trying to look at the overall big picture of "hard questions," or questions that people have concerns about. Am I missing any big categories, or are these pretty much the five general categories that all concerns and questions can be sorted into?

1. Social issues

 

2. Doctrinal issues

 

3. Policy issues

 

4. Church Historical issues

 

5. Scriptural issues 

Maybe also 

6. Testimony issues (e.g., unfulfilled prophecies/blessings, etc.). 

That could be under doctrinal, I guess. What Hugh Nibley called "the terrible questions" (e.g., questions about the hereafter and individual circumstances, how things will be sorted out, apparent unfairness of opportunity, etc.).

What think ye? Are these really just a subset of doctrinal, or should they be their own category?

[CA Steve]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm trying to look at the overall big picture of "hard questions," or questions that people have concerns about. Am I missing any big categories, or are these pretty much the five general categories that all concerns and questions can be sorted into?

1. Social issues

 

2. Doctrinal issues

 

3. Policy issues

 

4. Church Historical issues

 

5. Scriptural issues 

 

Given your audience, I doubt that either of these might come up but I find two of the most difficult areas to deal with are theodicy and problems with religion in general. By the latter I mean questions about why there are so many religions and different Gods, and maybe even some questions about the historicity of the Bible itself, especially the old testament.

And I am not sure but maybe "doubt" itself might be in its own category.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Given your audience, I doubt that either of these might come up but I find two of the most difficult areas to deal with are theodicy and problems with religion in general. By the latter I mean questions about why there are so many religions and different Gods, and maybe even some questions about the historicity of the Bible itself, especially the old testament.

And I am not sure but maybe "doubt" itself might be in its own category.

For sure. I think they fall under "doctrinal." OT historicity would go under "scriptural issues," wouldn't it?

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 11:47 AM, rongo said:

. . . for an upcoming stake EFY (two weeks).

The challenge is going to be time. They would like me to help equip youth and also take questions --- in fifteen minutes. Any one of the hard questions takes longer than 15 minutes to discuss --- especially if/when there are genuine concerns. 

I'm excited, though. It will be very interesting to see what the actual concerns are from stake youth. I know that my youth in my ward don't have "Gospel Topics Essays" concerns. 

At least none that they are willing to share. I don't mean that as a personal criticism at all but I think it's natural for people to hide their concerns with the church because of the judgment from family, friends, and priesthood leaders. I think it's a faulty assumption that they don't have concerns simply because you don't know about them. 

For the youth to share they have to feel extraordinarily safe from judgment. That's really hard to do...especially in 15 minutes. I really don't see how that's possible, other than to say "It's okay to have concerns and it's okay to voice them. Having questions does not make you unworthy."

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 0:12 PM, rongo said:

Without a doubt! Most youth questions center around social issues rather than Gospel Topics Essays concerns (although there are exceptions). Those concerns come later, as they learn more and become interested in more . . .  

In a ward Q&A once, one of our three Norwegian foreign exchange students asked "Why do Mormons hate gays?" (the three girls were awesome, and one even participated in the cultural celebration for the Gilbert temple). I asked everyone who had a gay friend or family member to raise their hands (almost all hands went up). I told everyone to look around, and there was the answer to the question of whether or not Mormons hate gays. I said that some people claim we hate gays because of doctrine on the law of chastity, but the reality is that almost all of us are friends or family with someone who is gay, and we and they know that we love them. It is very much on youths' minds right now.

This hasn't been my experience. Many times the social issues are a manifestation of a deeper doctrinal issue. I remember having a fireside for our youth with the Temple President. He had asked them to submit questions ahead of time and he would answer. I recall how dismissive he was when he began addressing questions because he said something like "these sound like they're more likely questions from your parents", as if the youth don't have deep thoughts or wonder about important things. That fireside was a huge missed opportunity.

With respect, I feel like that is a brush off to the concern about gays. What they were likely asking is "why is the church so unfair to gays with policies like ... SSM, November policy etc"

Edited February 9, 2017 by HappyJackWagon