kllindley

You are certainly not the only one in this conversation doing this, but I find it ironic that it is okay with many that violence and looting are happening because it is only being done by a small percentage of those involved. But if anyone points out that the violence done by police officers is only done by a small percentage of police officers it is either racist, irrelevant, or apologetics because ACAB. According to many, it is not enough to condemn the wrong actions of a few bad LEOs. We have to advocate burning the system down. We've been told that to anyone who chooses to wear a police uniform deserves be afraid for their life. But criticize the violence and looting happening? How dare you. It's a perfectly understandable reaction and besides most the protestors are peaceful.

I guess you know better than anyone else. Good for you.

Neither, apparently, does this guy: "We join with many throughout this nation and around the world who are deeply saddened at recent evidences of racism and a blatant disregard for human life. We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin. We are also saddened when these assaults on human dignity lead to escalating violence and unrest. The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent! During the Savior’s earthly mission, He constantly ministered to those who were excluded, marginalized, judged, overlooked, abused, and discounted. As His followers, can we do anything less? The answer is no! We believe in freedom, kindness, and fairness for all of God’s children! Let us be clear. We are brothers and sisters, each of us the child of a loving Father in Heaven. His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, invites all to come unto Him — “black and white, bond and free, male and female.” It behooves each of us to do whatever we can in our spheres of influence to preserve the dignity and respect every son and daughter of God deserves. Any nation can only be as great as its people. That requires citizens to cultivate a moral compass that helps them distinguish between right and wrong. Illegal acts such as looting, defacing, or destroying public or private property cannot be tolerated. Never has one wrong been corrected by a second wrong. Evil has never been resolved by more evil. We need to foster our faith in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. We need to foster a fundamental respect for the human dignity of every human soul, regardless of their color, creed, or cause. And we need to work tirelessly to build bridges of understanding rather than creating walls of segregation. I plead with us to work together for peace, for mutual respect, and for an outpouring of love for all of God’s children."

So you're saying this guy doesn't see very clearly. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/s-not-going-bring-my-brother-back-george-floyd-s-n1221306?fbclid=IwAR2kPjXRDSplcoZduN7pulqq9xMSLxFPNXIt0XTW3ADxvhsyH7JbXzzEvlc “First of all, first of all,” Terrence Floyd said. "If I’m not over here wilin’ out, if I’m not over here blowing up stuff, if I’m not over here messing up my community — then what are y’all doing? Nothing, because that’s not going to bring my brother back at all." "So let’s do this another way," he said. "Let’s stop thinking that our voice don’t matter and vote…because it’s a lot of us and we still going to do this peacefully.”

This largely reflects my own view and it is very well written.

I agree that this is a very important point.

Here is a very well written and thoughtful article on the situation: https://latterdaysaintmag.com/letter-to-an-activist-byu-professor-and-those-youre-confusing/ A few relevant quotes: I very much agree with the perspective that it is more reasonable to believe that rather than encouraging or endorsing, this represents a more personalized approach to discipleship. I'm surprised that the changes to the missionary standards haven't been similarly heralded as a sign of greater enlightenment. But as Jacob explains, this has a lot more to do with the assumptions we bring to the situation than the actual facts behind the situation. Indeed. I see that same dynamic playing out here. Professor Brau had a message for those students. After hinting that this change in the Honor Code implied a newfound university openness to both dating among gay couples and physical affection, he went on to argue that those who felt any concern or hesitation about the changes were questioning the faith and those called to lead it, saying “It amazes me because what they’re saying is they don’t have a testimony of the living apostles.” (The irony of saying this as one who essentially admitted disagreeing with core teachings of these same apostles for years seems lost on the professor). And finally, this: I agree with Jacob. I cannot believe that the prophet and apostles are endorsing the pursuit of romantic attachment that would lead precious sons and daughters of God further away from their eternal potential.

As I said, I believe you don't mean to, and don't want to. I know that you both have expressed respect for my life decisions in the past. And I appreciate that. I am sorry I did not adequately communicate that in my initial post. I also know that we've had this discussion before. I've expressed that for me and many of my close friends in similar situations, members hoping for same-sex marriage to be accepted by the Church feels like a dismissal of our choices and experiences, because without the clear teaching and doctrine, we likely would not have had adequate information to make the same choices. Although, I can now look at the consequences of my actions and believe that I would make the same choices again, at the time I made those choices, I was acting on faith. Without those teachings, what reason would I have had for acting in faith? I've heard some people propose generic "personal revelation." That doesn't seem adequate for me. With that perspective, why teach any standards or doctrine at all. I can see any number of analogous situations: Why not quit teaching the Word of Wisdom? Just let members decide for themselves what substances to use and not use. I know plenty of moral coffee drinkers, smokers, chewers, and people who consume alcohol responsibly. Why not quit teaching in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Let members decide for themselves whether they want to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Savior of the World, or if he was just a man, or even a non-historical fictional character. I understand that you don't see things the same way. You genuinely want to be able to celebrate everyone and believe that it is possible. I am not trying to change your minds or contend with your spiritual experiences. I truly don't mean for my expression of the feelings your position/comments evoke in me to be used as a club to silence you or change your beliefs. I just believe that is important for you and others to have an accurate view of the impact those positions and comments have on others.

@rockpond and @ALarson Just a reminder that in your zeal to be inclusive to same-sex couples, you also alienate and marginalize those LGBT members who are responding to their experience with faith and conviction in the Restored Gospel. Of course, that is your right. Based on past interactions, I'm sure you will insist that you don't mean to do so. I mostly believe you are sincere. Unfortunately, that does nothing to mitigate the judgement and rejection I feel from you.

Personally, I always thought that #3 was what happened based on the history and scripture you quoted.

It was for me!

I disagree based on both personal and professional experience. I'm grateful that I was able to explore changes in my behavior with a therapist before this rule became effective. Or are you only responding to the attraction aspect?

It really depends what sort of metric you are using to determine success. There really isn't an operational definition for sexual orientation. Are you talking attraction? Does a change from 5 to 4 or 4 to 3 on the Kinsey Scale count as change? Because we see that a lot, with and without therapy. I've even seen 6 to 3 or 4 to 2. From 6 to 0? Yeah not so much. But even if a youth wants to explore with their therapist whether it is possible to develop opposite sexual attractions- that will now be prohibited under the new rule. Behavior? There change becomes much more possible. From 6 (exclusively same-sex activity) to 0 (exclusively opposite-sex activity) is very realistic. But now, even that change in behavior cannot be addressed with a therapist. Identity? People change how they see themselves all the time. From "gay" to "bisexual" to "mostly straight" to rejecting labels altogether. Now once any youth starts to see themselves as gay, they cannot explore other identities with a therapist. Unfortunately, all this nuance isn't considered under the rule. Attraction, behavior, and identity are lumped together. What is most disappointing to me is that now any youth who genuinely wants to explore change in any way (or worse parents who insist on some form of change) will not be able to explore those ideas with a trained therapist under legal and ethical obligation to do not harm. Instead, their only option will be unlicensed "life-coaches" or ecclesiastical leaders. Don't get me wrong, I think virtually every Bishop in the church means well. I just think far too many are likely to do more damage if they are the only available source of support.

Full back up here. You are not crazy. If he doesn't retract, I'm going to report it. It's very unfair to try to blame you for his failure to communicate.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/the-challenge-to-become?lang=eng Also: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng