Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel2

An Update from Josh and Lolly Weed

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

Not a Utah thing. And, if you don't know, then you don't know. Move along.

You must be living a wonderful life as manifested by your kind service and always pleasant attitude.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You must be living a wonderful life as manifested by your kind service and always pleasant attitude.  

Edited by ttribe

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You must be living a wonderful life as manifested by your kind service and always pleasant attitude.  :) 

As a matter of fact, my life has taken some terrible turns lately, not that I actually think you care.

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As a matter of fact, my life has taken some terrible turns lately, not that I actually think you care.

I care...hope things start looking up for you.  Best to you.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

As a matter of fact, my life has taken some terrible turns lately, not that I actually think you care.

I'm sorry ttribe.  I wish it was easier to help each other.  The internet is wonderful but the distance and anonymity makes it hard to be a good friend sometimes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, ttribe said:

As a matter of fact, my life has taken some terrible turns lately, not that I actually think you care.

I do.

Seriously- want to talk by PM?  I would be glad to give it  a shot if I can.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I do.

Seriously- want to talk by PM?  I would be glad to give it  a shot if I can.  

:good:

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/27/2018 at 6:22 PM, california boy said:

Are you really interested in what I think? Or is this a rhetorical question.

I think you would be willing to answer the question any hoo.  

The way I see it, it is a religious freedom issue.  You can't agitate against the Church to change its views of homosexuality.  It just isn't going to happen, ever.  Practicing homosexuals who don't want to adhere ought to find happiness elsewhere, although as I have asserted many times, the Church if full of homosexuals who have changed their lives to conform, just as it is full of other sinners who struggle to comply.  I know of two general authorities and a bishop.  I was a bishop for almost seven years and could see what was going on.  Those that conquered their issues were among the Church's strongest members.  As to the policy of exclusion of children of polygamous and married gay couples from the ordinance of baptism, I don't see how you have standing to complain.  An elemental core principle of religious freedom is that a religion gets to set the standards of admission.  

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think you would be willing to answer the question any hoo.  

The way I see it, it is a religious freedom issue.  You can't agitate against the Church to change its views of homosexuality.  It just isn't going to happen, ever.  Practicing homosexuals who don't want to adhere ought to find happiness elsewhere, although as I have asserted many times, the Church if full of homosexuals who have changed their lives to conform, just as it is full of other sinners who struggle to comply.  I know of two general authorities and a bishop.  I was a bishop for almost seven years and could see what was going on.  Those that conquered their issues were among the Church's strongest members.  As to the policy of exclusion of children of polygamous and married gay couples from the ordinance of baptism, I don't see how you have standing to complain.  An elemental core principle of religious freedom is that a religion gets to set the standards of admission.  

Just like the church will never change its position on face cards and ice skating.

Alternatively, Mormons won't care about gay marriage 100 years from now, and will wonder what the fuss was all about.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Gray said:

Just like the church will never change its position on face cards and ice skating.

Alternatively, Mormons won't care about gay marriage 100 years from now, and will wonder what the fuss was all about.

I think you unnecessarily trivialize the issue.  

Fundamentally, to me it is a religious freedom issue.  Critics and outsiders simply have no standing to tell a church to change its position on what constitutes a sin or what qualifications there are for a member.  I think it rather abusive to browbeat the Church over this, knowing that many members trust and follow the church.  How would you like it if somebody came on here and continually browbeated the Jews or Muslims for their dress?  Or for their views on homosexuality?  Or the Catholics for the papal position on abortion?  Who are you to criticize them?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think you would be willing to answer the question any hoo.  

The way I see it, it is a religious freedom issue.  You can't agitate against the Church to change its views of homosexuality.  It just isn't going to happen, ever.  Practicing homosexuals who don't want to adhere ought to find happiness elsewhere, although as I have asserted many times, the Church if full of homosexuals who have changed their lives to conform, just as it is full of other sinners who struggle to comply.  I know of two general authorities and a bishop.  I was a bishop for almost seven years and could see what was going on.  Those that conquered their issues were among the Church's strongest members.  As to the policy of exclusion of children of polygamous and married gay couples from the ordinance of baptism, I don't see how you have standing to complain.  An elemental core principle of religious freedom is that a religion gets to set the standards of admission.  

You know of two homosexual general authorities???

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well I hesitate because I have learned that people do not always want to hear different points of view.  Mostly they want to defend their own position at all times.  This is a sensitive issue.  And I think it is a bit presumptuous for me to tell the church what should be done.  The church has every right to treat gays the way they see fit.  I respect that right.  So I am a bit uncomfortable even expressing my ideas on what the church should do or even could do concerning this issue.  But since you pressed, here are some ideas.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's start with what won't change.  I don't believe that the church will ever accept gay marriage or gay relationships of any kind.  So lets take that completely off the table.  I believe everything else could be open for discussion.

First thing I would do is get rid of the November policy and along with it the polygamist policy.  It serves no purpose to have a blanket edict that applies in every situation.  I realize that there is great concern in these situations, but local leaders should be allowed to counsel with these families, rely on the Spirit and choose a path that is most appropriate for that family.  I believe that parents are responsible for raising their children.  The church is a far second.  It may be the churches responsibility to counsel and guide parents on how to raise their children, but the stewardship lies with the parents, not the church.  This change would not single out gay parents and their children, but rather would put the situation in the same context as other situations where the parents have no intention of keeping the doctrine of the Mormon church.  Perhaps the results would be the same.  Perhaps no local leader would advise baptism for children in such situations.  But the message is not so hostile to gay families.  That feeling of us against them has got to stop.

Second, I would have the church quit legally advocating for the denial of civil rights for gay couples under the law of various countries.  Imposing Mormon beliefs on others through the force of law is IMO counter to gospel teaching.  That goes with any laws of any country.  While the church has every legal right to speak out on these issues, and while I think it is appropriate for the church to speak out on any issue, I think filing petitions with courts and campaigning for its beliefs is outside its stewardship.  When a minority group is fighting for its constitutional rights, the church legally fighting those rights again, creates the feeling of us against them. 

Now let's turn to how the church can better reach those that have to actually deal with being gay.  I think the church has come a long way on this issue.  Over the past 20 years the church has instructed its members and those families that have gay children to be more kind, more inclusive, more Christlike in interacting with those that are gay.  I applaud that.  It is changing the culture, but members definitely are not always living up to those directives.  My family would have nothing to do with me for 15 years.  I don't think I am the.last gay person to receive that kind of treatment.  Perhaps a bishop who knows a family with a gay child could ask the parents how inclusive they are to that child and counsel with them to instill within that family how to be more loving and inclusivey.  This should also be handled by the Spirit and ona one by one basis.

I think each stake should have some kind of support group to specifically help gay members in dealing with their situation.  And it should be overseen by the priesthood.  Give them a safe place to come together and talk about issues that they are facing.  Let them interact with others to learn how they have dealt with similar issues.  Announce the meetings of that group over the pulpit just as they announce other support groups such as the drug recovery program.  Quit stigmatizing being gay as something we just don't talk about in church.  The church is asking them to be celibate for the rest of their lives.  They are going to need some support.

When a gay man wants to marry a woman, I believe there should be aggressive counseling to both parties.  I don't think either one of them have any idea what they are signing up for.  Bishops should carefully listen to the couple and carefully advise them under the Spirit how they should proceed.  Perhaps a one year waiting period for temple marriage would be necessary as is done in other situations.

When two gay men or women want to just live together without sex, it should be allowed with the clear understanding that this is not permission to have sex.   If this had been an option for me, it is very likely that I would have stayed in the church.  Heck, many marriages end up this way anyway but still survive and both parties get a lot of value in the relationship.  It is not all about sex.  In fact, I think sex is way down the list for what relational connections humans need.  Let gay couples have a relationship that does everything for them except the sex.  If sex happens, then just like any other sexual sin, appropriate action could then be taken.  But please, let someone who is gay have a life with someone that they love.  Perhaps some couples will not be able to live that way.  But hey the church is kicking them out anyway, so at least they got the chance.  Some couples will survive and thrive even without sex.  Some couples may slip, but desire repentance and come back in full fellowship of the church.  And some will be lost.  Isn't that always the case with dating or other relationships?  We don't stop all dating just because some couples fail the Law of Chastity.  I think members have no idea how this would be such a huge game changer, without violating any of the church teachings.  Maybe it is time to start trusting gay members just the way the church trusts young couples that are dating, or engaged.  They aren't condemned for having relationships or wanting companionship. yes they are allowed something more than the gay couple.  But like I said, I don't think sex is the most important thing in relationships.

I end where I started.  The church still defends the cardinal rule.  No homosexual activity.  Yet there is now some kind of path that gives one hope that they will not be sentenced to a life without any chance of ever having any relationship with another human.  These are just my ideas.  I am not demanding the church do any of them.  So those that want to argue any of my posts are free to do so.  I probably won't respond.  I am not looking for a debate on what the church can't do.  I am looking for suggestions on what the church can do.  And in reality, I doubt any of these suggestions will ever amount to anything, so it is all irrelevant anyway.

I appreciate all you have written here.  Here's my response:

1.  You lack standing to criticize the church as to its admission policies.  What's next?  Are you going to insist upon baptism of 7 year olds?  Of persons recently excommunicated?  Of persons with mental inability to choose?  Of teenagers whose parents object?  This so-called November policy objection is just another means to browbeat the church by people who don't care one whit about baptism.

2.  It is an affront to religious freedom to say that a Church cannot enter the public marketplace of ideas to express opinions about what is, and what is not, a civil right.   What's next?  Exclude unions?  

3.  Regarding reaching out to homosexual members, I think you lack standing to tell the Church how it should minister to its members.  What's next?  Rant on about the various religions who practice shunning?  

Basically, you post offends my libertarian nature.  As a libertarian, I opposed Prop 8. (But, because my stake president asked me, I flipped my outward views while indicating to all concerned that I did so because of my love for the church.) I oppose restrictions on gay couples and discrimination against them.  You, on the other hand, want to impose restrictions upon others.  Limit their freedoms, their worship, their thoughts, their teachings on sin, and their political advocacy. In your system, the Church would be required to do things it and most of its members don't want to do; I suppose you would, if you could, use the force of law.  Time for you and your friends to live and let live.  True, some conservative Christians and Mormons may not like gays.  But beating up their religions is not really cool.

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

You know of two homosexual general authorities???

If you think there's only two, you're mistaken. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think you unnecessarily trivialize the issue.  

Fundamentally, to me it is a religious freedom issue.  Critics and outsiders simply have no standing to tell a church to change its position on what constitutes a sin or what qualifications there are for a member.  I think it rather abusive to browbeat the Church over this, knowing that many members trust and follow the church.  How would you like it if somebody came on here and continually browbeated the Jews or Muslims for their dress?  Or for their views on homosexuality?  Or the Catholics for the papal position on abortion?  Who are you to criticize them?  

Some people thought face cards were deadly serious. What could be more serious than the corrupting influence of Satan on our young men and women?

Mormons have religious freedom to teach whatever they like, just as outsiders have the first amendment right to criticize them for it. However, most of the debate seems to be internal - different factions of Mormons with different views, struggling to make their case. Outsiders rarely pay attention to Mormons, although there is some criticism on this issue, to be sure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If you think there's only two, you're mistaken. :)

I wonder if Mormons might have more gay members than what would be expected from a random sample of society. I say that given our larger than average family sizes and the fact that males with older brothers are more likely to be gay.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well I hesitate because I have learned that people do not always want to hear different points of view.  Mostly they want to defend their own position at all times.  This is a sensitive issue.  And I think it is a bit presumptuous for me to tell the church what should be done.  The church has every right to treat gays the way they see fit.  I respect that right.  So I am a bit uncomfortable even expressing my ideas on what the church should do or even could do concerning this issue.  But since you pressed, here are some ideas.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's start with what won't change.  I don't believe that the church will ever accept gay marriage or gay relationships of any kind.  So lets take that completely off the table.  I believe everything else could be open for discussion.

First thing I would do is get rid of the November policy and along with it the polygamist policy.  It serves no purpose to have a blanket edict that applies in every situation.  I realize that there is great concern in these situations, but local leaders should be allowed to counsel with these families, rely on the Spirit and choose a path that is most appropriate for that family.  I believe that parents are responsible for raising their children.  The church is a far second.  It may be the churches responsibility to counsel and guide parents on how to raise their children, but the stewardship lies with the parents, not the church.  This change would not single out gay parents and their children, but rather would put the situation in the same context as other situations where the parents have no intention of keeping the doctrine of the Mormon church.  Perhaps the results would be the same.  Perhaps no local leader would advise baptism for children in such situations.  But the message is not so hostile to gay families.  That feeling of us against them has got to stop.

Second, I would have the church quit legally advocating for the denial of civil rights for gay couples under the law of various countries.  Imposing Mormon beliefs on others through the force of law is IMO counter to gospel teaching.  That goes with any laws of any country.  While the church has every legal right to speak out on these issues, and while I think it is appropriate for the church to speak out on any issue, I think filing petitions with courts and campaigning for its beliefs is outside its stewardship.  When a minority group is fighting for its constitutional rights, the church legally fighting those rights again, creates the feeling of us against them. 

Now let's turn to how the church can better reach those that have to actually deal with being gay.  I think the church has come a long way on this issue.  Over the past 20 years the church has instructed its members and those families that have gay children to be more kind, more inclusive, more Christlike in interacting with those that are gay.  I applaud that.  It is changing the culture, but members definitely are not always living up to those directives.  My family would have nothing to do with me for 15 years.  I don't think I am the.last gay person to receive that kind of treatment.  Perhaps a bishop who knows a family with a gay child could ask the parents how inclusive they are to that child and counsel with them to instill within that family how to be more loving and inclusivey.  This should also be handled by the Spirit and ona one by one basis.

I think each stake should have some kind of support group to specifically help gay members in dealing with their situation.  And it should be overseen by the priesthood.  Give them a safe place to come together and talk about issues that they are facing.  Let them interact with others to learn how they have dealt with similar issues.  Announce the meetings of that group over the pulpit just as they announce other support groups such as the drug recovery program.  Quit stigmatizing being gay as something we just don't talk about in church.  The church is asking them to be celibate for the rest of their lives.  They are going to need some support.

When a gay man wants to marry a woman, I believe there should be aggressive counseling to both parties.  I don't think either one of them have any idea what they are signing up for.  Bishops should carefully listen to the couple and carefully advise them under the Spirit how they should proceed.  Perhaps a one year waiting period for temple marriage would be necessary as is done in other situations.

When two gay men or women want to just live together without sex, it should be allowed with the clear understanding that this is not permission to have sex.   If this had been an option for me, it is very likely that I would have stayed in the church.  Heck, many marriages end up this way anyway but still survive and both parties get a lot of value in the relationship.  It is not all about sex.  In fact, I think sex is way down the list for what relational connections humans need.  Let gay couples have a relationship that does everything for them except the sex.  If sex happens, then just like any other sexual sin, appropriate action could then be taken.  But please, let someone who is gay have a life with someone that they love.  Perhaps some couples will not be able to live that way.  But hey the church is kicking them out anyway, so at least they got the chance.  Some couples will survive and thrive even without sex.  Some couples may slip, but desire repentance and come back in full fellowship of the church.  And some will be lost.  Isn't that always the case with dating or other relationships?  We don't stop all dating just because some couples fail the Law of Chastity.  I think members have no idea how this would be such a huge game changer, without violating any of the church teachings.  Maybe it is time to start trusting gay members just the way the church trusts young couples that are dating, or engaged.  They aren't condemned for having relationships or wanting companionship. yes they are allowed something more than the gay couple.  But like I said, I don't think sex is the most important thing in relationships.

I end where I started.  The church still defends the cardinal rule.  No homosexual activity.  Yet there is now some kind of path that gives one hope that they will not be sentenced to a life without any chance of ever having any relationship with another human.  These are just my ideas.  I am not demanding the church do any of them.  So those that want to argue any of my posts are free to do so.  I probably won't respond.  I am not looking for a debate on what the church can't do.  I am looking for suggestions on what the church can do.  And in reality, I doubt any of these suggestions will ever amount to anything, so it is all irrelevant anyway.

I think this is awesome. Beyond awesome. That you so much for taking the time to share. 

I believe the "November policy" was an important response at the time. I'm not sure it needs to last very long. I agree that it could be handled in a local level and would support the decision to make the transition in a year or two. 

I kinda disagree about the legal issues, but that's nearly a moot point now. 

Yes to personal exhortation to repentance for families who shun. 

100% yes to support groups. 

96% to the recommendations for mixed orientation marriages. I'm not in love with the year waiting period. I do agree with aggressive counseling.

80% to the counsel for chaste same sex relationships. I would work that it would prevent some bisexual (Kinsey 4-5) indiviuals from taking the step of building a family with a member of the opposite sex. I would want to tweak that counsel a little to help them. 

Otherwise I love these suggestions. Thank you so much!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wonder if Mormons might have more gay members than what would be expected from a random sample of society. I say that given our larger than average family sizes and the fact that males with older brothers are more likely to be gay.

And given other environmental factors which science does show contribute to sexual orientation I think the incidence in Mormon communities/families is in fact higher. Totally my opinion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Dude, What the heck? Did you even read his post? Really? You asked and said it wasn't a rhetorical question. Then you reject everything he says because he had no standing? That's seriously bad faith. 

Pointing out disagreements is not rejection.  Asking him for his position doesn't mean that when he gives if, I must agree.  Accusing a poster of not reading a post, even though there is a detailed response, is not reasonable. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

You know of two homosexual general authorities???

Yes.   One I have discussed at length on this board in the past, because he is now dead.  He was excommunicated, reinstated and died in good standing as a high councilor in a stake in Hawaii.  HIs particular offenses were quite heinous, as they involved the work he was doing for the Church and he abused his position with the youth.  His name was Joseph Fielding Smith, but not THE Joseph Fielding Smith.  Elder Smith is a great example of somebody who could come within the precepts of the Church.  Even though he had to be exposed, and did not willingly come forward with his sins, he is a remarkable example of one who loves Jesus more than his fellow man, so to speak.

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Dude, What the heck? Did you even read his post? Really? You asked and said it wasn't a rhetorical question. Then you reject everything he says because he had no standing? That's seriously bad faith. 

Amen.

CB will now be doubly wary of sharing ideas as he has every reason to be after a stunt like that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kllindley said:

And given other environmental factors which science does show contribute to sexual orientation I think the incidence in Mormon communities/families is in fact higher. Totally my opinion. 

Huh  ...  the utility of this game of "is she or isn't she," and "test your gaydar" is  ...  what, exactly?

The rudeness of some Mormons in this thread has been astonishing.  Moderators are going to be doing a serious re-evaluation of who belongs on this board. First rule is if critics can't do it, neither can Mormons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...