Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Ultimately, it will happen because my experience with the youth in the church tells me that they won't put up with our current position and policies.

 

I've worked with the youth as well, and I agree with this statement. 

 

I've spent most of the past ten years working with the young men in our ward, in a nation far more secular than the US. My experience has been that if they are taught correct principles, they embrace them fully.

[rockpond]

I've spent most of the past ten years working with the young men in our ward, in a nation far more secular than the US. My experience has been that if they are taught correct principles, they embrace them fully.

 

I'm not sure that a secularized society has anything to do with it.  In my experience, many of the youth see it as a matter of a loving God that would not want his gay & lesbian children to spend their lives alone.

 

I believe that when we teach our kids correct principles, they won't depart from them.  But they have to be correct principles.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But they have to be correct principles.

 

Indeed.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure that a secularized society has anything to do with it.  In my experience, many of the youth see it as a matter of a loving God that would not want his gay & lesbian children to spend their lives alone.

 

I believe that when we teach our kids correct principles, they won't depart from them.  But they have to be correct principles.

Oh, Lord!  God, aka Santa Claus, didn't bring me a wife this year!  Since I had made the requisite request of the Jolly, Rotund, Red-and-White-Suited Fellow, I was fully expecting, as I bounded down the stairs and into the living room at 4 a.m. on Christmas Morning, to see her peeking out of my Christmas stocking or gift-wrapped under the tree!  Alas, no joy (in more ways than one)!  I fully complied with most all of the other prerequisites: Eagle Scout, four-year Seminary graduate, four-year Institute graduate (plus a couple of certificates) honorable mission, degree (and degree and degree!), et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  If I happen to depart this life unattached, does this unfulfilled blessing, along with any other unfulfilled blessings about which I might be wont to complain, give me the right to stomp my foot and shake my fist at the judgment bar and tell God, when so many other people who haven't met any, some, or all of these "requirements" yet seem to have been blessed in so many ways I have not yet, "See?  I knew you loved him (or her) best!"?

 

But, see, here's the thing.  Even if I say that so many people have done so much less yet seem to have gotten so much more; even if I ask, "I've lived the Gospel, but what has it gotten me?"; even if I say, [sigh!], "God must not love me!" where does that leave me?  Why haven't I gotten any of these blessings?    I dunno. What is God going to do with me if I happen to depart this life without an Eternal Companion?  Is the "solution" gonna involve the equivalent of One Long Stake Singles Dance with the Desperate Dregs of Single Humanity (albeit the Resurrected Dregs ) in attendance?    I dunno.  There are only three things I know for sure:

 

1. Mortal LIfe ISN'T Fair.  I can either stomp my widdo feet and shake my widdo fists, or I can GET OVER IT!; and
2. Notwithstanding #1, God Loves Me.
3. WHATEVER Happens in the Next Life, an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God Isn't Going to Have to Tell ANY of Us, "Sorry; I Know You Were Expecting Something More/Better/Different, But This is The Best I Could Do."

Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

Oh, Lord!  God, aka Santa Claus, didn't bring me a wife this year!  Since I had made the requisite request of the Jolly, Rotund, Red-and-White-Suited Fellow, I was fully expecting, as I bounded down the stairs and into the living room at 4 a.m. on Christmas Morning, to see her peeking out of my Christmas stocking or gift-wrapped under the tree!  Alas, no joy (in more ways than one)!  I fully complied with most all of the other prerequisites: Eagle Scout, four-year Seminary graduate, four-year Institute graduate (plus a couple of certificates) honorable mission, degree (and degree and degree!), et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  If I happen to depart this life unattached, does this unfulfilled blessing, along with any other unfulfilled blessings about which I might be wont to complain, give me the right to stomp my foot and shake my fist at the judgment bar and tell God, when so many other people who haven't met any, some, or all of these "requirements" yet seem to have been blessed in so many ways I have not yet, "See?  I knew you loved him (or her) best!"?

 

But, see, here's the thing.  Even if I say that so many people have done so much less yet seem to have gotten so much more; even if I ask, "I've lived the Gospel, but what has it gotten me?"; even if I say, [sigh!], "God must not love me!" where does that leave me?  Why haven't I gotten any of these blessings?    I dunno. What is God going to do with me if I happen to depart this life without an Eternal Companion?  Is the "solution" gonna involve the equivalent of One Long Stake Singles Dance with the Desperate Dregs of Single Humanity (albeit the Resurrected Dregs ) in attendance?    I dunno.  There are only three things I know for sure:

 

• Mortal LIfe ISN'T Fair.  I can either stomp my widdo feet and shake my widdo fists, or I can GET OVER IT!; and
• Notwithstanding #1, God Loves Me.
• WHATEVER Happens in the Next Life, an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God Isn't Going to Have to Tell ANY of Us, "Sorry; I Know You Were Expecting Something More/Better/Different, But This is The Best I Could Do."

Has God commanded you to not date? Not find a wife? Not even try?

What has God promised you if you remain faithful through your challenges? Contrast that to what is promised to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Sorry, your analogy fails on those points. But it doesn't really matter what you and I think. I was sharing my experience with what the youth of the church seem to think. And my experience with them is that the church (through revelation or whatever method you deem necessary) can change its position on inclusion of homosexuals or it can fade into irrelevancy. My money is on change.

[Kenngo1969]

Has God commanded you to not date? Not find a wife? Not even try?

 

Both of those are "on my list."  The first is hard enough.  The second is a very tall order.  It's not a matter of not trying. My previous post still stands, even if you're not persuaded by it. Conceivably, depending on where one falls on the heterosexuality-homosexuality continuum, He could command someone who's further toward the first point on that continuum to date and/or to marry member of the opposite sex.  Or, He could command a person who's closer to the second point on that continuum to "wait upon" Him.  Or, He could even command someone who's closer to the second point on that continuum to date and/or to marry a member of the opposite sex (though both partners would need to go into the relationship with eyes wide open: see, e.g., Josh and Lolly Weed)  (He could also command me to do any of those things.)

 

But I get it: gays are speshul; I'm not.  We need to (1) redefine marriage and/or (2) suspend the Law of Chastity for gays.  I get it. 

 

 

What has God promised you if you remain faithful through your challenges? Contrast that to what is promised to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

 

Uhhhh ... you mean, He's promised both of us the same thing?

 

Because ... He has.

 

P.S.: Even if you think my #1 and my #2 are cow cookies (even if you ask, "How could God possibly love His gay children if He's not willing to allow His church to redefine marriage and/or to suspend the Law of Chastity for them?") I note that you've completely ignored my #3.  Thanks fer playin'!

Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Rob Osborn]

Democracies by their nature almost always reflect compromise. Seeing that the government will now require us to view gay families the same as straight ones, which outcome do you think is worse - (i) extending current government support for marriage and family to gay unions, or (ii) dropping all government support for marriage and family? It's possible to view a government extension of benefits to gay families as contrary to traditional values. It's also possible to view that as a greater embrace of traditional values.

i personally do not think government should respect a marriage of same sex couples. Let them live together or whatever but government should not extend the same benefits of traditional families to those of alternative immoral families. Its detrimental to society.

[Rob Osborn]

Indeed, we need to go back to our roots. Roll back women's rights. Bring back slavery or at least make racism culturally acceptable again. We have also gotten rid of the glorious rampant alcoholism of the early 1800s. Only then will God smile upon us and bring back Zion.

We can spend our days pining for a past that never was or build a future (Zion) that has been before and can and must be again.

I am all for building Zion but you cant build Zion if you do not live up to God's laws. If we are to pave the way for Zion then it means putting a stop to immoral behavior such as homosexuality, same sex marriages, etc.

[carbon dioxide]

What exactly is the "marriage business" that our government engages in? Lately there's a lot of debate about the definition of marriage, but the actual business seems to be our collective attempt to build up the institution of marriage and use it as a means to deliver services to the public. Are you sure you want the government to cease those efforts? Here are a few specifics to consider (there are literally 1000s to choose from):

 

• A surviving spouse is eligible to receive benefits accrued by the labor and SS contributions made by the deceased.
• Tax laws routinely favor joint ownership and transfers of assets between spouses.
• Federal law guarantees work leave for an employee to care for a spouse (FLMA).
• Federal law requires employers to provide a spouse of a former employee with access to medical heath plans (COBRA).
• Immigration law often grants favored statuses to non-citizen spouses.
• Income tax laws give deductions, credits, and other preferential treatment to married couples.
• Federal law provides spouses with rights to made medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse .
• Statutory and case law exists to ensure that divorcees are treated fairly.
• Spouses of veterans and safety officers killed in action are given lump sum payments.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. When you say that "government should get out of the marriage business" do you really mean that government should do nothing to support marriages or provide benefits as a result of marital status? That seems to smack of the old saying - "cut off your nose to spite your face."

 

On a related note, do you think the government should get out the "religion business" and stop giving preferential tax treatment to religious organizations?

The main argument that SSM supporters give is the 14th Amendment of equality under the law.  It we are all equal under the law, that includes single people.  Why should married people be given special benefits or treatment that single people do not enjoy?  Why should my single sister not get tax considerations that I am allowed to get?  If the view is "equality for all" as many suggest, than all means ALL.  That includes all people who are not married. 

 

Perhaps the government should get out of the religion business and giving tax benefits to religions.  Then religions will not have their hands tied on a number of things that they currently can't do or say.  The government uses the 501c rules to keep the religions under their control.  Perhaps this control needs to be broken.

[sunstoned]

i personally do not think government should respect a marriage of same sex couples. Let them live together or whatever but government should not extend the same benefits of traditional families to those of alternative immoral families. Its detrimental to society.

CFR that extending the same benefits to same sex couples is detrimental to society.

 

This is what was said of polygamy 120 years ago.  The irony is rich here.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR that extending the same benefits to same sex couples is detrimental to society.

 

This is what was said of polygamy 120 years ago.  The irony is rich here.

Children do not fare as well in homes void of a loving father and mother. Children raised by gay, bi, or other alternative immoral relationships do not fare as well in the long term. http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

[The Nehor]

I am all for building Zion but you cant build Zion if you do not live up to God's laws. If we are to pave the way for Zion then it means putting a stop to immoral behavior such as homosexuality, same sex marriages, etc.

It does but I imagine each individual can make more progress by focusing on their own shortcomings rather then sins they most likely do not even want to commit. I could spend a lot of time lamenting about how gambling is a huge problem holding back Zion but the truth is I am not tempted by gambling so I would probably be better off focusing on things like envy, lust, and dishonesty. In other words, the things I am tempted to do and often yield to said temptation.

A monomania about homosexuality is unhealthy. It usually involves condemning others with a clear conscience, never a good habit to get into.

[Hamba Tuhan]

There are only three things I know for sure:

 

1. Mortal LIfe ISN'T Fair.  I can either stomp my widdo feet and shake my widdo fists, or I can GET OVER IT!; and
2. Notwithstanding #1, God Loves Me.
3. WHATEVER Happens in the Next Life, an Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving God Isn't Going to Have to Tell ANY of Us, "Sorry; I Know You Were Expecting Something More/Better/Different, But This is The Best I Could Do."

 

You're a cheeky one, Ken. I don't, er, tend to phrase things the way you do, but your list is correct. I might add a fourth thing that I know:

 

4. I am bound to the Lord by covenants. I'm not always very good at keeping some of them, but even then I find myself on my knees reminding him that I am His and that, my struggles notwithstanding, I have no intention of ever severing the ties that bind me to Him.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And my experience with them is that the church (through revelation or whatever method you deem necessary) can change its position on inclusion of homosexuals or it can fade into irrelevancy. My money is on change.

 

I can think of a third option ...

[rockpond]

Both of those are "on my list." The first is hard enough. The second is a very tall order. It's not a matter of not trying. My previous post still stands, even if you're not persuaded by it. Conceivably, depending on where one falls on the heterosexuality-homosexuality continuum, He could command someone who's further toward the first point on that continuum to date and/or to marry member of the opposite sex. Or, He could command a person who's closer to the second point on that continuum to "wait upon" Him. Or, He could even command someone who's closer to the second point on that continuum to date and/or to marry a member of the opposite sex (though both partners would need to go into the relationship with eyes wide open: see, e.g., Josh and Lolly Weed) (He could also command me to do any of those things.)

But I get it: gays are speshul; I'm not. We need to (1) redefine marriage and/or (2) suspend the Law of Chastity for gays. I get it.

Uhhhh ... you mean, He's promised both of us the same thing?

Because ... He has.

P.S.: Even if you think my #1 and my #2 are cow cookies (even if you ask, "How could God possibly love His gay children if He's not willing to allow His church to redefine marriage and/or to suspend the Law of Chastity for them?") I note that you've completely ignored my #3. Thanks fer playin'!

I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole of a debate that we've already done. I haven't suggested that we redefine marriage nor that gays are "speshul". Your lack of marriage is not the same as divinely mandated celibacy.

None of that, however, speaks to my point in relation to the OP: My experience with the youth is that the upcoming generation will demand a more inclusive church or they'll walk. Our membership growth rates are declining. If the trend holds, the church will cease any meaningful growth before my youngest is old enough to serve a mission. Add to that a current generation who leaves because (in part) they disagree with excluding gays from full participation and you get to the place I mentioned: irrelevancy.

I don't see us taking that path. I think we'll see more examples of what the OP described and that will lead to more good things.

Edited January 7, 2015 by rockpond

[Hamba Tuhan]

My experience with the youth is that the upcoming generation will demand a more inclusive church or they'll walk.

 

Hopefully such youth are few in number, but if not, things like this have sadly happened before. Mosiah 26:

 

1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers.

2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.

3 And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.

4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.

 

But even then the Church survived:

 

37 And it came to pass that Alma did regulate all the affairs of the church; and they began again to have peace and to prosper exceedingly in the affairs of the church, walking circumspectly before God, receiving many, and baptizing many.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

 

But I get it: gays are speshul; I'm not.  We need to (1) redefine marriage and/or (2) suspend the Law of Chastity for gays.  I get it. 

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or just plain rude.

 

What is "speshul" about wanting the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple? What is "speshul" about wanting to have a loving companion?

 

 

It only redefines your idea of marriage. Many types of marriages have existed through out time that do not fit our current claim that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. The early church polygamists sure were trying to "redefine" marriage for their needs and resisted the persecution of others.

 

The law of chastity is that an individual will not have any sexual relationship except with their spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully married. So why would it be changing the law of chastity to allow married gay couples to act as a married couple? Also, the only change to the law of chastity is the stricter rules gays must follow. Not only are they not to have any sexual relations but they must also not do anything that would provoke feellings toward such. ie kissing, hand holding etc. Does the heterosexual law of chastity restrict these behaviors? No.

 

Have a little compassion for what the church is really asking of our gay brothers and sisters. They are asked to BE ALONE...FOREVER. It's a tall order asking someone to never have a loving companion or even be able to hope for one.

Edited January 7, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[DBMormon]

Short of an affidavit from the FP, I'm not sure what you're looking for.

 

FWIW, here is a link to the famous 1973 Dialogue article by Lester Bush: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/.  You'll see that Bush cites the Lowry letter multiple times in his article and says the letter is found "at the Brigham Young University Library."

 

Considering that Bush's article was very prominently reviewed by the FP/Q12 prior to their removing the ban in 1978 (see, e.g., https://chadlawrencenielsen.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/a-significant-factor-the-influence-of-lester-e-bush-jr-s-research-on-the-revelation-of-1978/) and that President Kimball's son has said that his father "had underlined and annotated virtually the entire article in his own copy of Dialogue" (http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/06/08/the-long-awaited-day/), I find it very hard to believe that if the Lowry letter was fake no one in the COB would have investigated and published that fact. There was certainly opposition from McConkie, Stapley and others in the Q12 to the Bush article. If he was citing a false source - a 1947 letter from the FP for goodness sake - it would have been found out.

 

EDIT to add: I just noticed that I've been referring to the "Lowry letter" when I should be saying "Nelson letter." The member's name was Dr. Lowry Nelson.  My apologies.

 

Also, it should be noted that at the time of the Stewart Book (1960) which cited to the Nelson letter, two of the signatories to the Nelson letter were still alive - J. Reuben Clark (d. 1961) and David O. McKay (d. 1970). This is quite a different situation from the salamander letter - where the parties to the supposed letter were long dead and gone. We're talking about a potential forgery where the authors were still very much alive and their correspondence files could by easily checked.

He won't accept it... you will need to move on.  

 

Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth.

[DBMormon]

^{Utah State appears to have a set of the correspondence as well:}

^{http://www.mormonstudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf}

not good enough!!!

[DBMormon]

Just because it is cited does not make it authentic. Otherwise the Salamander letter would be authentic.  

 

The fact that it was cited and published during the lifetime of Pres. McKay makes it more probable that it is authentic, but it could be that President McKay did not respond to every accusation made.  I remember him -- the sermons in general conference in his last years were delivered by his son.

 

I've never really focused on this particular challenge to the Lowrey Nelson exchange but this thread caused me to look at the letters again.  It is manifestly apparent to me that the copies are not true copies; otherwise they'd have Pres. McKay's signature on them and they wouldn't appear in the same type font as the other letters.   There'd be letterhead.  These are letters typed up after the fact, like in the old days when a scribes would make a copy of a letter by hand.  Typed up by whom?

told ya

[Daniel2]

Posted this in another thread, but felt it was also applicable in this one.

Another interesting Opinion Piece authored by a Catholic Bishop in Florida:

Church needs patience, humility in light of same-sex marriage

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-church-needs-patience-humility-in-light-of-same-sex-marriage/2212639

By Bishop Robert N. Lynch, special to the Tampa Bay Times

Tuesday, January 6, 2015 2:42pm

In light of the judicial decision that legalized same-sex marriage in Florida as of Tuesday, I wish to lend an additional voice to the discussion regarding the challenges we in the Catholic Church face as we strive to preserve the traditional sacramental understanding of marriage even as the law now accommodates couples of the same sex.

The Catholic Church upholds marriage, one of our seven sacraments, as an indissoluble relationship between a man and a woman committed to mutual consolation and open to procreation. Such a view is rooted not only in the church's long-standing theological understanding of married life, but in the church's understanding of Christian anthropology as well, which views the conjugal and complementary relationship between a man and a woman as part of God's providential design whereby human beings are able to be co-creators of life with God.

Therefore, any dialogue which reaffirms such a view of marriage and which seeks to ensure that such a view continues to be respected and enabled to serve and edify both the church and the wider society is to be commended and supported.

However, together with Pope Francis and in light of the discussions at the recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family held in Rome, I also recognize that the reality of the family today, in all its complexities, presents the church with pastoral challenges as the church strives to accept people in the specific circumstances of their lives and support and encourage them in their search for God and their desire to be members of the church.

Therefore, I do not wish to lend our voice to notions which might suggest that same-sex couples are a threat incapable of sharing relationships marked by love and holiness and, thus, incapable of contributing to the edification of both the church and the wider society.

In the midst of changing societal definitions and understandings of marriage, there may no doubt be some confusion. However, with patience and humility, our church must continuously strive to discover what the spirit is saying and respond to the Synod Fathers' suggestion to discern what pastoral response faithful to church teaching and marked by respect and sensitivity might be appropriate for same-sex couples, even as God's creative designs for and the church's sacramental understanding of marriage are affirmed.

Bishop Robert N. Lynch leads the Diocese of St. Petersburg, which includes the 432,000 Catholics in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando and Citrus counties.

I think the above definitely resonates as the same issues face the LDS community.

[Rob Osborn]

Im not sure a same sex couple can have a relationship marked by holiness.

[Kenngo1969]

... Have a little compassion for what the church is really asking of our gay brothers and sisters. They are asked to BE ALONE...FOREVER. It's a tall order asking someone to never have a loving companion or even be able to hope for one.

I know!!!!!!!!!!!!!   How could I POSSIBLY be such an OGRE??????????!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yessssss!

 

The Church is asking our gay brothers and sisters to ...

 

BE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!!!!!!  [Cue Thunder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

 

And apparently, God is consigning single, heterosexual folks such as myself to go to the Afterlife Equivalent of A Giant Stake Singles Dance featuring the dregs (albeit the Resurrected Dregs) of Unattached Humanity!   Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

God loves MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE more than He loves gay folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!!!!

 

(See?  Both of us can speculate as to the fate of anyone's eternal soul!!!   Isn't it FUN???!!!!!!!!!!)

 

P.S.: Like almost everyone else who has responded to me so far, you, too, are conveniently silent on my #3.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

Hopefully such youth are few in number, but if not, things like this have sadly happened before. Mosiah 26:

 

 

But even then the Church survived:

 

 

Those aren't the youth I'm referring to... these are youth who are faithful, believing, active, serving youth.

 

When I was a youth it was easier to convince me that homosexuality was this bad evil thing.

 

My kids, however, are growing up in a world where gay people don't stay in the closet.  My kids will grow up knowing their extended family members who are gay and married in stable, happy relationships having been together longer than my wife and I.  It's much harder to convince *these* youth that homosexuality is wrong.  And it's not because they lack faith.

[rockpond]

Yessssss!

 

The Church is asking our gay brothers and sisters to ...

 

BE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!!!!!!

 

And apparently, God is consigning single, heterosexual folks such as myself to go to the Afterlife Equivalent of A Giant Stake Singles Dance featuring the dregs (albeit the Resurrected Dregs) of Unattached Humanity!   Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

God loves MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

(See?  Both of us can speculate as to the fate of anyone's eternal soul!!!   Isn't it

 

Has the Church or God asked (or commanded) you to be alone?  Has the Church threatened to take away your recommend if you date?  Would your membership be revoked if you found someone you loved and married them?

 

Let's stop confounding a lack of marriage with denial of marriage.  Different problems to solve.