An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Most of the folks who I used so much to enjoy are long gone. Run off by Johnny One Note -ism on the preferred topic hereabouts.

I'm about done.

.

 

So you put your time into/hang out in the threads you dislike the most?

Don't really get that reasoning.

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you put your time into/hang out in the threads you dislike the most?

Don't really get that reasoning.

Me neither. Except I desire to support the ones whose views are worth supporting. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes,  I have never stated that the church should change its position on gay marriage.  EVER.

That may be, as I think back on our many exchanges in many threads. But, it is what you wish for and advocate should happen. As always, I am just trying to be accurate. I only speak of the incapability in ever doing so, and do try not to mislead, as my views are scripturally based, and not out of prejudice. I know your comment about having "never stating the Church should change", was not addressed to me, but it is your position that the Churches teaching on the issue, is unfair and harmful. Seems that we (you and me) and others would be splitting hairs to suggest otherwise. 

[Darren10]

On 1/29/2018 at 12:59 AM, california boy said:

  I really don't think the Celestial Kingdom is where I belong.... Like I said perviously, I don't really fit into Plan of Salvation.

I don’t think I belong in the Celestial Kingdom either. I find that there’s something wrong with anyone who would except for Jesus of course. 

The following scripture, however, pertains to everyone:

Quote

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will comeagain, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, thereye may be also.

John 14.

Nobody will get there because they “belong” there except for by the grace of God through the Atonement. I look at Thomas S Monson who recently passed away. I have no doubt whatsoever that he’ll not only reach the Celestial Kingdom, as well as his wife Frances J. Monson, but also exaltation. I do not think for a second he would ever told you or I that he “belonged” there. We belong there only if God claims we belong there; there absolutely is a place for you there as well as everyone else. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Darren10

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

That may be, as I think back on our many exchanges in many threads. But, it is what you wish for and advocate should happen. As always, I am just trying to be accurate. I only speak of the incapability in ever doing so, and do try not to mislead, as my views are scripturally based, and not out of prejudice. I know your comment about having "never stating the Church should change", was not addressed to me, but it is your position that the Churches teaching on the issue, is unfair and harmful. Seems that we (you and me) and others would be splitting hairs to suggest otherwise. 

Yes I do disagree with the church's policies against gay couples and their families.  But that doesn't mean that I don't think the church has every right to treat gay couples and their families any way it wants.  It is their church.  Whether the church ever changes its position is actually no concern of mine.  I don't find that viewpoint splitting hairs.  I call it a difference of opinion on how to treat others.

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

So you believe the apostles who call these things 'revelation' are lying?    (Asking to make sure i'm understanding your correctly).

The proclamation on the family was released in 1995 under the direction of Gordon Hinckley who was the president at the time.  It was a policy at the time (see my previous post).  The November policy came out in 2015 while Thomas Monson president.   It was stated in the handbook as a policy.  So to answer your question, I give much more weight to a sitting prophet than I do to something a member of the 12 says after the fact.

Edited January 31, 2018 by sunstoned

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

Most of the folks who I used so much to enjoy are long gone. Run off by Johnny One Note -ism on the preferred topic hereabouts.

I'm about done.

.

 

I agree with USU78. The board these days is far different from what it was. If it’s not ad nauseum commentary on yet another permutation of the gay rights debate, it’s endless, Dehlin-inspired navel gazing about one’s own “faith journey.”

The environment of a board can change if it gets overrun by those disposed to one bent or another. The worst case scenario is that insightful contributors get bored and, one by one, quietly file off. Until there’s not much left to be appealing. 

A few of us who are old timers saw it happen with ZLMB. The discontented folk migrated to what was then the FAIR board, which became this board after FAIR divested. ZLMB, if it still exists at all, has long been merely a shell. 

I’ve been heartened recently when USU and Kiwi have returned. If they leave again, I’m not sure what incentive there will be for me. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

It was discussed in detail quite recently in another of the (multiplicity of) gay threads. Several citations from General Authorities, spanning the whole period from the date of the Proclamation till now.

Edit: because I'm a nice fellow, I went back and found them again.

On the doctrinal (and authoritative) status of the Proclamation, a quick search on LDS.org turned up the following:

"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 yearsand 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." (Dallin H. Oaks, "The Plan and the Proclamation," October 2017)

"During this 20th anniversary year of the family proclamation, I would like to issue a challenge for all of us as women of the Church to be defenders of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.' Just as Marie Madeline Cardon courageously defended the missionaries and her newly found beliefs, we need to boldly defend the Lord’s revealed doctrines describing marriage, families, the divine roles of men and women, and the importance of homes as sacred places—even when the world is shouting in our ears that these principles are outdated, limiting, or no longer relevant." (Bonni L. Oscarson, "Defenders of the Family Proclamation", April 2015)

M. Russell Ballard, "What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest," October 2005; whole talk.

"That marvelous document brings together the scriptural direction that we have received that has guided the lives of God’s children from the time of Adam and Eve and will continue to guide us until the final winding-up scene." (David B. Haight, "Be a Strong Link," October 2000)

"One year ago the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a proclamation to the world concerning the family. It summarizes eternal gospel principles that have been taught since the beginning of recorded history and even before the earth was created.... So fundamental is the family unit to the plan of salvation that God has declared a warning that those '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 [their maker]. … The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.'" (Robert D. Hales, "The Eternal Family", October 1996)

Note particularly that last one: Elder Hales, speaking just one year after the Proclamation was given, cited a portion of the Proclamation as what "God has declared."

 

Thank you for answering the CFR and for this information that you posted.  However none of these folks trump a sitting prophet in my opinion.  Gordon Hinckley was the prophet at the time and he never declared it a revelation.  He is the only one in my opinion who has the authority to do so.  As I stated in a post up thread, Boyd Packer in General Conference years later call it a revelation in a general conference talk and his words were redacted out when his talk was published.  This is strong evidence of the church's then position that the proclamation was a policy.  It wasn't  until after the disappointing November policy was made public and the church was dealing with the very negative backlash from within and without that lawyer Dalin Oaks started pushing the revelation angle.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with USU78. The board these days is far different from what it was. If it’s not ad nauseum commentary on yet another permutation of the gay rights debate, it’s endless, Dehlin-inspired navel gazing about one’s own “faith journey.”

The environment of a board can change if it gets overrun by those disposed to one bent or another. The worst case scenario is that insightful contributors get bored and, one by one, quietly file off. Until there’s not much left to be appealing. 

A few of us who are old timers saw it happen with ZLMB. The discontented folk migrated to what was then the FAIR board, which became this board after FAIR divested. ZLMB, if it still exists at all, has long been merely a shell. 

I’ve been heartened recently when USU and Kiwi have returned. If they leave again, I’m not sure what incentive there will be for me. 

me!

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Thank you for answering the CFR and for this information that you posted.  However none of these folks trump a sitting prophet in my opinion.  Gordon Hinckley was the prophet at the time and he never declared it a revelation.  He is the only one in my opinion who has the authority to do so.  As I stated in a post up thread, Boyd Packer in General Conference years later call it a revelation in a general conference talk and his words were redacted out when his talk was published.  This is strong evidence of the church's then position that the proclamation was a policy.  It wasn't  until after the disappointing November policy was made public and the church was dealing with the very negative backlash from within and without that lawyer Dalin Oaks started pushing the revelation angle.

For those members of the Church who themselves enjoy the spirt of revelation, from the moment the Proclamation was first revealed until today it has always plainly obvious that the Family Proclamation is a revelation from God. From the start, a framed copy of the Proclamation has hung in a place of prominence in my home and it’s text reverently regarded by my family as the mind and will of the Lord. For the members of the Church who know the Church is true and regularly experience personal revelation, President Oaks was simply stating the obvious.

[Maestrophil]

On 1/29/2018 at 6:38 PM, california boy said:

I think you bring up the core of what many members are trying to balance in how they treat gay relationships.  Certainly I have seen my own family deal with this issue.  I am sure this very issue is what caused them to exclude me from any family functions for 15 years.  But eventually feelings changed.  I am not even sure what caused those feelings to change.  One day, my father was willing to meet for the first time, my partner.  That simple meeting snowballed rapidly to once again being able to have a relationship with not only him, but also my brothers and sisters.  I can't offer a lot of insight as to what caused the change. Perhaps talking to others that have been able to navigate that bridge would be helpful.  I do think that timing had a lot to do with it.  I think everyone thought that enough is enough.  They wanted me back in their lives.  Maybe they were just looking for a way to make that first step. 

I remember after my excommunication, I got a call from one of those who set in on that court.  While I knew most of the men in that room quite well, I didn't know him very well.  He asked if he could have lunch with me.  We met later that week.  He told me that his brother was gay.  It took 25 years for the family to navigate that same bridge you speak of.  I think his thoughts on the subject would really be helpful for others in the church.  

While I don't know what Bro Weed means by his statement, I do believe that we can respect the choices someone makes, even in romantic relationship without rejecting the Law of Chastity.  Neither family ever rejected the Law of Chastity to navigate that bridge.  You might be over reacting to what is actually needed to be more inclusive.  

CB.  I am not really bothered by it internally.  I feel I am able to be accepting fo people with lifestyles that are alternate to mine.  I was referencing what I perceive to be the message from so many who demand fair treatment from members towards the LGBT community.  I can be accepting, loving, caring etc... but if they insist on asking me if I approve of their choice - or being upset if I "disavow" it, which in my mind simply means that in my view it is not in line with God's laws, then I see an impasse.  If my gay (and straight, non-chastity-living family) are willing to accept that I love them, they are welcome in my home with their partners, and I will be there for them in any way I can - then all is well.  If they insist that I MUST ratify and openly declare that I think their choice is wonderful or be labeled a bigot, then there is an impasse.  That's my dilemma.  

Please ask clarifying questions if I don't make sense.  I am kind of free-flowing my thoughts  -)

[Maestrophil]

On 1/29/2018 at 10:38 PM, Darren10 said:

“much to my chagrin - my son DOES say this about his weed...”

OK, that made me laugh out loud. It sounds like tou’re being a great parent for your son. 

Ha!  Thanks, Darren!  I sure am trying.  :-)

 

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, USU78 said:

Me neither. Except I desire to support the ones whose views are worth supporting. 

 

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with USU78. The board these days is far different from what it was. If it’s not ad nauseum commentary on yet another permutation of the gay rights debate, it’s endless, Dehlin-inspired navel gazing about one’s own “faith journey.”

The environment of a board can change if it gets overrun by those disposed to one bent or another. The worst case scenario is that insightful contributors get bored and, one by one, quietly file off. Until there’s not much left to be appealing. 

A few of us who are old timers saw it happen with ZLMB. The discontented folk migrated to what was then the FAIR board, which became this board after FAIR divested. ZLMB, if it still exists at all, has long been merely a shell. 

I’ve been heartened recently when USU and Kiwi have returned. If they leave again, I’m not sure what incentive there will be for me. 

I know I get tired of certain subjects so I mostly avoid those threads. I feel there is only so much for me to say, and it just goes round and round the same stuff. However, I feel this board is pretty unique on the internet, so it is worth supporting. I have been on other Christian forums, and invariably if I feel I am starting to have an impact (winning souls over) they change the rules or just push LDS out. As an example at ChristianForums LDS are no longer allowed to post in their Controversial Theology section which is where non-Trinitarian sects used to post, and anyone who marks themselves as "Mormon" rather than Christian cannot post in their Christians Only sections.

Among LDS forums this is a unique forum as well. A good number of informed people post here whom I enjoy, including both of you. The list goes on, but I don't want anyone to feel left out. I have other things to do, so I don't really park here, but I do at least check in quite regularly to see what's happening. I do think of this forum as my new "home." If you are interested in discussing something else start threads. It is up to the community to keep the forum fresh. I do have other subjects of interest, but am staying kind of mum about them atm, but I learn a lot from contributors to this forum even if I don't always agree with them. I think the interaction at least helps to keep me sharp. I also enjoy chatting with the occasional non-LDS visitor. I wish there were more. I think a fair number just kind of lurk.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with USU78. The board these days is far different from what it was. If it’s not ad nauseum commentary on yet another permutation of the gay rights debate, it’s endless, Dehlin-inspired navel gazing about one’s own “faith journey.”

The environment of a board can change if it gets overrun by those disposed to one bent or another. The worst case scenario is that insightful contributors get bored and, one by one, quietly file off. Until there’s not much left to be appealing. 

A few of us who are old timers saw it happen with ZLMB. The discontented folk migrated to what was then the FAIR board, which became this board after FAIR divested. ZLMB, if it still exists at all, has long been merely a shell. 

I’ve been heartened recently when USU and Kiwi have returned. If they leave again, I’m not sure what incentive there will be for me. 

The board needs you Scott, balance is good for all of us. Hopefully we're all openminded enough to each other's viewpoints. 

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

Among LDS forums this is a unique forum as well. A good number of informed people post here whom I enjoy, including both of you. The list goes on, but I don't want anyone to feel left out. I have other things to do, so I don't really park here, but I do at least check in quite regularly to see what's happening. I do think of this forum as my new "home." If you are interested in discussing something else start threads. It is up to the community to keep the forum fresh. I do have other subjects of interest, but am staying kind of mum about them atm, but I learn a lot from contributors to this forum even if I don't always agree with them. I think the interaction at least helps to keep me sharp. I also enjoy chatting with the occasional non-LDS visitor. I wish there were more. I think a fair number just kind of lurk.

This forum has helped me through a faith crisis. I'm very stagnant though and haven't jumped to either side. I'm a middlewayer to the core. I need both sides in my life, like I need both views on this board. I'm a cultural Mormon also, it's in my DNA, and it's definitely hard to give up that side of me.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment here. And that we need more people to start up new topics if they think it's the same over and over. Shout out to all of you who can still post topics...

[Raingirl]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

So you put your time into/hang out in the threads you dislike the most?

Don't really get that reasoning.

You don't understand why someone who supports and sustains the church's teachings on this topic, and its leaders would choose to weigh in? Would you prefer that only critics be allowed to speak, especially on this topic? Or only this topic? Take heart, because that is exactly the direction this board is going. 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

CB.  I am not really bothered by it internally.  I feel I am able to be accepting fo people with lifestyles that are alternate to mine.  I was referencing what I perceive to be the message from so many who demand fair treatment from members towards the LGBT community.  I can be accepting, loving, caring etc... but if they insist on asking me if I approve of their choice - or being upset if I "disavow" it, which in my mind simply means that in my view it is not in line with God's laws, then I see an impasse.  If my gay (and straight, non-chastity-living family) are willing to accept that I love them, they are welcome in my home with their partners, and I will be there for them in any way I can - then all is well.  If they insist that I MUST ratify and openly declare that I think their choice is wonderful or be labeled a bigot, then there is an impasse.  That's my dilemma.  

Mine, too.  Right after high school I served 18 months of activy duty in the Army.  I was surrounded by people who drank life fish, cussed like sailors (many were sailors), caroused, and otherwise engaged in activities in which I, as a Latter-day Saint, declined to participate.

The funny thing, though, is that I got along very well with these folks.  They appreciated and respected my choices and beliefs, even if they did not share them.  Sometimes they even went out of their way to "help" me (such as loudly announcing "Beers for everyone!  Except for Spencer!  He'll have a Sprite!").

My time in the Army was a transformative experience.  I really grew a lot.  I made a lot of friends.  I did run into a few folks who disliked me, either because of my skin color, or because of my religion, or both.  But even these folks didn't publicly demand that I alter my religious views to comport with theirs or their lifestyle. 

Nobody ever approached me and demanded that I ratify and endorse and celebrate with them their behavior, including their private sexual activity. 

Nobody ever publicly demanded that my church alter its doctrines so as to comport with the preferences of people who are not members of the church.

Nobody ever publicly demanded that my church alter its internal policies governing the activity of its members so as to suit the preferences of people who are not members of the church.

"If they insist that I MUST ratify and openly declare that I think their choice is wonderful or be labeled a bigot, then there is an impasse."  Yes.  Yes there is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

You don't understand why someone who supports and sustains the church's teachings on this topic, and its leaders would choose to weigh in? Would you prefer that only critics be allowed to speak, especially on this topic? Or only this topic? Take heart, because that is exactly the direction this board is going. 

That's not at all what Calm was saying.  She was simply pointing out that it's a little silly for someone to complain about the quantity and content of threads regarding LGBT issues on this board, and then spend the majority of his time posting in those threads.

[Raingirl]

46 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's not at all what Calm was saying.  She was simply pointing out that it's a little silly for someone to complain about the quantity and content of threads regarding LGBT issues on this board, and then spend the majority of his time posting in those threads.

As usual, only certain voices/viewpoints are heard on this board. Or allowed to be heard. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

As usual, only certain voices/viewpoints are heard on this board. Or allowed to be heard. 

I'm not sure what that has to do with Cal's point though?  No one is being stopped from participating in non-SSM focused threads or being forced to post in SSM focused ones.

[RevTestament]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This forum has helped me through a faith crisis. I'm very stagnant though and haven't jumped to either side. I'm a middlewayer to the core. I need both sides in my life, like I need both views on this board. I'm a cultural Mormon also, it's in my DNA, and it's definitely hard to give up that side of me.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment here. And that we need more people to start up new topics if they think it's the same over and over. Shout out to all of you who can still post topics...

Societies have always progress based upon the contributions of the individual. Together, they make up a diverse whole which can learn from each other. The combined learning means that the individual doesn't have to learn it all him/herself. Our modern society has been called "the information age." And that is true. The information at our fingertips is staggering, and if history is a teacher, that should allow our society to progress all the faster. Yet, the intellectual curiosity has to be there. The desire to learn has to be there. The desire to improve has to be there. I see this forum as a place where this desire can take root in good soil. I guess I could say I had a "faith crisis" but I don't really think of it as such. I just view it as a stage in my journey. A time when I needed an answer which I didn't have yet, so I became inactive. When life did answer my question, I came back. As you are probably aware, I don't always see eye to eye with the Church, but don't feel I have to to enjoy being a member - a term which I use somewhat loosely. Some things about the Church I do not really enjoy, but I see the Church as willing to change, and starting to change which gives me hope. 

At one time I was indecisive about the Church because of the priesthood ban issue, but the Church changed, and for the better imho. And the Church will change more. Places like this forum I think will help it change where it needs to. Anyway, hopefully the Church doesn't feel we all have to be carbon copies of the Church President, or the indoctrination correlation committee. I know I am not.  

[CA Steve]

I can understand why some are tired of the threads on GLBTQ. But since this seems to be something that is affecting our loss of youth at an alarming rate shouldn't it also be something that is discussed a lot. Yes, I expect there are a lot of people here who believe they are standing firmly on the side of God in their defense of the church in this area (or all areas for that matter) but as Dr Phil likes to say "how's that working for you?".  If you are content with the status quo, firmly believe the church has not made any mistakes in this area and do not care that many are leaving over these issues, then I can see why these threads are bothersome. 

I think the church is wrong here in many areas, I would like to see changes and would like to see more done to prevent our loss of youth. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

me!

Indeed!

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

For those members of the Church who themselves enjoy the spirt of revelation, from the moment the Proclamation was first revealed until today it has always plainly obvious that the Family Proclamation is a revelation from God. From the start, a framed copy of the Proclamation has hung in a place of prominence in my home and it’s text reverently regarded by my family as the mind and will of the Lord. For the members of the Church who know the Church is true and regularly experience personal revelation, President Oaks was simply stating the obvious.

It’s hard to think the senior leaders of the Church would create a document expressly for delivery to government officials and opinion leaders and not have it be revelatory. Those who deny that are often those who have not paid attention to the proclamation or its content until it began to interfere with their own political or social agenda. Then, they began to push the revisionist view that the proclamation was not inspired. 

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

As usual, only certain voices/viewpoints are heard on this board. Or allowed to be heard. 

That’s not true at all.  There’s a great balance here of differing opinions and voices.  I think it represents pretty well what a current ward looks like.  If the gay issues are not a concern of yours or you don’t want to discuss them, just stay off those threads (I do that with some topics).  But like it or not, they are very relevant to what is taking place in many member’s lives and most especially are important to the Mormon youth (the upcoming generation who are future church leaders).

Edited January 31, 2018 by JulieM