Scrutinizing general conference

[Meerkat]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

It may seem like an impossible challenge for LGBT people in a conversation like this.  I can't say for sure how I would feel if I was told I couldn't spend eternity with the person I loved, if they were of the same gender.  But I hope my testimony would carry me through with strong enough faith that God would resolve my future with maximum joy.  When I consider the thousands of faithful single men and women who remain abstinent due to their faith and testimony, I believe I could do it.   They expect the Lord to help them work things out in eternity.  Regardless of sympathy, when we take the scriptures and latter day prophets into account, I see only one workable path-- faith in Christ and abstinence.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

I don’t know... it’s not my place to answer such a question.  I sustain fifteen men as prophets, seers, and revelators for that purpose.  And then I listen intently. 

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Are you referring to this?

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?

 

Since you aren’t me and don’t know me, I wouldn’t have expected you to hear that. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

It may seem like an impossible challenge for LGBT people in a conversation like this.  I can't say for sure how I would feel if I was told I couldn't spend eternity with the person I loved, if they were of the same gender.  But I hope my testimony would carry me through with strong enough faith that God would resolve my future with maximum joy.  When I consider the thousands of faithful single men and women who remain abstinent due to their faith and testimony, I believe I could do it.   They expect the Lord to help them work things out in eternity.  Regardless of sympathy, when we take the scriptures and latter day prophets into account, I see only one workable path-- faith in Christ and abstinence.

Yes, that is a good illustration of the point I was making.  Thanks. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

It may seem like an impossible challenge for LGBT people in a conversation like this.  I can't say for sure how I would feel if I was told I couldn't spend eternity with the person I loved, if they were of the same gender.  But I hope my testimony would carry me through with strong enough faith that God would resolve my future with maximum joy.  When I consider the thousands of faithful single men and women who remain abstinent due to their faith and testimony, I believe I could do it.   They expect the Lord to help them work things out in eternity.  Regardless of sympathy, when we take the scriptures and latter day prophets into account, I see only one workable path-- faith in Christ and abstinence.

Your conclusion is the exact same conclusion that I have come to.  I too believe that God, not church leaders, will resolve my future with maximum joy. I have more faith that God will work out the messy details after we die.  And I don't for one minute think that he will rip the person I love from my arms and instead replace him with someone of the opposite sex.  I tried that route already.  Earnestly tried.  And everything about it was wrong for me.  This is the solution the church promised came from God.  They have since admitted that they were wrong.  So the last group that I would trust on this issue is 15 straight white men sharing the same background, prejudices, beliefs and view of who God is.  As long as the church continues to use this echo chamber to set policies towards gay members, I don't think the results will change.  It took a group of church leaders that didn't share the same prejudices and world view of blacks to change a church position that had been going on for 130 years.  Why would this issue be any different.

For me, perhaps the most telling understanding of how this echo chamber is working is that they have no problem issuing a policy that is nothing but excusion for gay families while offering nothing for inclusion for those families.  Is that how the Gospel of Jesus Christ is suppose to work?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know... it’s not my place to answer such a question.  I sustain fifteen men as prophets, seers, and revelators for that purpose.  And then I listen intently. 

So notwithstanding your response to kiwi57’s  question, then, it is very possible, perhaps likely, that if Church leaders were to do what you are calling for — to devote a conference talk to the place of LGBT people in the Plan and the Proclamation — that you would grumble about how hurtful it is. If you can’t even suggest what the content of such a talk might be, short of capitulation on Church doctrine and teachings, I find it unlikely they could say anything meaningful that would pass muster with you on this subject. 

Edited October 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

Rockpond, you should have stuck with your instincts and not answered Rain's question.  For those that want to understand, you gave a very clear answer what the issue is.  Others just want to attack your point of view.  Listening is not as important as winning.

Edited October 18, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Rockpond, you should have stuck with your instincts and not answered Rain's question.  For those that want to understand, you gave a very clear answer what the issue is.  Others just want to attack your point of view.  Listening is not as important as winning.

I don’t know that it’s attacking his point of view so much as fending off attacks on the general conference address given by an apostle of Jesus Christ. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that it’s attacking his point of view so much as fending off attacks on the general conference address given by an apostle of Jesus Christ. 

So when you quoted what he was saying you were not responding to him directly, you were trying to set up defences for conference?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So when you quoted what he was saying you were not responding to him directly, you were trying to set up defences for conference?

Not sure I follow you here. When I quoted what who was saying?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So notwithstanding your response to kiwi57’s  question, then, it is very possible, perhaps likely, that if Church leaders were to do what you are calling for — to devote a conference talk to the place of LGBT people in the Plan and the Proclamation — that you would grumble about how hurtful it is. 

Nope.

Quote

If you can’t even suggest what the content of such a talk might be, short of capitulation on Church doctrine and teachings, I find it unlikely they could say anything meaningful that would pass muster with you on this subject. 

Again, it's not my place to suggest what the prophet and apostles should teach on the matter and, I imagine that if I did, I would be criticized here for doing so.

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Rockpond, you should have stuck with your instincts and not answered Rain's question.  For those that want to understand, you gave a very clear answer what the issue is.  Others just want to attack your point of view.  Listening is not as important as winning.

True, but...

Rain was sincere.  I appreciate that.  So, in the end, it's worth dealing with Scott's funny commentary in order to give response to the those who actually want to understand.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that it’s attacking his point of view so much as fending off attacks on the general conference address given by an apostle of Jesus Christ. 

You don't believe the doctrine should change to be less hurtful.

And yet you consider me calling it hurtful to be an attack.

Not sure what defense you are mounting.

[Meerkat]

 

22 hours ago, california boy said:

Your conclusion is the exact same conclusion that I have come to.  I too believe that God, not church leaders, will resolve my future with maximum joy. I have more faith that God will work out the messy details after we die.  And I don't for one minute think that he will rip the person I love from my arms and instead replace him with someone of the opposite sex.  I tried that route already.  Earnestly tried.  And everything about it was wrong for me.  This is the solution the church promised came from God.  They have since admitted that they were wrong.  So the last group that I would trust on this issue is 15 straight white men sharing the same background, prejudices, beliefs and view of who God is.  As long as the church continues to use this echo chamber to set policies towards gay members, I don't think the results will change.  It took a group of church leaders that didn't share the same prejudices and world view of blacks to change a church position that had been going on for 130 years.  Why would this issue be any different.

For me, perhaps the most telling understanding of how this echo chamber is working is that they have no problem issuing a policy that is nothing but exclusion for gay families while offering nothing for inclusion for those families.  Is that how the Gospel of Jesus Christ is suppose to work?

Some things aren't black and white.  Many years ago, an LDS friend of ours gave birth to an hermaphrodite.  Counseling together, the parents and doctor decided the best thing to do for the child was remove the male plumbing.  They would raise a daughter.  The daughter grew up strong and faithful in the Church.  One day, a handsome returned missionary came along and proposed to her.  Her parents were very happy for her.  They gave her strong encouragement to marry the young man.  But as she considered the proposal, she realized that she could never love him as he deserved.  She turned down the proposal and lived out her life as a very faithful single person.  She died about twenty years later.

Does God make mistakes?  Or are there other influences that impact our birth and desires?  In the early 1960s, a drug "Thalidomide" was prescribed for morning sickness.  Many children were born without limbs, and experienced other deformities.  Whether we can attribute any of this to God or the mistakes of men, things happen.  We decide how we are going to deal with them, and live our lives accordingly.  I try not to judge people's choices.  The prophets and scriptures do color my world.  I try to live within that framework.  My path involves faith in Jesus Christ and following living prophets who I believe have been chosen by Heavenly Father to guide us.  If there is to be a change, I wait on them. 

I enjoy the lively discussions we have here.  I appreciate the tone I see for the most part in these posts.  There is much to learn and understand these days, and I believe most on these forums have a sincere motivation to help each other understand our differing views.  In the end, one of the great teachings of the Church that prevails for all of us is our 11th Article of Faith:  "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  Probably most of us lay down at night strengthened in our own positions.  But maybe we understand the things our brothers and sisters wrestle with a little better.  I hope so.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Meerkat

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

You don't believe the doctrine should change to be less hurtful.

Truth is often painful.  And doctrine has no need to be changed to lessen pain at the expense of truth.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

You don't believe the doctrine should change to be less hurtful.

And yet you consider me calling it hurtful to be an attack.

Not sure what defense you are mounting.

Branding the expression of true doctrine as being hurtful is an instance of public shaming in an effort to hinder or curtail discourse. 

So yes, it is a form of attack, a passive-aggressive form. 

For an explanation of and contrast between the guilt culture and the shame culture, see the April 2017 address by Elder D. Todd Christofferson. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Truth is often painful.  And doctrine has no need to be changed to lessen pain at the expense of truth.

I agree. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Branding the expression of true doctrine as being hurtful is an instance of virtue signaling, of public shaming in an effort to hinder or curtail discourse. 

So yes, it is a form of attack, a passive-aggressive form. 

Whether or not all that he taught was “true doctrine” is yet to be established (though I understand your belief in it). 

Saying that it was hurtful is a statement of fact. 

Since Oaks used a conference address specifically to question the conversion of fellow church members who don’t share in his same beliefs, I’m quite certain that he can handle the fact that it was hurtful.  It could be argued that this was his intent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Whether or not all that he taught was “true doctrine” is yet to be established (though I understand your belief in it). 

Saying that it was hurtful is a statement of fact. 

Since Oaks used a conference address specifically to question the conversion of fellow church members who don’t share in his same beliefs, I’m quite certain that he can handle the fact that it was hurtful.  It could be argued that this was his intent. 

It is authoritative doctrine, whether or not you are willing to recognize it as true. And prophets of God are not called to be less than candid in their expression of truth out of the fear that it might be unpleasant for some to hear. 

And I categorically reject the notion that he was intending to be hurtful. I viewed his remarks as encouragement to the faithful to stand fast by true principles, though they may encounter intense social pressure to depart therefrom. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is authoritative doctrine, whether or not you are willing to recognize it as true. And prophets of God are not called to be less than candid in their expression of truth out of the fear that it might be unpleasant for some to hear. 

And I categorically reject the notion that he was intending to be hurtful. I viewed his remarks as encouragement to the faithful to stand fast by true principles, though they may encounter intense social pressure to depart therefrom. 

By definition it is authoritative doctrine.  So I agree. 

I don’t agree that everything he taught in that address is true. 

I agree that we wouldn’t want prophets of God to not be candid.  Speaking truth to the world is their calling. 

And I’m with you that he did not intend to be hurtful. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

 

Some things aren't black and white.  Many years ago, an LDS friend of ours gave birth to an hermaphrodite.  Counseling together, the parents and doctor decided the best thing to do for the child was remove the male plumbing.  They would raise a daughter.  The daughter grew up strong and faithful in the Church.  One day, a handsome returned missionary came along and proposed to her.  Her parents were very happy for her.  They gave her strong encouragement to marry the young man.  But as she considered the proposal, she realized that she could never love him as he deserved.  She turned down the proposal and lived out her life as a very faithful single person.  She died about twenty years later.

Does God make mistakes?  Or are there other influences that impact our birth and desires?  In the early 1960s, a drug "Thalidomide" was prescribed for morning sickness.  Many children were born without limbs, and experienced other deformities.  Whether we can attribute any of this to God or the mistakes of men, things happen.  We decide how we are going to deal with them, and live our lives accordingly.  I try not to judge people's choices.  The prophets and scriptures do color my world.  I try to live within that framework.  My path involves faith in Jesus Christ and following living prophets who I believe have been chosen by Heavenly Father to guide us.  If there is to be a change, I wait on them. 

I enjoy the lively discussions we have here.  I appreciate the tone I see for the most part in these posts.  There is much to learn and understand these days, and I believe most on these forums have a sincere motivation to help each other understand our differing views.  In the end, one of the great teachings of the Church that prevails for all of us is our 11th Article of Faith:  "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."  Probably most of us lay down at night strengthened in our own positions.  But maybe we understand the things our brothers and sisters wrestle with a little better.  I hope so.

Well said.  And I firmly believe that the path one feels certain of may not be the same path that another is certain of.  The goal is to become more like Christ.  Embrace the principles that He taught.  Look to God for the direction our lives take us.  The correct path that we choose is the one that guides us back to Him.  

[kiwi57]

On 10/18/2017 at 5:09 PM, rockpond said:

Since you aren’t me and don’t know me, I wouldn’t have expected you to hear that. 

So, what did he say that you thought was hurtful?

Were you referring to this?

"Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur."

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

So, what did he say that you thought was hurtful?

Were you referring to this?

"Those who do not believe in or aspire to exaltation and are most persuaded by the ways of the world consider this family proclamation as just a statement of policy that should be changed. In contrast, Latter-day Saints affirm that the family proclamation defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur."

That's part of it.  I believe you saw and responded to my answer to the question, didn't you?

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That's part of it.  I believe you saw and responded to my answer to the question, didn't you?

You've written rather a lot in this thread. I've read most of your comments and responded to some. I don't remember seeing you mention that paragraph.

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You've written rather a lot in this thread. I've read most of your comments and responded to some. I don't remember seeing you mention that paragraph.

You are correct that I didn't quote that part specifically but that was one of the statements I was referring to.