Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted February 2, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2016 The other thread has got me thinking about what we must do an what we cannot do to help those who are even thinking about taking their own lives due to any combination of their sexuality and the Church's teachings on the same. I think the hard part is that there are voices who are asking for things that the Church cannot and should not give. So with that in mind here are a few nonnegotiable things that are taken off the table: Unconditional Love for Child- Meaning a parent should love their child regardless of sexuality. A parent's love is critical, and I can only imagine how hard it would be for a child to feel like that love was lost due to something that they feel is completely out of their control. Unconditional Support for Eternal Principals- There are certain eternal truths that cannot be sacrificed, nor do I think that sacrificing them is necessary to help LGBT LDS Teens cope and understand. The Church must continue to be proactive in teaching repentance and the consequences for sin, including homosexuality. At times this voice will need to be loud and unyielding as the world around it gets louder in its own right. Family of Belonging- LGBT folks (not just teens) who come from Mormon families should always have a place of belonging among their own family, provided that the LGBT individual desires it. It saddens me when I hear stories (even if unverified) about LDS families kicking a gay child out of their house simply for being gay. I don't think that is good or required. I can, however, see circumstances where an adult child is asked to leave the home where they might be a bad influence or example to younger siblings; what constitutes a bad example is up in the air but MAY include bringing a gay partner around. Of course deciding how to treat a child's gay partner/spouse can be difficult. Do they get to be in the family picture? I don't have answers to that. 5
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Excellent, well written post. I can agree with all of this. I think the real question up for debate will always be loving the sinner vs tolerating the action of sin. That's the blurry line that causes so much contention. God loves all his children. He doesn't tolerate all our actions. Edited February 2, 2016 by JLHPROF 3
smac97 Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 4 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said: The other thread has got me thinking about what we must do an what we cannot do to help those who are even thinking about taking their own lives due to any combination of their sexuality and the Church's teachings on the same. I think the hard part is that there are voices who are asking for things that the Church cannot and should not give. So with that in mind here are a few nonnegotiable things that are taken off the table: Unconditional Love for Child- Meaning a parent should love their child regardless of sexuality. A parent's love is critical, and I can only imagine how hard it would be for a child to feel like that love was lost due to something that they feel is completely out of their control. Unconditional Support for Eternal Principals- There are certain eternal truths that cannot be sacrificed, nor do I think that sacrificing them is necessary to help LGBT LDS Teens cope and understand. The Church must continue to be proactive in teaching repentance and the consequences for sin, including homosexuality. At times this voice will need to be loud and unyielding as the world around it gets louder in its own right. Family of Belonging- LGBT folks (not just teens) who come from Mormon families should always have a place of belonging among their own family, provided that the LGBT individual desires it. It saddens me when I hear stories (even if unverified) about LDS families kicking a gay child out of their house simply for being gay. I don't think that is good or required. I can, however, see circumstances where an adult child is asked to leave the home where they might be a bad influence or example to younger siblings; what constitutes a bad example is up in the air but MAY include bringing a gay partner around. Of course deciding how to treat a child's gay partner/spouse can be difficult. Do they get to be in the family picture? I don't have answers to that. As to the last point, I would err on the side of being inclusive, such as by having a child's gay partner/spouse in a family photo. But there would, I think, be caveats. While I would welcome a gay couple into my home, I would ask them to refrain from engaging in overtly affectionate conduct, such as snuggling, kissing, etc., in the presence of children (much in the same way that I would welcome people into my home but not allow them to bring alcohol or tobacco or elicit drugs or inappropriate movies/music, and so on). I think I would welcome a gay couple into my home for pretty much all family activities, and I would attend most events hosted by a gay couple, but not all. I would not attend a gay wedding, as attendees at such events are often construed as witnesses / celebrants / endorsers of the event (similarly, I would not attend an event where someone is celebrating a divorce, or getting a tattoo, or resigning from the Church, and so on). If I were invited to attend, I would meet with the couple in person and in private and explain my reasons for doing so, and also express my desire to maintain a loving and cordial relationship to the greatest extent possible. Points one and two are, for me, axiomatic. Thank you for presenting them. Point three requires a little nuance, but I agree with the substance. Thanks, -Smac 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 I believe people who commit suicide still have to deal with their struggles on the other side of the veil before they can find relief, so I think it's important to tell them to work out their problems here on earth, and not try to have an easy solution. I believe those who commit suicide still struggle in the spirit world for a while.
Gillebre Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 As a member of the Church who experiences feelings of same-gender attraction I want to add a few thoughts to what MM wrote (which I think is excellent). I feel like we, at times, judge too harshly of other people's sins, weaknesses, and mistakes. I mean that while we try to judge righteously as we are taught, I feel like we often stumble in the attempt and cast sin in a darker shade and as a more malevolent thing than it might otherwise be. Having said that, sin is still sin, and any sin will keep us out of God's eternal presence. What I refer to is the daily struggle everyone faces against sin and temptation. I feel like we take the faults and poor choices of others perhaps a tad too seriously such that we generate an aura of condemnation rather than one of love. I hope that makes sense. As a mental health professional working full time with at-risk youth (behavioral issues, addiction, depression, etc...) I have found the most success as I have been able to emotionally distance myself from their poor choices and attitudes. The sins of those we love, work, or associate with need not be world-ending things (so to speak). Yes we need to help them overcome evil with good and teach them, but unless they first feel our love and sense an attitude of meekness and peace they will not truly feel more comfortable around us or others. There is something profound in the way the Savior treated the woman taken in adultery. I believe he presented the most perfect aura of gentleness towards her, a daughter of God with hidden potential for great things. Imagine that scene. He was honest with her, yet made an effort to be gentle and kind to one so lost in sin. He didn't make her feel worse about herself because of the sin she committed, rather He so perfectly showed us how to not condemn. Not in words, but in the spirit of truth, of kindness, of real love. It was how he responded to her on a deeper level that is the true teacher of effective ministry and rescue. That's what I believe anyway. I hope some of this made sense. From the perspective of a member of the Church and having certain feelings as I do, the same refusal to condemn (in word or spirit) applies and can lift any sorrowing soul. We must judge righteously, yes, but we must not add to another's burden as we strive to do so more perfectly, and might I add, with Christlike gentleness. 3
Gray Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 #2 is highly negotiable, and based on incomplete speculation about what some imagine are eternal principles.
stemelbow Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: #2 is highly negotiable, and based on incomplete speculation about what some imagine are eternal principles. Agreed. Being one who is prone to think as soon as someone exclaims they have an eternal principle, it is quickly regarded with suspicion by myself. We only pretend to understand what eternal means in this sense. 1
Mystery Meat Posted February 2, 2016 Author Posted February 2, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Agreed. Being one who is prone to think as soon as someone exclaims they have an eternal principle, it is quickly regarded with suspicion by myself. We only pretend to understand what eternal means in this sense. The fact that it is negotiable to you (and Gray) is irrelevant. I am speaking from my perspective and what I would guess (educatedly, of course) to be the Church's standpoint. So if you are on the other side of the negotiating table and want me (or the Church) to cave on that issue, it is a nonstarter and that is my point. 1
stemelbow Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said: The fact that it is negotiable to you (and Gray) is irrelevant. I am speaking from my perspective and what I would guess (educatedly, of course) to be the Church's standpoint. So if you are on the other side of the negotiating table and want me (or the Church) to cave on that issue, it is a nonstarter and that is my point. Fine by me. I thought I was just offering my ideas. For the most part I enjoyed your list and ideas--can't help ti much if I disagree with a point or two. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 28 minutes ago, Gray said: #2 is highly negotiable, and based on incomplete speculation about what some imagine are eternal principles. By your definitions every religious belief is speculation. So what's a person professing a religion supposed to do? Act according to their faith in the best way they know how. 2
Gray Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: By your definitions every religious belief is speculation. So what's a person professing a religion supposed to do? Act according to their faith in the best way they know how. Even from more orthodox perspectives there are good reason to think that traditional Christian ideas about homosexuality are speculative and incomplete.
JLHPROF Posted February 2, 2016 Posted February 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Gray said: Even from more orthodox perspectives there are good reason to think that traditional Christian ideas about homosexuality are speculative and incomplete. That depends on the doctrinal tenets the person has faith in. There is no good reason in this orthodox member's doctrinal beliefs that allow for homosexuality to be acceptable. 1
Recommended Posts