Utah Ward Invites LGBT Speakers for 2nd and 3rd Hour

[Bobbieaware]

56 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're mixing up the prophet with God.

I often think you say some of the things you do just to be provocative and “stir the pot.” You’ve just got to be aware of the fact that in the LDS Church the living prophets — most especially the Church President — have the sacred responsibility to reveal the current mind and will of the Lord to the Church at large. Or is it that by this comment are you inadvertently admitting you personally don’t believe or follow the teachings of the current prophetic leaders of the Church?

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory. (D&C 21)

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

The thing we'll probably never know without the video, and may not have known even with the video, is if the intention of the meeting was purely to increase love and understanding of LGBT people DESPITE the sins they may be committing, or if it was to increase love and understanding of LGBT people in an effort to hopefully get the members to see the actions of these LGBT people as NOT sinful.

It’s too bad about the video (but understandable when explained).  But, they’re still hoping to release the program in written form to “share their message with those in your families, wards, stakes, and communities”.  

That would be a very positive step (PR for the church as well as showing gay members they are welcome and have a voice and that members want to love and listen).

I think they should be held as firesides anyway.  If the leaders are fine with these types of meetings, they will settle into the right venue.  It’ll be a process though.

Edited January 31, 2018 by JulieM

[Calm]

Local meet the Mormons...though I hope they could do a variety of people, perhaps if an area is high in immigrants, maybe one with women and men about needed volunteer work and the people they work with, transient populations...local areas may have unique needs

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I often think you say some of the things you do just to be provocative and “stir the pot.” You’ve just got to be aware of the fact that in the LDS Church the living prophets — most especially the Church President — have the sacred responsibility to reveal the current mind and will of the Lord to the Church at large. Or is it that by this comment are you inadvertently admitting you personally don’t believe or follow the teachings of the current prophetic leaders of the Church?

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory. (D&C 21)

"A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such". In other words, prophets are not infallible sock puppets of God. They're human beings with their own opinions and biases. Imagine that!

Lucifer rebelling against God is not the same as someone disagreeing with a church leader. Prophet worship is a form of idolatry, and I don't do idolatry.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Gray

[Bobbieaware]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

"A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such". In other words, prophets are not infallible sock puppets of God. They're human beings with their own opinions and biases. Imagine that!

Lucifer rebelling against God is not the same as someone disagreeing with a church leader. Prophet worship is a form of idolatry, and I don't do idolatry.

If the prophet is speaking as God’s prophet, i.e. revealing the mind and will of God to the Church, is it “prophet worship” if one honors and obeys his council as if that counsel came from the mouth of God himself, just as the scriptures say we should do? 

If the prophet is speaking as God’s prophet and not voicing his own opinion, how is rebelling against that prophetic counsel any different than rebelling against God?

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If the prophet is speaking as God’s prophet, i.e. revealing the mind and will of God to the Church, is it “prophet worship” if one honors and obeys his council as if that counsel came from the mouth of God himself, just as the scriptures say we should do? 

Nope, that's not prophet worship.

 

 

Quote

If the prophet is speaking as God’s prophet and not voicing his own opinion, how is rebelling against that prophetic counsel any different than rebelling against God?

It's still different because someone can make an honest mistake about whether or not a prophet has erred. That's quite different from knowingly rebelling against God in his presence.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s too bad about the video (but understandable when explained).  But, they’re still hoping to release the program in written form to “share their message with those in your families, wards, stakes, and communities”.  

That would be a very positive step (PR for the church as well as showing gay members they are welcome and have a voice and that members want to love and listen).

I think they should be held as firesides anyway.  If the leaders are fine with these types of meetings, they will settle into the right venue.  It’ll be a process though.

Perhaps what might work better will be for these sorts of meetings to take place in other venues.  I am not sure it's appropriate or necessary for the LDS Church to provide a forum for people to criticize its doctrines, to explain/justify some individuals' rejection of or disobedience to its doctrines, to air grievances against the Church, and so on.

"These types of meetings" seem to have some real potential for turning into faultfinding gripefests.  Sunday services are not the place for that.

Meanwhile, I continue to be fairly flummoxed at the one-sidedness of all this.  Will there ever be a call for circumspection as to the "other side" and what it is saying and doing?   

Much of the interaction between the LDS Church and folks speaking on behalf of LGBT folks is poor.  Much improvement can and should be made.  The LDS Church has made significant efforts, but such efforts are routinely ignored, or only barely acknowledged, and are always insufficient. 

There is very much a "my way or the highway" approach to the LDS Church.  Look at the public demands made of the Church by people like Kate Kelly.  Dan Reynolds.  Paul Fisher.  There is also a lot of caustic, hateful rhetoric and accusations being aimed at the LDS Church, with seemingly very little effort to restrain or reign in such things.

That may sound defensive, but that's only because . . . it is.  My faith community is being attacked constantly.  Of course I am going to defend it.  It is good, though not perfect.  It is worth defending.

So yes, I question the calls for the Church to do all the improving, with no corollary expectation that the "other side" consider their contributions to the poor state of affairs. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps what might work better will be for these sorts of meetings to take place in other venues.  I am not sure it's appropriate or necessary for the LDS Church to provide a forum for people to criticize its doctrines,

And, you don’t know that took place here.  Do you?

I agree there should not be a forum provided for that.  But, I think we should wait to read what was actually said by those who spoke.

The church may allow all the speakers minus those who are in a SSM.  That may be part of the process.

I was trying to read all I could about this on reddit this morning (not my favorite place to spend time!).

The video most likely will be leaked (from all indications).  An area 70 asked for a copy of it too (he called the Stake President who was the one who approved the meeting, I guess).

Edited January 31, 2018 by JulieM

[Bobbieaware]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope, that's not prophet worship.

 

 

It's still different because someone can make an honest mistake about whether or not a prophet has erred. That's quite different from knowingly rebelling against God in his presence.

There’s only one problem. The honest “mistakes” of which you speak are serious enough in the eyes of God to cause members of the Church who make such mistakes, and don’t learn how to stop making them, to lose their opportunity for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Being fooled when it comes to discerning whether or not a prophet is speaking for God is very serious business with negative eternal consequences for those who are thus beguiled. Why? Because one need not be deceived over the inspired teachings of the prophets if his or her heart is right before God. The Lord has promised that those who lack wisdom of his will can know his true will for a surety if they go about obtaining that knowledge in the right way and with the proper attitude. We are not talking about a benign issue without serious consequences.

75 These are they (the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom) who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God. (D&C 76)

Edited January 31, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps what might work better will be for these sorts of meetings to take place in other venues.  I am not sure it's appropriate or necessary for the LDS Church to provide a forum for people to criticize its doctrines, to explain/justify some individuals' rejection of or disobedience to its doctrines, to air grievances against the Church, and so on.

"These types of meetings" seem to have some real potential for turning into faultfinding gripefests.  Sunday services are not the place for that.

Meanwhile, I continue to be fairly flummoxed at the one-sidedness of all this.  Will there ever be a call for circumspection as to the "other side" and what it is saying and doing?   

Much of the interaction between the LDS Church and folks speaking on behalf of LGBT folks is poor.  Much improvement can and should be made.  The LDS Church has made significant efforts, but such efforts are routinely ignored, or only barely acknowledged, and are always insufficient. 

There is very much a "my way or the highway" approach to the LDS Church.  Look at the public demands made of the Church by people like Kate Kelly.  Dan Reynolds.  Paul Fisher.  There is also a lot of caustic, hateful rhetoric and accusations being aimed at the LDS Church, with seemingly very little effort to restrain or reign in such things.

That may sound defensive, but that's only because . . . it is.  My faith community is being attacked constantly.  Of course I am going to defend it.  It is good, though not perfect.  It is worth defending.

So yes, I question the calls for the Church to do all the improving, with no corollary expectation that the "other side" consider their contributions to the poor state of affairs. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I recently moved to a new town not far from my old one and decided to go to my new ward, I've been inactive for almost a year in my previous ward, so a big change for me.

There was a youth speaker and later her dad spoke at the end with a sister missionary speaking in the middle. The young woman spoke of her parents' recent divorce and that her mother had quit coming to church. And then later when her father spoke he went into a little more depth on the situation with her mother and his ex wife. Apparently his ex wife has issues with the church and no longer believes. He mentioned that she told him that one day she'd tell the children why she no longer believes.

He mentioned that he had had a short faith crisis that lasted about 2 months during that time, but he couldn't not believe because of the BoM, and he didn't care whether Joseph Smith translated it using a Kaliedoscope, he still knew it helped him become closer to Jesus Christ. He didn't shout this but it was very much exclaimed. 

For the first time in a Sacrament meeting I see that members are experiencing these defensive feelings. I've always been in a bubble in Utah and haven't had anyone treat me badly because I was a Mormon, outright. But see now that LDS do feel quite alone in this wilderness more and more and there is so much on the internet or social media now.

This man mentioned how easy it is to see information that could lead to a faith crisis, and to me it's not just learning about unknown church history but the situation with the 'November Policy' as well that has caused members to either wince, and/or feel the brunt from pro SSM and their families, that has indeed created an us verse's them mentality.

I sure hope this will be resolved. IMO, the church can keep their doctrines and their policies and obedience to their beliefs but it becomes challenging when the church comes between families. Or that these families choose the church over their loved ones. There is so much to muddle through. I hope there is a light at the end of this crazy tunnel. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

There’s only one problem. The honest “mistakes” of which you speak are serious enough in the eyes of God to cause members of the Church who make such mistakes, and don’t learn how to stop making them, to lose their opportunity for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Being fooled when it comes to discerning whether or not a prophet is speaking for God is very serious business with negative eternal consequences for those who are thus beguiled. Why? Because one need not be deceived over the inspired teachings of the prophets if his or her heart is right before God. The Lord has promised that those who lack wisdom of his will can know his true will for a surety if they go about obtaining that knowledge in the right way and with the proper attitude. We are not talking about a benign issue without serious consequences.

75 These are they (the inheritors of the terrestrial kingdom) who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God. (D&C 76)

Maybe, maybe not, but what was Lucifer's punishment? Out darkness. So clearly not the same thing.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And, you don’t know that took place here.  Do you?

I agree there should not be a forum provided for that.  But, I think we should wait to read what was actually said by those who spoke.

Please re-read my post.  Including this part:

Quote

Perhaps what might work better will be for these sorts of meetings to take place in other venues.  I am not sure it's appropriate or necessary for the LDS Church to provide a forum for people to criticize its doctrines, to explain/justify some individuals' rejection of or disobedience to its doctrines, to air grievances against the Church, and so on.

"These types of meetings" seem to have some real potential for turning into faultfinding gripefests.  Sunday services are not the place for that.

I was speaking prospectively.

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The church may allow all the speakers minus those who are in a SSM.  That may be part of the process.

I am fine with church meetings addressing, to some extent, LGBT issues.  But I think some real care be taken that these meetings are not misappropriated.

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I was trying to read all I could about this on reddit this morning (not my favorite place to spend time!).

The video most likely will be leaked (from all indications).  

What indications?

The local leaders breached the Church's policies regarding the recording of meetings, announced publicly that the recordings would not be released (IIRC), but they are now going to "leak" them?

What in the world is going on?

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

An area 70 asked for a copy of it too (he called the Stake President who was the one who approved the meeting, I guess).

I'm glad that the leaders of the Church are aware of this.  I trust that they will do what is appropriate, and will leave such things to their stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Local meet the Mormons...though I hope they could do a variety of people, perhaps if an area is high in immigrants, maybe one with women and men about needed volunteer work and the people they work with, transient populations...local areas may have unique needs

Your comment made me think back to when in a Riverton ward a few years ago the bishop dressed as a homeless man and came to church and was apalled at how he was treated by the members of his ward. Something in that Riverton water? I read a comment elsewhere that members of that Riverton ward that we are discussing here, were probably just so happy for something new in SS/RS/PH that it was so refreshing.

I hope Dieter F. Uchtdorf will help with getting the curriculum more interesting and not the same old, same old. But I am looking forward to maybe trying the idea of sitting in a circle in class, that sounds interesting. Or scary. 

Oops, the bishop that dressed as a homeless man was a Taylorsville, Utah ward bishop. But it still applies to how the Riverton bishop/stake president also took the bull by the horns and did something to hopefully help open eyes. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/congregation-was-besides-themselves-mormon-bishop-dresses-homeless-man-teach-f2D11673645

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Smac, I recently moved to a new town not far from my old one and decided to go to my new ward, I've been inactive for almost a year in my previous ward, so a big change for me.

There was a youth speaker and later her dad spoke at the end with a sister missionary speaking in the middle. The young woman spoke of her parents' recent divorce and that her mother had quit coming to church. And then later when her father spoke he went into a little more depth on the situation with her mother and his ex wife. Apparently his ex wife has issues with the church and no longer believes. He mentioned that she told him that one day she'd tell the children why she no longer believes.

He mentioned that he had had a short faith crisis that lasted about 2 months during that time, but he couldn't not believe because of the BoM, and he didn't care whether Joseph Smith translated it using a Kaliedoscope, he still knew it helped him become closer to Jesus Christ. He didn't shout this but it was very much exclaimed. 

For the first time in a Sacrament meeting I see that members are experiencing these defensive feelings.

I don't understand.  I've heard talks like this before.  Many times.

What I have not heard, are talks which are calculated to contravene the teachings of the Church, to find fault with the Church, to publicly air grievances against the Church during its own Sunday services, and so on.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've always been in a bubble in Utah and haven't had anyone treat me badly because I was a Mormon, outright. But see now that LDS do feel quite alone in this wilderness more and more and there is so much on the internet or social media now.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  This has not been my experience.

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This man mentioned how easy it is to see information that could lead to a faith crisis, and to me it's not just learning about unknown church history but the situation with the 'November Policy' as well that has caused members to either wince, and/or feel the brunt from pro SSM and their families, that has indeed created an us verse's them mentality.

I sure hope this will be resolved. IMO, the church can keep their doctrines and their policies and obedience to their beliefs but it becomes challenging when the church comes between families. Or that these families choose the church over their loved ones. There is so much to muddle through. I hope there is a light at the end of this crazy tunnel. 

I hope so, too.  

I think there is plenty of room for improvement on both sides.  And I am seeing some real effort by the Church to improve what it can.  However, I am not seeing much in the way of improvement on the other side.  Just recently I posted some proposals that the "other side" tone down the hateful rhetoric that is so prevalent these days.  A representative of the "other side" called this an "attack."  By me.  On him and his.  Weird.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What indications?

The local leaders breached the Church's policies regarding the recording of meetings, announced publicly that the recordings would not be released (IIRC), but they are now going to "leak" them?

What in the world is going on?

Some are posting that the handbook states only that no recording take place in the chapel.  Do you know if that’s true?  I’m not familiar with the specific guideline there.

There appears that there may have already been copies of the video emailed to a few people.  A “leak” is being encouraged by many over there and someone who has a copy posted something like “Don’t worry....I have a plan.”  Who would own the rights to that video, do you (or anyone else) know?  

They're also trying to get this in the media and get the story out there.  

And, I did reread your post again, Smac, and your additional clarification about it.  I think we’re actually in pretty close agreement.  Thanks!

 

[cinepro]

On further thought, I have two big concerns about this event.

First, I'm concerned that even with the best of intentions, such an event could serve to reinforce negative and ignorant stereotypes some members might have about the LGBT community.  Hopefully we live in a more enlightened age, but such a thing could happen.  You just can't control peoples' misconceptions.

And second, I'm worried that some of the ward members in attendance might have gotten AIDS.

Edited January 31, 2018 by cinepro

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

On further thought, I have two big concerns about this event.

First, I'm concerned that even with the best of intentions, such an event could serve to reinforce negative and ignorant stereotypes some members might have about the LGBT community.  Hopefully we live in a more enlightened age, but such a thing could happen.  You just can't control peoples' misconceptions.

And second, I'm worried that some of the people in attendance might have gotten AIDS.

I don't understand this post.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Maybe, maybe not, but what was Lucifer's punishment? Out darkness. So clearly not the same thing.

Not maybe or maybe not if one believes D&C 76 is Holy Scripture.

In case you have forgotten, D&C 76 reveals there’s a class of individuals on earth who do not live in the immediate presence of God but suffer the same punishment as Satan in outer darkness. As you know, they are known as the sons of perdition. So one does not have to live in the immediate presence of God in order to be cast into outer darkness forever. I’m sure most of the sons of perdition start out down the road to outer darkness by first rejecting the revelations of the prophets and then continue to spiral downward until they deny God himself. In fact, it’s unlikely anyone could become a son of perdition unless there are living prophets on earth because without living prophets there is no one on earth who has the authority to administer the gift of the Holy Ghost, and without first having the gift of the Holy Ghost one cannot spiritually degenerate to the point that they can become sons of perdition. Therefore it’s safe to say the rejection of the living prophets and their priesthood power is the likely starting point of apostasy for most of those who become sons of perdition.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Brian 2.0]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this post.

Thanks,

-Smac

Explaining the joke is never good practice.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, provoman said:

Thank you for the response. Regarding the Church teaches on homosexuality - thoughts, desires, conduct - do you see/hear a message that induces toxic shame? 

Do you think the Doctrine of male/female divinely appoint roles; marriage only between man and a woman; homosexual conduct is sin, can be taught in ways to that promote adherence to the Doctrine and reduce toxic shame?

I have no problems with church doctrines on homosexuality.  Yes, those doctrines can be taught without shaming. 

Historically, one problem has been that many in the church taught that people are not born gay:

Quote

 

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it...That is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life. From our premoral life we were directed into a physical body. There is no mismatching of bodies and spirits. Boys are to become men --masculine, manly men --ultimately to become husbands and fathers.

- Apostle Boyd K. Packer, 1976 General Conference, speech entitled “To Young Men Only”

 

That culture has generated an unwelcoming and accepting environment for people who are gay.  Think about how shaming that message is to someone who was born gay and believed in the teachings of the church!  "I am dirty for feeling this way.  I am unacceptable.  I am weak.  Why can't I chose God over the feelings of the devil?  Why can't I be as strong as my brothers or my dad?  I must be a mistake because I can't stop these feelings.  I am not worthy.  I am unclean.  If people knew the real me, they would reject me.  I am better off in hiding."   Talk about a reason to isolate and hide in the shadows out of fear of rejection for who they are!  Could you imagine how terrifying it would have been to reveal their orientation to their parents and friends, etc?  Many, many parents could not accept it and rejected their children for their inborn orientation.  Some viewed their child's sexual orientation as a choice influenced by the devil instead of a natural occurrence.  Parents viewed their children as less-then, unworthy, unrighteous, unclean, an embarrassment on the family, even if they were not actively gay.  That is the historical culture that I have witnessed in church and society in general.  It still permeates today in the culture but the brethren are refining their message and hopefully the rank and file begin to follow suit. 

The brethren today recognize the stigma and homonegativism associated with identifying as gay:

Quote

If one experiences same-sex attraction, he or she can choose whether to use a sexual identity label. Identifying oneself as gay or lesbian is not against Church policy or doctrine; however, it may have undesired consequences in the way one is treated. No true follower of Christ is justified in withholding love because you decide to identify in this way.
https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/who-am-i

Let's see how far we have come from 1995:

Quote

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice... 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

Compare all this to what we see today:

Quote

 

Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them.

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments. The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child. As a community of Church members, we should choose to create a welcoming community.

https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/church-teachings

 

Pay close attention to what he said: "The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child."  The fact that even needed to be stated is a tragic commentary on where we are coming from. 

The church is getting better and better at this. 

To answer your question, yes, one can teach the doctrines without instilling shame for being gay...there shouldn't even be guilt, and absolutely no fear of being exposed for your sexual orientation.  No fear of rejection.  No fear of judgment or condemnation.  They need to understand that they are not wrong, dirty, bad, unworthy, or unlovable, for their attractions to the same sex given to them by nature. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Not maybe or maybe not if one believes D&C 76 is Holy Scripture.

In case you have forgotten, D&C 76 reveals there’s a class of individuals on earth who do not live in the immediate presence of God but suffer the same punishment as Satan in outer darkness. As you know, they are known as the sons of perdition. So one does not have to live in the immediate presence of God in order to be cast into outer darkness forever. I’m sure most of the sons of perdition start out down the road to outer darkness by first rejecting the revelations of the prophets and then continue to spiral downward until they deny God himself. In fact, it’s unlikely anyone could become a son of perdition unless there are living prophets on earth because without living prophets there is no one on earth who has the authority to administer the gift of the Holy Ghost, and without first having the gift of the Holy Ghost one cannot spiritually degenerate to the point that they can become sons of perdition. Therefore it’s safe to say the rejection of the living prophets and their priesthood power is the likely starting point of apostasy for most of those who become sons of perdition.

If you read D&C 76 closely, you'll see it's not exactly what is taught anymore (quite a bit of material in the D&C is no longer doctrine).

 

Quote

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

So in this teaching, even if you died without law and later converted in spirit prison, you still don't get to the Terrestrial Kingdom.

 

Regarding sons of perdition, the LDS tradition about that is you have to have an extraordinary closeness with God (probably personal visitations) and then deny God himself to get that punishment. It's not LDS doctrine that Mormons who become atheists go to outer darkness.

 

 

[Brian 2.0]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's not LDS doctrine that Mormons who become atheists go to outer darkness.

 

 

Wait, what?!

Dang! I was looking forward to going there. That place sounds cool as *%&!

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Wait, what?!

Dang! I was looking forward to going there. That place sounds cool as *%&!

Nah, you want to go to the Telestial Kingdom. All the cool rock stars hang out there.

[provoman]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

You mean like an ordained and set apart Bishop?

Did a BOM Prophet or Christ centered religious leader dedicate time with the Saints so that those whose lifestyle is in opposition to Church coukd speak to the Saints about showing greater love to person who is in opposition to the Church. There is a big difference between what occurred in the BOM and what happened at that Riverton ward.

 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

On further thought, I have two big concerns about this event.

First, I'm concerned that even with the best of intentions, such an event could serve to reinforce negative and ignorant stereotypes some members might have about the LGBT community.  Hopefully we live in a more enlightened age, but such a thing could happen.  You just can't control peoples' misconceptions.

And second, I'm worried that some of the ward members in attendance might have gotten AIDS.

The meeting was already misused. Just look at the reddit post. The author leaves no doubt that, in the authors veiw, the meeting should be used to change the Church Doctrine and/or policies from the bottom up.