The Gap is too Wide to Bridge

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 4:42 PM, smac97 said:

Quoth Elder Oaks:

That's a considerably more nuanced assessment than "homosexuality is {} a genetic issue."

Of course, Elder Oaks' remarks are 20+ years old.  More recently, the APA has this to say:

Seems like "homosexuality is {} a genetic issue" is a rather facile characterization of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

While I agree with the ongoing and most-current scientific evidence that the issue is more complex than merely asserting that "homosexuality is a genetic issue," I know of virtually NO ONE who sums up the organization that way, and I don't know of anyone defending the issue as characterized by that statement...  Were anyone to do so, I would agree--that is a rather facile characterization of the issue, and is a strawman rather than a legitimate attempt to advance to understanding of the biological underpinnings of sexual orientation and it's immutability in the face of efforts to change it... all while acknowledging that ANY sexual behaviors are chosen, and not necessarily a function of an inability to choose how any of us respond to our innate attractions.

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 5:42 PM, smac97 said:

Fair enough.

I also oppose rape and murder and theft and dishonesty and lack of charity and selfishness and greed and love of money and laziness and other types of behavior on the basis that "God has said this is a sin" (and to be clear, the Church teaches that homosexual conduct, not feelings/inclinations, are sinful).

I think everyone is clear that currently, "Church teaches that homosexual conduct, not feelings/inclinations, are sinful."

And while anyone is free to believe what they wish about the acceptability/sinfulness of same-sex relationships in God's eyes, many people can see a distinct difference between activates which clearly harm others (such as rape, murder, theft, selfishness, greed, etc) vs. activities which aren't so apparently harmful (such as same-sex relationships).

Quote

I think what "God has said" is a pretty good arbiter of right and wrong, particularly when construed through A) our factually- and spiritually-informed intellect and conscience, and B) guidance from prophets and apostles.

Unfortunately, "what 'God has said'" has been used as justification by a wide variety of people to inflict death, destruction, statutory rape, etc. on others...

The above is true even of church leaders in your own Faith's history, which most people would find anywhere from morally repugnant (i.e. entering into polygamous marriages with teenage girls and other men's wives, lying to one's wife and church members, institutionalized religious discrimination based on race, etc.) to downright horrific (blood atonement, but chiefly among them, genocide).

While your church hasn't come out with as many radical or unpopular revelations on such topics in recent years, the underlying principle you and others in your Faith believe in hasn't really changed, when it comes to accepting "what 'God has said' is a pretty good arbiter of right and wrong," especially in light of Joseph Smith's teachings on the subject:

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."

 

"God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart,

even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation."

 

"A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost."

 

"This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow

; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret.But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances.

Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had."

 

"Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;" but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who willlisten to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy."

- Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also "The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon," Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives

 

 

Quote

It's easy to take potshots at Mormons and their moral code, but I seriously doubt your code is superior to it.  And I can take that "you and he have no evidence" thingy and throw it right back at ya.  You have no evidence that homosexual conduct is not a sin.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps it seems easy for non-Mormons to identify (and take potshots at Mormons and) the inferiority of Mormons' moral code because Mormons attempt to make the claim their self-proclaimed superior moral code is 'unchangeable' and 'eternal,' when all evidence completely contradicts that reality, and LDS leaderships efforts have been made to diminish the importance or influence of previously-held and promoted core beliefs as they become increasingly morally repugnant, socially unpopular, and legally unacceptable.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 11:05 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Thanks... I remained puzzled by the degree of silence with which my essay has generally been greeted, considering the paradigmatic importance of Carol Lynn's account, just how well-known Gerald Pearson's story has become, and the number of threads and extensive comment that generally fly around any little bit of news or controversy.  Perhaps the grooves of the current discussion have been worn so deeply that mostly people simply don't know how to wrap their minds around a such a different take on the topic, one which calls for a different set of questions to consider, different implications, different responsibilities, and above all, the possibility of very different perceptions and choices.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA 

Hi, Kevin,

I note you've posted the link to your article a couple of times in similarly-themed threads, including previous comments marveling at how little discussion your article has inspired and wondering why.

I have personally met and had numerous one-on-one conversations with all three authors, and read two of the three accounts in question (while I haven't ready "Dancing with Crazy," I have had dinner with Emily had heard her tell her story as she prepared it for publication).  Many are familiar with Gerald Pearson and many of us can see his inherent selfishness, addictions, dishonesty, and tragic personal choices that left him dying.  I think, for many in the LGBT community, the Pearson/Fales dynamic isn't as "in the limelight" as it once was, and Steven Fales himself has certainly generated a high degree of criticism even within the gay-Mormon community itself.  Certainly, most don't champion him as any kind of hero or spokesperson, given his choices, self-focus, and perceived desire to self-promote to advance his career which many allege is narcissism.  In fact, I think many gay Mormons are weary of this family and don't feel as if their experiences speak for us.

That being said, I have read your article, and in the spirit of generating discussion, and of being open and willing to engage in dialogue about your article, and given your characterization that it serves as a "call for a different set of questions, implications, and responsibilities, and the possibility of different perceptions and choices," could you frame a couple of introductory questions that you feel would be salient to respond to....?

Edited June 21, 2016 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

So your position is that the part in the policy about not baptizing children of gay couples was inserted just to upset members, increase a bigotry image of the church against gays and further push people away from the gospel.

Brilliant move.  Dang, these guys are smart.

Cal, I think that it was instituted to squelch any further discussion about the validity of gay marriages.  It was overkill because I think they were aware that there were no such children in the Church at present.  As the Church attempts to accepting - anyone can attend church and are welcomed - they wanted to make clear to any that might try and force an issue, that there is a cost to their actions.  This is just my personal opinion and is not based on anything other than my own thoughts and deductions.

The perception of bigotry, hatefulness, etc. is personal.  Why did Jesus tell the woman he did not come for her people, but for the people of Israel?  Why was God the God of Israel and not the whole world until after the resurrection?  Stuff happens that we don't understand does that mean we should mock God?  

Whatever the purpose of the policy was it was taken and twisted by activists to meet their agenda.  NO ONE WAS HURT.  NO ONE WAS AFFECTED.  Yet, they banged the drums and worked themselves into a devils tirade of being victims of the big, bad church.  If people want to be manipulated - guess what - they will be manipulated.  The gay agenda actually has an agenda with plethora, scads, of drama queens (pun intended) ready to throw themselves down on the ground in paroxysms  of pain and agony, and woe is me's.  

Come on, Cal.  You know better.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Although he can speak for him/herself, this point has been discussed quite a bit.  If you know a married, gay couple that are actively raising their custodial children in Church of Jesus Christ then you would have a point.  The problem is such a couple does not exist and thus there are no children that are affected.  If you are talking that the mere existence of a policy that could affect these imaginary children is hurtful, then you may have a point.  None of us can know how others may feel or not feel about a given thing.  Then again, we all are told as children about sticks and stones.  

The Church created a policy that only affects non-existent children.  Though children are often used for emotional impact, the real purpose of the policy was to make clear that a gay LDS individual would be recognized as in a state of apostasy should they marry another gay individual.  Let's drop the emotional chiggering. 

Storm,

In the week between the church's policy being placed in the handbook and the church's clarification of the policy, it was applied differently by local leadership than the current version of the policy that's now in play.  I recognize that the church characterizes the subsequent changes as "clarifications" rather than actually having changed the policy.  However, during that first 10 days or so, several blended families (divorced mixed-orientation couples sharing custody of their children) were harmed--that is, they were adversely affected, including the denial of baptism and confirmation of their children involved.  It wasn't until numerous reports of those surfaced that LDS leadership took action to "clarify" (or alter, depending on how you read the events) how the policy was interpreted/implemented.

During those 10 or so days, many families were harmed. 

Additionally, even though such blended (divorced mixed-orientation couples sharing custody of their children) now fall into a different category, the emotional, mental, and spiritual damage to children like ours (including my three kids) was already done; that is, during that week, MY three young kids received the message, loud and clear, that even NOW, if they were to be raised mostly or exclusively in my husbands' and my home, they would be rejected and ostracized by the church they were already accustomed to attending.  And I can testify to you that that message about the quality/status of my husband's and my marriage has damaged my kids' relationship with me.  They refuse to come to our custody visits, refuse efforts by court-appointed therapists to help them feel safe and comfortable around me and my husband, etc.  The unspoken implications and messages of this policy of the church, as well as it's support by their LDS friends, their culture, their society (being raised in Provo, Utah) has completely undercut the progress we (my children and I) HAD been making, prior to the policy.

This policy HAS damaged MY children's and my relationship.  So I hope you can understand when I utterly reject USU's assertions that "no one has been hurt by this policy," or your dismissal that the policy "only affects non-existent children."  The absence of my own very-real children testifies that such assertions are false, and REAL damage has and continues to be done. 

[Storm Rider]

15 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Storm,

In the week between the church's policy being placed in the handbook and the church's clarification of the policy, it was applied differently by local leadership than the current version of the policy that's now in play.  I recognize that the church characterizes the subsequent changes as "clarifications" rather than actually having changed the policy.  However, during that first 10 days or so, several blended families (divorced mixed-orientation couples sharing custody of their children) were harmed--that is, they were adversely affected, including the denial of baptism and confirmation of their children involved.  It wasn't until numerous reports of those surfaced that LDS leadership took action to "clarify" (or alter, depending on how you read the events) how the policy was interpreted/implemented.

During those 10 or so days, many families were harmed. 

Additionally, even though such blended (divorced mixed-orientation couples sharing custody of their children) now fall into a different category, the emotional, mental, and spiritual damage to children like ours (including my three kids) was already done; that is, during that week, MY three young kids received the message, loud and clear, that even NOW, if they were to be raised mostly or exclusively in my husbands' and my home, they would be rejected and ostracized by the church they were already accustomed to attending.  And I can testify to you that that message about the quality/status of my husband's and my marriage has damaged my kids' relationship with me.  They refuse to come to our custody visits, refuse efforts by court-appointed therapists to help them feel safe and comfortable around me and my husband, etc.  The unspoken implications and messages of this policy of the church, as well as it's support by their LDS friends, their culture, their society (being raised in Provo, Utah) has completely undercut the progress we (my children and I) HAD been making, prior to the policy.

This policy HAS damaged MY children's and my relationship.  So I hope you can understand when I utterly reject USU's assertions that "no one has been hurt by this policy," or your dismissal that the policy "only affects non-existent children."  The absence of my own very-real children testifies that such assertions are false, and REAL damage has and continues to be done. 

Daniel, I cannot address the clarifications/changes discussion.  I wasn't involved and I just don't know enough about it to comment with any authority.  What I know is the impact of the policy today.  

I suspect that there is room for discussion about was the policy the cause of the problem between you and your children or was it the miscommunication/distortion/improper description of the policy that was at fault?  Was it how the policy was explained to your children and by whom?  I expect we would find a many-layered onion of reasons for why your children developed difficulties.

Miscommunication between family members is a problem du jour - they exist in all families and happen all the time.  My Aunt Mary never talked to my mother or any of my siblings the entire time I was a child.  I met her once after the funeral of another aunt.  She ignored me almost totally.  The reason for her rejection of my mother/father and their children?  My mom and her mom laughed at my aunt Mary when she was canning green beans and the jars exploded and left green beans hanging from the ceiling.  Aunt Mary, for various reasons, was impacted sufficiently by the event that she chose to never talk again to my mother for some 40 years.  

What should have happened?  Should everyone outlaw the canning of green beans?  Better yet, should laughing at exploding jars of green beans be outlawed in order to prevent hurt feelings.  

This is just one story of a number that I can tell - not to demean the real hurt feelings that exist in your family - but to emphasize that families have hurt feelings over the simplest of things and they can have long lasting impacts on familial relationships.  Who should we blame?  What can be done?  Communicate, communicate, and communicate.  

If it helps to blame the Church, then go ahead.  But I expect the real reason to be something else entirely - it is a family.  If it is not one thing it is another.  We just have to take things in stride and move on. 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If it helps to blame the Church, then go ahead.  But I expect the real reason to be something else entirely - it is a family.  If it is not one thing it is another.  We just have to take things in stride and move on. 

People don't make decisions in a vacuum. This policy incentivizes the kinds of behaviors described by Daniel2. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Gray

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, Kevin,

I note you've posted the link to your article a couple of times in similarly-themed threads, including previous comments marveling at how little discussion your article has inspired and wondering why.

I have personally met and had numerous one-on-one conversations with all three authors, and read two of the three accounts in question (while I haven't ready "Dancing with Crazy," I have had dinner with Emily had heard her tell her story as she prepared it for publication).  Many are familiar with Gerald Pearson and many of us can see his inherent selfishness, addictions, dishonesty, and tragic personal choices that left him dying.  I think, for many in the LGBT community, the Pearson/Fales dynamic isn't as "in the limelight" as it once was, and Steven Fales himself has certainly generated a high degree of criticism even within the gay-Mormon community itself.  Certainly, most don't champion him as any kind of hero or spokesperson, given his choices, self-focus, and perceived desire to self-promote to advance his career which many allege is narcissism.  In fact, I think many gay Mormons are weary of this family and don't feel as if their experiences speak for us.

That being said, I have read your article, and in the spirit of generating discussion, and of being open and willing to engage in dialogue about your article, and given your characterization that it serves as a "call for a different set of questions, implications, and responsibilities, and the possibility of different perceptions and choices," could you frame a couple of introductory questions that you feel would be salient to respond to....?

I've have thought the questions were obvious.  Addiction as a presence, and what should be our response when recognized?  Is misdirection, silence and denial best?  Or recognition and intelligent response?

I met Carol Lynn a couple of times, once in California after my Sunstone presentation on NDEs and the Book of Mormon, and once in SLC around 1999 after one of her talks.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I think that it was instituted to squelch any further discussion about the validity of gay marriages.  It was overkill because I think they were aware that there were no such children in the Church at present.  As the Church attempts to accepting - anyone can attend church and are welcomed - they wanted to make clear to any that might try and force an issue, that there is a cost to their actions.  This is just my personal opinion and is not based on anything other than my own thoughts and deductions.

The perception of bigotry, hatefulness, etc. is personal.  Why did Jesus tell the woman he did not come for her people, but for the people of Israel?  Why was God the God of Israel and not the whole world until after the resurrection?  Stuff happens that we don't understand does that mean we should mock God?  

Whatever the purpose of the policy was it was taken and twisted by activists to meet their agenda.  NO ONE WAS HURT.  NO ONE WAS AFFECTED.  Yet, they banged the drums and worked themselves into a devils tirade of being victims of the big, bad church.  If people want to be manipulated - guess what - they will be manipulated.  The gay agenda actually has an agenda with plethora, scads, of drama queens (pun intended) ready to throw themselves down on the ground in paroxysms  of pain and agony, and woe is me's.  

Come on, Cal.  You know better.

You really think that no one has been effected by this policy???  People have left the church because of this policy. Families have been divided over this policy.   People have hardened their hearts to ever hear the gospel message because of this policy.  Read the thread about Tyler Glenn if you think no one was effected by this policy.  Even people on this board that are generally very supportive of the church are struggling with this new policy.  And now you are claiming that the threat of not baptizing children of gay couples was just a ploy to let people know that the church was against gay marriage????  That wasn't known before?

From the very beginning of this issue, I have stated that the church can institute any policy that they want.  It is their church.  But that doesn't mean that the institution of this policy does not have consequences and has not caused real harm..  And to have someone like you believe using the threat to not baptized children was all just a ploy to get a message across that the church is against gay marriage, i find appalling.  What are these men thinking????  They can manipulate members of the church by threats?  When in reality there is no rational reason or need at all to deny baptism to children?  Unbelievable.

Oh well. Carry on.  It is your church.  Follow whoever you want to follow, no matter how or where they lead the church.

[Storm Rider]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really think that no one has been effected by this policy???  People have left the church because of this policy. Families have been divided over this policy.   People have hardened their hearts to ever hear the gospel message because of this policy.  Read the thread about Tyler Glenn if you think no one was effected by this policy.  Even people on this board that are generally very supportive of the church are struggling with this new policy.  And now you are claiming that the threat of not baptizing children of gay couples was just a ploy to let people know that the church was against gay marriage????  That wasn't known before?

From the very beginning of this issue, I have stated that the church can institute any policy that they want.  It is their church.  But that doesn't mean that the institution of this policy does not have consequences and has not caused real harm..  And to have someone like you believe using the threat to not baptized children was all just a ploy to get a message across that the church is against gay marriage, i find appalling.  What are these men thinking????  They can manipulate members of the church by threats?  When in reality there is no rational reason or need at all to deny baptism to children?  Unbelievable.

Oh well. Carry on.  It is your church.  Follow whoever you want to follow, no matter how or where they lead the church.

Hello Cal, I responded to Daniel above and feel much of what I wrote there applies to your post.  

This sounds like the proverbial scream of fire in a theater and everyone rushes for the exits leaving several people dead from being trampled - the problem is there was no fire, just that someone screamed fire.  They hysterics over hearing fire caused the deaths.  The policy, in and of itself, did nothing to children - that is the red, emotional herring everyone thrilled to sensationalize - the policy did make a clear definition about what is apostasy.

Are we as individuals responsible for the manner in which we respond to stimuli, influences, actions, behaviors, etc?  I think we are.  I would agree that those who fan the flames of hysteria and propaganda have a degree of responsibility, but ultimately we are responsible for our own actions.

I don't disagree with anyone that says there were bad feelings, poor relations with children, spouses, ex-spouses, parents, extended family, etc.  I honestly think that the vast majority had far more to do with hysteria than the actual policy itself. 

Cal, do you know a single married gay couple that is active in the Church that is also a custodial parent?  Just one couple?  Of course you don't - they don't exist.  Now, why all the talk about children?  I find that appalling because children are being used as emotional weapons in a political/religious fight for the Gay Agenda.  That is appalling.  

How many times on this forum have people said, "Well, the Prophet has never really said if being gay is wrong - there are no recent revelations on the topic".  Or, "Gay marriage cannot be wrong because the prophet has not had a revelation that specifically addresses the topic."  or any number of similar comments.  Now, you and I and anyone else can posit any number of perceived motivations for the policy being instituted, but what is resoundingly clear is that gay marriage is apostasy.  There is no argument any longer - that is the clear demarkation for members - if you chose to marry a member of the same sex you are in apostasy.  

If you are asking me should the Church have addressed the child issue, I would have counseled to ignore it.  There are no children that would fall under the heading - EXCEPT for those rare activists who wanted to pose as if they are sincere - that I can believe.  But I think that is so rare I would have still felt like there was no reason to mention the treatment of children.  Your opinion for why they were mentioned is just as valid as anything I have said; just as anyone else's opinion would be.  The point is children are not the issue - they are the wedge that propaganda uses to gain emotional favor. 

In closing, if no one ran for the exists, no one would have died.  What is the moral?  Running blindly without understanding or comprehension and without any corresponding confirmation of reality is seldom a good response.  We all are lead around by the nose my media and activists of various organizations.  Each of us has the responsibility to not be influenced by them. 

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really think that no one has been effected by this policy???  People have left the church because of this policy. Families have been divided over this policy.   People have hardened their hearts to ever hear the gospel message because of this policy.

You can make the same argument against tithing, the endowment, plural marriage, Adam-God, missionary calls, the priesthood ban AND the removal of the priesthood ban. 
Pretty much every doctrine of the gospel has brought with it apostasy from those who choose to reject truth.

The alternative of not having policies so that we allow all people to stay in the Church and be happy is ridiculous.
People will fly to pieces like broken glass over every doctrine that is true.
 

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Cal, I responded to Daniel above and feel much of what I wrote there applies to your post.  

This sounds like the proverbial scream of fire in a theater and everyone rushes for the exits leaving several people dead from being trampled - the problem is there was no fire, just that someone screamed fire.  They hysterics over hearing fire caused the deaths.  The policy, in and of itself, did nothing to children - that is the red, emotional herring everyone thrilled to sensationalize - the policy did make a clear definition about what is apostasy.

Are we as individuals responsible for the manner in which we respond to stimuli, influences, actions, behaviors, etc?  I think we are.  I would agree that those who fan the flames of hysteria and propaganda have a degree of responsibility, but ultimately we are responsible for our own actions.

I don't disagree with anyone that says there were bad feelings, poor relations with children, spouses, ex-spouses, parents, extended family, etc.  I honestly think that the vast majority had far more to do with hysteria than the actual policy itself. 

Cal, do you know a single married gay couple that is active in the Church that is also a custodial parent?  Just one couple?  Of course you don't - they don't exist.  Now, why all the talk about children?  I find that appalling because children are being used as emotional weapons in a political/religious fight for the Gay Agenda.  That is appalling.  

How many times on this forum have people said, "Well, the Prophet has never really said if being gay is wrong - there are no recent revelations on the topic".  Or, "Gay marriage cannot be wrong because the prophet has not had a revelation that specifically addresses the topic."  or any number of similar comments.  Now, you and I and anyone else can posit any number of perceived motivations for the policy being instituted, but what is resoundingly clear is that gay marriage is apostasy.  There is no argument any longer - that is the clear demarkation for members - if you chose to marry a member of the same sex you are in apostasy.  

If you are asking me should the Church have addressed the child issue, I would have counseled to ignore it.  There are no children that would fall under the heading - EXCEPT for those rare activists who wanted to pose as if they are sincere - that I can believe.  But I think that is so rare I would have still felt like there was no reason to mention the treatment of children.  Your opinion for why they were mentioned is just as valid as anything I have said; just as anyone else's opinion would be.  The point is children are not the issue - they are the wedge that propaganda uses to gain emotional favor. 

In closing, if no one ran for the exists, no one would have died.  What is the moral?  Running blindly without understanding or comprehension and without any corresponding confirmation of reality is seldom a good response.  We all are lead around by the nose my media and activists of various organizations.  Each of us has the responsibility to not be influenced by them. 

Like I said,  Carry on.  Follow whoever you want.  You are certainly entitled to support the church's policies no matter what harm they do or how manipulative they are.  If nothing else, it serves as a reminder that just because church leaders teach something, doesn't mean it comes from God.  Sometimes it is just to push an agenda at all costs.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Like I said,  Carry on.  Follow whoever you want.  You are certainly entitled to support the church's policies no matter what harm they do or how manipulative they are.  If nothing else, it serves as a reminder that just because church leaders teach something, doesn't mean it comes from God.  Sometimes it is just to push an agenda at all costs.

This is a good point and one which members would do well to consider.  Too many times in the past the leaders have stated things that we today don't believe.  Too many times have members been influenced by mistaken leaders.  That's not a slap on the face to leaders.  That's to say the system is inherently fallible.  The human touch does that.  Just as vehemently as LDS and it's leaders used to preach against interracial marriage we today hear them preach against SSM.  Bridging a gap in theory is easy.  The difficulty of it is the people who want the gap to remain, in spite of what they say. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You can make the same argument against tithing, the endowment, plural marriage, Adam-God, missionary calls, the priesthood ban AND the removal of the priesthood ban. 
Pretty much every doctrine of the gospel has brought with it apostasy from those who choose to reject truth.

The alternative of not having policies so that we allow all people to stay in the Church and be happy is ridiculous.
People will fly to pieces like broken glass over every doctrine that is true.
 

True.  And some of those policies that people pushed back against were later disavowed.  I think this policy will be one of those that future leaders will assign to the dust bin of history.  But for right now, it is a key weapon to use against gay families.  Whether it was needed or not is another question.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

True.  And some of those policies that people pushed back against were later disavowed.  I think this policy will be one of those that future leaders will assign to the dust bin of history.  But for right now, it is a key weapon to use against gay families.  Whether it was needed or not is another question.

The policy, at this point, amounts to a slap in the face.  "Take that...you gay people"...is about all that has come from it.  As a member all I can say with sarcasm is "thanks a lot leaders". 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

True.  And some of those policies that people pushed back against were later disavowed.  I think this policy will be one of those that future leaders will assign to the dust bin of history.  But for right now, it is a key weapon to use against gay families.  Whether it was needed or not is another question.

 

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The policy, at this point, amounts to a slap in the face.  "Take that...you gay people"...is about all that has come from it.  As a member all I can say with sarcasm is "thanks a lot leaders".

 

Regardless of whether you agree with the policy or not, the excuse "it's making people leave the Church" is completely irrelevant to the correctness of the teaching.
That was my point.

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Like I said,  Carry on.  Follow whoever you want.  You are certainly entitled to support the church's policies no matter what harm they do or how manipulative they are.  If nothing else, it serves as a reminder that just because church leaders teach something, doesn't mean it comes from God.  Sometimes it is just to push an agenda at all costs.

Cal, I guess I could say that if someone wants to get excited, offended, and scream fire then go ahead.  It does not change anything and except that how some individuals will respond and others won't.  

We have talked before and you know where I stand.  This is a policy - it is not a revelation.  I don't think this policy has changed anything from what the stance of the Church was before the policy was instituted.  The only thing that has changed is how people have responded to the stance of the Church.  

For me I avoid drama, I dislike hysterics, and I don't like being manipulated by anyone or any organization.  I think you generally feel the same way about things - this is a non-issue and it should be treated as such.  If everyone felt similarly the impact of this policy would be zero.  

[Kenngo1969]

As regards each group and both groups collectively, as long as "acceptance" in the minds of gays and lesbians entails the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sacrificing core doctrine regarding the meaning and purpose of marriage, redefining the law of chastity, et cetera, then, yes, the gap between those groups is unbridgeable.  However, with respect to relationships between individual members of each group, no, I don't think the gap is unbridgeable.  

Yes, absolutely, being a faithful member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as someone who is attracted to one's own sex does entail a huge earthly sacrifice, the magnitude of which I can scarcely fathom.  Perhaps few will be willing to make that sacrifice.  But some will, and that willingness should be nurtured and encouraged.  Yes, absolutely, being willing to submit one's own will to that of one's Father and of one's Savior does entail a huge earthly sacrifice for one who is attracted to one's own sex, the magnitude of which I can scarcely fathom.  Perhaps few will be willing to make that sacrifice.  But some will, and that willingness should be nurtured and encouraged.

As I've written several times before, I don't know how God is going to sort out the complicated issue of human relationships (including, and in many respects, especially, same-sex relationships), but if we're faithful, I don't think the Omniscient, Omnipotent, All-Loving Lord of the Universe is going to have to tell any of us, "Sorry.   I know you were expecting something more, or something better, or at least something different, and I know this means it sucks to be you, but ... this is the best I could do."

So where does that leave us?  Yes, the lines are well-drawn.  Those who want the Church of Jesus Christ to compromise on core doctrine have spared no pains to make their position well known.  Likewise, the Church of Jesus Christ, through its leaders, has said that no such compromise is possible.  In most cases, members who find themselves on opposite sides of the divide simply will have to agree to disagree, while hopefully doing so agreeably.  In most cases, perhaps, those who are attracted to their own sex will find that the line actually is a chasm.  But not all will. Just as has been the case throughout history, while many will consider the sacrifice inherent to following the invitation to "Take up thy cross, and follow Me" to be too great, not all will.  It is for them that we must continue to leave the invitation open, to assure them that the chasm is not so wide that it is unbridgeable, and to assure them that no earthly sacrifice is so great that the blessings of heaven cannot compensate for it.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, I guess I could say that if someone wants to get excited, offended, and scream fire then go ahead.  It does not change anything and except that how some individuals will respond and others won't.  

We have talked before and you know where I stand.  This is a policy - it is not a revelation.  I don't think this policy has changed anything from what the stance of the Church was before the policy was instituted.  The only thing that has changed is how people have responded to the stance of the Church.  

For me I avoid drama, I dislike hysterics, and I don't like being manipulated by anyone or any organization.  I think you generally feel the same way about things - this is a non-issue and it should be treated as such.  If everyone felt similarly the impact of this policy would be zero.  

According to Elder Nelson, it IS a revelation. Still, like you, I don't believe it was a revelation.

It's hard to understand the level of dismissiveness in claiming that no one has been hurt. It's absurd to claim there are no gay couples who are custodial parents. Even so, lets remember that the "clarification" from the brethren about custodial parents only happened after a week of social media turmoil.

The policy is offensive, misguided, and harmful. Leaders have the authority to institute any policy they choose but it is also my church and I do not give my consent to the policy representing me.

The church has been anti-gay for a long time so you're right that the policy doesn't change that. What's changed is that many more people recognize the anti message to be mean spirited in the way it seems to push gays, their families, friends, and allies away.

The policy is the worst of the church and I look forward to the day when it's rescinded.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

According to Elder Nelson, it IS a revelation. Still, like you, I don't believe it was a revelation.

It's hard to understand the level of dismissiveness in claiming that no one has been hurt. It's absurd to claim there are no gay couples who are custodial parents. Even so, lets remember that the "clarification" from the brethren about custodial parents only happened after a week of social media turmoil.

The policy is offensive, misguided, and harmful. Leaders have the authority to institute any policy they choose but it is also my church and I do not give my consent to the policy representing me.

The church has been anti-gay for a long time so you're right that the policy doesn't change that. What's changed is that many more people recognize the anti message to be mean spirited in the way it seems to push gays, their families, friends, and allies away.

The policy is the worst of the church and I look forward to the day when it's rescinded.

This.  And you know what?  The darn policy didn't accomplish a thing.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

According to Elder Nelson, it IS a revelation. Still, like you, I don't believe it was a revelation.

It's hard to understand the level of dismissiveness in claiming that no one has been hurt. It's absurd to claim there are no gay couples who are custodial parents. Even so, lets remember that the "clarification" from the brethren about custodial parents only happened after a week of social media turmoil.

The policy is offensive, misguided, and harmful. Leaders have the authority to institute any policy they choose but it is also my church and I do not give my consent to the policy representing me.

The church has been anti-gay for a long time so you're right that the policy doesn't change that. What's changed is that many more people recognize the anti message to be mean spirited in the way it seems to push gays, their families, friends, and allies away.

The policy is the worst of the church and I look forward to the day when it's rescinded.

That day may come.
But God's view of SSM as sinful will never change.

[Jeanne]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

That day may come.
But God's view of SSM as sinful will never change.

I hope it does come.  Religions can pick what constitutes as sin and/or their interpretation of God's word..but you can't pick them for others..God says so.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That day may come.
But God's view of SSM as sinful will never change.

NEVER is a really big word when used by fallible people, talking about their understanding of God, in a church that claims continued revelation.

The claim of "never" is the same as claiming "I'm perfect in my understanding." Sounds very ... overconfident.

Edited June 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Johnnie Cake]

18 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion; I guess it is worth the value of every opinion and every one has got one.

Bow to society pressure.  Hmm, what on earth are you talking about.  Whether one agrees with the priesthood ban - you know that priesthood thing that has had some incredibly strict parameters since the dawn of time - and lest the narrow minded forget, was always understood to include the black man - yeah that one - bow to societal pressure is good spin for a rag like the National Enquirer or the majority of English rags, but not so much on reality.  But keep up the propaganda because it will fool....fools for a while and even they wake up with a little reading.

Then there that old, troublesome purpose of life is to procreate and Tom and Tom and Shirley and Shirley cannot do piddley-squat when it comes to reproduction.  It is like this colossal block to the entire purpose of all creation, but hey, if it floats your boat, keep pumping those fairy tale dreams and retain the rose-colored glasses that see only unicorns and puff the magic dragon. 

But whatever you do - don't read scripture.  Absolutely keep that stuff out of the house and away from searching minds.  God knows what would happen if man actually read and understood scripture.  

I am now off my soap box and gone to bed.  Keep smoking that ganja because you do come up with some wild stories when you are on the stuff.

Just curious, what exactly will be your reaction when the church announces a revelation and changes its current attitude towards gays and women by extending priesthood to women and recognizes same Sex marriage?  Granted this will not come about until there is tremendous societal and financial pressure put on the church...so I'm guessing that this WILL HAPPEN within 10 to 20 years time.  Anti discrimination laws will have to be passed and implemented, financial penalties will have to be part of the legislation as well and the cost to the church will have to be crippling...but it will happen and the church will have a choice to announce a new inclusive revelation or continue down its current road to irrelevancy.

Remember that you are not a polygamist today because the church caved to past financial and societal pressure...it will have to be something of that level of future pressure to get the church to alter its current eternal truths once again...

The church will be able to continue to "Believe" anything it wants ...just as it still believes in polygamy...it just can't practice that formerly eternal truth today...so it may morph to where it can believe in some nuanced form of it current doctrines but embraces SSA and Priesthood equality in some form

Edited June 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Just curious, what exactly will be your reaction when the church announces a revelation and changes its current attitude towards gays and women by extending priesthood to women and recognizes same Sex marriage?  Granted this will not come about until their is tremendous societal and financial pressure put on the church...so I'm guessing that this WILL HAPPEN within 10 to 20 years time.  Anti discrimination laws will have to be passed and implemented, financial penalties will have to be part of the legislation as well and the cost to the church will have to be crippling...but it will happen and the church will have a choice to announce a new inclusive revelation or continue down its current road to irrelevancy.

Remember that you are not a polygamist today because the church caved to past financial and societal pressure...it will have to be something of that level of future pressure to get the church to alter its current eternal truths once again...

Personally I would reject the revelation as being false.
As for what that would mean for my membership and activity in the Church - well, that would take some serious prayer.

And polygamy was revoked under common consent laws by the Church.  God never changed his doctrine on the practice.