GLBT+ Protest planned for Fast Sunday?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I told Scott..that I got what he was talking about..my kentucky friend post was a joke..duh..I am so not funny.

I think you're a riot!

[Rain]

 

On Wednesday, June 01, 2016 at 8:50 AM, rockpond said:

 

They aren't protesting the policy.  They are showing love and support for a group of people.  How is that not appropriate for Church?  How is that self-righteous rebellion?

This is such a small thing, I can't believe it would generate such negative responses. It feels like you two will just be against anything that shows any kind of empathy toward LGBT individuals. 

The problem I have worth it is there are many differing opinions on what "support" means.  For some it means to love them just as you would love anyone.  On the far side it means support the idea that the church should allow same sex sealings. Everyone has their own definition of what support means.  

So now if my daughter wants to wear her rainbow pin/hair ribbon because she loves rainbow things then she may be sending the wrong message.  She loves individuals passionately,  so it is no big deal to show empathy towards a homosexual youth,  but she does not want to show support the idea of anything more than love. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

 

The problem I have worth it is there are many differing opinions on what "support" means.  For some it means to love them just as you would love anyone.  On the far side it means support the idea that the church should allow same sex sealings. Everyone has their own definition of what support means.  

So now if my daughter wants to wear her rainbow pin/hair ribbon because she loves rainbow things then she may be sending the wrong message.  She loves individuals passionately,  so it is no big deal to show empathy towards a homosexual youth,  but she does not want to show support the idea of anything more than love. 

Okay... Let her wear her ribbon to show whatever support she'd like.   Is someone casting judgment about what each individual's rainbow means?

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

 

The problem I have worth it is there are many differing opinions on what "support" means.  For some it means to love them just as you would love anyone.  On the far side it means support the idea that the church should allow same sex sealings. Everyone has their own definition of what support means.  

So now if my daughter wants to wear her rainbow pin/hair ribbon because she loves rainbow things then she may be sending the wrong message.  She loves individuals passionately,  so it is no big deal to show empathy towards a homosexual youth,  but she does not want to show support the idea of anything more than love. 

Oh..let her wear her rainbows.  Not a thing wrong about that.

[Rain]

On Saturday, June 04, 2016 at 6:21 PM, rockpond said:

No, it doesn't say that kicking kids out is part of the excommunication process.  Please re-read the quote that you provided:

One group especially affected are LGBT+ teens. Parents are kicking these children out their homes because the church says that “excommunicating is a loving gesture to stop sin,” Money said, because it will inspire repentance and obedience.

It's not hard to understand what she is saying... Unless you're trying to make it into something it's not. 

I get what she is saying,  but I really have a hard time believing the idea.  My brother would tell you he was kicked out of the house (for orher reasons), but he wasn't.  It's not that he would be lying.  There was just a big miscommunication between him and my parents. My son recently left my home because I was "angry" over his actions.  I wasn't angry at all. Some of these youth may understand they were kicked out over the issues,  but really left on their own.  Some may understand they were kicked out for feeling this way,  but may have been kicked out because of their actions that really caused problems in the home. This does NOT mean that we have to come down on the youth who misunderstand,  but it does mean we should realize there are two sides to the story. 

And if parents are only kicking out children as a way to help them repent of their feelings then there are bigger problems with their parenting or understanding of church doctrine.  

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Rain said:

I get what she is saying,  but I really have a hard time believing the idea.  My brother would tell you he was kicked out of the house (for orher reasons), but he wasn't.  It's not that he would be lying.  There was just a big miscommunication between him and my parents. My son recently left my home because I was "angry" over his actions.  I wasn't angry at all. Some of these youth may understand they were kicked out over the issues,  but really left on their own.  Some may understand they were kicked out for feeling this way,  but may have been kicked out because of their actions that really caused problems in the home. This does NOT mean that we have to come down on the youth who misunderstand,  but it does mean we should realize there are two sides to the story. 

And if parents are only kicking out children as a way to help them repent of their feelings then there are bigger problems with their parenting or understanding of church doctrine.  

Yes, there are many issues at play.  The Rainbow Initiative is just working to address one issue.  But, that doesn't mean others are less important.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay... Let her wear her ribbon to show whatever support she'd like.   Is someone casting judgment about what each individual's rainbow means?

She is 18. She can choose whatever she wants. Really she has been doing it for some time. I bring her up because she mentioned to me she loves rainbow things, but now it has become a gay sign of "support" - at least as far as her facebook goes and her social circle goes. 

The whole rainbow thing bothers me for that reason.  I could enjoy rainbows because I find them beautiful.  I love creating them in different ways.  My favorites piece at a museum last week was a huge band of colors in rainbow order.  But anymore,  once you start wearing the rainbow it signifies gay support. Probably the most well known of support ribbons is the pink ribbon,  but people can still wear pink without any indication of support.  I believe the difference is the complexity of the support "ribbon". Like it or not, the wearing of rainbow is no longer just just letting gay youth know they are loved. 

If that is all that was meant by it then a better choice would have been the wearing of a blue heart (you don't have to be blue/feel alone.  We love you). Something other than the modern symbol of gay pride. And yes,  I might have worn that.  I wouldn't wear a political pin,  but I have written a Festival of Trees pin after consideration of whether it was ok and concluding it was since every penny goes to charity.

I saw no one with it either,  but I was at the Jerusalem Center so it is unlikely I would have. 

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

She is 18. She can choose whatever she wants. Really she has been doing it for some time. I bring her up because she mentioned to me she loves rainbow things, but now it has become a gay sign of "support" - at least as far as her facebook goes and her social circle goes. 

The whole rainbow thing bothers me for that reason.  I could enjoy rainbows because I find them beautiful.  I love creating them in different ways.  My favorites piece at a museum last week was a huge band of colors in rainbow order.  But anymore,  once you start wearing the rainbow it signifies gay support. Probably the most well known of support ribbons is the pink ribbon,  but people can still wear pink without any indication of support.  I believe the difference is the complexity of the support "ribbon". Like it or not, the wearing of rainbow is no longer just just letting gay youth know they are loved. 

If that is all that was meant by it then a better choice would have been the wearing of a blue heart (you don't have to be blue/feel alone.  We love you). Something other than the modern symbol of gay pride. And yes,  I might have worn that.  I wouldn't wear a political pin,  but I have written a Festival of Trees pin after consideration of whether it was ok and concluding it was since every penny goes to charity.

I saw no one with it either,  but I was at the Jerusalem Center so it is unlikely I would have. 

i think the idea of wearing a well known symbol (as opposed to a blue heart) is so that those LGBT persons who are in the shadows, feeling isolated, would know where their safe spaces are.  

I'm really sorry that you feel you can't wear or display the ribbon anymore. 

Likewise, I'm sorry that there are youth in our congregations who are suffering.  I feel sorry that the very best we can offer them is a life of celibacy rewarded by a fundamental change to their personality in the eternities.  

I'm sorry that in a majority of US states you can still, legally, be fired just for being gay.  

And I'm sorry that it took decades of flying that rainbow flag before the gay community finally won equal rights to marriage. 

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

i think the idea of wearing a well known symbol (as opposed to a blue heart) is so that those LGBT persons who are in the shadows, feeling isolated, would know where their safe spaces are.  

I'm really sorry that you feel you can't wear or display the ribbon anymore. 

Likewise, I'm sorry that there are youth in our congregations who are suffering.  I feel sorry that the very best we can offer them is a life of celibacy rewarded by a fundamental change to their personality in the eternities.  

I'm sorry that in a majority of US states you can still, legally, be fired just for being gay.  

And I'm sorry that it took decades of flying that rainbow flag before the gay community finally won equal rights to marriage. 

The symbol has taken “a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state.” The rainbow of course was for a long time taken to be a symbol of God’s covenant with humanity. The pride symbol created in 1978 altered the natural rainbow’s spectrum of light into an eight-striped version with the color pink (symbolizing sex) at the top and incorporating a turquoise stripe (symbolizing art). The current 6-color symbol doesn’t use the traditional “ROYGBIV” color configuration, but is still called a rainbow, cop-opting the traditional rainbow to symbolize Gay Pride. And just about any rainbow will do, it seems, for those who are not fully initiated. Too bad, really, but we all know that's how the world rolls (just as the words  "gay" and "marriage" were co-opted and placed in an unnatural state)!

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The symbol has taken “a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state.” The rainbow of course was for a long time taken to be a symbol of God’s covenant with humanity. The pride symbol created in 1978 altered the natural rainbow’s spectrum of light into an eight-striped version with the color pink (symbolizing sex) at the top and incorporating a turquoise stripe (symbolizing art). The current 6-color symbol doesn’t use the traditional “ROYGBIV” color configuration, but is still called a rainbow, cop-opting the traditional rainbow to symbolize Gay Pride. And just about any rainbow will do, it seems, for those who are not fully initiated. Too bad, really, but we all know that's how the world rolls (just as the words  "gay" and "marriage" were co-opted and placed in an unnatural state)!

Hot pink was only used for one year, 1978.  Since then, there has been no hot pink used on the gay flag.  This is PROOF that gays only cared about sex for one year.  lol.

Why do you even make an issue of the hot pink strip when it only was on the gay flag for one year  back in 1978.  That was 38 years ago.  Just further digs that gays only care about sex???  Your continual distortion of facts is insulting.  Yet you are one of the first that scream bloody murder if you think someone has distorted some fact about the church.  Do you really think this kind of thing is productive?

If anyone actually cares, these are the colors that are currently used on the gay flag.  They allegedly symbolize these things.  Though I doubt very much you would find very many gay men who would have any idea what each color represents.  They have been this way since 1979.

Red - Life

Orange - Healing

Yellow - Sunlight

Green - Nature

Indigo - Serenity

Violet - Spirit.

Pretty sinister colors representing pretty Satanic ideals.

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

i think the idea of wearing a well known symbol (as opposed to a blue heart) is so that those LGBT persons who are in the shadows, feeling isolated, would know where their safe spaces are.  

I'm really sorry that you feel you can't wear or display the ribbon anymore. 

Likewise, I'm sorry that there are youth in our congregations who are suffering.  I feel sorry that the very best we can offer them is a life of celibacy rewarded by a fundamental change to their personality in the eternities.  

I'm sorry that in a majority of US states you can still, legally, be fired just for being gay.  

And I'm sorry that it took decades of flying that rainbow flag before the gay community finally won equal rights to marriage. 

The point to my post was that you have been saying it isn't a cause or protest or whatever.   If that is the case then the blue heart would suffice.  You seem to imply that people should have no problem wearing the rainbow because it is only about love,  but in this post you show that it is about much more than love. 

I have been to church when many members wore a specific color because it was the favorite color of a beloved ward member who just passed away.  It was a nice way too remember them.  The blue heart or some other symbol would be along the same lines.  I suspect that many here would feel much more comfortable about wearing it to sacrament meeting with that similar intention.  If you feel the blue heart isn't enough then you must see that the rainbow means more than love to the majority of people. 

And just for clarity  - there is no specific ribbon for us.  It is just about wearing a rainbow in general. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

RIP to the 50 gays who were killed by a Muslim who pledged allegiance to IS in Orlando Florida. Expect to hear talks on gun control but this is an ISIS influenced man.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Hot pink was only used for one year, 1978.  Since then, there has been no hot pink used on the gay flag.  This is PROOF that gays only cared about sex for one year.  lol.

Why do you even make an issue of the hot pink strip when it only was on the gay flag for one year  back in 1978.  That was 38 years ago.  Just further digs that gays only care about sex???  Your continual distortion of facts is insulting.  Yet you are one of the first that scream bloody murder if you think someone has distorted some fact about the church.  Do you really think this kind of thing is productive?

If anyone actually cares, these are the colors that are currently used on the gay flag.  They allegedly symbolize these things.  Though I doubt very much you would find very many gay men who would have any idea what each color represents.  They have been this way since 1979.

Red - Life

Orange - Healing

Yellow - Sunlight

Green - Nature

Indigo - Serenity

Violet - Spirit.

Pretty sinister colors representing pretty Satanic ideals.

It seems you misunderstand. My post was not about sex and art/magic (why did you leave that one out?), but the evolution of the symbol from including non-rainbow colors to actually calling it a rainbow and its becoming synonymous with gay pride.

Gay flag? Is that anything like a gay wedding cake?

My issue is with the wear-a-rainbow motivation that "changing members' attitudes would help lead to changes in doctrine (through being open to further revelation) and policy.” Such a concerted, extra-council drive to change members’ attitudes as a means to impress upon the leaders the call “that the law should be altered” and mobilize them to change the revelations is way out of line, especially for a sacrament meeting. That is what is sinister, since even the most pious enjoy a splash of color here and there.

I think it good for each member to remember, and liken unto themselves, these words given to Joseph Smith:

“Behold, you [the members] have been entrusted with these things [e.g. the counsels of our leaders], but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them. And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—“

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood [or abiding in its counsels], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—“

Any concerted, extra-council drive [such as wearing a certain garb to sacrament meetings] to change members’ attitudes, especially as a means to change the revelations, is just plain wrong. It typically pits “us” against “them” and resorts to the persuasions and tactics of men. For example, it garners attention by wearing something that says “hey, look at me and what I’m trying to say while you’re participating in sacrament, lesson and quorum and auxiliary hours.” It takes away from those trying to have some time unspotted from the world and receiving the delight the Lord wishes to give them. Thus, it is not an example of anxious engagement in a good cause, because the commandment to operate in concert with both priesthood council and counsel has been received with a doubtful heart, and with slothfulness. None of the doctrines or revelations have changed as a result of such antichrist and contentious activity.

A more Christlike approach is to say, “Whoever you are, I/we love you, the Lord loves you” is what the saints are asked to countenance (charity) in our daily walk and conversation. On this particular subject, the most authentic, effective and comforting support at Church is one-on-one and in relevant group conversation where the Spirit is, or where the participants are agreed to gather in His name: classes and councils (individual and group, formal and informal); outside of that, friendships and family settings. Anything less is shallow, faddish or worldly. The most authentic, effective and comforting way to participate in a sacrament meeting is to leave anything that would detract and distract oneself and others from the Lord’s Table at home (see D&C 59: 9-14).

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

The point to my post was that you have been saying it isn't a cause or protest or whatever.   If that is the case then the blue heart would suffice.  You seem to imply that people should have no problem wearing the rainbow because it is only about love,  but in this post you show that it is about much more than love. 

I have been to church when many members wore a specific color because it was the favorite color of a beloved ward member who just passed away.  It was a nice way too remember them.  The blue heart or some other symbol would be along the same lines.  I suspect that many here would feel much more comfortable about wearing it to sacrament meeting with that similar intention.  If you feel the blue heart isn't enough then you must see that the rainbow means more than love to the majority of people. 

And just for clarity  - there is no specific ribbon for us.  It is just about wearing a rainbow in general. 

Did you miss this part of my explanation/response to you:

I think the idea of wearing a well known symbol (as opposed to a blue heart) is so that those LGBT persons who are in the shadows, feeling isolated, would know where their safe spaces are.  

While I really like your idea of a blue heart, an unknown symbol wouldn't communicate any message to someone who wasn't already aware of the campaign. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

RIP to the 50 gays who were killed by a Muslim who pledged allegiance to IS in Orlando Florida. Expect to hear talks on gun control but this is an ISIS influenced man.

Been trying to watch updates on this.  So sad..and for all of us..a scary world.  My heart breaks for these gays and their family members.

[Calm]

Horrendous.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Did you miss this part of my explanation/response to you:

I think the idea of wearing a well known symbol (as opposed to a blue heart) is so that those LGBT persons who are in the shadows, feeling isolated, would know where their safe spaces are.  

While I really like your idea of a blue heart, an unknown symbol wouldn't communicate any message to someone who wasn't already aware of the campaign. 

No, I didn't miss it.  

I get the idea of how it might be miss the message,  though I think the rainbow could potentially do that as well.  So either you have a little known symbol of love or you have a loaded symbol.  Pros and cons to each. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

No, I didn't miss it.  

I get the idea of how it might be miss the message,  though I think the rainbow could potentially do that as well.  So either you have a little known symbol of love or you have a loaded symbol.  Pros and cons to each. 

True... Pros and cons.  But the "con" with the blue heart is that it cannot accomplish the goal of the initiative. 

The "con" of the rainbow is that someone might think I support gay marriage?  Don't support the brethren?

For me it's easy... Love should win out. 

[california boy]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems you misunderstand. My post was not about sex and art/magic (why did you leave that one out?), but the evolution of the symbol from including non-rainbow colors to actually calling it a rainbow and its becoming synonymous with gay pride.

 

Gay flag? Is that anything like a gay wedding cake?

My issue is with the wear-a-rainbow motivation that "changing members' attitudes would help lead to changes in doctrine (through being open to further revelation) and policy.” Such a concerted, extra-council drive to change members’ attitudes as a means to impress upon the leaders the call “that the law should be altered” and mobilize them to change the revelations is way out of line, especially for a sacrament meeting. That is what is sinister, since even the most pious enjoy a splash of color here and there.

 

I think it good for each member to remember, and liken unto themselves, these words given to Joseph Smith:

 

“Behold, you [the members] have been entrusted with these things [e.g. the counsels of our leaders], but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them. And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—“

 

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood [or abiding in its counsels], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—“

 

Any concerted, extra-council drive [such as wearing a certain garb to sacrament meetings] to change members’ attitudes, especially as a means to change the revelations, is just plain wrong. It typically pits “us” against “them” and resorts to the persuasions and tactics of men. For example, it garners attention by wearing something that says “hey, look at me and what I’m trying to say while you’re participating in sacrament, lesson and quorum and auxiliary hours.” It takes away from those trying to have some time unspotted from the world and receiving the delight the Lord wishes to give them. Thus, it is not an example of anxious engagement in a good cause, because the commandment to operate in concert with both priesthood council and counsel has been received with a doubtful heart, and with slothfulness. None of the doctrines or revelations have changed as a result of such antichrist and contentious activity.

 

A more Christlike approach is to say, “Whoever you are, I/we love you, the Lord loves you” is what the saints are asked to countenance (charity) in our daily walk and conversation. On this particular subject, the most authentic, effective and comforting support at Church is one-on-one and in relevant group conversation where the Spirit is, or where the participants are agreed to gather in His name: classes and councils (individual and group, formal and informal); outside of that, friendships and family settings. Anything less is shallow, faddish or worldly. The most authentic, effective and comforting way to participate in a sacrament meeting is to leave anything that would detract and distract oneself and others from the Lord’s Table at home (see D&C 59: 9-14).

 

And yet you tried to sexualize your post by bringing in a color of the gay flag that was used for less than a year with the notation that it stood for sex.  Maybe you could explain WHY you mentioned the meaning of two colors that were only used for one year 38 years ago.  If you were going to comment on the meaning of the gay flag, there are 6 other colors that actually are used and have been for 38 years.  Comment on those.  Or did none of those colors fit your agenda.

This is one of the biggest problems with many members of the church.  They are so concerned that they have to condemn the sex part of being gay that they are afraid to do anything that shows any acceptance to gay members.  Do you understand my point?  

If you really think that wearing a rainbow ribbon is going to change doctrine, they you certainly don't have a testimony of the way doctrine is given to the church.  And shouldn't the church always be open to further revelation????  

I personally think the symbolic wearing of a rainbow ribbon is of very little consequence.  It is not going to change doctrine.  Probably won't change anyone's attitudes.  But it might help someone in the ward feel a more a part of the church.  That someone actually is willing to do something to show that they care  and is making an effort to reach out to those gay members that are struggling is something to be admired.  

My personal approach to showing love and concern to gay members, as I mentioned in another thread, would be to look for ways to serve the gay community, instead of some kind of esoteric symbolic gesture.  Giving service to others would be a real gesture, and more in line with the teachings of Christ.  If you are unwilling to wear a rainbow ribbon, are you willing to volunteer to work in one of the support groups serving homeless gay youth, or AIDS patients????  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And yet you tried to sexualize your post by bringing in a color of the gay flag that was used for less than a year with the notation that it stood for sex.  Maybe you could explain WHY you mentioned the meaning of two colors that were only used for one year 38 years ago.  If you were going to comment on the meaning of the gay flag, there are 6 other colors that actually are used and have been for 38 years.  Comment on those.  Or did none of those colors fit your agenda.

This is one of the biggest problems with many members of the church.  They are so concerned that they have to condemn the sex part of being gay that they are afraid to do anything that shows any acceptance to gay members.  Do you understand my point?  

If you really think that wearing a rainbow ribbon is going to change doctrine, they you certainly don't have a testimony of the way doctrine is given to the church.  And shouldn't the church always be open to further revelation????  

I personally think the symbolic wearing of a rainbow ribbon is of very little consequence.  It is not going to change doctrine.  Probably won't change anyone's attitudes.  But it might help someone in the ward feel a more a part of the church.  That someone actually is willing to do something to show that they care  and is making an effort to reach out to those gay members that are struggling is something to be admired.  

My personal approach to showing love and concern to gay members, as I mentioned in another thread, would be to look for ways to serve the gay community, instead of some kind of esoteric symbolic gesture.  Giving service to others would be a real gesture, and more in line with the teachings of Christ.  If you are unwilling to wear a rainbow ribbon, are you willing to volunteer to work in one of the support groups serving homeless gay youth, or AIDS patients????  

The reason I mentioned pink and turquoise and their meaning was because those were colors that were removed. The other colors were still among the spectrum of the rainbow (even they too were reduced over time), and the name of the symbol evolved into a rainbow, even though it lacks the seven typical colors.

My issue is with the wear-a-rainbow motivation that "changing members' attitudes would help lead to changes in doctrine (through being open to further revelation) and policy.” Such a concerted, extra-council drive to change members’ attitudes as a means to impress upon the leaders the call “that the law should be altered” and mobilize them to change the revelations is way out of line, especially for a sacrament meeting. That is what is sinister, since even the most pious enjoy a splash of color here and there.

I think it good for each member to remember, and liken unto themselves, these words given to Joseph Smith:

“Behold, you [the members] have been entrusted with these things [e.g. the counsels of our leaders], but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them. And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—“

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood [or abiding in its counsels], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—“

Any concerted, extra-council drive [such as wearing a certain garb to sacrament meetings] to change members’ attitudes, especially as a means to change the revelations, is just plain wrong. It typically pits “us” against “them” and resorts to the persuasions and tactics of men. For example, it garners attention by wearing something that says “hey, look at me and what I’m trying to say while you’re participating in sacrament, lesson and quorum and auxiliary hours.” It takes away from those trying to have some time unspotted from the world and receiving the delight the Lord wishes to give them. Thus, it is not an example of anxious engagement in a good cause, because the commandment to operate in concert with both priesthood council and counsel has been received with a doubtful heart, and with slothfulness. None of the doctrines or revelations have changed as a result of such antichrist and contentious activity.

A more Christlike approach is to say, “Whoever you are, I/we love you, the Lord loves you” is what the saints are asked to countenance (charity) in our daily walk and conversation. On this particular subject, the most authentic, effective and comforting support at Church is one-on-one and in relevant group conversation where the Spirit is, or where the participants are agreed to gather in His name: classes and councils (individual and group, formal and informal); outside of that, friendships and family settings. Anything less is shallow, faddish or worldly. The most authentic, effective and comforting way to participate in a sacrament meeting is to leave anything that would detract and distract oneself and others from the Lord’s Table at home (see D&C 59: 9-14).

Outside of that, I make my living, in part, managing an organization that, in part, provides specific services to the gay and HIV/AIDS populations (always have! Going on 30 years!). Some of that has involved volunteering, and I contribute financially as well. I bet I do a LOT more than you!

[california boy]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

The reason I mentioned pink and turquoise and their meaning was because those were colors that were removed. The other colors were still among the spectrum of the rainbow (even they too were reduced over time), and the name of the symbol evolved into a rainbow, even though it lacks the seven typical colors.

I am still not getting your point in mentioning colors that were removed 38 years ago.  If you weren't trying to sexualize things, how was mentioning those colors relevant to anything about the protest.  Maybe you could explain your reasons why it was relevant if it was not to sexualize being gay. It seems to be a common thing to do on this board, but  I would like to think that was not your reason.

 

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

My issue is with the wear-a-rainbow motivation that "changing members' attitudes would help lead to changes in doctrine (through being open to further revelation) and policy.” Such a concerted, extra-council drive to change members’ attitudes as a means to impress upon the leaders the call “that the law should be altered” and mobilize them to change the revelations is way out of line, especially for a sacrament meeting. That is what is sinister, since even the most pious enjoy a splash of color here and there.

Yeah,  You said that before.  But you didn't explain how changing members attitudes has anything to do with changing doctrine.  Tell me what the correlation between the two is.

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think it good for each member to remember, and liken unto themselves, these words given to Joseph Smith:

“Behold, you [the members] have been entrusted with these things [e.g. the counsels of our leaders], but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them. And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—“

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood [or abiding in its counsels], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—“

 

Any concerted, extra-council drive [such as wearing a certain garb to sacrament meetings] to change members’ attitudes, especially as a means to change the revelations, is just plain wrong. It typically pits “us” against “them” and resorts to the persuasions and tactics of men. For example, it garners attention by wearing something that says “hey, look at me and what I’m trying to say while you’re participating in sacrament, lesson and quorum and auxiliary hours.” It takes away from those trying to have some time unspotted from the world and receiving the delight the Lord wishes to give them. Thus, it is not an example of anxious engagement in a good cause, because the commandment to operate in concert with both priesthood council and counsel has been received with a doubtful heart, and with slothfulness. None of the doctrines or revelations have changed as a result of such antichrist and contentious activity.

Yeah.  You already said this.  I don't quite buy into the whole us vs them.  But maybe some do.  I personally would read any ribbon color as something that person strongly believes and supports and feels the need to bring awareness to that cause.  But maybe I don't have a problem with people bringing awareness to breast cancer, AIDS, or whatever the cause.

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

A more Christlike approach is to say, “Whoever you are, I/we love you, the Lord loves you” is what the saints are asked to countenance (charity) in our daily walk and conversation. On this particular subject, the most authentic, effective and comforting support at Church is one-on-one and in relevant group conversation where the Spirit is, or where the participants are agreed to gather in His name: classes and councils (individual and group, formal and informal); outside of that, friendships and family settings. Anything less is shallow, faddish or worldly. The most authentic, effective and comforting way to participate in a sacrament meeting is to leave anything that would detract and distract oneself and others from the Lord’s Table at home (see D&C 59: 9-14).

I personally  can't stand it when someone says I/we love you, the Lord loves you even if you are gay.  It just sounds so trite, condescending and insincere.  It certainly was not how Christ showed his love to others.  I remember Neil A. Maxwell once made a statement about the dangers of being what he called "checkbook Christians".  That has always stuck with me.  It is a very lazy way of pretending you are in the service of God.  But that is just my opinion.

 

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

Outside of that, I make my living, in part, managing an organization that, in part, provides specific services to the gay and HIV/AIDS populations (always have! Going on 30 years!). Some of that has involved volunteering, and I contribute financially as well. I bet I do a LOT more than you!

A much more productive and sincere way of showing love.  I applaud you on your desire to serve. I personally think THIS is the message of Christ.  The rest is just white noise.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am still not getting your point in mentioning colors that were removed 38 years ago.  If you weren't trying to sexualize things, how was mentioning those colors relevant to anything about the protest.  Maybe you could explain your reasons why it was relevant if it was not to sexualize being gay. It seems to be a common thing to do on this board, but  I would like to think that was not your reason.

Then take me at my word and don’t worry about it and just focus on my actual point that the symbol evolved so as to co-opt the name of rainbow while not using rainbow colors or the seven-color scheme and to co-opt the first (Biblical) rainbow symbol to symbolize something very different. Now that’s perversion!

Yeah,  You said that before.  But you didn't explain how changing members attitudes has anything to do with changing doctrine.  Tell me what the correlation between the two is.

You’d have to look at the arguments of the proponents of that idea, as I agree with you that the connection is not right.

Yeah.  You already said this.  I don't quite buy into the whole us vs them.  But maybe some do.  I personally would read any ribbon color as something that person strongly believes and supports and feels the need to bring awareness to that cause.  But maybe I don't have a problem with people bringing awareness to breast cancer, AIDS, or whatever the cause.

I object to the organized effort to do so in an obtrusive way at Church meetings for the purpose that neither of us accepts as valid.

I personally  can't stand it when someone says I/we love you, the Lord loves you even if you are gay.  It just sounds so trite, condescending and insincere.  It certainly was not how Christ showed his love to others.  I remember Neil A. Maxwell once made a statement about the dangers of being what he called "checkbook Christians".  That has always stuck with me.  It is a very lazy way of pretending you are in the service of God.  But that is just my opinion.

Too bad you can’t take people at their word! Or accept their godly walk and conversation, which is what I actually meant.

A much more productive and sincere way of showing love.  I applaud you on your desire to serve. I personally think THIS is the message of Christ.  The rest is just white noise.

No, it all works together—can’t have one without the other. Celebrate diversity, why don’t you?

 

[Mystery Meat]

On 6/12/2016 at 7:41 AM, rockpond said:

i think the idea of wearing a well known symbol (as opposed to a blue heart) is so that those LGBT persons who are in the shadows, feeling isolated, would know where their safe spaces are.  

I'm really sorry that you feel you can't wear or display the ribbon anymore. 

Likewise, I'm sorry that there are youth in our congregations who are suffering.  I feel sorry that the very best we can offer them is a life of celibacy rewarded by a fundamental change to their personality in the eternities.  

I'm sorry that in a majority of US states you can still, legally, be fired just for being gay.  

And I'm sorry that it took decades of flying that rainbow flag before the gay community finally won equal rights to marriage. 

I think the bolded part shows why many, myself included, are hesitant to not only wear a rainbow ribbon, but to know how to even begin to show support/love without being seen as advocating or believing in false doctrine (such as it is okay to marry a person of the same gender or that a person will be gay in the next life).  It seems that any support initiative I have seen is either directly or indirectly tied to things, practices, false doctrine, or apostate behavior that I can't support nor do I want to be seen to. I know I have used some divisive language here, and I wish I didn't have to, but that's the reality.

[rockpond]

35 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I think the bolded part shows why many, myself included, are hesitant to not only wear a rainbow ribbon, but to know how to even begin to show support/love without being seen as advocating or believing in false doctrine (such as it is okay to marry a person of the same gender or that a person will be gay in the next life).  It seems that any support initiative I have seen is either directly or indirectly tied to things, practices, false doctrine, or apostate behavior that I can't support nor do I want to be seen to. I know I have used some divisive language here, and I wish I didn't have to, but that's the reality.

So are you saying that you don't feel bad that what we offer to our gay church members is a life of celibacy?  You don't want to express any sympathy for them in that struggle?

I think it's possible to mourn with them without suggesting that church doctrine should change. 

[Storm Rider]

39 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So are you saying that you don't feel bad that what we offer to our gay church members is a life of celibacy?  You don't want to express any sympathy for them in that struggle?

I think it's possible to mourn with them without suggesting that church doctrine should change. 

I know several individuals who have never been married and all are well past 30 years of age.  Do I mourn for them because they are single?  I have never considered morning for them because they are single.  I know some of them still would like to marry someone, but they have each led fascinating lives of value and respect.  

No, I know many more things to mourn about rather than the fact that someone will be celibate.  You seem to put a lot more value on a sexual life than I do.