MustardSeed

I don't know what you are referencing here. I have not presented by "life experience ... as an example of righteousness against" anyone Then I’m glad we agree.

We all should follow the chastity rule whether we are gay or straight or otherwise. Zero sex outside of marriage. I don’t think anyone needs to debate this on an LDS forum. The rule to never marry a same -gender -as -you person does not carry the same weight for you a hetero as it does someone who is gay. So your life experience, and mine, is irrelevant and should not be held up as an example of righteousness against someone who is designed differently. IMO.

We attach ourselves so tightly to traditions that even when our traditions are pried from cold dead hands we refuse to speak to what is happening. why are we like this? Is it because we are highly defensive due to generational abuse from the outside? I imagine so. so many testimonies I’ve heard are in part based on this very tradition. My guess is if it was changed it would rattle a lot of older generations cages for a few reasons- older people don’t appreciate getting put out to pasture or watching it be done to others simply due to a number. Then there’s the lifelong belief that God will not steer his prophets wrong, and since all prophets had been put in place decades previously, we can trust that what is meant to be is meant to be. My brain doesn’t need that reassurance these days- but what it does need is accountability. ⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️

LDS bishops refer to LDS therapists . Private practice providers licensed or not will have freedom to try to push their own agendas . There are PLENTY of LDS or other Christian’s who believe homosexual orientation is a choice and is a sin. And there is a lot of unethical and yes twisted therapy out there .

As a licensed therapist, I’ve had plenty of parents, all of them LDS bring their children into me in hopes that I will correct their religious non belief or their “same sex attraction” (their homosexuality is what I call it). Sometimes I’ll sit with these kids. But of course I don’t do any conversion work. I always make it clear to parents that I don’t do conversion work. They are always shocked. Aren’t you a member of the church??? they ask. The kids don’t last long with me because I was reported to the parents that there’s nothing wrong with the kid. The kids often will come to me later as they have grown older and know that they can trust me, and that I understand their religious background. I’m neither a liberal nor conservative. I’m just a person who is disgusted with the world for all sorts of reasons. But I’m safe for anybody to talk to. And I will never do conversion therapy. It’s really damaging. If somebody comes into me and says they’re trying to figure out what they’re attracted to, what they believe, what they value , I will help them come to know their own mind. I think that’s what we all want need and deserve.

I personally know so many parents who, unlike you are legitimately homophobic. They are cruel. If these type of parents have children who confess to “ same-sex attraction” , what has happened in the past is that these parents will search out conversion therapists. Conversion therapists will try to therapize (not a word) the gay out of the child. We understand now, and the church acknowledges, that the gay cannot be analyzed away. Rather, the shame is drilled in through the therapeutic process. It does significant damage to the individual, obviously.

Twisted parents will see this as an opportunity. Good luck kids!

I’m shocked. As GD teacher, this will be very interesting- enough time to teach a single concept and then we out. Hmmmm- well now that women can ring the bell, we return to the need for it 😂

I can’t imagine that being marked incorrect, from any point of view.

What do you think?

Not sure how this might be a challenge, like at all. Finding subs is what we do constantly in primary callings and we’ve been doing that forever. I think many men (Bishops etc) are capable of handling this very (imo) non issue change. It’s only a big deal because it’s been one way forever. But in practice, it’s so (imo) nothingburger.

I do understand, from an outsiders perspective- 1. we send out missionaries and we also baptize the dead so people might think we want everyone, dead or alive, to be Mormons- 2. We can be heard to say consistantly “this is gods only true church” , this combined with missionary efforts to baptize can appear like we believe Mormonism is the only saving grace. I’ve never baptized or converted a single person into The COJCOLDS. But I have helped many people dive deeper into their own faith, religious based or otherwise, and that feels amazing because I know that they, (along with sister jones from my church) will be eager to accept all of Christs ways and doctrines AND ORDINANCES as needed.

Exactly what I was saying. Anybody who follows Christ will be following Christ. It will be his church. I really doubt anybody will be saying “ I told you so”

Yes. The church has made big changes. No they won’t discuss. And when Christ returns we will all be in His church, there won’t be another. We just keep doing best we can.

Like I said, I agree with the sentiment but your delivery is alienating.

I see Tony already said my sentiments but I’ll speak anyway- While I find your approach and delivery distasteful, I agree that today’s church is vastly different than pre 2015 ish in many aspects- with no discussion, no acknowledgement , no segue. It is jarring to me and feels at times gaslighty. It turns me off.

Go see solo mio. Clean, sweet, and feel good. And done well.

I don’t hear members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints say “Blacks” in the context of anything but discussions of the priesthood. I don’t hear anyone say “we had some Blacks move in last weekend.” I think most of us recognize that would be awful. But when we talk about the priesthood, we seem to consistently refer to (The) Blacks. I think it’s time to become aware of this tradition and dump it. (Along with other really dumb traditions we are sleeping on)

If he wasn’t frightened, it wouldn’t be much of a sacrifice

No

Same!

Gosh, I did not mean it as a policing observation. I simply noticed it and thought it was interesting. I think there are a lot of things we do in our church that we don’t question because it’s so habitual. I think we have always used the term ” blacks and the priesthood” since who knows how long. I do think it would be smart for us to pay attention to this and start curbing the habit. I don’t assume people who use this term are racist. However, I don’t think it would be acceptable language in today’s climate anywhere else, but amongst each each other. . Maybe it’s time to make the change.

Just one of those quirky traditions, I suppose

It’s been used here a couple times. I noticed it for the first time and I asked myself, why does it sound odd to me? Then I read it again written by somebody else here and I just thought, that’s strange. It’s only in the context of discussions amongst church members that I hear black people referred to as “the Blacks”. Or “blacks”. it’s just an interesting observation. I don’t hear people outside the church using that term presently. But we do. If you’re interested, you can do a search here and see that the word “blacks” is used often

It seems like the church is the only group of people that presently refer to Black people as “the blacks”.