Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The Church is not inclusive. The Celestial Kingdom is not inclusive. Once one sets standards, certain people will fail to live up to those standards and be excluded. During a historic live broadcast Tuesday, January 16, from the annex of the Salt Lake Temple to all members of the Church, newly ordained prophet President Russell M. Nelson reassured each member of the Church that “whatever your concerns, whatever your challenges, there is a place for you in this, the Lord’s Church.” https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-first-presidency-speaks-to-members-worldwide?cid=HP_TU_16-1-2018_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyMAST_&lang=eng 1
ttribe Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said: During a historic live broadcast Tuesday, January 16, from the annex of the Salt Lake Temple to all members of the Church, newly ordained prophet President Russell M. Nelson reassured each member of the Church that “whatever your concerns, whatever your challenges, there is a place for you in this, the Lord’s Church.” https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-first-presidency-speaks-to-members-worldwide?cid=HP_TU_16-1-2018_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyMAST_&lang=eng Careful...it seems some would prefer the Church to be an exclusive club for a select few.
carbon dioxide Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 4 hours ago, ALarson said: I really don't want this to get derailed with a discussion regarding polygamists. I think that's a more complicated topic because it involves living with many women who are not your legal wives and also it involves their children. In order for them to "repent", the church leaders would have to advise dissolving or splitting up families. I honestly do not believe they should be excommunicated though. We are talking about marriages between just two committed people who want to be completely faithful to each other. Can we please keep this discussion focused on that and also on the information in the OP? I don't want a derail with a discussion on polygamists. That is very strange. Polygamy has scripture support to it at least sometimes while gay marriage has NOTHING yet you appear to put gay marriage above polygamy. Three or more people can be just as committed to each other as two people. 1
Calm Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) On 1/27/2018 at 11:27 AM, ALarson said: I completely agree, Jane (and I'm sorry for anything you've been through and know that it is complicated). 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. Let's at least try to be honest here about that. If we are being honest, then it needs to be acknowledged that those who end their lives are not always open or even aware of everything that contributes to it. Therefore while each note should be taken seriously, this should not mean that it should be accepted as accurate or complete in describing the reasons why suicide was chosen. Hyperfocusing on one possible cause may lead to ignoring others that might even have had a greater impact. This is why statistics should be demanded first and foremost to determine the complex causes rather than insisting one knows the cause and therefore "______" must be changed. Edited December 9, 2018 by Calm 3
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 27, 2018 Popular Post Posted January 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: Another thing the church could do is take Josh and Lolly Weed’s blog post from this week and respond to each point they made. I'm not sure how that would help anything. I think there are probably some people who believe the points the Weeds made in their blog were so good that the church, in trying to answer them, would see how wrong they had been in a lot of things and would change. I don't think that's how it would actually play out in real life though. I think the church would continue to disagree with a lot of the Weeds' points (on a doctrinal basis) and that people would be even more angry at the end of such a response than they had been before it was attempted. First, that blog post is super long and a point by point response would be even more so, to the detriment of the over-all affect. There's always a point in a 'point by point' response where it starts to look nitpicky and doesn't come across very well, no matter how good the rebuttal might be. Second, I've never seen a point-by-point response to anything be that well received by the 'other camp' (regardless of who the other camp is), especially in regards to emotional and personal issues like that blog. Just like how the Weeds blog, no matter how well written or thought out, isn't going to change the beliefs of the church, no church response, no matter how well written or thought out, is going to change the beliefs of the Weeds or those who agree with them. But if the church tried to provide a point-by-point response to such an emotional letter, every time the church disagreed with a point the Weeds made, people would accuse them of attacking or not being supportive, or being judgmental, or not being Christ-like, etc. It would be impossible to treat that emotional letter about the dissolution of a family as a doctrinal piece open for commentary, discussion, and disagreement (which is how the church would need to treat it if they were honestly trying to respond to every point that was made). It would be a lose-lose for the church to even attempt it. There's no good way to publicly disagree with the views of a hurt-but-much sympathized-with person and not look like a jerk. Lastly, the Weeds don't represent all LGBTQ members (as kindley's post in that other thread showed) and i don't see the point of the church publicly responding to their blog post as if it was authoritative in anything other than their own lives. I don't think it would help much for the church to single out any one gay or lesbian as if their view on the issue was the one that the church needed to resolve. 6
carbon dioxide Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Getting back to the OP and ALarson's question, one thing that I think the church could do is to openly recognize that the teachings of the church right now make it hard for most gays and lesbians to have hope in a happy and abundant future (and hopelessness is a huge contributor to suicide). What about members who have severe physical limitations like Downs Syndrome. Odds are many are not going to get married. I don't think their road is any easier but they are taking it in stride. 1
smac97 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said: Quote I wonder if a similar question can be asked of the LGBT folks and their "allies" who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church. In other words, is there ever going to come a cime when the other side of this debate will call for introspection as to their own conduct? Thanks, -Smac How many heterosexual members of the Church have committed suicide because of the worlds acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage? I don't understand the relevance of this question. Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: What about members who have severe physical limitations like Downs Syndrome. Odds are many are not going to get married. I don't think their road is any easier but they are taking it in stride. I think the difference is that from the LGTBQ community's perspective, the church could make their road much much easier if they wanted to. The church can't do that for people with mental disabilities, for example, so no one is angry at the church for not doing so. 2
smac97 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 57 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: The writer of the letter in the OP was reaching out for emotional support from the First Presidency. The problem seems to be they ignored his letter. Completely. The challenge with, in particular younger, gay members of the Church is that they feel unable to reach out because the Church has positioned them as unnatural, unholy, people for whom the Church will bar their children from membership etc. To reach out for help means exposing their ‘unholy gayness’ to their families and friends and ward members. A lot of whom react in awful ways. Look at SMAC’s first response to the letter mentioned in the OP. Would you reach out to him? I don't understand. What portions of my posts in this thread have been problematic? Thanks, -Smac
Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't understand the relevance of this question. Thanks, -Smac I had no expectation that you would.
Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I don't understand. What portions of my posts in this thread have been problematic? Thanks, -Smac The clue was here: “Look at SMAC’s first response to the letter mentioned in the OP. Would you reach out to him?”
Jane_Doe Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said: The challenge with, in particular younger, gay members of the Church is that they feel unable to reach out because the Church has positioned them as unnatural, unholy, people for whom the Church will bar their children from membership etc. To reach out for help means exposing their ‘unholy gayness’ to their families and friends and ward members. A lot of whom react in awful ways. ... then why are you not encouraging people to reach out? Why is the conversation not about encouraging people who need help to seek it? And yes, reaching out is HARD-- that's true for anyone who's struggling or has a mental illness, and people can act downright awful for lots of that stuff too. I've been there. Edited January 27, 2018 by Jane_Doe 3
Atheist Mormon Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I’m actually tired of hearing about it at general conference. I don’t think they can get any clearer than they already are. and I suspect it won’t bring the judgmental A$&@@ to repentance any more than early talks did. Many of them will still be demanding the Church conform to them rather than considering they need to conform to the will of the Lord If this is a the "will of the Lord", LGTB people should be told by the Lord that He made a mistake creating them the way he did. None of them volunteered to bear this Cross.
Calm Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: How about watching a child slowly kill himself with substance addiction? If there is something a parent could do that could stop a child from killing himself with substance addiction***, why wouldn't a parent do it (outside of something that would harm themselves or others)? ****I mean something that would actually help and not just anything the child demands. 2 hours ago, provoman said: If you are saying, the child threatens self if parent attends church and live the Gospel; then I would say the child is well being a child and selfish. Even if true, how does knowing that help when dealing with the irrationality of suicide? Do you suggest arguing with the child with reason to persuade them they are wrong...because if they are depressed enough to consider suicide, that isn't going to work. Edited January 27, 2018 by Calm 1
bluebell Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said: If this is a the "will of the Lord", LGTB people should be told by the Lord that He made a mistake creating them the way he did. None of them volunteered to bear this Cross. Do any of us volunteer to bear our crosses though? 4
smac97 Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: The clue was here: “Look at SMAC’s first response to the letter mentioned in the OP. Would you reach out to him?” Again, what portions of my posts in this thread have been problematic? Thanks, -Smac
Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said: ... then why are you not encouraging people to reach out? And yes, reaching out is HARD-- that's true for anyone who's struggling or has a mental illness, and people can act downright awful for lots of that stuff too. I've been there. 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. 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 38 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Do you have a view on why the Church will baptise the children of heterosexual parents who aren’t members, who don’t live the standards of the Church, aren’t required to be married, may be alcohol consumers, smokers, drug users etc even though the Church will poison their mind against their parents lifestyle choices? Because the destructive news stories that would be used by the Church’s enemies to cause great harm against it in the scenario I described has not and will not ever happen under the scenario you describe. The progressive press has no desire to take a stand in defense of the sanctity traditional marriage. In fact, they couldn’t care less about it. The sad reality is that their passionate desire is to defend gay marriage because they know it undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage. Pure common sense. The Savior compared the wise foresight demonstrated by the Church leaders in this situation to being wise as serpents but as gentle as doves.
Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Again, what portions of my posts in this thread have been problematic? Thanks, -Smac You’ve had the clue, if you can’t figure it out then I can’t help you. In fact, you not being able to figure it out, makes my point. Go read your first post on this thread, if you don’t see any barriers in there that would put a gay member off from reaching out to you, then I can’t help you further. 1
Jane_Doe Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: What makes you think I’m not encouraging people to reach out, IRL I mean? On this thread- in this conversation. Why are we not talking about how to better help people to reach out? Why are we not showing good examples of people being supportive of those going through hard times? Why are we instead spreading negativity and attacking others? Instead over simplifying very real complex problems and the people who go through them? Edited January 27, 2018 by Jane_Doe 1
Calm Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: That said, I simply cannot fathom a situation in which resigning from the Church is something God would want us to do. I also cannot articulate any situation in which I, as a parent and a Latter-day Saint, would find it appropriate to counsel my son or daughter to resign. Depression and suicidal feelings are not rational. Sometimes it might be necessary to respond as if they are in order to keep the child alive long enough for treatment to have an effect or to open them up to rational approaches in the future. Edited January 27, 2018 by Calm 3
Calm Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: This institutional and thoughtless homophobia is driven by the leaders of the Church. I highly doubt the stake president picked up that usage of "gay" from other church leaders. Nor do I think that usage would have hit the dictionary if it was Mormon culture only: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay Edited January 27, 2018 by Calm 2
Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Because the destructive news stories that would be used by the Church’s enemies to cause great harm against it in the scenario I described has not and will not ever happen under the scenario you describe. The progressive press has no desire to take a stand in defense of the sanctity traditional marriage. In fact, they couldn’t care less about it. The sad reality is that their passionate desire is to defend gay marriage because they know it undermines the sanctity of traditional marriage. Pure common sense. The Savior compared the wise foresight demonstrated by the Church leaders in this situation to being wise as serpents but as gentle as doves. So the revelation barring the children of gay parents from being baptised is just a PR move? The press defend gay marriage as a nefarious move in some war they are waging towards undermining traditional marriage? I think your persecution complex is getting the better of you. Same sex marriage is now a thing. Acceptance of homosexuality is now a thing. Nobody is trying to get the Church to solemnise same sex marriage. All that is happening is that the Church is trying to impose its religious beliefs on non members. That’s not going to be well received. Plus, it’s a bit hypocritical for a Church whose founders lived polygamously and polyandrously, and whose current Presidency members believe they have two wives for eternity, to be extolling the pattern of monogamy as the only acceptable form of marriage for people who aren’t even members of their organisation. I feel really sorry for gay members of the Church. They don’t get anything like sufficient love, respect and support.
CA Steve Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 2 hours ago, juliann said: That isn't the topic. I'm asking what I would do if I knew my child was slowly going under and one means of keeping her on solid ground was to leave the church so as to distance her from its policy on her, what would be my priority? Rather than debating the policy as if it were an administrative detail, maybe this is something we should all be asking ourselves and answering before making judgments for others. I do not believe God and the church are inseparable. If I thought leaving the church would in any way improve the health of my child, I would do so without a second thought.
Marginal Gains Posted January 27, 2018 Posted January 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: On this thread- in this conversation. Why are we not talking about how to better help people to reach out? Why are we not showing good examples of people being supportive of those going through hard times? Why are we instead spreading negativity and attacking others? Instead over simplifying very real complex problems and the people who go through them? I’m not sure I’ve got good examples of members being supportive of gay members of the Church.
Recommended Posts