Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, except for the children of polygamists of course. Good thing they don't count. 

Good example, the church is also mistreating the children of polygamists.  The situations are somewhat different, but its still mistreatment. 

[hope_for_things]

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It can be; doesn't mean it must be. And I don't think it is in the situation we are discussing.

 

One way to find out would be for you to dialogue with the people that are being mistreated and to ask them if they have experienced mistreatment.  The evidence is clear to me, but if you want to really learn about the experiences of people in the LGBT community, then finding out from them first hand is a good way to do that.  

You need to cool down the inflammatory statements or the thread will be closed. You have now spent 3 pages defending it which should tell you something. 

[CMZ]

We don't need prophets if we presume that they must get in lockstep with the world on everything. It stands to reason that there may be instances where prophets have to hold to a line that is unpopular, but it will always be for the greatest good of the most number of people, even if many of the people involved can't see everything involved and the end from the beginning. I think sometimes they, the prophets, have hard decisions to make about certain situations that arise and they have to do the best they can and I don't think they are aiming to mistreat anyone. Saying someone can't get baptized until they're 18 still leaves the door open to baptism for that individual; that hardly qualifies as mistreatment. If the Church isn't true then a baptism performed by it for anyone at any age doesn't matter anyways. I'm not sure if people are clamoring for under-18 individuals to get baptized into a church they don't even believe in. I had a bishop who had an analogous experience where he was seeking First Presidency approval for a couple to get a temple sealing and the response (I believe directly from President Hinckley) was that the couple would have to wait. No explanation was given. This created a big personal dilemma for the bishop who started to wonder if the prophet was truly inspired, if maybe he was just an old man clinging tenaciously but unreasonably to "traditional" principles, why this great couple couldn't just go and get sealed in the temple if they wanted to, etc., etc., etc. Well, given a little time the answer became exceedingly clear to the bishop and it ended up strengthening his testimony of the prophet. With this SSA matter I think many of us would do well to reserve judgment and not jump to conclusions that certain policies are "mistreatment." But I suppose we also have the agency to insist on perpetually characterizing things that way if we so choose.
 

Quote

“In so many relationships and circumstances in life, we must live with differences. Where vital, our side of these differences should not be denied or abandoned, but as followers of Christ we should live peacefully with others who do not share our values or accept the teachings upon which they are based. The Father’s plan of salvation, which we know by prophetic revelation, places us in a mortal circumstance where we are to keep His commandments. That includes loving our neighbors of different cultures and beliefs as He has loved us. As a Book of Mormon prophet taught, we must press forward, having ‘a love of God and of all men’ (2 Nephi 31:20)” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” Oct. 2014 general conference).

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by CMZ

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

"The Church" has one sole responsibility, that is to teach and preach the lessons and doctrines of scripture. It is not required to act as a "social experiment", and be "tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine". They as a (and we as a) Church of Jesus Christ, must decry the mistreatment of others, but is not required to condone behavior expressly forbidden in scripture. This carries with it, the calling of, teaching the truths of Jesus Christ and to call all unto him. Every public announcement, causes anger, doubt, or as you put it "hypocritical", and to those who share Church policies, "properly measured comments". 

The most important part of any comments to the media, is there are those who will embrace it, and others who will seek to pick apart  every word, that "proceeds out of the mouth of Church leadership". Other than those who are believers, the only comment that would be received by the world, would be..."hey we are all liars and frauds and we are shutting down operations tomorrow". Even then many would step forward and say; "You should have done it sooner". In the court of public opinion, nothing said would or will ever be good enough. So to those who seem harmed at every comment, just stop reading or listening, you have passed judgement, we are guilty, simply remove the stress from your lives. So fly, be free, just let go and search for what might bring you happiness. You own it to yourself and your families to find peace at last. I truly mean this, it is painful to see others whose only belief system, is not believing at all, and being angry at those who do. If those who cannot believe anymore want converts, first find something to believe in, and then find converts. Be happy, it is impossible to find joy in just opposing others, it can only be found in serving others. 

I agree with most of what you wrote.  While I whole heartedly appreciate this small step the church is taking, I feel that endorsing this event is more for the members of the church than for those outside the church.  I doubt very much that whether the church supports this concert or doesn't isn't going to make one bit of differrence to the 99% of the world that are not Mormon.  I doubt very much they will even be aware if this gesture.  Never the less, I do think it is something positive that the church is doing for those within the church that feel gays are being badly treated by the church.

Mostly I want to agree with your conclusions at the end.  I am of the exact same opinion.  I think that the church is a very toxic environment for anyone who is gay and that the best thing that person could do is to walk away from the church and find that there is a happy, productive and fulfilling life outside of the four walls of Mormonism.  We are brought up our whole lives being taught about a Plan of Happiness that is available to all of God's children.  At the very core of that plan is finding a loved one to share this life with and creating a family.  You take the family out of the Plan of Happiness and what do you have left?  Nothing.  The church has made it so that to follow the Plan of Happiness for someone who is gay, it must be done outside membership in the church.  That is a very viable choice for those that are gay and one that will set them back on that path towards God. 

 

Quote

 

1 Timothy 4

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 

 

[CMZ]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

The church has made it so that to follow the Plan of Happiness for someone who is gay, it must be done outside membership in the church.  That is a very viable choice for those that are gay and one that will set them back on that path towards God.

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time. Your quote from Timothy does not in any way mean that everything that everyone thinks of as a marriage must be seen as a marriage in God's eyes.

Edited August 16, 2017 by CMZ

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time.

Are you seriously claiming that any marriage that takes place outside the temple is not holy and sacred (especially for those involved)?  That includes most marriages, you know....

Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Are you seriously claiming that any marriage that takes place outside the temple is not holy and sacred (especially for those involved)?  That includes most marriages, you know....

Nope! Never even implied any such thing. But there are certain requirements for a marriage to be able to be eternally sealed.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time.

This kind of a comment can be very hurtful.  California boy knows the church's current policy very well.  Unless you are God, please don't speak in such absolutely condemning terms.  You don't know what the future holds and you don't speak for God, please don't act like it.  

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This kind of a comment can be very hurtful.  California boy knows the church's current policy very well.  Unless you are God, please don't speak in such absolutely condemning terms.  You don't know what the future holds and you don't speak for God, please don't act like it.  

Thank you. It's not condemning and when people finally see the way God sees they will realize there's no condemnation in it.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Nope! Never even implied any such thing.

Sure you did.

 

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time. Your quote from Timothy does not in any way mean that everything that everyone thinks of as a marriage must be seen as a marriage in God's eyes.

So now you are telling God what he can do and what he can't do.  Interesting,

It is not my quote, it is Paul's.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Oh, I didn't understand you originally, thanks for clarifying.  If you define good faith as a form of trust, and that is how I define it, but let me know if you think of this differently.  Then I think I'm showing "good faith" to God with my pointing out the church's duplicity on this issue.

I believe we should learn to exercise faith in God first, institutions and humans second, and we should prioritize and scrutinize our motives, biases and preconceived notions on all issues on a regular basis.  I don't believe if we get too confident about our ideas that we are in danger of pride, and I feel called to continue to re-evaluate as a principle of humility and in an effort to receive inspiration.  

By good faith I mean “a sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest, regardless of the outcome of the interaction” between parries -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith . It seems you have abandoned that effort with regards to the Church based on a bias about her policy, affecting your attitude toward her sincerity in making the linked statement (as suggested in the title of the thread and by your use of the term “duplicity”). All you have accomplished is to set up a wedge between your rationalization and the rationalization you suppose others are exercising. That is not good faith!

However, the Church has not done or demonstrated any such thing in her statement, that is, point out examples of mistreatment and contradiction on the part of the organizers or the benefitting organizations.

In demonstration of your principles, please describe how you prioritize and scrutinize your motives, biases and preconceived notions on this issue at this time, and how you are not too confident about your assessment of the Church’s duplicity.

[CMZ]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sure you did.

 

Ugh. No, I didn't. I fully believe that there are many marriages that occur outside of the temple that can and will eventually become eternal through God's sealing power. You can claim to the contrary all you want, but it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

[CMZ]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

So now you are telling God what he can do and what he can't do.  Interesting,

It is not my quote, it is Paul's.  

Silly... it's not me telling God what he can do and what he can't do, just knowing what he will and won't do. And, yes, I know it's a quote from Paul; he is talking about people who claim being celibate is the best arrangement... and this belief tends to spring from the misunderstanding that God is single. But I guess you are prepared to accept any type of marriage that anyone concocts:

• http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/01/03/british-woman-marries-dolphin.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/colombia-gets-first-polyamorous-family-three-men-legally-established/

If you're prepared to accept those (or not) then you are saying that YOU know where to draw the line but that someone else doesn't, but that you want to look indignantly on someone else for drawing the line somewhere else.

Edited August 16, 2017 by CMZ

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Human nature is to rationalize all kinds of mistreatment.  Would any church that has mistreated people throughout the history of institutional religions, have ever admitted they were mistreating people from their own perspective?  Personal perspective doesn't matter much when the rubber meets the road.  

It's also human nature to claim mistreatment when none actually occurred.  

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Ugh. No, I didn't.

First, CB posted this:

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The church has made it so that to follow the Plan of Happiness for someone who is gay, it must be done outside membership in the church.  That is a very viable choice for those that are gay and one that will set them back on that path towards God. 

You responded with this:

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

Not when same-sex marriages can't be eternally sealed by anyone, god or mortal, at any time.

If you weren't disagreeing, why use the word "Not" to begin your response?

 

[CMZ]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

First, CB posted this:

You responded with this:

If you weren't disagreeing, why use the word "Not" to begin your response?

 

Yes...I was disagreeing with the idea that people can follow the Plan of Happiness by entering into a same-sex marriage. But I was not implying that every marriage contracted outside of the temple is unable to ever become an eternal one. Hope that clears things up.

 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yes...I was disagreeing with the idea that people can follow the Plan of Happiness by entering into a same-sex marriage. But I was not implying that every marriage contracted outside of the temple is unable to ever become an eternal one. Hope that clears things up.

Ok.  So, you don't disagree that SSM can be holy and sacred for those entering the marriage? (Just to clarify.)

[pogi]

Can you all please clearly explain how the church has mistreated the LGBTQ community? 

The two accusations of mistreatment towards the LGBTQ community that I have noticed have been 1) the church's stance on gay marriage, and 2) the church policy for a child of gay parents to disavow their marriage before he/she can be baptized.  Or, are you all arguing that it is even mistreatment to label it as immoral or sinful behavior?  Any other ways the church has "mistreated" the LGBTQ community?  I would like to receive some clarity here. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  So, you don't disagree that SSM can be holy and sacred for those entering the marriage? (Just to clarify.)

Just an FYI, You said " any marriage that takes place outside the temple is not holy and sacred", not "any same sex marriage..."

 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would argue that the church has been more inconsistent on this subject than just about any other.  Its a wonderful example of inconsistency.  If you can't see that, I'm not sure we have a lot of common ground to build on.  Even many defenders of the church's LGBT policies and positions that I've spoken with are able to see the inconsistencies over the past few decades, its been all over the map.  If you can't see that, and the evidence is so clear in my mind, I'm not sure we can have a constructive dialogue as you asked for earlier.  

You can find inconsistency if you want to .  I don't find anything to be necessarily inconsistent.  One can hold to the view that homosexual relationships are against the teachings of the gospel while at the same time desire for more understanding and peace in the world.  The Church has to maintain a balance between promoting tolerance and peace in society while maintaining the standards of the gospel.  We living in a changing world while the laws of God on this matter will not change. 

[USU78]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's also human nature to claim mistreatment when none actually occurred.  

Especially where there is political power and, sometime$, other consideration accruing to the benefit of the one claiming mistreatment.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Are you seriously claiming that any marriage that takes place outside the temple is not holy and sacred (especially for those involved)?  That includes most marriages, you know....

No. We recognize "civil" marriages. What God recognizes is a different question.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just an FYI, You said " any marriage that takes place outside the temple is not holy and sacred", not "any same sex marriage..."

 

You don't need to tell me what I said, calm.  I know what I wrote and we were discussing california boy's comment.  That's why I asked for the clarification.

Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson

[carbon dioxide]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  So, you don't disagree that SSM can be holy and sacred for those entering the marriage? (Just to clarify.)

Holy and sacred to whom?  The the couple getting married?  Yes probably so.  To God....?  That "I the Lord can not look up upon sin with the least degree of allowance" sort of stands out. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by carbon dioxide