Popular Post Avatar4321 Posted January 31, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 31, 2016 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Ok. But the teen knows that if they ever act on their sexuality they will be branded as such. You don't think that is a stresser? I don't think you are accurately portraying the issue. The policy doesn't brand anyone as apostate for acting on their sexuality. In fact it doesn't mention acting on ones sexuality. It talks about entering into a same sex marriage. An institution that is contrary to the fundamental principles of the gospel. And I highly doubt anyone who enters into such an agreement is going to be stressed the churches stance on it in the slightest. Because if they loved the gospel and the church, they wouldn't seriously consider entering into it to begin with. It's completely incompatible. Besides which, they are teenagers. Teenagers aren't stressing over marriage, unless they are at BYU. And if you understand the gospel of Jesus christ, you understand that their is nothing that can brand you an apostate. Why? Because the Atonement of Jesus Christ provides the miracles of repentance and forgiveness in our lives. We could be a murderer, rapist, gay, straight, unkind, perverted, hateful, intolerant, impatient, angry, liars, etc and the Atonement of Jesus Christ can change our very natures. We can put off the natural man and be born again. The only brand that the church gives us that can last forever is the name of Christ on our hearts. The church offers the Atonement of Christ to us. It doesn't matter what our particular sins, troubles, temptations, or injuries are. We can be healed and forgiven if we listen to the message of the apostles. 5
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 4:34 AM, consiglieri said: I agree with you, Storm Rider. The Church pointing the finger of accusation at the local members is offensive. And detestable. Falsely accusing the Church of pointing the finger of accusation is offensive. And detestable. And in character.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 4:35 AM, consiglieri said: Well, let's see. Kids not killing themselves versus kids killing themselves. Which do you think is causing the most harm? CFR that any kids have killed themselves as a consequence of anything the Church has done. Given that Rockpond's oh so promising attack has failed. And the article referenced in the OP has been discredited.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 4:43 AM, consiglieri said: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646414/LDS-Church-leaders-mourn-reported-deaths-in-Mormon-LGBT-community.html I cannot believe the hypocrisy! Yours? I can.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 5:35 AM, rockpond said: I do expect it to be critically analyzed and discussed. Of course. And while the evidence cannot be substantiated, for reasons that have been discussed, not everyone here agrees with the conclusion that it is not credible. I agree that not everyone is honest enough to admit that there is very good prima facie evidence for concluding that the statistics are not credible. Trouble is, everyone who isn't either an open enemy of the Church, or an "ally" -- i.e. collaborator -- therewith, can see perfectly well that those "statistics" are entirely non-credible. 2
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 5:41 AM, rockpond said: You've read far too much into that essay that wasn't there. Your emotional response here leads me to believe that you went into that essay with some personal biases that colored your reading of it. I didn't intend to offend anyone by posting and sharing the essay - I'm sorry if it did. I saw it as an important call and plea for some suffering fellow saints. There you are, Smac. If you don't enthusiastically support Mister Rockpond's attack on the Church, and uncritically accept every fabricated statistic upon which he relies, then you are emotionally and intellectually deficient, and greatly to be pitied. (And patronised.) 2
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 5:44 AM, rockpond said: It's a bad thing to ask people to stop arguing? As members of the church, we are all connected... That was explained at the Waters of Mormon. It is manipulative to demand that people "stop arguing" in order to make them accept brazenly fabricated claims. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 5:55 AM, bluebell said: I don't think it's bad. Sometimes those kinds of pleas are needed. But it's very easy for those kinds of pleas to come across as 'stop disagreeing with me. Let me say what i want to say and you be quiet because what i'm saying is helpful and what you are saying isn't.' Part of asking people to stop arguing (especially if you do so while you are explaining why you are right and those who don't agree with you are wrong) is to allow both sides a chance to say what they feel needs to be said and then, after each side has gotten everything out, to have everyone stop arguing their side at the same time. That means you (general 'you') don't publish an article explaining your side and calling for everyone to stop arguing and then act like those who see things differently are doing something bad when they want the same chance to express themselves as you had. It's a bad thing argue your side, and then, when you are done but before anyone else has spoken, ask people to stop arguing. You've nailed it. 2
Popular Post Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 7:29 AM, ALarson said: And so, you don't care? They are in someone's ward, Stake and State. And, there ARE kids in your ward, Stake and State who are struggling with this issue (quietly and privately most likely). Just because it hasn't personally touched your life yet, doesn't mean it's not happening or not something you should be concerned about. I've now read posts (on other forums) from members of the church who personally know Wendy Montgomery (fellow ward members) who state that she is active, has integrity and would not lie about these numbers. I don't understand why so many immediately call her a liar. Why would the church comment about this and an article be published in the Deseret News regarding this if they believed this was all a lie? Actually ALarson, fictitious suicides aren't in anyone's ward. 5
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) On 1/29/2016 at 8:46 AM, ALarson said: Yes, the reasons behind the suicides are more important (IMO) than nit picking about the actual numbers (although both are important information to have, of course). I'm more inclined to try to focus on the actual reason(s) any of these suicides have happened. Those claims should be examined more closely for sure. When the number of claimed suicides actually exceeds the number of total deaths, questioning the numbers is a whole lot more than mere "nit picking." And may I point out (in the vain hope that, if repeated to you often enough, it might just eventually make some impression) that it was the blogger who chose to make those numbers an issue. It was she who presented them as the lynch-pin of her argument that there is a huge problem. The title is "Numbers Tell the Story," remember? But if the numbers are as bogus as they appear to be, what valid reason does anyone have to conclude that there is a problem, or if there is, what shape it really takes? What story do made-up numbers really tell? It is apparent to me that the mythical 34 is exactly parallel to the mythical college gang-rape epidemic. Edited January 31, 2016 by Russell C McGregor 3
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/29/2016 at 10:55 AM, consiglieri said: I appreciate your sharing that, Jeanne. I knew things were bad before the policy. It appears the new policy has only made matters worse. And the evidence is...? 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 1/30/2016 at 7:22 PM, sunstoned said: I teach at a public university in Utah. I am also associated with that university's multi-cultural center which includes the LGBTQ organization. From my own experience and my own observations I know that the latest church policy has deeply impacted many LDS LGBTQ students. Several of which are BIC and RMs. Working with some of these students over the last couple of months and hearing their stories has been heartbreaking. I am not going to go into details on this board, because frankly I am sickened by some of the calloused and insensitive attitudes that have been displayed in this thread. Suffice it to say that this policy has hurt people and destroyed family relationships. Call for references, please. And no, I'm not accepting your attempt to pre-empt that call by your feigned disgust. Support or withdraw, please. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Incidentally: the expression "Post-policy Mormonism" rather heavily implies that the recent policy change made some kind of significant alteration to the Church, to the doctrine, or to what Mormonism is or does. Fortunately it doesn't explicitly assert that, so nobody needs to take any responsibility for it. When attacking the Church of Jesus Christ, it's a good idea to say as little as possible that can actually be nailed down. Nevertheless, I wish to address this particular elephant in the living room by pointing out that it was made from a child's balloon by a clown. There is no such thing as "Post-policy Mormonism," there's just Mormonism. 4
sunstoned Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: Call for references, please. And no, I'm not accepting your attempt to pre-empt that call by your feigned disgust. Support or withdraw, please. I withdraw nothing. I have first hand evidence, As stated in my post: Quote . I am not going to go into details on this board, because frankly I am sickened by some of the calloused and insensitive attitudes that have been displayed in this thread. And I will not be revealing the personal details of the young people who I am working with and who have confided in me. Their story does deserve to be heard, but here. People like you would mock and judge. In other words, I will not cast pearls before swine. 1
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: she knew the stats were not verified. It wouldn't take much effort to verify them. And yet she didn't. I understand the desire to give her the benefit of the doubt, but what reason is there not to verify your numbers unless you know its not going to benefit you? I've had clients convicted on less because I'm out of rep points.
busybee Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I don't think you are accurately portraying the issue. The policy doesn't brand anyone as apostate for acting on their sexuality. In fact it doesn't mention acting on ones sexuality. It talks about entering into a same sex marriage. An institution that is contrary to the fundamental principles of the gospel. And I highly doubt anyone who enters into such an agreement is going to be stressed the churches stance on it in the slightest. Because if they loved the gospel and the church, they wouldn't seriously consider entering into it to begin with. It's completely incompatible. Besides which, they are teenagers. Teenagers aren't stressing over marriage, unless they are at BYU. And if you understand the gospel of Jesus christ, you understand that their is nothing that can brand you an apostate. Why? Because the Atonement of Jesus Christ provides the miracles of repentance and forgiveness in our lives. We could be a murderer, rapist, gay, straight, unkind, perverted, hateful, intolerant, impatient, angry, liars, etc and the Atonement of Jesus Christ can change our very natures. We can put off the natural man and be born again. The only brand that the church gives us that can last forever is the name of Christ on our hearts. The church offers the Atonement of Christ to us. It doesn't matter what our particular sins, troubles, temptations, or injuries are. We can be healed and forgiven if we listen to the message of the apostles. This is the best post I have read on this issue. Thank you
ALarson Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: When the number of claimed suicides actually exceeds the number of total deaths, questioning the numbers is a whole lot more than mere "nit picking." What is the "number of total deaths" (in Utah) for that time period? It's probably posted here somewhere, but I missed it. Thanks! Edited to Add: Found it (unless there have been updated numbers): "In fact, the department reports, the overall number of Utah deaths for that age group in those months was 25, including the 10 suicides and two "undetermined" cases, along with 11 in accidents, one by natural causes and one homicide." Edited January 31, 2016 by ALarson
Teancum Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 I will try to express this as best I can and as politely as I can. First I think this item that VGJ linked illustrates the extra burdensome issue homesexuals who are LDS face: http://snapshotsofchad.com/2016/01/29/dear-mormon-leaders/ now there is is some over the top hyperbole and comments in the blog that I would take exception with but still I illustrates the problems a gay person, young or old, face in the LDS Chuch. No gay teens are not automatically labeled aposate. But they know if they enter into a homosexual marriage or cohabiting relationship then the label of apostasy is upon them and they will likely be excommunicated. Of course teens think about marriage. How silly to say they don't, Avatar. They are taught about eternal marriage all through their teen years with heavy emphasis. They are taught the nature of eternal families. A gay LDS teen quickly realizes they have a huge problem that is unique. Stay celibate their entire life, enter into a heterosexual marriage which likely will end in problematic ways or enter into a homosexual relationship and be considered in apostasy. Such dilemmas really do create depression, anxiety, fear, and so on. Of course the church also will discipline heterosexuals who fornicate, commit adultery or cohabitate outside of marriage but such are not labeled as in apostasy. Nor are such imposed as frequently as in he past. Nor are children from such relationship limited in church participation in any way. Not so now for homosexuals. Thus another very large club hanging above the head of a person born into the LDS world that is homosexual. Does the church teach that we should love and have compassion for homosexuals? Sure. It teaches that we should love and have compassion for everyone, for all sinners. Yet the way the church approaches those who are homosexuals even those who enter into SSM seems heavier handed then other sinners and ranks them now with murderers and rapists. This creates dynamics that I think make it very very hard for persons who are homosexuals. It also counters much of the positive statements. How can it not? and then there is the way these policies may create cultural reactions towards homosexuals or even good members who are supportive of SSM and may hope for a change in church policy today. Just read a few of Russel McGregor's posts where he often implies out rightly states that such who hold such positions are not true Latter-day Saints. Do you think he is alone in such ideas and rhetoric even though personally I think the LDS leaders would condemn such rhetoric. On the other hand publicly advocating for SSM (perhaps now a moot point in the USA and many other places) and speaking out against the LDS church leaders on this will get a member into trouble as well. as I have noted above I think did not or do not expect the church to change its position on SSM and the issues of homosexual relations or any other law of chastity issues. But it seems where the church was and what it had before this new policy was sufficient. It seems the new policies draw a stronger line I the sand and creates additional burdens that will cause many gay members young or old additonal undue burdens that can and will lead to depression, despair, self loathing and lead to suicide. i guess this is really all I have to say on this. Many of us here seem to be talking past each other and perhaps it is all because we have our own agendas to defend. Ten years ago I would have made similar arguments to many of the LDS defenders here. I cannot make them any more.
Popular Post rodheadlee Posted January 31, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Teancum said: as I have noted above I think did not or do not expect the church to change its position on SSM and the issues of homosexual relations or any other law of chastity issues. But it seems where the church was and what it had before this new policy was sufficient. It seems the new policies draw a stronger line I the sand and creates additional burdens that will cause many gay members young or old additonal undue burdens that can and will lead to depression, despair, self loathing and lead to suicide. i guess this is really all I have to say on this. Many of us here seem to be talking past each other and perhaps it is all because we have our own agendas to defend. Ten years ago I would have made similar arguments to many of the LDS defenders here. I cannot make them any more. A stronger line in the sand was needed. Some people like California Boy and Daniel2 and Rockpond among others claimed there was no revelation or any scripture that addressed SSM. Now the Word of the Lord has been revealed regarding SSM and it is out and out rejected by many. The policy regarding the children of SSM families is necessary as they would receive greater harm if they held out some false hope that SSM would ever be acceptable to the Lord as a Celestial Covenant. Yes, their burden is heavy and we should help them carry it but false accusations and false hopes will not help. Edited January 31, 2016 by rodheadlee to clarify my point 6
Jeanne Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 12 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Here's a letter a gay member of the church wrote to the apostles, but didn't send. It's full of subjectiveness, but interesting to see a gay man's perspective. http://snapshotsofchad.com/2016/01/29/dear-mormon-leaders/ Wow..I loved that letter.
california boy Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 Quote A stronger line in the sand was needed. Some people like California Boy and Daniel2 and Rockpond among others claimed there was no revelation or any scripture that addressed SSM. Now the Word of the Lord has been revealed regarding SSM and it is out and out rejected. The policy regarding the children of SSM families is necessary as they would receive greater harm if they held out some false hope that SSM would ever be acceptable to the Lord as a Celestial Covenant. Yes, their burden is heavy and we should help them carry it but false accusations and false hopes will not help. So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. A policy change in a church handbook that only leaders of the church have access to. No public announcement, no official press release that the prophet had received a revelation from God. No headlines in the Deseret News. Just a quiet change in policy in the church handbook that became public by someone who isn't even a member of the church. Only to find out months later in a fireside by Elder Nelson that it was a REVELATION. Geeze, I thought we deserved something more than just that. It is insulting. To claim to receive a revelation from God and have it revealed to the world by Delins. I guess that says even more about how the church treats gays. As I have said countless times, I could care less what the church policies are about gay marriage but no one can deny this is not an important issue. To treat it with such disregard is disturbing. 2
Jeanne Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 49 minutes ago, california boy said: So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. A policy change in a church handbook that only leaders of the church have access to. No public announcement, no official press release that the prophet had received a revelation from God. No headlines in the Deseret News. Just a quiet change in policy in the church handbook that became public by someoneReally who isn't even a member of the church. Only to find out months later in a fireside by Elder Nelson that it was a REVELATION. Geeze, I thought we deserved something more than just that. It is insulting. To claim to receive a revelation from God and have it revealed to the world by Delins. I guess that says even more about how the church treats gays. As I have said countless times, I could care less what the church policies are about gay marriage but no one can deny this is not an important issue. To treat it with such disregard is disturbing. Really. The members deserve more than this don't you think? Earrings anyone??
ALarson Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. A policy change in a church handbook that only leaders of the church have access to. No public announcement, no official press release that the prophet had received a revelation from God. No headlines in the Deseret News. Just a quiet change in policy in the church handbook that became public by someone who isn't even a member of the church. Only to find out months later in a fireside by Elder Nelson that it was a REVELATION. Geeze, I thought we deserved something more than just that. It is insulting. To claim to receive a revelation from God and have it revealed to the world by Delins. I guess that says even more about how the church treats gays. As I have said countless times, I could care less what the church policies are about gay marriage but no one can deny this is not an important issue. To treat it with such disregard is disturbing. I have to agree with this. If President Monson received this revelation, why didn't he stand and announce it to the members (at General Conference or elsewhere)? Why was it first leaked by John Dehlin (after it was printed in a handbook that most members never see) rather than being announced and clarified by our leaders? All good questions that so far I haven't seen anyone answer in a manner that really explains why this happened. I would think that when a Prophet receives a revelation from God, for the church, it would be a wonderful moment and he would be anxious to share it with all members. (This is probably a topic for another thread though). Edited January 31, 2016 by ALarson
Calm Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: So that was the big revelation we were all waiting for. We cannot know how it would have been approached if the leak never happened. Since only some leaders had received notification, it seems fairly clear to me they were just getting going on the process of making it known. What the intended course was might have been significantly altered by the leak and public controversy. Edited January 31, 2016 by Calm 4
Recommended Posts