An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Atheist Mormon]

34 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I did. 

Great, i respect you for that.

[rongo]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

That’s not a fair accusation.  He’s the last person we should be attacking or criticizing here.  I’m not sure how anyone can read their letter and know if their loss without it touching their heart.  

You're not sure? It read like a letter that was to an audience that wasn't the ostensible recipient of the "open letter." It read like anything but a letter to the FP asking for their help. It had demands and was couched repeatedly in "have you stopped beating your wife lately?" language and tone. 

Maybe Paul Fisher is not a member of the Church, but his son Harry was. That would explain a lot. If he is still a member, then why refer repeatedly in the letter to "the Mormon Church" or "your Mormon Church?" It was clearly written to get a reaction from the SL Trib's readership, and others who pick up the flag from there. And if real consolation and healing from the FP was really the goal, then why say, "We don't need your help, because we're healing. We're writing on behalf of . . . ?"

When you write an "open letter" and publish it in a newspaper, then these sorts of criticisms are fair accusations, and you are inviting attacking or criticism. Else, why publish an "open letter" in the SL Trib? 

Sorry, Julie, Paul opened himself to reactions like that through his choice and his words. 

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

... yet who are you to misrepresent what I posted so grossly?

Then please, by all means, clarify if you are so inclined.  I don't think my reading of your statement is unreasonable.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

This is a very interesting study regarding the relationship between religious beliefs, their conflicts with sexual identity, and how that relationship effects suicide behaviors among the LGBT population.  

Generally speaking, religiosity is shown to have a positive mental health outcomes on young adults and protective against suicidal behaviors.  However this study did find a relationship between between LGBT sexual identity, religious conflict, and suicide.  This is both expected and very troubling!  The question is, what do we do about it?  Is it realistic to expect the church to change direction regarding long held, deeply engrained doctrines by uprooting the plan of salvation and burning the Proclamation on the Family?  No, this is not realistic.  If we really care about these LGBT youth, we need to take more realistic approaches at intervention.  We need to turn our attention away from the church and directly on the youth - that is where our efforts will have the most impact.  This is not just a Mormon issue.  We can't realistically expect to overhaul all of religion. 

So, lets look at some interesting information that we can take from this study.  Intuition would suggest that if we encourage these children to leave the religion that is causing the internal conflict, this would effectively reduce suicidal rates.  Counterintuitively, this is not the case.  LGBT people who leave their religion due to internal conflicts are actually found to be at a much higher risk for suicide then those who stick it out.  The highest rate of suicide risk is among the youth, older LGBT people who stick it out are found to have resolved internal conflicts with a substantially reduced suicide risk.  What can we gather from this?  Leaving is the worst thing you can do!  We need to push the "it get's better" message.  Studies demonstrate that it is true!  From the study:

But that is not enough.  What else can we do as a church and a community.  We can encourage stronger parental and family support for LGBT youth.  Strong correlation there! We can also encourage stronger community support and non-judgment approach.  Very important! One very interesting aspect that the study found is that suicidal behaviors are more strongly linked to internalized homophobia then to religious conflict itself. In fact, once you account for internalized homophobia, the link to religious conflict mostly disappears.  From the study:

That is profound and worthy of further exploration.  What interventions can be used to reduce internalized homophobia without requiring the uprooting doctrine?

It is my belief that family and community centered approaches are the most important and effective interventions that the Church should focus on.  I believe the Church has an opportunity to really shine in this area.  I think we have started the ball rolling, but more obviously needs to be done. 

We can do better then that!

This is one of the best posts in this entire thread.  Pogi has laid out some really specific concrete ideas that I also believe will help gay youth in the church.  IT DOES GET BETTER.  Youth do not always see that.  Their focus really lacks a wider view of life.  They think that the situation they find themselves in at the moment (whether it be hostile friends, hostile family, hostile community, hostile religion etc) will last forever.  It doesn't.  The older they get and the more experience they get shows them other paths that might work for them when the current path seems like a dead end.  I also think that youth are much more sensitive to what other people say or think.  As you grow older, you begin to rely on your own self worth and not how others view your self worth.  A It Gets Better Program in the church would not only help church youth, but it would also show a willingness to work with that organization outside the church.

I also think that support groups can be very effective for all church members that are dealing with this issue.  I don't know much about North Star, but I did attend Evergreen when I first came out.  It was extremely helpful.  It certainly could have been run better and received much more church support.  The church wouldn't even provide a priesthood leader to moderate the group.  Most of us felt like orphans in the church, but even that was better than nothing.  At least we were among other orphans.  

Part of the problem, back then at least. is that church leaders would not make any kind of announcement from the pulpit concerning any gay support group.  They could mention the drug abuse program and those dealing with overweight.  But anything about Evergreen was just not appropriate.  There was a stake in Washington at the time that the stake president got behind the Evergreen program.  As a result, they had 10 times the participation that the group in the San Francisco area had.  

I also think that parents, for the most part, are very poorly equipped to deal with this issue.  Having a parent support group would go a long way to having members understand some underlying issue.  It took my family 15 years to finally establish a working relationship with me.  For 15 years, I was not invited to any family events.  They felt that if they invited me to anything including church activities like baptisms and missionary farewells that they were some how encouraging me to be gay.  It was a very difficult 16 years for me.

The good part is, I don't think that any of these ideas goes against church teachings.  

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

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.

1.  One perhaps could argue that the Church was trying to impose its beliefs on non-members but I see that to be weak.  All the Church did for Prop 8 was simply advocate a position.  The Church did not force non-Mormons to vote in California for Prop 8.  The voters in California did what voters in other states did.  The voters in California did in California what they did in California a few years earlier.  They voted against gay marriage.  This is the most mild form of "imposing" I can think of. 

2.  I don't see any hypocrisy at all when it comes to polygamy.  The Church was not demanding that the government and society accept their plural marriages.  They just wanted to practice their faith under the dictates of their own conscience and be left alone.  Have the First Amendment actually followed which was the free exercise of religion.  They even went to Utah which was a pretty far off corner of civilization at that time but did the government leave them alone?  NO.  Those who advocated gay marriage demanded that the government and society accept it.  If the government had said, "We don't see your marriages as valid and we will not recognize them but you are free to practice your religion as you choose" I fully believe the members of the Church would have been fine with that.   I really don't see a valid comparison. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[california boy]

2 hours 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 absolutely are starting to hate these kinds of responses.  Being gay is in NO WAY comparable to having Downs Syndrome.  When members make these kinds of statements, it does not in the least help a gay person deal with THEIR situation.  Furthermore, I don't think the church excommunicates Downs Symdrome people who marry.  I wish this would stop.  That would be a simple step in bridging the gap.

[carbon dioxide]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I absolutely are starting to hate these kinds of responses.  Being gay is in NO WAY comparable to having Downs Syndrome.  When members make these kinds of statements, it does not in the least help a gay person deal with THEIR situation.  Furthermore, I don't think the church excommunicates Downs Symdrome people who marry.  I wish this would stop.  That would be a simple step in bridging the gap.

Of course they are not the same.  It simply is looking at a different issue to express the point that many people are given challenges in life and many are not able to live the ideal that the Church sets.  That does not mean their are going to be eternally damned or limited.  Faithful people who do not marry for example for good reasons are not going to be condemned by God. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[ttribe]

2 hours 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. 

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Don't say you are an inclusive church when you are not.  Talk to your members and see where they stand and why...ask what the spirit has told them.  Don't tell a gay person you love them...and then try to change them. 

Does God tell us He loves us, and then try to change us?

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Then please, by all means, clarify if you are so inclined.  I don't think my reading of your statement is unreasonable.

What the suggestible mentally ill write down as the cause of their self-destructive and -abusive acts is not necessarily the actual, proximate cause.

Let's stop pretending it is. Because claiming it is is pretense. And slander. And lies.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think Josh is trying to figure out if he fits into the Plan of Salvation for the reality that faces. him.  Obviously,  in your opinion, he doesn't if he continues on the course that he feels is best for him.  Church doctrine is only one type of family is going to make it in the eternities.  

Of course he fits into the pkan. He fits into the plan no differently than you or me. You and I may have different challenges to overcome and your. Halkenges msy be more aligned eith Josh's challenges but you and I and Josh still fit into God's plan of salvation in the exact same way. All three of us need to do the exact same things. Mo differences. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Do you speak as a gay member? Because I would feel very comfortable approaching him. Projection much?

You may, but I don't.  I find Smac's post to be more of a rant against gay people.  It is all their fault that the church is having problems with members having issues with this policy.  He has one view of ALL gay people and if you disagree with him, he goes through line by line your post often distorting what you are saying and trying to put your opinions in the worst possible way he can.  His opinion of gay people never changes and he believes the church already has all the answers it needs.  When it comes to having a dialogue with Smac about how to improve gay relationships within the church, is all you are going to get back is attacks.  Yeah I am also taking a break from answering his posts and trying to show a different perspective.  I don't think an advisory confrontation is helpful.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Of course he fits into the pkan. He fits into the plan no differently than you or me. You and I may have different challenges to overcome and your. Halkenges msy be more aligned eith Josh's challenges but you and I and Josh still fit into God's plan of salvation in the exact same way. All three of us need to do the exact same things. Mo differences. 

Believe me.  I definitely don't fit into the Plan of Salvation in the exact same way as you do.  You may think I should, but I don't.  

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Believe me.  I definitely don't fit into the Plan of Salvation in the exact same way as you do.  You may think I should, but I don't.  

Yes, you do. There is absolutely no difference between what God expects me to do than he does for you to do. The Atonement can and eventually will cure all but it will have no affect upon those who reject it. Both you and I need it and need it desperately. I do not purport to know how it's transformative powers work but work it does. Both you and I can and will overcome all things through it but its redemptive and thus transformative powers will not be forced upon anyone. It must be accepted and its recipients must bear his or her cross in life and endure it "until the end" in order to be blessed with its full power and affects. 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Darren10

[Darren10]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

You may, but I don't.  I find Smac's post to be more of a rant against gay people.  It is all their fault that the church is having problems with members having issues with this policy.  He has one view of ALL gay people and if you disagree with him, he goes through line by line your post often distorting what you are saying and trying to put your opinions in the worst possible way he can.  His opinion of gay people never changes and he believes the church already has all the answers it needs.  When it comes to having a dialogue with Smac about how to improve gay relationships within the church, is all you are going to get back is attacks.  Yeah I am also taking a break from answering his posts and trying to show a different perspective.  I don't think an advisory confrontation is helpful.

"often distorting what you are saying and trying to put your opinions in the worst possible way he can."

If Smac distorts other's views then we are all in deep trouble for I find Smac one of the most articulate, meaningful, and accurate posters on this forum. 

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

You may, but I don't.  I find Smac's post to be more of a rant against gay people.  It is all their fault that the church is having problems with members having issues with this policy.  He has one view of ALL gay people and if you disagree with him, he goes through line by line your post often distorting what you are saying and trying to put your opinions in the worst possible way he can.  His opinion of gay people never changes and he believes the church already has all the answers it needs.  When it comes to having a dialogue with Smac about how to improve gay relationships within the church, is all you are going to get back is attacks.  Yeah I am also taking a break from answering his posts and trying to show a different perspective.  I don't think an advisory confrontation is helpful.

I think I can understand that perspective. Even though  I don't read him that way at all. I've read a number of times when he has started that members can be more loving and compassionate. I don't think it's fair to judge him due to his belief that the institutional leadership is doing the best they can, within the limits the Lord has set, to improve things. With different core assumptions about reality, I find his positions to be very consistent and logical. I don't think he expects everyone to share those core assumptions, but a lot of people don't respect those beliefs as valid. I can understand why he would get defensive when the only acceptable solution for some people (not necessarily you) is for him to abandon those deeply held beliefs. 

Don't blame you for stepping back, but I really don't see smac as the enemy here.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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.

As someone who apparently doesn’t believe today’s restored Church is the true Church of Christ, it’s only natural and expected that you would think and feel the way you do. But as one who believes the LDS Church is the true Church of Christ, I realize that the teachings and testimonies of the prophets have ALWAYS been rejected and belittled by those who adhere to the wisdom and fashion of the world. The Lord’s true prophets have forever been persecuted, mocked and slain by their unbelieving contemporaries because those who conform to the rudiments of this fallen world will inevitably esteem the teachings of the living prophets to be inflexible, overly strict and unkind. It’s always has been this way and always will.

You trivialize the 2015 Church policy on the children of gay parents when you say it’s merely based on public relations fears. I say this because the.Church leaders realize the adversary of men’s souls was lying in wait to capitalize on this issue in order to create massive firestorms of bitter persecution against the Church for supposedly teaching innocent children to disrespect and turn against their own parents. There are plenty designing people in the world who wouldn’t hesitate for a single moment to implement such a cynical strategy no matter how  destructive to those involved.

Thankfully, now that the policy is in place, the vast majority of gay parents won’t even consider sending their children to the LDS Church because they wouldn’t want to expose their kids to conflicting messages that might very well only serve to hurt and confuse them. Now If the kids turn out to be maladjusted or emotionally injured, the parents of these children will have nobody to blame but themselves. 

Finally, thanks to the blessed immutable mercy and justice of God, when the time is right these children will have the opportunity to accept the gospel message without being negatively affected in the long term even one iota. All the blessings that might have been theirs if circumstances had been otherwise will be restored to these children in full with the cup of God’s love and mercy flowing over.. Because of his infinite wisdom and power, God will always thwart and overthrow the evil designs of the devil, no matter how cunning and clever Satan thinks they are.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If your child is having an irrational reaction to dogs so that they go into a major panic attack every time they see a dog to the point they injure themselves, do you attempt to reason with them they just need to calm down because the family dog isn't going to harm anyone or do you find someone to take the dog in until the roots of what is causing the panic can be determined and treated?

I would find someone to take the dog in.  But I wouldn't have the dog euthanized.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If the first, why do you assume a rational response will impact an uncontrollable, irrational fear?

I would always attempt reason.  I wouldn't necessarily assume it will work in all circumstances.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Keeping a child alive long enough to address issues is rather essential to addressing issues.

Agreed.  But I don't see how resigning from the Church is remotely analogous to "keeping a child alive."

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not comparing a dog to the Gospel.  Just using it to make what I am talking about clear...hopefully.

I'm not really understanding the point.

Resigning from the Church is an extreme remedy, one that I have a hard time endorsing under pretty much any circumstance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Quote

I have six children.  I love them all dearly.  I hope they remain active in the Church, but I will do all I can to love them if they choose another path.

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.

Family is extreme important.  In a very real sense, membership in the Church is familial.  Moroni 7:19 states that we should "search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."  The "Guide to the Scriptures" even has an entry for this concept: Children of Christ:

And, for that matter, another relevant topic: Bridegroom:

From these I perceive that our individual relationships with the Church are, in very real sense, familial.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I didn't say anything about resigning from the church.

You said: "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?" (emphasis added)

I stand corrected.  But can you perhaps see how the emphasized statement might reasonably be construed as referencing resignation?

Quote

Again, if one of your children was suffering and thinking of suicide and leaving the church would make a difference, would you do it? 

I don't understand.  Here you are again seemingly referencing resignation ("leaving the church").  Are you talking about "resigning from the Church" or not?

Quote

It is a straight forward question

Well no, it's not.  I don't understand what you mean by "leaving the Church."  To what are you referring here?

Quote

and changing the question or the situation isn't an acceptable approach.

I did not intend to "change" the question.  I thought you were referencing resignation of membership.  You denied that (which is fine), but then you proceed to ask the same question using the same terminology ("leaving the Church").  Once you clarify what you mean by that (since it apparently does not mean resigning from the Church), I'd be happy to answer.

Quote

This is what I want disclosed by anyone who thinks they can give advice to someone in this situation.

Homosexual child

Church policies are a factor in their suicidal thoughts

Stepping away from the church would keep child alive to work on root problems

So "leaving the Church" = "stepping away from the Church?"  As in reducing or ceasing activity in the Church, but not resigning one's membership?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 28, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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.

Dan Reynolds is publicly demanding pretty much that:

Quote

Reynolds, 30, said in an interview this week that "platitudes" from church officials about love for LGBT Mormons and telling them "there's a place for them" isn't enough.

He has talked with church leaders about the issue and hopes to continue doing so but said the church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.

I'm not sure I see a huge gap between "accommodat{ing} gay marriage" in the Church and actually solemnizing it.

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

All that is happening is that the Church is trying to impose its religious beliefs on non members.

No, it's not.  The Church has a constitutional right to speak.  Speech is not equivalent to imposing religious beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Yes, you do. There is absolutely no difference between what God expects me to do than he does for you to do. The Atonement can and eventually will cure all but it will have no affect upon those who reject it. Both you and I need it and need it desperately. I do not purport to know how it's transformative powers work but work it does. Both you and I can and will overcome all things through it but its redemptive and thus transformative powers will not be forced upon anyone. It must be accepted and its recipients must bear his or her cross in life and endure it "until the end" in order to be blessed with its full power and affects. 

 

Well that is not true.  Mormons believe that God expects me to be celibate my whole life, not find someone to share my life with and to die without any of those joys, experiences, lessons and love that marriage brings.  He doesn't expect you to be celibate your whole life does he.  

I am not diseased.  There is not cure necessary for me.  I don't reject the Atonement.  For you to say that means that I have to have the same beliefs as you do.  I don't.  I bear many crosses.  Being gay is not one of them.  I plan to be gay my whole life on earth and into the next.  I have absolutely no desire to be on the path that you find yourself striving to be on.  

I get that you think I should fit in the exact same box as you do and that there is only one single way anyone can possibly make their way back to God.  I don't share that belief.  99.9% of the world doesn't share that belief.  I am sure there is a special place right next to God for those of you in the one true religion who know for sure the complete mind and will of God in all things.  I can assure you, I will not be married for eternity to some woman and living in that neighborhood.

Believe me, I don't fit into your Plan of Salvation.  What God expects of me is definitely different than what you think God expects from me.  

I appreciate your post however.  Actually I think it highlights very well the topic of this thread.  Let's talk about this for a minute.  Because I think the message you are trying to push upon me is the same message that gay youth get in the church.  When they find that they can't fit into that same small box that you try to put me in, many do indeed fall into despair.  They just can't do it no matter how much they try or how much they pray.  Some make bad choices because they can't see a bigger view.  That comes with age, experience and listening to the Spirit.  My advice to them is to trust God.  "Look unto me in every thought.  Doubt not.  Fear not." D&C 6:36.

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

You may, but I don't.  I find Smac's post to be more of a rant against gay people.  

Oh, baloney.  My post consisted of the following:

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.

Perhaps they could stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

And stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

And stop with the efforts to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

And stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy 

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

And stop working to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

And perhaps they could give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

These are not rantings.  They are measured words.  And they aren't against "gay people" generically, but were instead about "LGBT folks and their 'allies' who have arrayed themselves in opposition to the LDS Church."

And they are not "against" anything except the vitriolic and hateful rhetoric from people on your side of the argument.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is all their fault that the church is having problems with members having issues with this policy.  

I think there is fault on both sides.  But to the extent there is hateful, caustic rhetoric, I'm not seeing it from the leaders of the Church.  I am seeing it from people on your side of the argument.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

He has one view of ALL gay people

No, I don't.  

This is the sort of rhetoric I find problematic.  One of the points I raised was this: "And stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings."

And this: "And stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church."

No need for you to presume to speak for me, CB.  In fact, I rather resent it when you do.  Because you seem to misrepresent me.  A lot.  I have never said anything like "I have one view of ALL gay people."

My post called for the cessation of "vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric."  You are only demonstrating my point.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

and if you disagree with him, he goes through line by line your post often distorting what you are saying and trying to put your opinions in the worst possible way he can.  

I deny that.  And to the extent I have faltered in this regard, I have retracted statements and apologized.

Feel free to critique my critiques.  But the reason I go "line by line" is to provide more precision, more context.  It is rather difficult to distort a statement that I am quoting verbatim immediately before responding to it.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

His opinion of gay people never changes and he believes the church already has all the answers it needs.  

Again, you are presuming to speak for me.  You are putting false words into my mouth.  You are resorting to vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.  

You are only demonstrating my points.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

When it comes to having a dialogue with Smac about how to improve gay relationships within the church, is all you are going to get back is attacks.  

I tried to have a "dialogue" with you.  You utterly blew me off.

Don't take my word for it (and don't take CB's propensity for speaking on my behalf, either).

1. California Boy:

"How about a suggestion on how to move forward."

"I am really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen."

2. Smac's Response:

Quote

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

3. California Boy's Response:

Quote

Smac, the problem is not with me.  The problem is not with the gay community.  The problem is not with mainstream media.  This is a two year old story.  When is the last time you read an article about the church policy that was not coming from a member of the church?  The problem is that many members think this policy is wrong and counter to the teachings of Christ.  So if you feel the need to label them as your enemy, then that is entirely your right to do so.  

This is a completely unnecessary policy that is polarizing members of the church against the leadership...Church leaders are stubbornly unwilling to look at the angst this policy is causing and address it.  ... Let me give you my solution to the problem.

 

4. Smac's Response:

Quote

Just yesterday you asked for "a suggestion on how to move forward," under the auspices of you being "really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen."  So I responded as follows:

...

And your reaction now is . . . to continue to blame the Church.

So much for a good faith discussion of "how to move forward."

I decline to consider your solution.  Out of hand.  There is no good faith here.  You asked for a suggestion, only to blow off the response.  You are manifestly refusing to have a discussion.

There appears to be no introspection at all as to the rhetoric and behavior of people on your side of the argument.

The Church has done quite a bit to improve its interactions with LGBT folks.  People like you refuse to acknowledge this, or reciprocate this, and instead proceed with caustic rhetoric like . . . well, you putting false words into my mouth, you presuming to speak for me, and so on.

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah I am also taking a break from answering his posts and trying to show a different perspective.  I don't think an advisory confrontation is helpful.

As you like.  I will continue to respond as I deem fit (such as when you make public remarks about me in which you put false words into my mouth, presume to speak for me, and so on).

 

[Darren10]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well that is not true.  Mormons believe that God expects me to be celibate my whole life, not find someone to share my life with and to die without any of those joys, experiences, lessons and love that marriage brings.  He doesn't expect you to be celibate your whole life does he.  

I am not diseased.  There is not cure necessary for me.  I don't reject the Atonement.  For you to say that means that I have to have the same beliefs as you do.  I don't.  I bear many crosses.  Being gay is not one of them.  I plan to be gay my whole life on earth and into the next.  I have absolutely no desire to be on the path that you find yourself striving to be on.  

I get that you think I should fit in the exact same box as you do and that there is only one single way anyone can possibly make their way back to God.  I don't share that belief.  99.9% of the world doesn't share that belief.  I am sure there is a special place right next to God for those of you in the one true religion who know for sure the complete mind and will of God in all things.  I can assure you, I will not be married for eternity to some woman and living in that neighborhood.

Believe me, I don't fit into your Plan of Salvation.  What God expects of me is definitely different than what you think God expects from me.  

I appreciate your post however.  Actually I think it highlights very well the topic of this thread.  Let's talk about this for a minute.  Because I think the message you are trying to push upon me is the same message that gay youth get in the church.  When they find that they can't fit into that same small box that you try to put me in, many do indeed fall into despair.  They just can't do it no matter how much they try or how much they pray.  Some make bad choices because they can't see a bigger view.  That comes with age, experience and listening to the Spirit.  My advice to them is to trust God.  "Look unto me in every thought.  Doubt not.  Fear not." D&C 6:36.

You do reject the transformative power of the Atonement if you think there is no changing you. I would reject the same power if I thought the same way. God does not want me to be celebate any more than He wants you to be celebate. God wants the same moral standards for me as He does you. You simply come out and reject it what I believe to be true. It may be for different reasons but I need the Atonement just as much as you. It has already transformed me in ways and will continue to do so. It will not if I do not want it to do so and to remain the same as I am now.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I think I can understand that perspective. Even though  I don't read him that way at all.

Thank you.

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I've read a number of times when he has started that members can be more loving and compassionate.

I've said that many, many times.

And so have the leaders of the LDS Church.

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't think it's fair to judge him due to his belief that the institutional leadership is doing the best they can, within the limits the Lord has set, to improve things.

Yes.  I think there is certainly room for incremental improvements in what the Church does and how it does it vis-à-vis LGBT issues.

But I also think that the Church has already made some very substantial improvements, only to have them waved off.  Discounted.  Ignored.  Publicly disparaged as mere "platitudes" and "'empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex."

I also see some pretty disturbing rhetoric that has come and continues to come from CB's side of the argument.  The Church has introspected and made changes in its approach to LGBT issues.  Those efforts have not been reciprocated by folks on the other side of this issue.

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

With different core assumptions about reality, I find his positions to be very consistent and logical. I don't think he expects everyone to share those core assumptions, but a lot of people don't respect those beliefs as valid.  I can understand why he would get defensive when the only acceptable solution for some people (not necessarily you) is for him to abandon those deeply held beliefs. 

Yep.  I admit that I get defensive when my faith is attacked.  I will defend it.  I need to do so with civility and decorum and candor and honesty and charity and patience.  I fail in some of these at times, but in the main I am able to sleep at night.

53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Don't blame you for stepping back, but I really don't see smac as the enemy here.

I'm not.  I laid out some of my feelings on this general concept here:

Quote

I wanted Kate Kelly in the Church, too.  An John Dehlin.  And Jeremy Runnels.  And the Calderwoods.  And Denver Snuffer.  And Rock Waterman.  And Grant Palmer.  And Tyler Glenn.  And all the others.

There are times when the Restored Gospel is ironic.  One of the Savior's titles is "The Prince of Peace."  I believe that.  He also said: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."  (John 14:27).  I believe that, too.  In both a "macro" and "micro" sense, the Gospel is intended to bring peace and love and harmony into the world.  And eventually, it will.  Meanwhile, however, we are living in a Telestial world.  A world which is moving away from the counsels of God at an ever-accelerating rate.  This increasing distance between the children of men and their Heavenly Father is resulting in tension.  Conflict.  Acrimony.  Such is the way of things in a fallen world.  I think this is why the Savior, the "Prince of Peace," said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34).  He also said:

Quote

49 ¶ I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

(Luke 12)

Years ago I used to be puzzled at the seeming inconsistency in the foregoing verses (the "Prince of Peace" coming to cause "division" amongst family members).  But I have come to believe that the conflict is arising from the increasing distance between God and His children, which distance is in turn being caused by the waywardness of His children.  Then the Savior comes and calls us to Him.  Some will heed the call, and some will not.  And from those disparate responses comes . . . division.  "For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

This board is, in a sense, a microcosm of the conflict described above.  Ideas are hashed out.  LDS beliefs and practices are regularly declared.  And scrutinized.  And criticized.  And misrepresented.  And maligned and profaned.

The LDS Church is not perfect.  We certainly have plenty of room to improve.  And we ought to listen to LGBT folks, like Elder Ballard recently suggested:

Quote

Advertisements featuring leaders from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are attracting attention for content that addresses LGBTQ issues.

For example, a Facebook ad featuring Quorum of the Twelve Elder M. Russell Ballard has been shared nearly 2,500 times and viewed close to 335,000 times since being posted January 19, 2018.

Ballard’s message in the ad, in part, says, “We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly, we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home." 

If I was the intolerant, closed-minded, insular jerk I am sometimes characterized to be, I wouldn't stay on this board and interact with people with whom I disagree.  

Earlier this week I listened to an hour-long interview of Dan Reynolds (see here).  I wanted to hear what he had to say.  I then provided further related thoughts and observations (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here).  I don't think any of my remarks in these posts could be construed as hateful or bigoted toward LGBT folks.  To the contrary, I have repeatedly expressed love and concern for the welfare of these, my brothers and sisters.

And LGBT issues are not the only thing I post about on this board.  I've recently posted in the "An Atheist Walks into a Temple" thread, the "New First Presidency" thread, the "Canada and common law marriage and the LDS Church" thread, the "Removing truths from the BOM or Bible" thread, the "Elder Oaks on early returning missionaries" thread, the "How can one trust the Holy Ghost" thread, the "Objective Truth, Subjective Truth and Opinions" thread, and many more.

The common thread through these various topics as to my participation is . . . exposition about and defense of the LDS Church.  It's really that simple.  I believe it is what is claims to be.  It is good.  It deserves my allegiance and devotion.  I will defend it where appropriate (which is, in my view, most of the time).

I've noticed this thread is becoming about me.  Perhaps we should get back on topic...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Freedom]

On 1/27/2018 at 9:47 AM, Jeanne said:

Don't say you are an inclusive church when you are not.  Talk to your members and see where they stand and why...ask what the spirit has told them.  Don't tell a gay person you love them...and then try to change them. 

Inclusive does not mean no standards. There is doctrine and it is very clear. The atonement is all about change. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Freedom