pogi Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rain said: I remember when one of my sons came to me and confessed something he had done wrong. I was pretty sure what was going on before. When he confessed I first felt this great peace come over me and then joy. Joy! It felt so right, but it seems like an odd thing. I felt joy because I knew that he was finally taking responsibility for his actions and by coming to me he could turn around and make it right. We discussed consequences. We discussed future plans, but he went away with knowing I loved him and would help him go through those consequences. I have thought back on it again and again about how we go to Heavenly Father and how he responds to us when we approach him in sincere repentance and how he never says, "I told you so". How grateful I am that the Spirit was with me at that moment to help me understand not only how to respond correctly with my child, but to get a much better grasp of the whole process for myself. The important thing is that you created a healthy environment for him to feel safe to approach you and confess. Well done! That is healthy guilt. Shame, on the other hand, would have sent him to the shadows. One leads to reconciliation, the other to isolation. 2
Rain Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: The important thing is that you created a healthy environment for him to feel safe to approach you and confess. Well done! That is healthy guilt. Shame, on the other hand, would have sent him to the shadows. One leads to reconciliation, the other to isolation. Oh believe me. I have done that far too often. I always planned to communicate in an open and healthy way with my children, but it was much easier to do with some of my children than others. Some of them are a little too much like their mom and we clashed because of it! 3
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 I think Heavenly Father or God, knows that his children are being born with the homosexuality gene. He wants all kinds of people on the earth. We are not to interfere with His creations. Anyone who helps hurt these individuals even if it's a policy, will probably have to face the music. I know this sounds offensive to some of you, but it's how I feel. I actually think it could fit in with crimes against humanity. There are large numbers of this population. And there will be more, when more feel comfortable to come out. Especially in light of the harm done in the past to those that did come out, such as prison time, job loss, losing social friends, losing family relationships, the list goes on. I honestly believe God made it so we'd have more technology for a good reason, to conquer the abuse that can go on under our noses without it.
provoman Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 The Bishop’s wife has posted several of the talks on their facebook page. 2
JulieM Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, provoman said: The Bishop’s wife has posted several of the talks on their facebook page. Have you read them yet? (I’m not on Facebook.) I hope they’ll be posted elsewhere too.
smac97 Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, provoman said: The Bishop’s wife has posted several of the talks on their facebook page. The first link below is, for me, the most enlightening. The second link below is generally fine. As for the third link my initial impression is . . . oh, it's bad. "Mormon shaming" and "airing the family's dirty laundry" stuff throughout. Off-putting. Manipulative in the extreme. Plainly inappropriate for Sunday services. In fact, it seems almost entirely shot through with remarks that throw the author's mother under the bus. It seems markedly unhealthy for the daughter to have made these remarks about her mother in church. And now "the bishop's wife" is publishing those remarks to the entire world, which I frankly find to be appalling (unless the bishop's wife got the mother's permission - which I imagine didn't happen). Exodus 20:12 takes a major beating, IMO. Moreover, it is an overt apologetic for same-sex marriage ("When I married Aimee, I felt like I was choosing to live my truth. 100% Jordan. For me, I had to do it. It felt right."). Advocacy and justification for excommunicable conduct. Presented to the Saints in the Lord's house and during Sunday services. And authorized by the bishop (and, apparently, the stake presidency). And now the bishop's wife is publishing such advocacy and justification to the entire world. This, for me, is deeply troubling. I want to listen to LGBT folks. But . . . not like this. If someone wanted to find a way to get people like me to resist further discussion (because at present, I am giving serious and ongoing consideration how to go about such things), they would very likely present this third link as "Exhibit A." https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215207188870961 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215212018831707 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215208165215369 Thanks, -Smac Edited February 2, 2018 by smac97 4
Raymond Ellis Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 I posted the great tribulation will be Gays and Tyrants running amok, but after reading Joseph Smith's version of Matthew it would seem I am wrong. However it does say iniquity will abound.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted February 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, smac97 said: The first link below is, for me, the most enlightening. The second link below is generally fine. As for the third link my initial impress is . . . oh, it's bad. "Mormon shaming" and "airing the family's dirty laundry" stuff throughout. Off-putting. Manipulative in the extreme. Plainly inappropriate for Sunday services. In fact, it seems almost entirely shot through with remarks that throw the author's mother under the bus. It seems markedly unhealthy for the daughter to have made these remarks about her mother in church. And now "the bishop's wife" is publishing those remarks to the entire world, which I frankly find to be appalling (unless the bishop's wife got the mother's permission - which I imagine didn't happen). Exodus 20:12 takes a major beating, IMO. Moreover, it is an overt apologetic for same-sex marriage ("When I married Aimee, I felt like I was choosing to live my truth. 100% Jordan. For me, I had to do it. It felt right."). Advocacy and justification for excommunicable conduct. Presented to the Saints in the Lord's house and during Sunday services. And authorized by the bishop (and, apparently, the stake presidency). And now the bishop's wife is publishing such advocacy and justification to the entire world. This, for me, is deeply troubling. I want to listen to LGBT folks. But . . . not like this. If someone wanted to find a way to get people like me to resist further discussion (because at present, I am giving serious and ongoing consideration how to go about such things), they would very likely present this third link as "Exhibit A." https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215207188870961 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215212018831707 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215208165215369 Thanks, -Smac (Portion bolded above for reference) This expression "my truth" has become a common trope these days, and there has been some public discourse about it since Oprah Winfrey used it recently at the Golden Globes award show. I thought about that the other day when I read this report of Elder D. Todd Christofferson's recent address to Church educators. Elder Christofferson said in part: Quote Truth, Elder Christofferson taught, is “a fixed reality,” that governs the present sphere, exists independent and apart, and is unaffected by preference or opinion and stands independent of any effort to control or change it. “It cannot be lobbied or influenced in any way,” he said. But in much of the world, relativist thinking has become a dominant philosophy. “By relativism I mean the view that ethical or moral truths are relative, that they depend on the attitudes and feelings of those who hold them, and that no one can judge the validity of someone else’s ‘truth,’” he said. “You hear a lot of talk these days about ‘my truth’ and ‘his truth’ or ‘her truth.’ ” The philosophy of moral relativism, where “not judging” has become an almost unchallengeable standard for conversation and behavior, has become popular. “But in reality, we all make judgments about what is right and wrong, and not just for ourselves, but for the people and society around us,” he said. “Laws and systems of law, even political systems, are the embodiment of moral values and perceived truths.” (Bold emphasis mine.) I said as much here the other day in quoting Ben Shapiro, who said in reaction to Oprah's remark (paraphrasing here) that there is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth." There is the truth and there is opinion. The two are not the same. Edited February 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 6
Popular Post Danzo Posted February 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: I think Heavenly Father or God, knows that his children are being born with the homosexuality gene. If they are, than he is the only one who knows about it. As far as I am aware no homosexuality gene has been discovered. Are you aware of any new discoveries? if you are could you reference them? 7
rongo Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 Wow. The devil's in the details, and now that those have released text from the Riverton meeting, I think spinning it as a great thing and a model for what should happen throughout the Church took a big hit. From this, I'm sure that President Davis and Bishop Augenstein have been talked to pretty firmly to make sure this gets corrected. The last thing they or the Church want at this stage is for video footage to be leaked, because I think it will be even worse than the text. 1
Danzo Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, pogi said: You have pin-pointed the paradigm that needs to shift in society for healing and prevention to occur. Suicides are ALWAYS caused by mental health issues. And the mental illness does need to be treated individually. However, nursing a severely malnourished kid back to health, then sending him back home to his neglectful parents (the source of the malnourishment), is not going to solve the bigger problem. When you have a leaky pipe, preventing just one drop from hitting the floor is not good enough. No, you need to stop the leak! Why is this happening over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? ........oh, there's a hole in the pipe! The question we need to be asking ourselves is, why? Why is this population at greater risk? What is causing significantly higher incidence of mental illness and suicide in this population (even among those who are not sexually active)? Until we address that problem, our pipe is not going to stop leaking. We know that religious heterosexual youth have lower risk for suicide then non-religious youth, while religious LGBT youth are at greater risk then non-religious youth. Hmmmmm..why the inversion? What is causing this "internalized homophobia" and conflict with sexual identity that leads to suicidal thoughts? Could it possibly be the family/community environment and culture/attitude towards LGBT youth? Well, that is what studies suggest that I have linked to. Is "homophobia" (I prefer "homonegativism) an inherited trait, or did they learn it from someone close to them, apply it to themselves, and end up in a self-shaming cycle that doesn't stop until they stop being gay...or dead? We know that when LGBT youth receive family and religious community support and acceptance, the risk goes down. So yes, we do have evidence that it works: You are absolutely right, the kids who display suicide risk need individual treatment and care. But, this needs to be a two pronged approach. We need to 1) treat mental health illness, and 2) mediate the source/cause of the mental health issues. If we want to stop the malnourishment of our children, we need to send them to the hospital for treatment, but more importantly we need to start feeding them better. It is as simple as that. We need a paradigm shift! Instead of further pathologizing these youth, we need to start looking inward. Further pathologizing these youth without acknowledging our role will only risk deepening the messages that they already receive, "I am broken. I am the problem. I am just an embarrassment. Maybe the world is better off without me..." I am in favor of strengthening family relationships and I am also in favor of showing more love to everyone in this we agree. What I am unsure about is whether these kind of interventions will have an effect on the suicide rate among our youth. Your approach runs the danger of placing blame for these tragic deaths on the parents or on their immediate community. I don't know if you know many people who have had family members kill themselves, but usually it is very normal (and tragic) for the parents, family and close friends to blame themselves (If only I had been nicer to them). The message we send (Be nice to everyone) while a good one, doesn't, in my understanding, address the underlying problems with teen Suicide. I think a better message, one that will be more effective, is to teach people to recognize the symptoms of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, and other mental illnesses. That, in my opinion is going to be the more effective choice. Telling an anorexic that they are already skinny doesn't help them much, they don't believe you because the problem is more internal than external. Telling someone who's anorexic daughter died that they died because the parents didn't tell them they were skinny enough is a great way to introduce this toxic shame that you are writing about. Telling people that a suicide victim died because you weren't nice enough is another way. Recognize and treat is better than shame the parents (or friends or church). Edited February 2, 2018 by Danzo 2
rockpond Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 I'm curious what you all thought that these individuals in gay marriages were going to say if not to try to explain (and yes, justify) why they decided to enter a marriage even though it meant getting kicked out of their faith community? Likewise, I'm curious what everyone thought Elder Ballard meant when he counseled us to listen to the feelings and experiences of our gay brothers and sisters? Was the expectation that they would just validate our current belief system? Or that they might challenge it? 4
JulieM Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The first link below is, for me, the most enlightening. The second link below is generally fine. https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215207188870961 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215212018831707 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215208165215369 Thanks for posting the links Smac. I read through the first two and loved so much of what they had to say! Are you going to give them equal treatment to how you posted about the 3rd one to be fair? Let’s not throw out all the good this can accomplish if some of what was said may need to be eliminated to make it more appropriate for a church sponsored meeting. Or do you not think that’s possible? (I’ll keep reading too as I’m starting the 3rd link now). Edited February 2, 2018 by JulieM 3
JulieM Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: (Portion bolded above for reference) This expression "my truth" has become a common trope these days, and there has been some public discourse about it since Oprah Winfrey used it recently at the Golden Globes award show. Did you even read all three of the talks that were posted? If so, what do you feel was a positive expression or communication for members to hear? 1
JulieM Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 I actually loved the third talk too. She was so respectful and loving towards her Mother as she expressed her heartache through all she’s experiencing. I saw no shaming of her Mother, but a reaching out and lovingly wanting to heal their relationship. I thought she was very respectful of the church and its teachings even though she’s stepped away. I saw no hatred or anger. I know she stated things that many disagree with, but she was honestly expressing her feelings. I do understand though that a church setting was probably not the best for this type of talk. 3
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2018 Posted February 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Danzo said: If they are, than he is the only one who knows about it. As far as I am aware no homosexuality gene has been discovered. Are you aware of any new discoveries? if you are could you reference them? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/12/07/genes-linked-homosexuality-discovered-scientists/
Popular Post clarkgoble Posted February 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I said as much here the other day in quoting Ben Shapiro, who said in reaction to Oprah's remark (paraphrasing here) that there is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth." There is the truth and there is opinion. The two are not the same. Typically what they mean are people simply dismissing experiences they've not have. That is one group decides what truth is without consulting with a wide enough variety of sources to get reliable data. It's of course interesting since this is exactly what happens with Mormons and our critics. We appeal to Moroni 10:4 and say there were experiences which the skeptical critics dismiss out of hand as not mattering. Anyway, while I find the language unfortunate in that it confuses truth with experience, I think the ideas behind it are fairly benign and not nearly a controversial as some make out. That's not to say cultural relativism isn't a problem. However I'd just note that those espousing the #MeTo movement most emphatically aren't embracing relativism. Rather they are saying, "you might not see this, but it's happening." i.e. it's a claim of absolute truth. Edited February 2, 2018 by clarkgoble 5
Popular Post pogi Posted February 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, Danzo said: I am in favor of strengthening family relationships and I am also in favor of showing more love to everyone in this we agree. What I am unsure about is whether these kind of interventions will have an effect on the suicide rate among our youth. Your approach runs the danger of placing blame for these tragic deaths on the parents or on their immediate community. I don't know if you know many people who have had family members kill themselves, but usually it is very normal (and tragic) for the parents, family and close friends to blame themselves (If only I had been nicer to them). The message we send (Be nice to everyone) while a good one, doesn't, in my understanding, address the underlying problems with teen Suicide. I think a better message, one that will be more effective, is to teach people to recognize the symptoms of depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, and other mental illnesses. That, in my opinion is going to be the more effective choice. Telling an anorexic that they are already skinny doesn't help them much, they don't believe you because the problem is more internal than external. Telling someone who's anorexic daughter died that they died because the parents didn't tell them they were skinny enough is a great way to introduce this toxic shame that you are writing about. Telling people that a suicide victim died because you weren't nice enough is another way. Recognize and treat is better than shame the parents (or friends or church). This meeting was not about placing blame, or pointing the finger in shame. I didn't see any of that. The parents of the child who committed suicide spoke at this meeting...no one was blaming them for falling short. Instead, they received support. This meeting was about mourning with those who mourn. It is about increasing awareness of a very serious and worsening situation. It is about lending an open ear and listening to those who hurt. There is plenty of good evidence that suggests that family/community dynamics do play a significant role. This is not about condemnation or judgement however. We cant say for sure what environmental trigger might have exacerbated the situation for any given individual. It is probably a multitude of factors. No one person is to blame. Family dynamics may or may not have played a role in any given case. It is not for us to judge any individual. However, understanding that environment does play a role, places the burden on the community to work towards a solution to this problem - to take some ownership of it. Again there is a difference between shame and guilt. Guilt and ownership inspires change, reconciliation, and healing. Without it, you are simply ignoring the hole in the pipe and moping up the wet floor. This gets into the whole debate of preventive healthcare vs. curative healthcare (As a public health nurse, you don't want to open that can of worms with me ) You seem to favor curative measures by becoming better at recognizing symptoms and initiating early interventions. I agree, that is important. However, from my perspective, if an individual is to the point of showing suicidal symptoms, then we are already too late! I believe that we can do more good by investing in prevention over cure. Fix the leak! I favor preventive measures, without leaving the other undone. If we invested as much money and effort into prevention as we do curative measures, our healthcare system would be so much better! 5
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 28 minutes ago, JulieM said: Did you even read all three of the talks that were posted? My post was in response to what Smac posted. I would not have needed to read the whole talk to have read the quotation in Smac's post and to have confined my response to that quoted portion. Which is what I did.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: The first link below is, for me, the most enlightening. The second link below is generally fine. As for the third link my initial impression is . . . oh, it's bad. "Mormon shaming" and "airing the family's dirty laundry" stuff throughout. Off-putting. Manipulative in the extreme. Plainly inappropriate for Sunday services. In fact, it seems almost entirely shot through with remarks that throw the author's mother under the bus. It seems markedly unhealthy for the daughter to have made these remarks about her mother in church. And now "the bishop's wife" is publishing those remarks to the entire world, which I frankly find to be appalling (unless the bishop's wife got the mother's permission - which I imagine didn't happen). Exodus 20:12 takes a major beating, IMO. Moreover, it is an overt apologetic for same-sex marriage ("When I married Aimee, I felt like I was choosing to live my truth. 100% Jordan. For me, I had to do it. It felt right."). Advocacy and justification for excommunicable conduct. Presented to the Saints in the Lord's house and during Sunday services. And authorized by the bishop (and, apparently, the stake presidency). And now the bishop's wife is publishing such advocacy and justification to the entire world. This, for me, is deeply troubling. I want to listen to LGBT folks. But . . . not like this. If someone wanted to find a way to get people like me to resist further discussion (because at present, I am giving serious and ongoing consideration how to go about such things), they would very likely present this third link as "Exhibit A." https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215207188870961 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215212018831707 https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein/posts/10215208165215369 Thanks, -Smac Great to see that at least a few of the talks have been posted (and hopefully the others will get posted as well). I'll print them out and read through them this evening after I get home. I see you posted quotes from the third link.....any that you did like from the first two? I was prepared to hear there were things said that may not get approval for other similar meetings, but what do you think was said that would be helpful in following Elder Ballard's counsel (which does seem to have been the goal of those who planned this meeting)? Edited February 3, 2018 by ALarson 2
ALarson Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My post was in response to what Smac posted. I would not have needed to read the whole talk to have read the quotation in Smac's post and to have confined my response to that quoted portion. Which is what I did. How about the other two.....did you read them? I plan to this evening and won't comment until I have actually read them. I hope others will do the same. 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My post was in response to what Smac posted. I would not have needed to read the whole talk to have read the quotation in Smac's post and to have confined my response to that quoted portion. Which is what I did. Would you be okay if someone pulled stuff out of a conference talk or devotional that appeared to be negative to make a judgment of it solely on that or would you talk the time to read it in context before drawing conclusions? I believe one mother of one of married woman talked after her daughter, but I don't know if this is the daughter or not. Won't have time to read them until tomorrow as at my mom's and have family stuff tonight. 4
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: How about the other two.....did you read them? I plan to this evening and won't comment until I have actually read them. I hope others will do the same. Meanwhile, you can do what I did, which is to comment on portions you've seen directly quoted. I won't mind, nor should anyone else.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Would you be okay if someone pulled stuff out of a conference talk or devotional that appeared to be negative to make a judgment of it solely on that or would you talk the time to read it in context before drawing conclusions? Thing is, I'm fairly well acquainted with Smac's online behavior, having observed it over many years, and I trust him not to take stuff out of context. I can't say I would always repose such trust in others, particularly antagonistic critics of the Church. But if, after having read the talk in question, I determine he did take out of context the quoted material I commented on, I will come back and highlight it. I don't expect to find that to be the case though. Edited February 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
Danzo Posted February 3, 2018 Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Tacenda said: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/12/07/genes-linked-homosexuality-discovered-scientists/ Please read the articles you link to, it helps "However British experts said more work was needed before it was possible to identify ‘gay genes’ because the genetic differences could point to other traits shared by the homosexual respondents. For example the variations may simply predispose people to be more open or candid about their lives." Edited February 3, 2018 by Danzo 3
Recommended Posts