An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes.  Thank you for your correction.

 

Exactly.  No sex before marriage.  No sex outside of that marriage.  For me, that has been the gold standard of the Law of Chastity.  Teachings against homosexuality seem to be rarely talked about and when it is talked about it seems to be more of a cultural comment.  I think we have a better understanding of homosexuality than even 40 years ago, let alone a couple of thousand years ago.  I see nothing wrong morally with a gay couple in a marriage.  But that is my belief, and I realize the church and most of its members have this whole homosexual relations being a huge sin thing. Thats ok.  We can disagree.

When it comes to the Celestial Kingdom, I don't think any of us have much of an idea what that experience will be like.  God has chosen to reveal very little about it.  Not quite ready to die to find out.  But when I do die, I think it will be an amazing experience.

So it seems and I are on agreement that for exaltation, all must obey the same standards of  morality and that doing so does nt autmatcaly mean that we are to all be the exact same person. Is this correct? 

(Note that that was precisely what I was  referring to when I said that you, Josh, and I all have a place, and equal place, in God’s plan of salvation.)

Also, is it accurate to conclude that its your belief that a homosexual marriage is equally valid for exaltation as is a heterosexual marriage? 

I fully agree that we nw very little regarding the nature of exaltation. That is why I attempt to be very careful and make my reasons based on what we do know. I do so based on doctrinal canon: the standard works, and proclamations by signed the First Presidency *and* Quorum of the Twelve. Everything to me is secondary. Other sources such as study manuals, statements by the First Presidency, or statements by anyone in the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve, can and are very useful but I do not uphold them to the same degree of doctrinal certainty as what I oreviously mentioned. 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Darren10

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Why do you find it sad that there still exists a Church that has doctrines that you don't agree with? Don't you like diversity?

Do you think it’s church doctrine that children with parents who are in a SSM are not a family unit?

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Well, what I read was that ALarson did not see Josh use the word. Josh did absolutely use the word “kill” so I think it's perfectly legitimate. If anything, ALarson should be offended at Josh, not you or I. 

You should probably drop that.  Alarson was defending the church (and leaders) and saying he disagreed with using the words murder or kill when talking about the suicides.  He has emphasized a few times, that he wanted those kinds of “extreme words” removed from the conversation.

He can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s how I understood him.

[sunstoned]

22 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, that's it exactly. They're not a family.

All the people who claim to want to offer a "constructive" solution needs to accept as their starting point, the fact that The Family: A Proclamation to the World is authoritative, definitive LDS doctrine, and is not going to be changed to appease today's clamouring mobs. If you can't accept that fact for reasons that more orthodox Latter-day Saints do, then at least accept it if for no other reasons than that tomorrow's mobs will clamour for something else.

I don't think you can see into the future, so you cannot say this proclamation will not change.  If LDS doctrinal history any indication, then I would say chances are good that we will see a change in the future.  Hopefully, the near future.

[Darren10]

49 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I agree, but he also admitted that he didn't see my comment.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70130-arbitrary-and-capricious-decisions/?tab=comments#comment-1209790553

Thank you. That does make ALarson’s post a bit less authentic. In fact, if it was deleted and you were banned it’s not really cool for him to include it in this thread. I deliberately chose not to say “murder” in my posts to counter Josh Weed’s emotional attacks against the Church and instead chose to quote him directly. There’s only a very fine line separating “killing” and “murdering” but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and not exaggerate what they try to say. So while I chose not to use the term “murder” (I even thought of “manslaughter”) as an appropriate description for Josh’s post, I feel for what you seem to have tried to convey. 

Also, I too get mystified as to why certain people are banned from threads and others not. When I wrote for a local DJ’s blog here in Houston, who is now national, I always explained to people what they did to violate the rules and have their posts deleted (even then, I did not delete posts, I wanted them to remain for context purposes), and the person banned. 

Oh well. It is what it is.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You should probably drop that.  Alarson was defending the church (and leaders) and saying he disagreed with using the words murder or kill when talking about the suicides.  He has emphasized a few times, that he wanted those kinds of “extreme words” removed from the conversation.

He can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s how I understood him.

Huh? Who says I’m continuing it?

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I don't think you can see into the future, so you cannot say this proclamation will not change.  If LDS doctrinal history any indication, then I would say chances are good that we will see a change in the future.  Hopefully, the near future.

He cannot see into the future but he can see the here and now, correct? 

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you think it’s church doctrine that children with parents who are in a SSM are not a family unit?

I think it's Church doctrine that SSM is not a valid marriage.

I also think that it's Church doctrine that marriage is the foundation of the family.

There are many families that are damaged in some way; divorce or bereavement affect many families, and far too many couples are living together unmarried. The damage can usually be repaired in some way. But, according to definitive and well-known LDS doctrine, the first step in repairing an SSM is for the parties to separate. 

Do you think the Church regards such an arrangement as a family?

[Darren10]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you think it’s church doctrine that children with parents who are in a SSM are not a family unit?

Where in the Proclamation to the World do you see homosexual marriages as family?

Note, I do and will continue to refer same sex couples as spouses and their children as their family. I do this for various reasons, especially in my professional life but that is different from my personal view. I do and will continue to treat all homosexual people and  relations with the exact same courtesy and respect as I do for hetero people and relations. 

That said, how are homosexual “families” recognized in the “church’s doctrine”?

[kiwi57]

9 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I don't think you can see into the future, so you cannot say this proclamation will not change.  If LDS doctrinal history any indication, then I would say chances are good that we will see a change in the future.  Hopefully, the near future.

If LDS doctrinal history is any indication - setting aside, purely for the sake of discussion, my testimony of the Gospel - the likelihood of a change appears to me to be vanishingly small. The Church didn't move on pre-marital sex all through the sixties and seventies, and even till now. How is it rational to expect the Church to move on homosexual activity?

[Darren10]

Quote

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

Note, the Church used the word “lawfully” , not “legally”. And it also declares very clearly that the “powers of procreation”, ergo, “sex”, are to be used between a man and a woman. 

Quote

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Again, very clearly worded, marriage is viewed as “between man and woman”. Connected to this is an entitlement, “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother...”. Children are to be born in ‘matrimony’, aka, marriage which, again, is emphasized as a ‘father(s) and mother(s)’. 

The Church even delves into gender roles: fathers being primarily responsible for certain things and mothers being primarily responsible for other things. They are, of course, “equal partners” and are to help each other accodingly. 

And the warning. Be reminded that this is to the world, not just the Church:

Quote

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

Where is chastity exercized? In marriage. What is marriage? Between man and woman. Condemnation, the very apocalyptical condemnations prophesized ever since ancient times, will come about via the “disintigration of the family”. 

I think the LDS Church’s position on what a family is is pretty tootin’ clear. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

Edited January 29, 2018 by Darren10

[kiwi57]

On 1/28/2018 at 10:54 AM, Marginal Gains said:

How many heterosexual members of the Church have committed suicide because of the worlds acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage?

How is that even relevant?

However, since you asked, I can confidently predict that, whatever the number is, at least it won't exceed the total number of deaths of Church members in the examined time period.

[kiwi57]

On 1/28/2018 at 12:23 PM, Marginal Gains said:

What makes you think I’m not encouraging people to reach out, IRL I mean?

I was at a ward barbecue where a member of the stake presidency said to his child, who was playing nearby, “oh, stop being gay”. I challenged him, cue awkward moment and me secretly labelled as an enemy sympathiser and trouble causer. This stake presidency member was not a jerk, he’s a bloke I really like. There is utterly no comprehension of how to be a Mormon and still be inclusive of people who are gay. This institutional and thoughtless homophobia is driven by the leaders of the Church.

1. There is no such phobia as "homophobia." It is a word that was invented, and is used, entirely and only for the purpose of using shame to manipulate others.
2. Since the labelling was secret, how do you know that you were labelled at all? Or alternatively, how do you know that you simply weren't labelled as a fussy, censorious fellow who takes it upon himself, without any authority at all, to interfere in the interactions between a father and his children?
3. Maybe if you weren't so busy watching people like a hawk looking for reasons to be offended, you might find out that "don't be so gay" is kids' talk. He probably heard it from his children long before he ever started saying it to them. Certain it is that no Church leader ever instructed him to say that. Your obligatory Church-blaming is misplaced.

So, how about you try being a little less vigilant about reporting the "failings" of others, and blaming the Church for them?

[kiwi57]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:49 AM, ttribe said:

Careful...it seems some would prefer the Church to be an exclusive club for a select few.

Like who, for example?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So it seems and I are on agreement that for exaltation, all must obey the same standards of  morality and that doing so does nt autmatcaly mean that we are to all be the exact same person. Is this correct? 

(Note that that was precisely what I was  referring to when I said that you, Josh, and I all have a place, and equal place, in God’s plan of salvation.)

Also, is it accurate to conclude that its your belief that a homosexual marriage is equally valid for exaltation as is a heterosexual marriage? 

I fully agree that we nw very little regarding the nature of exaltation. That is why I attempt to be very careful and make my reasons based on what we do know. I do so based on doctrinal canon: the standard works, and proclamations by signed the First Presidency *and* Quorum of the Twelve. Everything to me is secondary. Other sources such as study manuals, statements by the First Presidency, or statements by anyone in the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve, can and are very useful but I do not uphold them to the same degree of doctrinal certainty as what I oreviously mentioned. 

 

What I said was, "I see nothing wrong morally with a gay couple in a marriage"I have no idea whether  a gay marriage is of equal importance to a heterosexual marriage.  But it certainly seems reasonable.  If God has issues with a gay marriage, then that is something that will have to be worked out after we die.  Personally I am not currently married, and don't really have any plans to marry.  So I obviously don't have strong feelings about the importance of gay marriage.  I really don't think the Celestial Kingdom is where I belong.  There is nothing there that, as a gay man, looks like something I should strive for.  The last thing I want is to be with a woman for eternity.  So if that is what is in store for me, then what is the point of wanting to be there?  Seriously?  Like I said perviously, I don't really fit into Plan of Salvation.

I think we both agree that it is highly unlikely that the church will ever accept gay marriage.  So what is the point of me worrying about what the church teaches or practices.  I have much bigger issues with how the church treats those gay couples that do want to be a part of the church.  But certainly the church can do whatever it wants to do to gay families.  It is not my decision.  And it mostly reinforces to me that I should not be a part of the church.  It seems like an insane idea for me and my boyfriend to attend church.  I think you would probably agree with that.

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

1. There is no such phobia as "homophobia." It is a word that was invented, and is used, entirely and only for the purpose of using shame to manipulate others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Quote

 

Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece (8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD)) have been termed homophobia by scholars, the term itself is relatively new,^[11] and an intolerance towards homosexuality and homosexuals grew during the Middle Ages, especially by adherents of Islam and Christianity.^[12]

Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,^[13] the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".^[14][15][16] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.^[11] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.^[11]

Conceptualizing anti-LGBT prejudice as a social problem worthy of scholarly attention was not new. A 1969 article in Time described examples of negative attitudes toward homosexuality as "homophobia", including "a mixture of revulsion and apprehension" which some called homosexual panic.^[17] In 1971, Kenneth Smith used homophobia as a personality profile to describe the psychological aversion to homosexuality.^[18] Weinberg also used it this way in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual,^[19] published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.^[20][21] Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies.^[11] He describes the concept as a medical phobia:^[19]

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Do you think it’s church doctrine that children with parents who are in a SSM are not a family unit?

Sadly, it’s Church doctrine that children with parents who are in a SSM are not to be baptised unless or until they reach the age of 18 AND denounce their parents. And in the meantime their parents are labelled as Apostates akin to muderers who are to be summarily excommunicated from the Church. The Church may well be correct in that it is how God and Jesus want their organisation on earth to operate. But if that is the case, my conscience tells me that God & Jesus are not people I want to be associated with. My conscience also tells me that this isn’t the case and that Church leaders are getting things badly wrong, at the expense of young lives. It is they, the leaders, who are the Apostates in my opinion.

If Jesus had received the letter outlined in the OP, would His response have been no response whatsoever? If the answer to that is NO, then just who did the FP consult, if not Jesus, about their decision to ignore the letter completely?

Edited January 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church may well be correct in that it is how God and Jesus want their organisation on earth to operate. But if that is the case, my conscience tells me that God & Jesus are not people I want to be associated with.

The good news is that this request can certainly be fulfilled, both here and hereafter.

Quote

If Jesus had received the letter outlined in the OP, would His response have been no response whatsoever?

'Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death ... At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace'.

'And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word'.

[Marginal Gains]

24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death ... At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace'.

'And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he answered him to never a word'.

In what way is the letter writer seeking false witness against Jesus or the First Presidency?

[smac97]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I don't think you can see into the future, so you cannot say this proclamation will not change.  If LDS doctrinal history any indication, then I would say chances are good that we will see a change in the future.  Hopefully, the near future.

From Elder Oaks, about four months ago (emphases added):

Quote

In 1995 a President of the Church and 14 other Apostles of the Lord issued these important doctrinal statements. As one of only seven of those Apostles still living, I feel obliged to share what led to the family proclamation for the information of all who consider it.

The inspiration identifying the need for a proclamation on the family came to the leadership of the Church over 23 years ago. It was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and the family were well understood without restatement. Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year. Language was proposed, reviewed, and revised. Prayerfully we continually pleaded with the Lord for His inspiration on what we should say and how we should say it. We all learned “line upon line, precept upon precept,” as the Lord has promised (D&C 98:12).

During this revelatory process, a proposed text was presented to the First Presidency, who oversee and promulgate Church teachings and doctrine. After the Presidency made further changes, the proclamation on the family was announced by the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. In the women’s meeting of September 23, 1995, he introduced the proclamation with these words: “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.”

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.

I think the notion that "this proclamation will {} change" is an exercise in wishful thinking.  I know folks like to point to the cessation of polygamy and the Priesthood Ban as precedents for the Church "changing" doctrine.  But the Church did not "change" its doctrine about polygamy, just the practice of it.  The Church has not disavowed polygamy any more than it has disavowed animal sacrifice under the Law of Moses.

The Priesthood Ban isn't a precedent, either.  If the ban lacked revelatory provenance, then it was never a revealed "doctrine" to begin with.  And if it did have revelatory provenance, then its end is akin to the non-observance of animal sacrifice or polygamy.  More information on this topic is available from FAIR.  For me, I lean toward the first option, although I remain open to both possibilities.  

So neither of these works as precedent.  At all, really.  If LDS doctrinal history any indication, then I would say chances are essentially nonexistent that we will see a change in the future.  I think your contrary prediction requires us to utterly ignore the Proclamation (promulgated through revelation), the September 2015 policy changes (also promulgated through revelation), and the unified and unequivocal statements from the General Authorities affirming and reiterating the principles to these issues, such as Elder Oaks' statement above, and also these remarks by Elder Christofferson:

Quote

“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt,” Elder Christofferson explained. “We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained.

“That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift, and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased.”

Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, “but we know sin does not.”

“There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,” he said.

This seems like rather clear guidance.

I remember reading this Slate article, published in November 2014:

Quote

Divine Revision

How Mormons will come to accept homosexuality.

By William Saletan

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a firm view on homosexuality and gay marriage. “Marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan,” the church declares on its website. “The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married.”

But there’s a catch: LDS doctrine is subject to sudden reversals. While other churches cling to the Bible, Mormons believe new revelations can overthrow past injunctions, including those written in Scripture. “Nowhere does the Bible proclaim that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be forever closed,” the church contends.

In fact, Mormons have been revising their doctrines all along. The revisions are driven by cultural and political changes, though the church attributes them to revelation.

{SNIP facile summary of polygamy and the Priesthood Ban}

When you look back at these stories—not just the reported facts, but the way the church has recast them—you can see how a reversal on homosexuality might unfold. First there’s a shift in the surrounding culture. Then there’s political and legal pressure. Meanwhile, LDS leaders have to grapple with the pain of gay Mormons—now acknowledged by the church as “same-sex attracted”—who sacrifice for an institution that forbids them to love and marry. Within the church hierarchy, less conservative voices gradually replace leaders who have died or stepped down. Eventually, the time is right for a revelation. When you pray hard enough, and you know what you want to hear, you’ll hear it.

The church is well along this path. Two years ago, it acknowledged homosexuality as a deeply ingrained condition and said it “should not be viewed as a disease.” Today, in its essay on polygamy, the church affirms its defense of traditional marriage, but with a caveat. “Marriage between one man and one woman is God’s standard for marriage,” the essay concludes—“unless He declares otherwise, which He did through His prophet, Joseph Smith.” It happened once. In fact, it happened twice. When the time is right, it’ll happen again.

As we all know, a fair number of developments on this issue have occurred since this article came out, precisely none of which has gone the way Mr. Saletan predicted.  The Proclamation has been extensively and repeatedly emphasized and re-affirmed.  The September 2015 policy changes came out.  And despite a tremendous full-court press against the Church about them for the more than two years, they remain in place.  Mr. Saletan's predictions, pretty much identical to yours, do not appear to be valid.

The Law of Chastity has a long and consistent doctrinal lineage and basis.  The Proclamation and the September 2015 policy changes were promulgated through revelation.  The General Authorities have been uniformly clear as to the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage and the Law of Chastity, and have given no hint at all to a change in the doctrines of the Church regarding these matters.  So suggestions like "chances are good that we will see a change {regarding the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage} in the future" seem very unrealistic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I think it's Church doctrine that SSM is not a valid marriage.

I also think that it's Church doctrine that marriage is the foundation of the family.

There are many families that are damaged in some way; divorce or bereavement affect many families, and far too many couples are living together unmarried. The damage can usually be repaired in some way. But, according to definitive and well-known LDS doctrine, the first step in repairing an SSM is for the parties to separate. 

Do you think the Church regards such an arrangement as a family?

Yes.  Maybe not an eternal family, but still a family.  I cannot imagine any church leader telling a child who lives with parents who are gay that they are not a part of a family.  They are a family every bit as much as children living with a single Mom (never married).  We have such a family in our ward.  Would you also tell them that they are not a family? 

That's a word with a simple definition, but with an extreme amount of emotional meaning attached to it for children and for parents:

Quote

 

fam·i·ly

noun

1.

a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household

 

But once again, you've shown up here with a great example of the opposite of what was asked for in the OP.

Do you have any thoughts in response to these thoughts:

Quote

.... is there anything that the leaders are teaching or doing that does contribute to some of the suicides by gay members?  

Quote

We can't deny the fact that these suicides are happening and that the current teachings are at least a part of some of the pain that led to suicide (we have the writings left from those who actually did commit suicide and why they felt as they did....).

Are there any changes that could be made which would help stop at least some of the suicides occurring among the gay members of the church?

 

Quote

I know many factors are involved when someone takes their own life.  But, we have enough notes left behind by those gay members of the church who have committed suicide (along with first hand statements from those who were personally working with them), to at least discuss how the church's teachings and policies contributed to their depression and suicide.

Any thoughts or suggestions specific to these comments?

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Also, is it accurate to conclude that its your belief that a homosexual marriage is equally valid for exaltation as is a heterosexual marriage? 

I fully agree that we nw very little regarding the nature of exaltation. That is why I attempt to be very careful and make my reasons based on what we do know.. 

I think you actually answered your own question. 

Also, you used the wrong word.  You absolutely do not really know that a heterosexual relationship will be any more "valid" than a homosexual relationship after this life.  You can relate what the leaders have taught so far on this or what you believe.  But none of us really know and won't know until we experience it.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

If Jesus had received the letter outlined in the OP, would His response have been no response whatsoever? If the answer to that is NO, then just who did the FP consult, if not Jesus, about their decision to ignore the letter completely?

I think it's pretty standard procedure for the leaders to no longer respond to letters that members write them (with a few exceptions that I've heard of over the last few years).  But at least an acknowledgement of the pain these parents are in or a condolence for their loss would have been nice for them to receive.

Your questions are good though.  

How do members here believe that Jesus would respond to some of the questions asked or to a heartfelt letter such as the one in the OP?

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I found this to be timely - just 11 days ago, Governor Herbert announced a task force addressing the issue of teen suicide.  He set a hard deadline of February 15 for recommendations from the task force to be ready for consideration at the 2018 Utah Legislative Session. 

The fact that the Church, Equality Utah, and other influential members of the community are all sitting down together to address this concerning issue, should stand a strong message to both sides in this conversation.  The fact that the church is willing to sit and work with Equality Utah in solving this problem says a lot.  I see a lot of finger pointing and defensive positioning on this thread.  We need to learn a lesson from our higher ups and be willing to lay aside our differences in an effort to address a common goal...to save the lives of our youth who need us!  I get so tired of the bickering, the stubborn defensiveness, and the finger pointing from both sides.  It won't solve any problems, but will only serve to drive a further wedge between us.  The church is willing to admit that there is room for improvement, why can't we seem to do that on this board?  President Nelson said in a BYU devotional:

I stand with him...we can do better!

pogi, I've meant to thank you for your thoughtful, helpful contributions on this thread.  At least you're willing to open up a respectful dialogue which is a huge step and a great start.  I'm hopeful that the leaders are also willing to take this step.

Quote

 

And on the other hand, those who are pointing fingers at the church.  Let it go!  The church is not going to change the proclamation on the family.  Changing doctrines and policies are not realistic.  If you want friendly cooperation, lets find mutual ground that we can address these issues from.  To both sides I say, step away from offensive and defensive positioning and try to meet in neutral, common ground.  Because while you are all fighting on one side or the other, our youth are dying!

The church is willing to work with those on the other side, are you?  And to those targeting the church, if you really want to make a difference with these youth, YOU NEED THE CHURCH on your side.  Play friendly and realistic. 

 

All great thoughts and I agree.  Both sides need to cooperate and work together for a common goal.

I don't agree with you that changes are never going to happen (change has already happen and most likely will in the future).  Maybe not doctrinal changes, but at least changes in teachings and policies.  I don't see that happening any time soon, though.

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How do members here believe that Jesus would respond to some of the questions asked or to a heartfelt letter such as the one in the OP?

I honestly don't know how He would respond.  In the scriptures (which is the only thing we have to go off of), Jesus is an interesting mixture of incredibly merciful and also sometimes very harsh.  He once called Peter Satan because he expressed a desire that Jesus not go to Jerusalem and be killed, for example.  

In general, I think that Jesus is loving beyond measure but also does not typically allow anyone to call into question the correctness of His doctrine without loving but firm censure.  How that would have manifested in this specific instance I have idea. 

I think so much of how Jesus interacts with us depends on us personally.  Sometimes we need chastisement and sometimes we just need love.  I don't feel comfortable guessing what anyone else needs from God.  I don't even know what I need from Him half the time.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by bluebell