Is There A Difference Between The Teachings Of Barb Young And Denver Snuffer?

[BCSpace]

"One of the most beautiful things about this church is that it can evolve," she said. "It may not go as fast as everyone wants, but it is evolving."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/56872665-80/affirmation-barb-jesus-conference.html.csp

 

 

In his book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," Snuffer used the faith’s signature scripture, the Book of Mormon, and founder Joseph Smith’s "divine revelations" to analyze LDS history from Smith’s death in 1844 to the present. He concludes that every Mormon prophet, starting with Brigham Young, caved to social, political and legal pressures to accommodate mainstream American society — starting with giving up polygamy, then becoming more corporate and eventually yielding to "social progressives" by softening language on same-sex attraction.

 

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile3/56835902-219/church-snuffer-mormon-book.html.csp

 

 

Frankly, I don't see any difference between what either one is publicly teaching.  Do you?

[Calm]

Looks to me like they are polar opposites---one wants the Church to change more than it has and the other is condemning it because it has changed.

[cesc101]

Looks to me like they are polar opposites---one wants the Church to change more than it has and the other is condemning it because it has changed.

Beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder!

[Tacenda]

Well, remember AofF #9, I forgot the whole thing, but here's a portion, "We believe all that has/is revealed and all that is yet to be revealed". Therefore we believe in lots of add ons or changes. There you have it.

[BCSpace]

Looks to me like they are polar opposites---one wants the Church to change more than it has and the other is condemning it because it has changed.

 

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

[Darren10]

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

 

I would agree. Also, Denver's assertion is not entirely complete as per your citation. The LDS Church resisted ended polygamy until the revelation came to change it. Many times the LDS Church was granted statehood of the Utah Territory constituted that polygamy was abolished. The Mormons, particularly the women,  resisted the deals despite the strong desire to obtain statehood.

 

http://www.ilovehistory.utah.gov/time/stories/statehood.html

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehood.html

[Calm]

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

Don't really get that, here is what she says:

 

"One of the most beautiful things about this church is that it can evolve," she said. "It may not go as fast as everyone wants, but it is evolving."

 

Assuming she means evolving is receiving revelation to change, that must mean that revelation is coming, just not as much as frequently as "everyone" wants.

 

There also seems to be anticipation that change will eventually come which would indicate a belief that God is guiding the Church through revelation even if the revelation may be sparse in comparison to what they want...at least in the area they are concerned about.  Perhaps they see church leaders like a stubborn mule resisting the guidance of the mule driver, God, but the guidance is there and eventually the mule follows the path desired.

 

If you feel that something else in the article indicates a lack of belief in ongoing revelation, please quote it.

[foster]

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

To equate Sister Youngs statement, with Denver Snuffed's direct, open, and deliberate attack on the Leaders of the Church, is absurd. Are you suggesting a disciplinary council be held for Sister Young?

[BCSpace]

Don't really get that, here is what she says:

 

I think she's far more coy than Snuffer, but the message is the same.  Do you realize that for a repenting homosexual, attendance/association with a conference such as this would be considered a step backwards in the process?

[LordUther]

I think she's far more coy than Snuffer, but the message is the same. Do you realize that for a repenting homosexual, attendance/association with a conference such as this would be considered a step backwards in the process?

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

[Storm Rider]

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

 

I am unfamiliar with the label, "homecoming homosexual". Could you explain what that means?

[LordUther]

I am unfamiliar with the label, "homecoming homosexual". Could you explain what that means?

 Probably because it's not a label but a self description.  I am not a repentant homosexual. At a certain point in my life I made certain decisions based on certain information with the strength that I had. I do not repent of any of my past actions or deeds in an Alma the Younger way. I accept that Heavenly Father wishes me to correct certain behaviours & I have corrected those behaviours, not because I necessarily want to but because He has made it clear to me that He wishes me to. I have returned to the bosom of the church, come home if you will, I do not repent of being gay, I am what God made me. I am out at church to some people, and my Bishop is aware of everything I feel & believe and has no problem with it so as such I am not a repentant homo, but one that has come home.

[Storm Rider]

That is a good position to be in. It is not any different from any other disciple of Christ that must come to a conclusion that we are sinners on a path to emulate the Savior and we cannot be anything different than what we are, sinners.  You are just the way God made you; just as us all and you have responded to his voice. We cannot repent for who we are; only what we do.  Welcome to where we all stand as those who have learned to approach our Father with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. 

[Tacenda]

I noticed the mods locked the other thread in Gen. Discuss. because there is this thread, I apologize if the OP isn't ok with me posting this, but here is Steve and Barbara Young's talks if anyone is interested. 

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/barb-and-steve-young-speak-to-lgbt-mormons/?fb_action_ids=10200585140819209&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200585140819209%22%3A439383016181014%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200585140819209%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

[LordUther]

That is a good position to be in. It is not any different from any other disciple of Christ that must come to a conclusion that we are sinners on a path to emulate the Savior and we cannot be anything different than what we are, sinners.  You are just the way God made you; just as us all and you have responded to his voice. We cannot repent for who we are; only what we do.  Welcome to where we all stand as those who have learned to approach our Father with a broken heart and a contrite spirit. 

 

Thank you, I'm finding it a good place to be. 

[Buzzard]

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

"

• We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation
• We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Looks to me like both are teaching that the Church is not guided by revelation.

It "caved" in the past to political pressure it will do it again. And there are a great deal of many Saints that believe the church will change its stance on gay marriage.

 

I should be clear. I am not suggesting that the church opperates this way. Just that there are many people both in and out of the chruch that think this way.

[foster]

CFR please. As a homecoming homosexual the only action that would be considered a step backward is breaking the law of chastity. Affirmation is not considered an apostate group and membership nor attending their functions affects my worthiness issues.

There isn't anything credible or definitive for bcspace to provide. Repentance is an individual process.

[LordUther]

There isn't anything credible or definitive for bcspace to provide. Repentance is an individual process.

 

If that is indeed bcspace's stand then he should've kept it as a subjective statement such as "I feel going to conference such as this would..." rather than make an authoritative statement such as "do you realise...would be..."

[Storm Rider]

I see the same reliance on the concept that the church changes drastically. It is a misunderstanding and a distortion of revelation.

[foster]

If that is indeed bcspace's stand then he should've kept it as a subjective statement such as "I feel going to conference such as this would..." rather than make an authoritative statement such as "do you realise...would be..."

 

I chalk it up to this, what is to be expected from a person who equates Sister Young (who made a benign statement) to Denver Snuffer who openly and directly attacks the Church and the Leaders of the Church. By claiming there is no difference between Sister Young and Denver Snuffer, bcspace is necessarily calling for Sister Young to be excommunicated like Denver Snuffer. 

 

In my opinion, publicly calling for someones excommunication -  having no semblance of Priesthood Authority over the person - is worse than trashy, unbecoming, and I would add an attack against the Priesthood Leader(s) of the alleged heretic. It is solely to Sister Young's Priesthood Leaders to pass judgment on Sister Young's standing in the Church or whether she should remain in the Church.

[Mark Beesley]

Frankly, I don't see any difference between what either one is publicly teaching.  Do you?

Given that you are relying on The Salt Lake Tribune for your primary source . . . . uh, gee, I think that says it all.

[california boy]

 

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

"

• We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation
• We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much. 

 

So what part of Affirmations statement do you disagree with?  Do you think that God's gay children are not part of the plan of salvation?

 

Do you think that orientation and identity can be changed?

 

 

Has there been a revelation from God to his modern prophet about the question of gay marriage??  We certainly have revelation on straight marriage,   Is it not possible for God to reveal His will on gay marriage?  So far, the brethren have just been using their best  understanding on this subject.  But, as in times past, that is not necessarily the will of God.

[3DOP]

 

I humbly submit that Sister Young has done a great disservice to LDS who struggle with this issue. I understand her motivation, I am sure she loves her brother, and certainly there is no problem with that. And of course, we need to be Christ-like to all-and I do mean all-of God's children. But when Sister Young asks gay couples to be patient, that the church may not evolve fast enough to please them, but it is coming around, the message she sends, at least to my imperfect understanding, is that if they can just hang in there, eventually practicing, sexually active gays can find full, calling-holding, temple attending-and being sealed to their gay partner-fellowship in the church,

In contrast to LordUther, who understands that God requires obedience to his commandments, whether gay or straight, Sister Young sends the message that the church will eventually get rid of commandments that certain groups find onerous to obey. 

And while I  think a message to gays or anyone that God loves them is certainly appropriate, I think that Affirmation is the wrong forum to address this issue. This is the same organization that has in it's mission statement:

"

• We believe that our lives and relationships can be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation, and that LGBT individuals are a special part of God's Creation
• We reject the concept that orientation and identity can be changed and believe that same sex relationships are entitled to the same recognition and blessings as heterosexual relationships"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I have yet to see any church authority give any wiggle room at all to those concepts. I'll stick with the brethren over an NFL quaterbacks wife, thank you very much. 

 

 

 

Hmmm...I suppose I should be keeping tabs on what Joe Montana's wife teaches about the Catholic Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Given that you are relying on The Salt Lake Tribune for your primary source . . . . uh, gee, I think that says it all.

A textbook example of ad hominem attack.

 

While I have no great love for the Tribune I don't readily see anything about this particular piece to find fault with.

 

I do wonder what Barb Young means by "evolving" in the quoted remark, but perhaps that is as explicit as she chose to be on this occasion. As BCSpace indicated there is some coyness that is apparent here.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is the Deseret News report of the same event.

 

I think it is more thorough and informative than the Trib piece, but I don't perceive that the Trib story is untrustworthy.