california boy Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 13 hours ago, JLHPROF said: According to some surveys, as high as 25%. 13 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Who? Oh, you must mean Elder Oaks. Got it. How big? I don't know. It might be easier to work out how much notice they expect everyone to take of them. Since several posters seem to be a bit fuzzy on what percentage of Mormons support gay marriage, I thought that this poll done last year could give some insight. In 2015, 26% Mormons supported gay marriage. JUST A YEAR LATER in 2016, 37% of Mormons support gay marriage. That 11% represents one of the biggest quickest changes for gay marriage ever among any group. And among younger Mormons, support for gay marriage is quite a bit more supportive. Quote Like evangelical Protestants, Mormons have a clear “generation gap” in their feelings about same-sex marriage. There’s nearly a 20-point difference between the 28% of Mormon elders who support marriage equality and the 47% of younger Mormons who are in favor. That’s not quite majority status, but it’s close. These PRRI findings are similar, but not identical, to what we found among the youngest and oldest Mormons in the Next Mormons Survey (NMS, 2016). The 18-26 age bracket of that study showed support for same sex-marriage at 40.2%, nearly twice the 20.3% support among Mormons 52 and over. So the NMS percentages aren’t as high as PRRI’s for either generation, but the 20-point difference between them is strikingly similar. So what now? What do you label 37% of the church? Apostates? Unfaithful members? Do you dismiss their feelings of the Spirit as well? Do you, like Elder Oaks continue to double down on this issue? With the younger generation even more supportive, do you just hope that when they "grow up" they will see the light? Just how dismissive should church leaders this growing number of members. And what if these members also find the church using support for gay marriage as some kind of litmus test and they should no longer consider themselves faithful members? Does anyone project that this trend will diminish next year? Next decade? What if the change in attitude increases the same amount in 2017? Are now close to half the members no longer faithful members? Of course I have no answers to any of these questions. But one thing is clear, sincere personal beliefs about gay marriage seem to be headed in the exact opposite direction of church leaders no matter how many banishing policies and declared revelations church leaders seem to put in place. 2
california boy Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 49 minutes ago, rongo said: Or, put another way: how could Elder Oaks have taught the Church's doctrine and the principles in the Proclamation without being hurtful --- while remaining true to the Church's doctrine? Honest question. It seems to me that the only way to do that, in the eyes of those hurt by it, is to not have done it at all. I would genuinely be interested in ideas from those who find it hurtful --- how the Church can teach the Church's doctrine on homosexuality and gay marriage (including that this will not change), without teaching that the Church has been wrong and that this could/will change. I don't think it can be done. I think this is a genuine impasse. Well you have to take what I say with a grain of salt. I am no longer a member of the church so I can't speak for members. But I can tell you why I no longer trust church leaders when they say they have gotten a revelation from God on this issue. It is simply because they have claimed revelation from God on this issue in the past and been DEAD WRONG. So the change that seems to be happening among church leaders is to once again start claiming that church policies and in this case the POF came by revelation. This is actually a very recent change in strategy. For 22 years the Proclamation on the Family was never claimed to be a revelation. It was simply a Proclamation agreed to and signed by church leaders. In fact that very claim made by Elder Packer was removed from his conference talk. The same with Elder Nelson proclaiming the famous October church policy was a revelation to President Monson. When church leaders start to proclaim that the church position came from God Himself, through revelation, then they better be pretty damn sure that it was from God and not just 15 men who pretty much think alike, are the same generation, grew up in the same environment, related to the same past church leaders, are the same race, are all straight and believe in the same doctrine. Can you see the importance distinction between all agreeing on something and a revelation from God? When policy comes from revelation then that instantly dismisses those that have felt the Spirit witness to them a different answer. So where does that put those members? Are they being deceived by Satan? Are they now in direct opposition not only to church leaders but to God? Are their own personal relationship with God just dismissed as not being real? I personally don't believe that for one minute. Because I too have had such a strong witness to the goodness and fulfillment that a same sex relationship can bring into one's life without diminishing my relationship with God ONE BIT. Am I delusional? Well certainly there are many on this board that would not even hesitate to answer YES. But no matter how many people think that about me, my heart and spirit testifies to me that they are wrong. So what does their opinions matter? None. But that lack of concern of other people's including my family's opinion came at a price. I had to leave the church. And I had to deal with my family shoving me out for 15 years. During all that time, I never faltered that what I felt deep inside of me came from God. 2
clarkgoble Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: So what now? What do you label 37% of the church? Apostates? Unfaithful members? Do you dismiss their feelings of the Spirit as well? What percent are claiming personal revelation on the subject? I certainly claim no personal revelation on the subject. I'd add that there's a lot of ambiguities in the question. After all it's the law of the land in the US. So since I support the law, I support gay marriage. That seems a very different question of whether I think there should be church authoritized gay marriage. Also I think Jana's quote is a bit misleading divorced from the article as a whole since the 47% is about whether it should result in automatic excommunication. Again there's a lot of nuance since many might say that like inactive heterosexuals who aren't excommunicated gay people shouldn't. That is they might oppose gay marriage yet think the apostate tag is counterproductive. 1
california boy Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: What percent are claiming personal revelation on the subject? I certainly claim no personal revelation on the subject. I'd add that there's a lot of ambiguities in the question. After all it's the law of the land in the US. So since I support the law, I support gay marriage. That seems a very different question of whether I think there should be church authoritized gay marriage. Also I think Jana's quote is a bit misleading divorced from the article as a whole since the 47% is about whether it should result in automatic excommunication. Again there's a lot of nuance since many might say that like inactive heterosexuals who aren't excommunicated gay people shouldn't. That is they might oppose gay marriage yet think the apostate tag is counterproductive. While there aren't ambiguities in the question, there are probably ambiguities on how strongly members feel about the question. What is undeniable is that there has been a huge sift in just one year from when the same question was asked in 2016. I also think that just because gay marriage is now legal, there is really no reason for members to support gay marriage. And it is the supporting of gay marriage within the church that is changing. But you do have a point. Even supporting gay marriage is different then the church authorizing gay marriage. I think however that the issues members are having has little to do with whether the church authorizes gay marriage. Calling gay couples apostates and not allowing their children to be baptized is a direct attack on those marriages that are not authorized by the church. Do you see that? I couldn't find the quote from Jana about automatic excommunication. so not sure what you were referring to.
rockpond Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 10 hours ago, Rain said: Thank you. I meant specific things he said, but now I understand why you didnt want to share. It gave me more insight than I would have had. I am so afraid this is going to come out as trying to change you or tell you you are wrong, but really I am just trying to understand so I get if you don't want to participate with what I ask next I understand. Assuming the things he said were correct (and I get that you don't) would you have written it differently? How so if that is the case? To everyone else - out of respect please leave this alone. His feelings are not up for debate. Neither is the way he understands it. At this moment I want to "see" him. I appreciate your response. What could he have said differently without changing the doctrine he was teaching? To start with, I would have preferred that he not question my conversion and commitment to exaltation. And he could have could have avoided accusing me of following the ways of the world when I am following the dictates of the Spirit, study of scripture, and answers to prayer. Those are just a few lines that could have been removed without changing the doctrine that he was teaching. 3
rockpond Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 9 hours ago, Meerkat said: I understand Rain's request to stay away from this. I posted prior to reading that request, and know my full post has been sent directly to Rockpond. When we suggest that the Brethren fail to offer anything to our LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel, I believe we are missing the very real promises that are available to everyone. He offers what God offers to all of us-- a Celestial reward for the obedient, as hard as that life may be-- and it is a hard path for everyone. I agree it would appear harder for some than for others. This is what President Hinckley said, introducing the Family Proclamation: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn.”9 I testify that the proclamation on the family is a statement of eternal truth, the will of the Lord for His children who seek eternal life. It has been the basis of Church teaching and practice for the last 22 years and will continue so for the future. Consider it as such, teach it, live by it, and you will be blessed as you press forward toward eternal life." That was a quotation from Elder Oakes' talk. That is the hope that I have. That is the hope that is available for all of God's children who will do their best to keep the Commandments and not act on the sinful enticements that come to each of us. That includes everyone, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. We live in a fallen world. We can't ignore sin and try to call it something else. If we do that, we become Korihors, Nehors and Sherems ourselves, and we do it at our own peril. Yes, Rain, we do need to be sensitive to all good people who struggle with their faith and temptations. We need to be loving and forgiving, if that is what we want for ourselves. This is our time to work on overcoming our fallen natures. With the help of Jesus Christ and His great Atoning sacrifice for us, we can. No offense is intended for anyone. I'm a sinner just like you, Rockpond, and your LGBT friends. Our goal is to become Holy, as He is. Yes, he offers what God offers to all - a Celestial reward for the obedient. But in this address, Oaks is putting forward the Proclamation as the specific path to follow. It gives a surprisingly detailed pattern (more than is found in scripture) of how straight people can follow God's plan. It doesn't provide that for gay people. And, if you could listen to the talk as an LGBT member you might find yourself thinking - what does this message have for me?
rockpond Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, california boy said: Since several posters seem to be a bit fuzzy on what percentage of Mormons support gay marriage, I thought that this poll done last year could give some insight. In 2015, 26% Mormons supported gay marriage. JUST A YEAR LATER in 2016, 37% of Mormons support gay marriage. That 11% represents one of the biggest quickest changes for gay marriage ever among any group. And among younger Mormons, support for gay marriage is quite a bit more supportive. So what now? What do you label 37% of the church? Apostates? Unfaithful members? Do you dismiss their feelings of the Spirit as well? Do you, like Elder Oaks continue to double down on this issue? With the younger generation even more supportive, do you just hope that when they "grow up" they will see the light? Just how dismissive should church leaders this growing number of members. And what if these members also find the church using support for gay marriage as some kind of litmus test and they should no longer consider themselves faithful members? Does anyone project that this trend will diminish next year? Next decade? What if the change in attitude increases the same amount in 2017? Are now close to half the members no longer faithful members? Of course I have no answers to any of these questions. But one thing is clear, sincere personal beliefs about gay marriage seem to be headed in the exact opposite direction of church leaders no matter how many banishing policies and declared revelations church leaders seem to put in place. Yes... that trend combined with Oaks litmus test becomes a problem for the church moving forward. Perhaps that is part of what prompted Oaks talk. Assuming the trend continues, the church will eventually run out of "converted LDS" to fill the leadership positions. 1
clarkgoble Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, california boy said: I couldn't find the quote from Jana about automatic excommunication. so not sure what you were referring to. The apostasy bit is that gay marriage is to be treated like polygamous marriage. It's that policy she's asking about not gay marriage in a more vague sense.The graph is labeled "On Part 1 of LGBT Policy (apostasy, disciplinary council)" which is quite different from secular gay marriage or even whether one accepts gay marriage. As I said there's a case to be made that treating it like heterosexual immorality by inactive members would be more fruitful. (I'm not saying I agree - I honestly have zero strong feelings on the subject but would give the brethren the benefit of doubt were someone to ask me) Edited October 17, 2017 by clarkgoble
Kenngo1969 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 You all probably didn't have to work, had that Saturday and Sunday off, saw all of the sessions live, and, thus, saw the KSL TV special, "That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon's Perspective on Faith and Family," which aired between sessions on Saturday (I believe it was). If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. One of the things that struck me most is that the Christoffersons aren't this family who was blessed with unusual or special insight, didn't have any of the struggles common to families and friends who have a loved one who comes out, and so on. They had the same questions, faced (and are facing) the same uncertainties many in that situation faced, had some of the same misconceptions about what it means to be gay (and made some of the same mistakes, as a result) and so on. And yet, if any of the family's younger members had questions such as, "Do you agree with what Tom is doing?" or "Does the Church agree with what Tom is doing?" The answer was, "No, but we still love Tom." His family loved him; the ward loved him; his bishop loved him; his stake president loved him (I never was short on reasons to like Dave Checketts in the first place, but now, I have another one .) That's the way you do it. Anyway, if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it. For what it's worth. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46175330&nid=1016
stemelbow Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: You all probably didn't have to work, had that Saturday and Sunday off, saw all of the sessions live, and, thus, saw the KSL TV special, "That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon's Perspective on Faith and Family," which aired between sessions on Saturday (I believe it was). If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. One of the things that struck me most is that the Christoffersons aren't this family who was blessed with unusual or special insight, didn't have any of the struggles common to families and friends who have a loved one who comes out, and so on. They had the same questions, faced (and are facing) the same uncertainties many in that situation faced, had some of the same misconceptions about what it means to be gay (and made some of the same mistakes, as a result) and so on. And yet, if any of the family's younger members had questions such as, "Do you agree with what Tom is doing?" or "Does the Church agree with what Tom is doing?" The answer was, "No, but we still love Tom." His family loved him; the ward loved him; his bishop loved him; his stake president loved him (I never was short on reasons to like Dave Checketts in the first place, but now, I have another one .) That's the way you do it. Anyway, if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it. For what it's worth. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46175330&nid=1016 I didn't see this. That was cute. Thanks for notifying. I also enjoyed Tom's interview with mormonstories, but I guess it's been taken down, for some reason or another. Edited October 17, 2017 by stemelbow
rockpond Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: You all probably didn't have to work, had that Saturday and Sunday off, saw all of the sessions live, and, thus, saw the KSL TV special, "That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon's Perspective on Faith and Family," which aired between sessions on Saturday (I believe it was). If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. One of the things that struck me most is that the Christoffersons aren't this family who was blessed with unusual or special insight, didn't have any of the struggles common to families and friends who have a loved one who comes out, and so on. They had the same questions, faced (and are facing) the same uncertainties many in that situation faced, had some of the same misconceptions about what it means to be gay (and made some of the same mistakes, as a result) and so on. And yet, if any of the family's younger members had questions such as, "Do you agree with what Tom is doing?" or "Does the Church agree with what Tom is doing?" The answer was, "No, but we still love Tom." His family loved him; the ward loved him; his bishop loved him; his stake president loved him (I never was short on reasons to like Dave Checketts in the first place, but now, I have another one .) That's the way you do it. Anyway, if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it. For what it's worth. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46175330&nid=1016 Thanks... I didn't see it. I was aware of the book but didn't know about the TV special -- or that I could still watch it online. I appreciate you sharing this. 1
Rain Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 3 hours ago, rockpond said: I appreciate your response. What could he have said differently without changing the doctrine he was teaching? To start with, I would have preferred that he not question my conversion and commitment to exaltation. And he could have could have avoided accusing me of following the ways of the world when I am following the dictates of the Spirit, study of scripture, and answers to prayer. Those are just a few lines that could have been removed without changing the doctrine that he was teaching. Thank you.
Jeanne Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 14 hours ago, rockpond said: Okay.... I'll try. It was hurtful because Oaks questioned my conversion because the whisperings of the Spirit and personal revelation have led me to believe differently than him. He is attempting to create a litmus test for faithful membership. His address attacks the marriages of people I care about. And he attempts to elevate the Proclamation to the status of the Lord's revealed will while failing to offer anything to my LGBT brothers and sisters in the gospel. Somewhere along the line...Oaks changes everything about the way you connect with God...and with others. I understand Rockpond. I do. The article of faith that says in essence says that we believe in all that is yet to be revealed...speaks volumes. I hope it speaks to you. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 30 minutes ago, rockpond said: Thanks... I didn't see it. I was aware of the book but didn't know about the TV special -- or that I could still watch it online. I appreciate you sharing this. You're welcome.
kiwi57 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 19 hours ago, rockpond said: To hear “conservatives” tell it you’d think that there are very few who believe that the church should change its position on gay marriage. Among believing Latter-day Saints, I think that's probably correct. 19 hours ago, rockpond said: Either way, I think the number of members who are searching for the place of LGBT persons in the Plan and the Proclamation is significant enough to warrant a conference address. Do you disagree? I don't disagree. The question is, if it doesn't say what you want it to say, will you grumble about how "hurtful" it is? 1
kiwi57 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 50 minutes ago, Jeanne said: The article of faith that says in essence says that we believe in all that is yet to be revealed...speaks volumes. I hope it speaks to you. It also says that we believe what God has already revealed. We don't ignore or reject it and wait for God to reveal something that lines up with what we want. 2
Jeanne Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: It also says that we believe what God has already revealed. We don't ignore or reject it and wait for God to reveal something that lines up with what we want. Yes..this is true..but we have seen what happens in changes with time..and culture. Isn't this what happened in the the priesthood ban??? Edited October 17, 2017 by Jeanne 1
kiwi57 Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 19 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Yes..this is true..but we have seen what happens in changes with time..and culture. Isn't this what happened in the the priesthood ban??? No. 1
Jeanne Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: No. Whatever...I don't know how many explanations I have gotten that stated it was the times...things were different back then...it was the culture... BY has been explained away on many instances by these observations. 1
rockpond Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Among believing Latter-day Saints, I think that's probably correct. I don't disagree. The question is, if it doesn't say what you want it to say, will you grumble about how "hurtful" it is? No. I sit through a lot of teachings in church that I disagree with and don’t consider them hurtful.
rockpond Posted October 17, 2017 Posted October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: Yes..this is true..but we have seen what happens in changes with time..and culture. Isn't this what happened in the the priesthood ban??? Yes. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 18, 2017 Author Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: No. I sit through a lot of teachings in church that I disagree with and don’t consider them hurtful. Other than all-out capitulation, what could be said in a general conference talk on this subject that you wouldn’t consider hurtful? Edited October 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Other than all-out capitulation, what could be said in a general conference talk on this subject that you wouldn’t consider hurtful? Earlier in the thread (within the last couple pages) I addressed what I found hurtful in Oaks’ address and what I felt he could have worded differently to avoid that without changing the doctrine being taught.
kiwi57 Posted October 18, 2017 Posted October 18, 2017 21 minutes ago, rockpond said: Earlier in the thread (within the last couple pages) I addressed what I found hurtful in Oaks’ address and what I felt he could have worded differently to avoid that without changing the doctrine being taught. Are you referring to this? 11 hours ago, rockpond said: What could he have said differently without changing the doctrine he was teaching? To start with, I would have preferred that he not question my conversion and commitment to exaltation. And he could have could have avoided accusing me of following the ways of the world when I am following the dictates of the Spirit, study of scripture, and answers to prayer. Those are just a few lines that could have been removed without changing the doctrine that he was teaching. I've listened to his talk very carefully. I didn't hear him mention your conversion or commitment to exaltation, or accusing you of following the ways of the world. Where did he say those things? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 18, 2017 Author Posted October 18, 2017 23 minutes ago, rockpond said: Earlier in the thread (within the last couple pages) I addressed what I found hurtful in Oaks’ address and what I felt he could have worded differently to avoid that without changing the doctrine being taught. That doesn’t address my question. What you asserted earlier was this: “Either way, I think the number of members who are searching for the place of LGBT persons in the Plan and the Proclamation is significant enough to warrant a conference address. Do you disagree?” The question I put to you now is this: What could be said in such a conference address dedicated to “the place of LGBT persons in the Plan and Proclamation” that you wouldn’t complain was “hurtful” yet wouldn’t require that the Church capitulate on its doctrine?
Recommended Posts