LDS SSA Policies in Context

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

And if we have "empathy," then we will not question his angry rantings or challenge his reasoning, right?

Thank you for demonstrating how sufferings are weaponised.

I don't think he minds being questioned so question and challenge. He seems to handle himself well. Even so, he did suffer due to wrong policies or practices and I feel sorry it happened to him as well as the other victims. I don't think his complaints amount to weaponized victimhood. There are victims of wrong practices and procedures from time to time and we shouldn't get angry at them for their righteous complaints.

[smac97]

On 12/20/2017 at 6:43 PM, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Then the bishop was out of line, no matter what his intentions were. What would you suggest as another alternative?

The bishop suggested monogamy was the  course of action most likely to give my friend a happy life. I think he was right. 

I think it is obedience to the commandments of God that is "most likely" to result in a happy life.

Of course, we each of us must choose for ourselves what that means.  But here is that the bishop encouraged someone within his stewardship to violate the Law of Chastity.  And he did so while functioning in his capacity as bishop.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:08 AM, ALarson said:

I don't see much "handwringing" over these writings.  Where I see them brought up is as evidence that the church's beliefs and teachings have changed on this topic (along with those in the world and science) when many simply refuse to acknowledge or admit there have been changes.

I think what "changes" we have seen are being wrought in terms of tone and tenor, not content.  The "content" of the Law of Chastity remains unchanged.  Homosexual behavior is still categorically prohibited.  Same-sex marriages, being an innovation, have been clarified as likewise being categorically prohibited.  However, there is much more outreach now.  More compassion.  More desire to understand and be understood. More patience.

But the substance of the Restored Gospel's teachings about the Law of Chastity has not changed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

.

Edited December 26, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:37 AM, Exiled said:

This probably could have been a lot shorter if responses would have been with contrition instead of defensiveness. 

This thread could have been non-existent but for critics of the Church using a long-out-of-print pamphlet as a pretext for railing against the Church.

I also think it's rather absurd for self-appointed third parties to demand "contrition" from Mormons under some weird "collective guilt" theory.  Exactly why should any of us feel obligated to exhibit "contrition" to you?  

On 12/21/2017 at 10:37 AM, Exiled said:

It is obvious now that the church followed certain theories and practices that people find abhorrent today. 

Well, not "the Church."  A very, very few individuals working at BYU.  And there were many, many other colleges and universities that were using similar treatments.  Where are your public demands that they exhibit proper contrition to you?

I am somewhat perplexed by your role in all this.  Are you a judge?  A wronged party? 

Who are you to demand that others demonstrate their contrition to you?

Who are you to impose collective guilt on the Mormons, such that they should feel "contrite?"

Who are you to demand contrition from Mormons only for a medical/psychological treatment that was used in many other venues?

I am greatly saddened that some homosexual persons underwent therapy that, in hindsight, was problematic and injurious.  But I am also someone repulsed that enemies of the Church are taking it upon themselves to use (exploit?  weaponize?) their pain and injuries for the apparently sole purpose of making Mormonism look bad.

On 12/21/2017 at 10:37 AM, Exiled said:

How about let's just admit to a mistake, and move on? 

Who needs to admit to this "mistake," in your view?

On 12/21/2017 at 10:37 AM, Exiled said:

Surely mistake correction is part of modern revelation, right?  So, no problem in admitting to needing a course correction?

To whom should such an "admission" be made?  And why?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:44 AM, jkwilliams said:

I think this is the real issue: most people see the electroshock aversion therapy as a mistake, but for some reason, expressing that opinion is faultfinding.

No.  Enemies and critics of the Church who are total strangers to those injured by the treatments at BYU coming along and weaponizing that issue against the Church are "faultfinding."

If there were widespread calls for all the hospitals and universities that utilized Aversion Therapy techniques like those under discussion, then I would have a much more circumspect attitude about what is going on in this thread.  As it is, however, what we are seeing is 

A) critics and enemies of the LDS Church who

B) apparently have no relationship with those who participated in Aversion Therapy efforts at BYU, who

C) are  demanding that all Mormons everywhere admit to some sort of collective guilt for these Aversion Therapy efforts, who

D) are apparently ignoring the many other institutions who used similar therapeutic treatments, and thus

E) are thereby demonstrating that the point and purpose of raising this issue is to make the LDS Church look bad.

On 12/21/2017 at 10:44 AM, jkwilliams said:

How can an organization improve if it cannot acknowledge its missteps?

I am curious as to your thoughts about the materials FAIR has compiled on this issue.  Some highlights (emphases added):

• "The Church never conducted aversion therapies of any sort. They never recommended it, and they never mandated it However, like many other places in the western world, aversion therapy was conducted at BYU in the 1970s. At this time, aversion therapy was applied to a number of behaviors. At BYU the therapy was conducted following standards published by professional societies and unlike other places, it was only conducted on adults who gave their permission. The Church does not oversee research at BYU."

Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

• "In this particular case, a graduate student and his faculty mentor at Brigham Young University conducted a clinical study in the use of aversion therapy to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a condition where an individual's same-sex attraction is in conflict with his idealized self-image, creating anxiety and a desire to change. At the time, the American Psychiatric Society considered ego-dystonic homosexuality to be a mental illness, and aversion therapy was one of the standard treatments. Experiments were only run on those who had expressed a desire for the therapy, and all of the subjects indicated they had improved as a result of the therapy. The experiments adhered to the professional standards of the time. As stated in the paper that reported the results of this research, the research was never endorsed by BYU."

Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

• "In the mid-1970s a graduate student, Max McBride, conducted a study entitled Effect of Visual Stimuli in Electric Aversion Therapy. It appears that the study was conducted during 1974 and 1975 with the average length of treatment during the study being three months. The results of this study were published in August 1976 as McBride's PhD dissertation in the BYU Department of Psychology. McBride's research has recently been sensationalized and several incorrect claims have been made about his study."
• "BYU did not pioneer the use of aversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality and it ceased use of the therapy decades before the APA stopped recommending the practice. BYU was one of many places where research in this area was done. McBride's dissertation contains over 17 pages of documentation discussing other studies from across the discipline in which aversion therapy had previously been applied to male homosexuality."

 Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

• "The study was conducted under the supervision of Dr. D. Eugene Thorne, who also served as McBride's PhD committee chairman. All study procedures followed common medical practice. McBride acknowledges the assistance of medical professionals at the Salt Lake City Veterans Hospital in designing the study and completing the statistical analysis."
• "The study was limited to ego-dystonic homosexuality and did not involve any treatment of ego-syntonic homosexuality. The volunteers for McBride's study were all men whose same-sex attraction was contrary to their desires and who wanted to change their sexual orientation."

Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

• "The materials used in the study consisted of nude pictures of men and women and pictures of clothed men and women taken from current fashion magazines. None of the pictures displayed or even implied sexual acts. In fact, the thing being investigated in McBride’s study was not the effectiveness of aversion therapy, but the relative value of clothed versus nude pictures in this type of therapeutic procedure."

Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

• "Aversion therapy was completely voluntary at BYU. Participants could enter and leave as they wish. In an interview with FAIR, Dr. Thorne explained that the voluntary nature was essential to get scientific results. He said any type of pressure for the participants to give certain answers would jade the results of the study."

Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

• "A significant number of hospitals and universities historically offered aversion therapy as a way to treat homosexuality. It would be impossible to list all of them, but here are a few of the major places where people were involved in research using aversion therapy to treat homosexuality..."

Do you dispute any of the above?  If so, which part(s)?

On 12/21/2017 at 10:44 AM, jkwilliams said:

It is possible to express an opinion that an organization has made mistakes without vilifying that organization.

Yes, it's possible.

But I don't think that is what is going on here.  I think "vilifying" the LDS Church is the only reason we are having a discussion about this topic in 2017.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 10:49 AM, jkwilliams said:

I think some people believe that there is no such thing as legitimate criticism of the church. 

I don't believe that.  I think there are some legitimate criticisms of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 3:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

Sure, this is the same will all religions or points of view on just about every topic imaginable.  Another way of restating what you say here is that you believe that your beliefs are more correct or better than the beliefs of others. 

If by "correct" and "better" you mean "containing truths and claims of authority not found elsewhere," then yes.

On 12/21/2017 at 3:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

This is standard human bias that people have about their belief systems.  

Well, no.  There is an old Latin maxim, "De gustibus non disputandum est," meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes."

My assessment of my faith cannot be ascribed to merely a matter of taste.  A "standard human bias."  I've given it far too much scrutiny for that, and it requires far too much of my time, money and effort for that.  So my devotion to my faith arises from something very different from "standard human bias."

On 12/21/2017 at 3:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

Aren't you making the claim that LDS authority is qualitatively better than the authority of other religions? 

Yes.  The LDS Church makes exclusivistic claims of priesthood authority. 

On 12/21/2017 at 3:09 PM, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps this isn't an argument in the sense that you're not trying to justify this belief through some kind of logic or through explaining the premises upon which you base this belief.  But I'm assuming you have done this in the past and have these kinds of reasons that support your belief.  

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 3:13 PM, california boy said:

The more I reread what was written, I think I agree with you.  

It still does not mean that the church has ever appeared to rely on revelation on how it treats gays.

I think it has.  The prohibition against homosexual behavior is revelatory.  How we propound this concept, how we teach it to our youth and other members, how we react when someone acts contrary to it . . . well, that is where we have been improving.

But fundamentally, I think the Law of Chastity is profoundly revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it has.  The prohibition against homosexual behavior is revelatory.  How we propound this concept, how we teach it to our youth and other members, how we react when someone acts contrary to it . . . well, that is where we have been improving.

But fundamentally, I think the Law of Chastity is profoundly revelatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

I certainly understand the church's position on homosexuality and the Law of Chastity.  But can you point to any revelation on this belief?  I would be really curious if there was one.  I always assumed it was just an interpretation of the Bible. You know.  One of those scriptures the church wanted to believe came from God.  Unlike prohibiting divorce for example that has been discarded.

[smac97]

On 12/21/2017 at 3:22 PM, california boy said:

As I have re read the pamphlet several times, I tend to agree now with what you wrote.  I think a lot of my judgement is based on the claims of revelation given to me about this issue which proved to be just as wrong as this pamphlet.  

What would I like to see church leaders do more of?  Be more clear where their decisions and directions are coming from.  To a lot of members, especially gay that are very sensitive to these issues, it is important to know where the church leaders claim these policies are coming from.  There is a big difference between, this is our best advice, and claims of divine guidance.  

I can appreciate that.

I think the Brethren understand the Law of Chastity to be revelatory.  How that teaching is deployed is largely left up to the Brethren.

I guess I don't understand your grievance here.  It appears undisputed that the leaders of the LDS Church are, in 2017, making a marked effort to improve how the Church approaches issues associated with same-sex attraction, including increased "transparency."   Hence we have MormonsandGays.org.  Hence we have clarion calls for kindness and compassion and patience and love.  Hence we have Elder Christofferson's published-to-the-world remarks.  Hence we have Pres. Nelson's remarks in January 2016 that the policy changes that caused concern to some were the result of revelation.

So it seems like the church leaders are doing the things you want them to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is obedience to the commandments of God that is "most likely" to result in a happy life.

Of course, we each of us must choose for ourselves what that means.  But here is that the bishop encouraged someone within his stewardship to violate the Law of Chastity.  And he did so while functioning in his capacity as bishop.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I tend to believe it is obedience to the commandments of God as well.  But there is not universal agreement on what those commandments  are or whether those proclaiming such laws actually got them from God.

[smac97]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:23 AM, california boy said:

What I  have stated repeatedly and continue to state is that there is no evidence that the church has received any revelation from God on any policies the church has instituted against gay members.  And that this pamphlet is more proof of that belief.  I will continue to hold that belief until there is some evidence that a revelation has been received.

Pres. Nelson's remarks in 2016 (emphases added):

Quote

We sustain 15 men who are ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. When a thorny problem arises—and they only seem to get thornier each day—these 15 men wrestle with the issue, trying to see all the ramifications of various courses of action, and they diligently seek to hear the voice of the Lord. After fasting, praying, studying, pondering, and counseling with my Brethren about weighty matters, it is not unusual for me to be awakened during the night with further impressions about issues with which we are concerned. And my Brethren have the same experience.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel individually and collectively. And then we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.

This prophetic process was followed ... with the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries. Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter. Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration. And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process, and so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.

I think it's not so much a matter of a lack of "evidence that a revelation has been received."  At this point, it appears to be more a matter of simply not accepting "that a revelation has been received," despite Pres. Nelson's specific and public declaration to such has occurred.

It's a question of faith, really.  And priorities.  And perspective.  And presuppositions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/22/2017 at 8:41 AM, california boy said:

I am more than open to hear about a revelation that has been given on this subject.  Do you have any you can point to?

It seems we've plowed this ground before.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can appreciate that.

I think the Brethren understand the Law of Chastity to be revelatory.  How that teaching is deployed is largely left up to the Brethren.

I guess I don't understand your grievance here.  It appears undisputed that the leaders of the LDS Church are, in 2017, making a marked effort to improve how the Church approaches issues associated with same-sex attraction, including increased "transparency."   Hence we have MormonsandGays.org.  Hence we have clarion calls for kindness and compassion and patience and love.  Hence we have Elder Christofferson's published-to-the-world remarks.  Hence we have Pres. Nelson's remarks in January 2016 that the policy changes that caused concern to some were the result of revelation.

So it seems like the church leaders are doing the things you want them to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no grievance.  I was just interested if you had a revelation to back up your claim. And it looks like you have no revelation on homosexuality being against the Law of Chastity.  A lack of revelation does not mean that the brethren don't believe they are doing the will of God however.  I understand that.  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I certainly understand the church's position on homosexuality and the Law of Chastity.  

Actually, I am not sure you do, as evidenced by your next sentence...

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

But can you point to any revelation on this belief?  

Yes.  The Scriptures.  Various and voluminous statements by prophets and apostles.  Pres. Nelson's remarks in January 2016.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I would be really curious if there was one.  I always assumed it was just an interpretation of the Bible. You know.  

You speak as if "revelation" and "interpretation of the Bible" are two different categories of things.  I'm not sure that's correct.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

One of those scriptures the church wanted to believe came from God.  Unlike prohibiting divorce for example that has been discarded.

This is the sort of think that makes me wonder if you really do understand the doctrines of the LDS Church.  You sometimes toss out casual mischaracterizations of our faith that are either borne of ignorance, or calculated to offend, or both.  Either way, I'll refrain from further comment and wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have no grievance.  I was just interested if you had a revelation to back up your claim. And it looks like you have no revelation on homosexuality being against the Law of Chastity.  

Yes, I do.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

A lack of revelation does not mean that the brethren don't believe they are doing the will of God however.  I understand that.  

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I tend to believe it is obedience to the commandments of God as well.  

I am glad that we can agree on that broad concept.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

But there is not universal agreement on what those commandments  are or whether those proclaiming such laws actually got them from God.

Agreed.  Hence the need for multiple vectors to God.  Scriptures (ancient prophets), General Authorities (modern prophets), and personal revelation.  All of these are dependent upon the Spirit.

That's the thing about the Law of Chastity.  We live in an increasingly sexualized world, such that disregarding constraints on sexual behavior has become normative, and living within those constrains is seen as weird (or worse, condemned as awful and ungodly).

The easiest thing in the world would be to "discard" the Law of Chastity.  Just imagine how much flak the LDS Church could avoid if it just eased up.  Shut its yap.  Remained silent as the world becomes increasingly sexualized and depraved.  And yet . . . it doesn't.  

Why is that?  Is it a glutton for punishment?  Why go out of its way to court controversy by specifically clarifying and retrenching the Church vis a vis same-sex behavior (the November 2015 policy changes)?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems we've plowed this ground before.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah the famous Elder Nelson statement that no one else has acknowledged, agreed with or added their own testimony to.  In this case, out of the mouth of one witness works just fine for you.   

We each arrive at opposite beliefs on this subject.  And I believe my position holds all the cards that show over and over again a lack of any kind of inspiration coming from God in how the church has treated gays.  In the end you believe what you want to believe.  You are not alone.  I think the church leaders do the same thing, which is totally within their right.  I have never had any problem with the church believing what it wants to about gays.  I just don't think their claims of it being the policy of God has any support in what has actually transpired.

We have gone down this path.  

Thanks.

[Stargazer]

I can't believe I've read through this entire thread this evening, all 25 pages,  instead of going to bed at the uxorial declaration of bedtime.  This has been a sometimes frustrating experience, especially since I was strenuously resisting the temptation to comment before reading the whole matter. But finally it is, apparently, done. And I have been greatly enlightened and informed by it all -- so to all sides in this discussion (and it seemed like there were about 4.5 sides), thanks for the heartfelt and sometimes heated debate. 

Actually, now that it's gone this far, I don't at the end have anything substantive to add!  May you all have a fun week leading up to the New Year's celebration, and may your 2018 start out and stay happy!

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am greatly saddened that some homosexual persons underwent therapy that, in hindsight, was problematic and injurious. 

This is all anybody wanted, in my opinion.  They didn't want denials or evil motives put on them for making an obvious observation.  Maybe just admitting that mistakes were made and moving on would lessen the bite of the so-called "antis" who only want to make the church look bad in your eyes? 

I am sure you will admit that the church is run by fallible men.  However, can you ever remember when they ever made a mistake?  If so, what was it?  E. Uchtdorf said that mistakes were made in the past but wasn't specific.  Being specific about mistakes seems hard for some, especially here.  Why not just admit it and move on?  It is clear the 1981 pamphlet was a mistake.  It is clear it was a pamphlet distributed by the church leadership to bishops and stake presidents and contained outdated, material.  Surely fallible men will make mistakes and this was one of them.

[Stargazer]

.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

This is all anybody wanted, in my opinion. 

A lot of overheated rhetoric, then, for something so simple.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

They didn't want denials or evil motives put on them for making an obvious observation.  Maybe just admitting that mistakes were made and moving on would lessen the bite of the so-called "antis" who only want to make the church look bad in your eyes? 

There is no relevant or reasonable reason for non-parties to a decades-old grievance to bring up said grievance except to rail against the Church.  That's all.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I am sure you will admit that the church is run by fallible men. 

Which is a point irrelevant to the Aversion Therapy treatments at BYU in the 1970s.  So the only possible reason to bring up such an irrelevancy is . . . to rail against the Church.  To find fault with the Church.  To make the Church look bad.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

However, can you ever remember when they ever made a mistake? 

Yes.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

If so, what was it? 

This is the very definition and epitome of "faultfinding."

With respect, why do you care?  What business is it of yours?  Who are we to gossip and backbite in the ways you propose?  Since when are such things appropriate when the targets of such unpleasantness are General Authorities?

The General Authorities are good and decent men.  Yes, they can and do make mistakes.  No, I will not gossip about such things.  There is no value to such an endeavor.  

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

E. Uchtdorf said that mistakes were made in the past but wasn't specific. 

President Uchtdorf is the soul of grace and decorum and civility.  He "wasn't specific" because it's not his job to publicly ennumerate the mistakes of others.

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Being specific about mistakes seems hard for some, especially here.  Why not just admit it and move on? 

I admit it.  The General Authorities can and do make mistakes.  They are not infallible.  

Now let's move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Yeah the famous Elder Nelson statement that no one else has acknowledged, agreed with or added their own testimony to.  

Shifting the goalposts.  Again.

I am inclined to believe that President Nelson was speaking in a representative capacity.  That he was speaking on behalf of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

But this is neither here nor there, I think.  If and when other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve specifically corroborate Pres. Nelson's remarks about the policy changes being revelatory, will you have a sudden change of heart?  Or will there just be another shifting of goalposts?  (That's a rhetorical, food-for-thought question only.)

Quote

In this case, out of the mouth of one witness works just fine for you.   

Will two witnesses work for you?  If not, then your complaint really isn't legitimate.

Quote

We each arrive at opposite beliefs on this subject.  

Okay.

Quote

And I believe my position holds all the cards that show over and over again a lack of any kind of inspiration coming from God in how the church has treated gays.  

You refuse to believe the plain words of President Nelson.

If and when his words are expressly corroborated by other prophets and apostles, I think many people in your "position" will remain unconvinced (I can't speak for you).  The problem, I fear, is not the lack of prophetic guidance.  The problem is the lack of acceptance of prophetic guidance.

I think these remarks by Elder Burton Howard of the Seventy merit some attention:

Quote

From the beginning, prophets have called almost all men to repentance. Those who have not known about the gospel have been exhorted to abandon their sinful ways, keep the commandments, and join with the people of the Lord.

But prophets have also pled with another group—those who were once believers, but who, because of pride or sin or something else, abandoned the faith. In this group are the less active, the critics, the uncommitted, and the rebellious. These are Church members who have grown away from God as they have grown older. To these, the invitation has always been to come back to the Lord.

As we think about members of the Church repenting and returning to activity, the stories of Saul or Alma may come to mind. Some may be waiting for a similar miraculous experience before committing themselves again. However, they will probably wait in vain. For, as the Savior taught his disciples, “if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Without some such incentive to change, others may wonder if it is possible to return to faith from doubt. Can the cynic ever really become as a little child? Can the slave of habit or passion become free again? Is there a way back? If so, is it worth the effort to find and follow it? Where and when does one begin?

There is a way—for surely prophets do not teach in vain. And, just as surely, the Lord hears the prayers of teachers and leaders and parents who pray for the return of those who are lost.

Some may think the way is not clearly marked, for in all of scripture there are but a few instances recorded of former believers ever repenting. Be that as it may, the fact remains that thousands have returned from inactivity. Let me tell you about some who did.

He then relates several experience he had as a bishop.  He then concludes:

Quote

Some years ago it was fashionable in certain circles to use the phrase, “You can never go home again.” That is just simply not true. It is possible to return. It is possible for those who have ceased to pray, to pray again. It is possible for those who are lost to find their way through the dark and come home.

And when they do, they will know, as I know, that the Lord is more concerned with what a man is than with what he was, and with where he is than with where he has been.

I find a lot of comfort in these remarks.

Quote

In the end you believe what you want to believe.  You are not alone.  

Well, no.  I believe what I have determined for myself  to be true, not because I "want to believe" them.

I believe that polygamy is ordained of God.  I am really quite ill at ease with the concept, and am very grateful that we are not called upon to practice it.

I believe that animal sacrifice was previously commanded by God.  Again, not comfortable.  Again, grateful we don't have to do it.

I believe the Law of Chastity is being properly taught and applied by the General Authorities of the LDS Church.  I don't particularly enjoy being accused by your compatriots of being a bigoted hater because I believe this.  I recognize that good and decent people believe otherwise.  I recognize that the teachings of the Church regarding homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage, etc., cause distress and anger in some quarters.

Most of the Restored Gospel fits with what I "want to believe."  Most, but not all.  I recognize and concede that my own sense of right and wrong is not perfectly calibrated, such that there are certain issues and details on which I have to subordinate my personal preferences (what I "want to believe") in favor of what I understand to arise from the Spirit and from prophetic utterances.

Quote

I think the church leaders do the same thing, which is totally within their right.  

Well, no.  The leaders of the Church operate in councils.  What they present to the Church (such as the Proclamation) is not a matter of what they "want to believe."  What they are presenting is what they cumulatively understand and sustain to be revelatory guidance.

If what you were saying were true, we'd have personal opinions (what each individual GA "want{s} to believe") being presented from the pulpit.  But instead, we are receiving . . . something very different.

Quote

I have never had any problem with the church believing what it wants to about gays.  I just don't think their claims of it being the policy of God has any support in what has actually transpired.

I do not understand what this means.  "Any support in what has actually transpired?"

President Nelson has declared the policy changes to be the result of revelation.  Acceptance of that proposition is a matter of faith.

Elder Oaks has declared the Proclamation to be the result of a "revelatory process."  Acceptance of that proposition is a matter of faith.

So these are ancillary questions, really.  I think the only way to get off the merry-go-round is to make a determination in the first instance of whether the truth claims of the LDS Church are real and valid.  If they are not, then we're just getting on and off the merry-go-round every time these sorts of topics come up.  On the other hand, if they are real and valid, then there's room for some real progress.

So perhaps progress lies in re-assessing our assumptions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 27, 2017 by smac97

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I admit it.  The General Authorities can and do make mistakes.  They are not infallible.  

Where do you believe there have been mistakes made?  I would really be interested in hearing when you felt they were mistaken.  

For me, I do feel that the recent policy on SSM and the children involved is a mistake.  I’m not sure I feel that about anything else in recent years.  I do believe and hope that this mistake will be corrected at some time too.