Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[thesometimesaint]

Come on JK, you are avoiding the question. Do you think that God thinks there is a perversion of his laws and teachings or that we as his children can exhibit a perversion of same? 

 

Your answer is a dodge; "I cannot speak for God....and no one else can either so let's just sing cum-ba-ya, love one another....and eat, drink and be merry."  This denies the need for having prophets and apostles that actually do speak for God and actually encourages others to not listen.

 

Would you counsel all prophets to never offend the people at large?  If not, do we also cast off the need for repentance of any kind because the real purpose of this life is to just get along?  I can understand the appeal of such logic, but I fear for what happens in the next life and the judgment. There is a huge disconnect. 

 

God can look upon sin in the least degree of tolerance. We are not God. So I suggest we use kind words, patience, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned.

 

I have no problem with living Prophets and Apostles speeking for God. I would suggest that God lets them use whatever words they want to get the ideas across. 

 

What is the point in offending any people? Does it make them want to folllow your good example? The Church took me in, cleaned me up, mended my cuts and bruises of outlandish fortune, dressed me in the robes of glory, and Priesthood, and called me Brother. Which do think is the better way?

[pcarthew]

There was a time when a group could speak of their beliefs, and it was just that "our beliefs"...now it is hate speech. Soon God will need to come save us all from ourselves.

Also anyone who would liken us to Westboro, is not guilty of hate speech, but of stupidity.

The time is coming close!

[wenglund]

Some words have social connotations that go far beyond their technical meanings.  As a result, we usually restrict the use of those words to the contexts appropriate to that common, everyday understanding of the word.  For example, the technical definition of the word "molest" is "to pester or harass (someone), typically in an aggressive or persistent manner."  However, we don't "practically categorize" everyone who makes inappropriate advances in the workplace as a "sexual molester."  That term has connotations that are far too heinous to impose upon the poor sap who merely asks a co-worker out on a date.

 

As a result, I contend that it is, at best, misleading to use a term normally reserved for people engaged in pedophilia or public indecency to describe a consensual intimate relationship between two adults and conducted behind close doors.  And that doing so suggests either that one is ignorant of the common meaning of the term being used or that one is using the term in an effort to unduly malign another.  And in this case, I think we can rule out ignorance.

 

I appreciate you providing us with this textbook example of where good and decent and well-intending members, such as yourself, have been unwittingly caught in a cultural riptide that has led them to not only call bad good, but to do the bidding of the culture in wrongly chastening those who call bad bad.

 

How did this happen? How have a growing number of good folks in and out of the Church gone from condemning, to condoning, to embracing homosexuality?

 

Well, in this case, let me briefly borrow an analogy from the Savior. As one who has personally witnessed the gradual flip from bad to good, to me, the way that the decaying and diseased bones of homosexual behaviors have been somehow made to be beautiful, is by encase them in a whited sepulcher of committed and loving relationships, and giving the whole package the government sanctioned label of "marriage." By way of slick PR campaigns that inanely shift perspective, and deft control of the language where words and thus ideas are changed in meaning, bad has been rendered as good, and good has been profaned.

 

But, that isn't all. So successful has been the campaign, and so convinced are these good folks that bad is good, and so much control has been exerted over the language, that instead of homosexual behaviors rightly being stigmatized, the good folks have become willing accomplices in stigmatizing those who rightly call bad bad.

 

And, while I can't hardly blame the good folks for getting sucked in and along in this cultural riptide, nevertheless I find it saddening, if not a bit pathetic, though not enough to let it ruin my day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 31, 2013 by wenglund

[pcarthew]

I appreciate you providing us with this textbook example of where good and decent and well-intending members, such as yourself, have been unwittingly caught in a cultural riptide that has led them to not only call bad good, but to do the bidding of the culture in wrongly chastening those who call bad bad.

 

How did this happen? How have a growing number of good folks in and out of the Church go from condemning, to condoning, to embracing homosexuality?

 

Well, in this case, let me briefly borrow an analogy from the Savior. As one who has personally witnessed the gradual flip from bad to good, to me, the way that the decaying and diseased bones of homosexual behaviors have been somehow made to be beautiful, is by encase them in a whited sepulcher of committed and loving relationships, and giving the whole package the government sanctioned label of "marriage." By way of slick PR campaigns that inanely shift perspective, and deft control of the language where words and thus ideas are changed in meaning, bad has been rendered as good, and good has been profaned.

 

But, that isn't all. So successful has been the campaign, and so convinced are these good folks that bad is good, and so much control has been exerted over the language, that instead of homosexual behaviors rightly being stigmatized, the good folks have become willing accomplices in stigmatizing those who rightly call bad bad.

 

And, while I can't hardly blame the good folks for getting sucked in and along in this cultural riptide, nevertheless I find it saddening, if not a bit pathetic, though not enough to let it ruin my day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And here lies a perfect example of a covenant member being sucked in to your cultural riptide, and a magnificent reply from Elder Dallin H Oaks.

http://imgur.com/a/121jP

[jkwilliams]

I appreciate you providing us with this textbook example of where good and decent and well-intending members, such as yourself, have been unwittingly caught in a cultural riptide that has led them to not only call bad good, but to do the bidding of the culture in wrongly chastening those who call bad bad.

 

How did this happen? How have a growing number of good folks in and out of the Church go from condemning, to condoning, to embracing homosexuality?

It's nice to know that trying to avoid needlessly inflammatory language is the same as embracing. I learn something new every day.

 

What saddens me is that some people still haven't grasped the concept that expressing disagreement and disapproval, even passionately, does not require the use of inappropriate language. In fact, using disdainful and contemptuous language tends to weaken one's position because it distracts listeners from the message.

A reasoned discussion of Obama Administration policy, for example, is preferable to waving posters of Obama as Hitler. Civil discussion of the issues surrounding gay members of the church is likewise preferable to insisting on calling them perverts and comparing them to pedophiles.

To me, that's common sense. To you, apparently, that's capitulation to the enemy.

[wenglund]

It's nice to know that trying to avoid needlessly inflammatory language is the same as embracing. I learn something new every day.

 

 

 

There is an important link between words and ideas and beliefs that some people may take a while to get.

 

What saddens me is that some people still haven't grasped the concept that expressing disagreement and disapproval, even passionately, does not require the use of inappropriate language. In fact, using disdainful and contemptuous language tends to weaken one's position because it distracts listeners from the message.

A reasoned discussion of Obama Administration policy, for example, is preferable to waving posters of Obama as Hitler. Civil discussion of the issues surrounding gay members of the church is likewise preferable to insisting on calling them perverts and comparing them to pedophiles.

To me, that's common sense. To you, apparently, that's capitulation to the enemy.

 

I get how in our PC world it is now considered not that smart, lacking in common sense, unnecessarily inflammatory, deleterious to civil discourse, inappropriate language, and even hate speech, to call a spade a spade. 

 

Of course, the irony in leveling such replete condemnations seems entirely lost on the PCers--along with the important distinction between people and their behaviors (I have yet to call homosexuals perverts)  and comparisons and categorizations (logically placing homosexual behaviors in the set of sins and perversions is not to equate homosexuals with pedophiles).

 

Using a political analogy of my own, I am sure we as a nation and as respective communities will be far wore successful and far more wise were we to discourage our youth from smoking by, instead of using harsh terms like "carcinogens" and repelling images like blackened lungs and people with holes in their necks, we took a page from homosexual activists, and depicted cigarette smokers as loving and happy and ingenious people. Yes, I am sure that would work--or, at least in doing so, we can avoid being condemned by not calling bad bad. After all, what is most important is to not offend than to progress.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

There is an important link between words and ideas and beliefs that some people may take a while to get.

 

 

 

 

I get how in our PC world it is now considered not that smart, lacking in common sense, unnecessarily inflammatory, deleterious to civil discourse, inappropriate language, and even hate speech, to call a spade a spade. 

 

Of course, the irony in leveling such replete condemnations seems entirely lost on the PCers--along with the important distinction between people and their behaviors (I have yet to call homosexuals perverts)  and comparisons and categorizations (logically placing homosexual behaviors in the set of sins and perversions is not to equate homosexuals with pedophiles).

 

Using a political analogy of my own, I am sure we as a nation and as respective communities will be far wore successful and far more wise were we to discourage our youth from smoking by, instead of using harsh terms like "carcinogens" and repelling images like blackened lungs and people with holes in their necks, we took a page from homosexual activists, and depicted cigarette smokers as loving and happy and ingenious people. Yes, I am sure that would work--or, at least in doing so, we can avoid being condemned by not calling bad bad. After all, what is most important is to not offend than to progress.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Some people use the Gospel as an invite to become a better person, and invite other to join. Some use it as a sword to injure and kill. Your choice as to which is more effective in the long run.

 

Calling names like drunkard, wino; equating people whom smoke as without willpower. or stupid probably didn't change that behavior.

[jkwilliams]

Some people use the Gospel as an invite to become a better person, and invite other to join. Some use it as a sword to injure and kill. Your choice as to which is more effective in the long run.

 

Calling names like drunkard, wino; equating people whom smoke as without willpower. or stupid probably didn't change that behavior.

This.

[wenglund]

Some people use the Gospel as an invite to become a better person, and invite other to join. Some use it as a sword to injure and kill. Your choice as to which is more effective in the long run.

 

Calling names like drunkard, wino; equating people whom smoke as without willpower. or stupid probably didn't change that behavior.

 

Having attended AA meetings in support of a loved-one, I can personally attest that, contrary to what you suggest, open and honest identification of alcoholism (which is synonymous with "drunkard"), and rightly self-identifying as an alcoholic, is critical to changing alcoholic behaviors.

 

Such open and honest identification is in no way meant as a sword to injure or hurt, but rather a pill to be swallowed to help and to heal--i.e. it is a way of acknowledging a disposition towards destructive behaviors, which acknowledgment may then enable those afflicted to take steps to prevent further destructive behaviors (as Dr. Phil says: "you cannot change what you don't acknowledge.").

 

It is an invitation to become better people.

 

Wrapping destructive (or sinful) behaviors in endearing terms of commitment and love, tends to indulge and encourage the behaviors and prevent change. It is what injures and kills.

 

So, you (and JKW) got it exactly backwards.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 31, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Having attended AA meetings in support of a loved-one, I can personally attest that, contrary to what you suggest, open and honest identification of alcoholism (which is synonymous with "drunkard"), and rightly self-identifying as an alcoholic, is critical to changing alcoholic behaviors.

 

Such open and honest identification is in no way meant as a sword to injure or hurt, but rather a pill to be swallowed to help and to heal--i.e. it is a way of acknowledging a disposition towards destructive behaviors, which acknowledgment may then enable those afflicted to take steps to prevent further destructive behaviors (as Dr. Phil says: "you cannot change what you don't acknowledge.").

 

It is an invitation to become better people.

 

Wrapping destructive (or sinful) behaviors in endearing terms of commitment and love, tends to indulge and encourage the behaviors and prevent change. It is what injures and kills.

 

So, you (and JKW) got it exactly backwards.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The whole 12 Steps Program for gays which was used as an argument to try and defeat the Civil Unions law in Vermont blew up in the Church's face.  Does the Church even push that program anymore?

[thesometimesaint]

Having attended AA meetings in support of a loved-one, I can personally attest that, contrary to what you suggest, open and honest identification of alcoholism (which is synonymous with "drunkard"), and rightly self-identifying as an alcoholic, is critical to changing alcoholic behaviors.

 

Such open and honest identification is in no way meant as a sword to injure or hurt, but rather a pill to be swallowed to help and to heal--i.e. it is a way of acknowledging a disposition towards destructive behaviors, which acknowledgment may then enable those afflicted to take steps to prevent further destructive behaviors (as Dr. Phil says: "you cannot change what you don't acknowledge.").

 

It is an invitation to become better people.

 

Wrapping destructive (or sinful) behaviors in endearing terms of commitment and love, tends to indulge and encourage the behaviors and prevent change. It is what injures and kills.

 

So, you (and JKW) got it exactly backwards.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I've never attended an AA meeting. But I seriously doubt that they spend much, if any time, calling each other a drunkard/wino. Alcoholism is a serious disease. Let's treat the disease and not call each other derogatory names.

 

I have no problem identifying diseases/conditions/behaviors by their correct name. Labeling someone with a derogatory name doesn't help cure the disease, condition, or behavior. Calling a prostitute a whore doesn't change the behavior for the better. All it is does is reinforce the stereotype.

 

I agree it is so much more self righteously satisfying to call names, label, stigmatize, or otherwise stereotype people than to actually effectively deal with the disease/condition/behavior.

[jkwilliams]

So, you (and JKW) got it exactly backwards.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think about all I have left to say is that I am saddened that some people mistake civility for acceptance of sin, kindness for condoning sin, and compassion for embracing sin. If being a disciple requires me to build walls and shove people out the door, I don't really want to be a disciple. Sorry.

[Stone holm]

I think about all I have left to say is that I am saddened that some people mistake civility for acceptance of sin, kindness for condoning sin, and compassion for embracing sin. If being a disciple requires me to build walls and shove people out the door, I don't really want to be a disciple. Sorry.

 

It doesn't.

[wenglund]

The whole 12 Steps Program for gays which was used as an argument to try and defeat the Civil Unions law in Vermont blew up in the Church's face.  Does the Church even push that program anymore?

 

I have no idea what you are talking about or what relevance it has to what I said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have no idea what you are talking about or what relevance it has to what I said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sometimes I am left wondering if people are even reading your posts.

[wenglund]

I've never attended an AA meeting. But I seriously doubt that they spend much, if any time, calling each other a drunkard/wino. Alcoholism is a serious disease. Let's treat the disease and not call each other derogatory names.

 

If you had attended an AA meeting, you would know that it is customary, and an unwritten requirement, for each participant to introduce themselves by saying, "My name is _____, and I am an alcoholic." Again, as Dr. Phil often says, "You can't change what you don't acknowledge."

 

I have no problem identifying diseases/conditions/behaviors by their correct name. Labeling someone with a derogatory name doesn't help cure the disease, condition, or behavior. Calling a prostitute a whore doesn't change the behavior for the better. All it is does is reinforce the stereotype.

 

You are obviously straining to mis the point. I am not assigning derogatory labels to people, I am correctly categorizing behaviors. Calling perverse behaviors perverse, is no more derogatory than calling carcinogenic behaviors carcinogenic. And, If the behavior is not thought to be perverse or carcinogenic or deleterious or whatever, there is no reason to change. Rightly acknowledging the perversion or carcinogens or toxicity or whatever does give reason to change. Correctly labeling/acknowledging the nature of the behavior, acts as an agent for change. Encasing the bad behaviors in a PC whited sepulchar will do just the opposite.

 

So, again, you continue to get it exactly backwards.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I hope this is taken the way I intend it, but I realize after a few weeks back that it's been good to be reminded of the basic goodness of church members and of the uplifting and ennobling parts of the gospel. Where we humans tend to see reasons for division and condemnation, God sees the better people we can be and invites us all to come and join Him at the table.

Thank you for making me feel welcome, as I haven't always been welcome in the past. Truth be told, I don't think I should have been welcomed sometimes.

[wenglund]

I think about all I have left to say is that I am saddened that some people mistake civility for acceptance of sin, kindness for condoning sin, and compassion for embracing sin. If being a disciple requires me to build walls and shove people out the door, I don't really want to be a disciple. Sorry.

 

No one is suggesting anything of the sort. The histrionics are being imposed on my comments.

 

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[mormonnewb]

 

You are obviously straining to mis the point. I am not assigning derogatory labels to people, I am correctly categorizing behaviors. Calling perverse behaviors perverse, is no more derogatory than calling carcinogenic behaviors carcinogenic. And, If the behavior is not thought to be perverse or carcinogenic or deleterious or whatever, there is no reason to change. Rightly acknowledging the perversion or carcinogens or toxicity or whatever does give reason to change. Correctly labeling/acknowledging the nature of the behavior, acts as an agent for change. Encasing the bad behaviors in a PC whited sepulchar will do just the opposite.

 

 

I think we continually miss your point because you refuse to abide byhe rules of the English language.  The first rule being that you don't get to make up your own definition for words.  The characterizations of perversion and carcinogens are not same.  Whether something is or is not a carcinogen is a matter of verifiable fact, free of value judgments.  However, whether something is perverse is matter of opinion.  I know you hate this but here is the definition of the word:

 

"(of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences."

 

To make the determination of perversion, you have to decide that something is unreasonable or unacceptable.  This is a value judgment.  Now, there is nothing wrong with making value judgments, but doing so, does make you judgmental (once again, another one of those annoying definitional things).

 

Also, for the record, I believe that AA stands for Alcoholics Anonymous, not Drunks Anonymous, Lush Anonymous or Loser Anonymous.  Because it's possible to specifically diagnose a problem (i.e., alcoholism) without using pejorative language to describe the child of God who has the problem.

[Stone holm]

I have no idea what you are talking about or what relevance it has to what I said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The Church had a program adopted from AA which they tried to apply to people with SSA or practicing homosexuals.  They laid out that approach to the State legislative committee hearing the debates in Vermont over whether to authorize Civil Unions.  Managed to make us the laughing stock of Vermont.  You are invoking AA so I assume that you have at least some clue as to what you are talking about since the 12 Step Program is fundamental to AA.  I assumed you knew that.

[teddyaware]

The Church had a program adopted from AA which they tried to apply to people with SSA or practicing homosexuals.  They laid out that approach to the State legislative committee hearing the debates in Vermont over whether to authorize Civil Unions.  Managed to make us the laughing stock of Vermont.  You are invoking AA so I assume that you have at least some clue as to what you are talking about since the 12 Step Program is fundamental to AA.  I assumed you knew that.

 

Seems there are some folks who are somewhat preoccupied with worries about the LDS Church being a laughing stock to the world. These folks, thus worried, probably haven't seen anything yet. I predict it is likely that before too long the LDS Church will become much more of a laughing stock to the world than it already is...

 

As the world becomes more and more carnal, sensual and devilish, and as the Latter-day Saints continue to uphold supposedly hopelessly old fashioned scriptural values, the Church may eventually become a total laughing stock to a world ripening in iniquity. When that day comes, will there be some who are now partaking of the fruit of the tree of life who will shrink away and fall into forbidden paths, and this because they can no longer stand the blistering torrent of mockery and gleeful laughter that will emanate from the worldly-wise occupiers of the large and spacious building? Could it be that those who may opt to abandon the glorious tree of life will do so because they have become too ashamed to remain members of the Church, said shame, induced by the derision of the world, having become too much for their sensibilities to bear?

 

The scriptures repeatedly teach that only those who despise the shame of this world will inherit a fullness of celestial glory. Even the Saviour of the world allowed himself to become an object of mockery and scornful laughter, and this that He might bring many sons and daughters to glory. And His saints are expected to do likewise: "But behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who believe in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever." (2 Nephi 9:18)     

Edited November 1, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Seems there are some folks who are somewhat preoccupied with worries about the LDS Church being a laughing stock to the world. These folks, thus worried, probably haven't seen anything yet. I predict it is likely that before too long the LDS Church will become much more of a laughing stock to the world than it already is...

 

As the world becomes more and more carnal, sensual and devilish, and as the Latter-day Saints continue to uphold supposedly hopelessly old fashioned scriptural values, the Church may eventually become a total laughing stock to a world ripening in iniquity. When that day comes, will there be some who are now partaking of the fruit of the tree of life who will shrink away and fall into forbidden paths, and this because they can no longer stand the blistering torrent of mockery and gleeful laughter that will emanate from the worldly-wise occupiers of the large and spacious building? Could it be that those who may opt to abandon the glorious tree of life will do so because they have become too ashamed to remain members of the Church, said shame, induced by the derision of the world, having become too much for their sensibilities to bear?

 

The scriptures repeatedly teach that only those who despise the shame of this world will inherit a fullness of celestial glory. Even the Saviour of the world allowed himself to become an object of mockery and scornful laughter, and this that He might bring many sons and daughters to glory. And His saints are expected to do likewise: "But behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who believe in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever." (2 Nephi 9:18)

I doubt the Church will go there again, but some members might. This isn't about whether homosexuality is or is not sinful. This is about stupid political moves that actually harmed their position. Instead of persuading Vermonters, the spokesperson actually swung people in the opposite direction. This is not an AA situation, and trying to liken homosexuals to alcoholics, not only is bad medicine, its bad public relations.

[Nathair/|\]

The Church had a program adopted from AA which they tried to apply to people with SSA or practicing homosexuals.  They laid out that approach to the State legislative committee hearing the debates in Vermont over whether to authorize Civil Unions.  Managed to make us the laughing stock of Vermont.  You are invoking AA so I assume that you have at least some clue as to what you are talking about since the 12 Step Program is fundamental to AA.  I assumed you knew that.

 35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

 36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

--1 Nephi 11

[slamarwi]

I think we continually miss your point because you refuse to abide byhe rules of the English language.  The first rule being that you don't get to make up your own definition for words.  The characterizations of perversion and carcinogens are not same.  Whether something is or is not a carcinogen is a matter of verifiable fact, free of value judgments.  However, whether something is perverse is matter of opinion.  I know you hate this but here is the definition of the word:

 

"(of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences."

 

To make the determination of perversion, you have to decide that something is unreasonable or unacceptable.  This is a value judgment.  Now, there is nothing wrong with making value judgments, but doing so, does make you judgmental (once again, another one of those annoying definitional things).

 

Also, for the record, I believe that AA stands for Alcoholics Anonymous, not Drunks Anonymous, Lush Anonymous or Loser Anonymous.  Because it's possible to specifically diagnose a problem (i.e., alcoholism) without using pejorative language to describe the child of God who has the problem.

 

Since the name of this forum is the "Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board", it would make sense that the "value judgements" regarding SSM/homosexuality would be unacceptable, unreasonable and a perversion of the LDS system. If you choose to be offended and view words like perversion as hate speech, whether from a lay person or general authority at conference, so be it. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by slamarwi

[teddyaware]

I doubt the Church will go there again, but some members might. This isn't about whether homosexuality is or is not sinful. This is about stupid political moves that actually harmed their position. Instead of persuading Vermonters, the spokesperson actually swung people in the opposite direction. This is not an AA situation, and trying to liken homosexuals to alcoholics, not only is bad medicine, its bad public relations.

 

I'm speaking to a much broader issue. In my humble opinion -- one that is based on the prophecies in the scriptures -- it is very likely that as the Church continues to cling to the iron rod of continuous revelation and revealed divine principles, it will increasingly come under fire and become the target of an ever intensifying campaign of mockery, ridicule, derision and merciless sarcasm meted out by the spiritually blind masses. This bitter opposition will come just as sure as night follows day, no matter how deferentially, skillfully and compassionately the gospel message is framed and presented.

 

This coming era of prophesied persecution seems unavoidable, and when it does come it may become exceedingly embarrassing for some to remain faithful and active Latter-day Saints, for they may begin to weary and faint under the relentless emotional stresses that come as consequence of living in the midst of an all pervasive political, educational, religious, entertainment and media culture that is 180 degrees out of phase with the teachings of the Church.

 

Bottom line? For those among us who are even now already feeling embarrassment, hang on for a while because the day and time in which we're now living will seem like the good old days. The faith and the testimonies of the saints are going to be tested, and only those who are not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, come what may, will overcome and obtain the fullness of salvation. 

 

The voice of warning is clear: "And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather multitudes upon all the face of the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 14:13) For those so determined and poisonously minded, there is likely no amount of respectful treatment, kind words, and genuine attempts at mutual understanding that will stay their evil intent. But does this mean the saints should treat them in kind? Of course not, we should always do our best to love our fellow men and show forth Christlike kindness and forbearance. But when in spite of our best efforts the insults, scoffs and scorns come our way, let us not be surprised and allow ourselves become ashamed to be Latter-day Saints. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by teddyaware