Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,612 profile views

HappyJackWagon's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. I'm glad you got a chuckle out of that. Sincerely. So I'm taking it from your comment that you don't consider the official name of the church changing the 3rd time (from the original name- that means the church was officially named 4 separate times), to be a significant event since it was a matter of a hyphen and a lower-case letter. But in the past you pointed out errors to spelling or punctuation or syntax by people on this board as if such things matter. BUT I will concede that a hyphen and a lower case letter really seems like another instance of the thick of thin things becoming important in the church. So perhaps we agree
  2. Leaving out all of the "to Mormon or Not to Mormon" business- here is the info about the non-negotiable church name. But you have a point. "Many" is a bit of a subjective term.
  3. This is what some mean when they refer to being focused on the "thick of thin things". And I'll just note, that saying the name of the church is non-negotiable, I would just add "anymore" to that phrase. The name of the church has changed many times and apparently God survived. On the upside, maybe this is putting the issue to bed and it won't need to be spoken of again...ever. That is my hope. At least until some future prophet chooses to harken back to the good 'ole days of Mormonism.
  4. Tough crowd. And I'm only talking about the grammar police Good luck Fair Dinkum.
  5. Perhaps there is a really god reason why more active, gay members don't participate in forums like the one noted, or bear testimony about how happy they are in the church
  6. I always appreciate your thoughtful replies. There's a lot I could say about the Proclamation being neither scripture or doctrine but I'll just leave it as a statement of church policy. If a gay person can't be in any kind of gay relationship (even a chaste one) then I don't think the church wants gay people. It might begrudgingly accept SSA people who don't act in any way like a gay person, but I think that's a different and problematic standard. And lets not forget the B in LGBTQ. Especially for youth, I think coming to understand their own sxualty can be confusing and there may be some errors for those who claim to be gay. Whether that's because attraction can be fluid or because it's a process of discovery and understanding, I think there are many who can claim an attraction to male and female. They may end up in a hetero relationship that is acceptable to the church. If that's the case, I don't think the church accepts them as Bi- it accepts them in a hetero relationship. I agree that it's a hot button topic and I don't know the reason for the increased numbers. Are some jumping on a social bandwagon? There probably are some. Do many more youth feel confident and supported enough that they won't be bullied or disowned, and that's why they come out now? Maybe. I suspect there will need to be some significant studies to determine the "why" of increase.
  7. I disagree. While it is definitely the way the church treats it, there is no doctrine or scripture that would state that romantic (but chaste) relationships are a sin. With callings, there are definitely some that could be held be someone who isn't worthy of a temple recommend. That's really what we're talking about because there is no longer an automatic disciplinary council for LGBTQ relationships. People without recommends can hold callings in primary, sunday school, library, music, YM/YW. In fact there are really only a few ward callings that require a person have a TR. But on the broader level of worthiness and participation, that is all policy. It's essentially a rule the church leadership chooses to follow at any given time but if we look back we can find examples of which sins made a person unworthy and which did not. IMO the doctrine would be that because we all sin, we are all unworthy, but we can become acceptable to God through the atonement. Beyond that, enforcement of worthiness boundaries are temporary policies even if they are rooted in leadership's understanding of a particular doctrine.
  8. So it sounds like you would agree that there is a double standard when it comes to how the LoC is enforced for straight people versus LGBTQ people. I suppose it's hard for me to see how consensual handholding could ever be considered a sin. If the church is as afraid of such benign behavior as that, there really isn't much hope for them to be welcoming to LGBTQ people. So again, maybe its time for the church just to admit that it doesn't want LGBTQ people, move on, and let everyone else move on whether they agree or disagree.
  9. I'm pretty confident I know how Jesus would treat LGBTQ people. It just doesn't reflect the LDS church
  10. I guess that depends upon what their personal beliefs are. IF they believe that LGBTQ aren't worthy of kindness and welcoming, then probably nothing. But assuming they believe LGBTQ are children of God and therefore worthy of kindness and love, then the first thing they could do is stop treating them differently. Leaders believe SS relationships are a sin. Attraction is apparently OK (or so they say) but any kind of relationship appears to be treated as sin. There is a different criteria and expectation for how a SS couple is allowed to act (even following the law of chastity) versus how a hetero couple can appropriately interact. Treat unmarried couples the same when it comes to dating and LoC. Piece of cake. I suppose it could be harder when dealing with married couples insofar as the LoC distinguishes between married and unmarried. Obviously the church is now adding to that a differentiation between SSM and hetero marriage, but still, there is so much that could be accommodating. Could individuals in a SS relationship hold callings? If the answer is NO, that would be a policy that could change without a change to doctrine. In fact, even though we don't often think about it, most "worthiness" issues in general are treated via policy, not doctrines.
  11. Sounds like a wise man. You seem to be calling for a propaganda push to tell people how the church is welcoming, instead of just being welcoming. Great comments, Chum!
  12. I don't see any kind of "equal treatment" under way. The only positive thing has been when the church changed the policy that it had changed to list LGBTQ as apostacy. So it removed a new negative, but that's hardly positive I really don't believe people want LGBTQ people at church unless they act straight. You may call that boundaries but I think it's because they are uncomfortable with LGBTQ people. Do you truly believe that members would be ok with gay couple exhibiting the same kind of basic PDA that straight couples do in church? I don't think that would be tolerated. Are obvious conditions for participation shared with all new people who come to church, or is it only LGBTQ people? There are some universal conditions that apply to everyone, but I believe there are additional conditions placed on LGBTQ people and having "upfront communication" about how they'll be allowed to participate is itself discriminatory.
  13. That's the point. Church leaders have railed against these other things in the past, but they stopped. Why is that? God no longer cares? Or perhaps does it have something to do with helping people feel welcome and not singled out as unworthy? The church could do the same for LGBTQ. It is literally the Least they could do, but they don't do it. So when people ask, "what could leaders possibly do?" The answer is, treat them like everyone else. Stop singling them out as pariah. Actually be happy if they come to church. I don't think most LDS people would be happy if a gay family came to church. The first time they put their arm around each other, or hold hands, or give a peck on the lips, people would be up in arms because it would be so "inappropriate". The church doesn't want LGBTQ people. Everyone should just admit it and stop pretending that the church wants LGBTQ people. Admit it and move on. Sure, it's still hurtful but at least it's honest.
  14. There is plenty- for starters, stop singling out LTBTQ and SSM as the destruction of civilization and family life. There are plenty of other "sins" under the umbrella of Law of chastity. When is the last time you heard an apostle preach about counterfeit families in reference to unmarried couples? When is the last time you heard them declare fornicators as apostates? When is the last time you heard them the chastised divorced people? When is the last time... they seemed to purposely alienate any population of people who weren't perfectly keeping the LOC? Don't get me wrong. I don't want them to treat others badly. I'm simply pointing out that treatment amongst Law of Chastity breakers is not equal.
  • Create New...