Popular Post smac97 Posted February 21, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, provoman said: I believe on the bishops facebook page they mentioned 150 or more. I am suspect about how much the meeting was about love thy neighbor and more about pushing a personal agenda. the bishop and wife announcd on ther facebook about the lgbt themed cruise they are going on. The doors of the Church buildings are wide open for all to attend. There are also standards of conduct. A few thoughts: From the article: Quote I was hesitant to accept my friend’s invitation to attend this meeting. I stopped attending LDS church services regularly after coming out as gay 10 years ago—the same year the First Presidency wrote a letter to be read aloud in LDS congregations asking Church members to devote their time and resources in support of Proposition 8, and similar referendums around the world, defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman. So this brother chose to leave. He was not kicked out. Or shunned. He disagreed with the Church's stance on same-sex marriage. The Church's stance on same-sex marriage is a natural and foreseeable extension of its teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage (and, apparently, for other reasons). The Church's stance on same-sex marriage does not seem headed toward any substantive change. To the contrary, the Church has moved to clarify and emphasize its teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage, while at the same time extending an olive leaf to all those who are currently not willing to accept those teachings. Quote Imagine my surprise, then, to get a Facebook message from my friend saying the bishop and his wife in her mom’s ward in Riverton, Utah, had organized a meeting for and about the needs of LGBTQ Latter-day Saints. They had invited their entire ward to attend. They were unsure how many would come, but they wanted her to tell all her LGBTQ friends they were welcome there. She told me who would be speaking: two gay male friends of mine (both still active in the Church), a dear lesbian friend who recently parted ways with the Church and is now married to her incredible wife, and the brave, brokenhearted parents of a gay son who last year, at the age of 17, took his own life. She told me she and her mom would be the concluding speakers and that the bishop may add a few words at the end. I sat in stunned silence staring at her message on the glowing screen of my iPhone. I thought about all the times I’d driven to the LDS temple grounds in the towns where I’d lived for the first 30 years of my life: Rexburg, Provo, and now, Salt Lake City. I thought about sitting in the deafening silence of my car on all those nights, with only the lights around the temple breaking through the darkness. I remembered sobbing for hours at a time until my eyes were so red and swollen I couldn’t always drive myself back home. I thought about what it had meant to feel lost and alone for so many years, to be both within and without when it came to my native faith. I empathize with feeling "lost and alone." But again, this brother chose to leave his "native faith." He was not kicked out. Or shunned. He chose to leave his faith community because of its stance on same-sex marriage. I want this brother to come back. I really do. But his return can't be on terms of, essentially, "Your doctrines hurt my feelings and offend my sensibilities, so change your doctrines to conform to my expectations." This is the Dan Reynolds approach to discipleship ("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.") This seems to be the end goal. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But most indicators seem to be pointing to this. Here are some patterns that seem to be arising: 1. Emphasis on Emotions and Grievances (to the Exclusion of Doctrine and the Will of God). The article is well-written, but still somewhat distracting because it is detached from any particular code or standard. Lots of discussion of an individual's subjective feelings and grievances, but virtually no discussion at all about the really difficult bit: discerning and accepting the will of God. 2. Omission of any Specific Accusations of Wrongdoing/Mistreatment. The article does not specify any misconduct by the Church or its members. However, the "blame" still seems to be there. Imagine a man saying "I left my wife ten years ago after she said something I did not like." The estrangement was enacted by the husband (he's the one that left, after all), but the husband blames the wife. That's how I read this: Quote I stopped attending LDS church services regularly after coming out as gay 10 years ago—the same year the First Presidency wrote a letter to be read aloud in LDS congregations asking Church members to devote their time and resources in support of Proposition 8, and similar referendums around the world, defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman. So the Church's involvement in Prop 8 is obliquely characterized as wrongdoing, I guess. "Yes, I left, but it's your fault I left." This is the narrative. Over and over and over. It's endlessly the Church's fault. Prop 8. The 2015 policy changes. The Proclamation. Clear and unified prophetic counsel regarding the parameters of the Law of Chastity (which does not include homosexual behavior) and marriage (which does not include same-sex marriage). These things have given offense, ergo they are bad. To merely speak them is bad. To teach them is bad. 3. Omission of any Specific Conditions for Return. The article goes out of its way to portray Mormons as wonderful people . . . except for, you know. Quote The thing Mormons have always been best at is building and sustaining community, at circling the wagons: not against some perceived outside threat, but around our most vulnerable. You are my people. Regardless of the labels and divisions others may try to impose on us, I will keep calling you my brothers and sisters—my family. What I know is that you possess enough love to move proverbial mountains. The pioneer blood that moved our people across the plains through cold, hunger, disease, and fear of the unknown still courses through our veins and makes us who we are: a people who are proud to say we are Mormons. And being Mormon has, from its inception, meant belonging to each other as much as to God. So we turn our wagons in to love the kids sitting in the pews and the kids standing out in the foyer or waiting just outside the doors in the hallway—kids who, like me, have long questioned if they have a place there. This is tantalizing stuff. Mormons want to be nice. And loving. To accept, and to be accepted in return. Zion is an ideal, but not one always out of reach (Enoch and his people did it, after all). The article poses a question ("kids who, like me, have long questioned if they have a place here"), but does not offer an answer. The intent, I think, is to tantalize. To prompt Mormons to ask "Well, what can we do to get you back? To help you feel that you 'have a place' with us?" That certainly was my response, anyway. But then, I pulled back a bit and looked at the broader context. And I thought "Huh. We already know the answer to that question. We already know the conditions for return. Dan Reynolds spelled it out: '{T}he church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.'" The article, as nicely written as it is, seems to be taking us to the same place. It's in here: Quote We let them {kids with same-sex attraction} know what we believe about the radical inclusivity of love. We show them we can be a sounding board and a safe space: that we honor and affirm them as they are, that our table is big enough for everyone to have a seat around it. That is our religion. "We honor and affirm them as they are." Yep. There it is. John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are saying the same thing. There is to be a re-write of the Law of Chastity to allow for homosexual behavior. That is the condition being set by people like John Bonner and Dan Reynolds. I want these brothers to return to fellowship and discipleship. I really do. But I can't pursue the former (fellowship) by sacrificing the latter (discipleship). That is, however, what John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are expecting us to do. I want these men in the Church, but they have to reconcile themselves to the Restored Gospel along with the rest of us. We all of us must go through the process described in Mosiah 3:19: Quote For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. We can and should embrace each other in fellowship. But fellowship cannot be attained by sacrificing discipleship. 4. (Mostly) Ignoring the Elephant in the Room. The article follows the trend I have seen elsewhere, which is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the Church's clear and unequivocal affirmation of its long-held teachings about sexuality and marriage. The Proclamation is a good place to start, but there have been many, many talks by General Authorities since then. The elephant is in the room. We already know that homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are incompatible with discipleship. So why do articles like this ignore the elephant? 5. Calls for "Discussion" or "Conversation" are Usually Code for "Give Me What I Want." Finally, another trend I have seen consists of calls for Mormons to have a "discussion" or "conversation" with people like John Bonner. These proposals sound awfully nice. Again, Mormons want to be nice. We want to talk and get along. So stuff like this sounds just dandy: Quote And when there comes a time, like that Sunday afternoon, when there is a clear answer to some of those questions, and we feel it in the room like the gentle wings of peace taking flight in our souls, we need to start setting up folding chairs along every inch of the wooden floors of our cultural halls. And maybe, just maybe, that can lead to making room for everyone on the front rows of the soft-padded pews of our chapels, too. So how do we get there? We invite each other to share our stories. And then we listen. We just listen. This sounds wonderful. And yet also . . . one-sided. The "we" here is the royal "we." Meaning "You listen." Meaning "You listen to us." Meaning "You listen to us telling you to change the doctrines of the Church to comport with my/our expectations regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage." Consider the next part of the article: Quote We gather and invite. We welcome and include. We turn down the vitriol and turn up, to full volume, the actual meaning of love. We claim each other. And we go on claiming each other, time and again, no matter what happens—for we are all part of the same body of Christ. In the words of Ruth, "Whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Zion is in the hearts of its people. And change, in any organization, starts from within. So you keep seeing me. And I keep seeing you. Again, this sounds wonderful. But what are the terms for such a reconciliation? What is this "actual meaning of love?" What does it mean to "go on claiming each other, time and again, no matter what happens?" Yes, we are "all part of the same body of Christ." But I think there is a concern that we are being told that being part of the "same body of Christ" requires rejecting the unified voice of the prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage, and instead acceding to popular "worldly" opinion about these matters. In other words, the price of reconciliation appears to be . . . rejection of prophetic guidance and capitulation to the world. I appreciated Dan Reynolds' candor when he said that "the church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." This seems to be a preview of what the calls for "listening" entail. When the LDS Church speaks, it is merely "platitudes" and "empty words" unless and until it capitulates on its teachings regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage. That seems to be the point and purpose of things like this article. And the meeting in Riverton. These efforts appear calculated to persuade people away from, not closer toward, the Church's teachings. The call to "listen . . . just listen" does not seem to be a call to people like Dan Reynolds and John Bonner to "listen." As fine a writer as Mr. Bonner is, I don't think he is saying "We homosexuals need to listen to the Church. We just need to listen to the counsel and messages of prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage." The proposed discussion is about rationalizing rejection of prophetic counsel, not accepting and living in accordance with it. So what Provoman said bears repetition: Quote The doors of the Church buildings are wide open for all to attend. There are also standards of conduct. Yes. The doors are open. But people like John Bonner are declining to enter into those doors unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions, I fear, include that the Church abandon the "standards of conduct" we have received through revelation. As much as I yearn to have Mr. Bonner return to fellowship, I cannot meet those conditions. I cannot join in accusations that the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage are "'platitudes'" and "'empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." So in the end, I cannot go where this article's author appears to want me to go. And because the article is nicely written, my unwillingness to "go there" might come across as me being the bad guy, the intransigent jerk. Well, I'll have to lump that. I've thrown my lot in with the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe it is what it claims to be. I will continue to study and contemplate and pray about how I treat others, and what my discipleship means. I am reminded of these remarks by Elder Ballard: Quote Brethren, holding the priesthood is more than just a great blessing. It also carries with it significant responsibilities such as watching over the Church; honoring all women, especially our wives, our mothers, our daughters, our sisters; visiting the home of each member, exhorting each “to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties” and to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places.” When we covenant in the waters of baptism to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places,” we’re not talking solely about fast and testimony meetings. It may not always be easy, convenient, or politically correct to stand for truth and right, but it is always the right thing to do. Always. Just so. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2018 by smac97 8
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: A few thoughts: From the article: So this brother chose to leave. He was not kicked out. Or shunned. He disagreed with the Church's stance on same-sex marriage. The Church's stance on same-sex marriage is a natural and foreseeable extension of its teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage (and, apparently, for other reasons). The Church's stance on same-sex marriage does not seem headed toward any substantive change. To the contrary, the Church has moved to clarify and emphasize its teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage, while at the same time extending an olive leaf to all those who are currently not willing to accept those teachings. I empathize with feeling "lost and alone." But again, this brother chose to leave his "native faith." He was not kicked out. Or shunned. He chose to leave his faith community because of its stance on same-sex marriage. I want this brother to come back. I really do. But his return can't be on terms of, essentially, "Your doctrines hurt my feelings and offend my sensibilities, so change your doctrines to conform to my expectations." This is the Dan Reynolds approach to discipleship ("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.") This seems to be the end goal. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But most indicators seem to be pointing to this. Here are some patterns that seem to be arising: 1. Emphasis on Emotions and Grievances (to the Exclusion of Doctrine and the Will of God). The article is well-written, but still somewhat distracting because it is detached from any particular code or standard. Lots of discussion of an individual's subjective feelings and grievances, but virtually no discussion at all about the really difficult bit: discerning and accepting the will of God. 2. Omission of any Specific Accusations of Wrongdoing/Mistreatment. The article does not specify any misconduct by the Church or its members. However, the "blame" still seems to be there. Imagine a man saying "I left my wife ten years ago after she said something I did not like." The estrangement was enacted by the husband (he's the one that left, after all), but the husband blames the wife. That's how I read this: So the Church's involvement in Prop 8 is obliquely characterized as wrongdoing, I guess. "Yes, I left, but it's your fault I left." This is the narrative. Over and over and over. It's endlessly the Church's fault. Prop 8. The 2015 policy changes. The Proclamation. Clear and unified prophetic counsel regarding the parameters of the Law of Chastity (which does not include homosexual behavior) and marriage (which does not include same-sex marriage). These things have given offense, ergo they are bad. To merely speak them is bad. To teach them is bad. 3. Omission of any Specific Conditions for Return. The article goes out of its way to portray Mormons as wonderful people . . . except for, you know. This is tantalizing stuff. Mormons want to be nice. And loving. To accept, and to be accepted in return. Zion is an ideal, but not one always out of reach (Enoch and his people did it, after all). The article poses a question ("kids who, like me, have long questioned if they have a place here"), but does not offer an answer. The intent, I think, is to tantalize. To prompt Mormons to ask "Well, what can we do to get you back? To help you feel that you 'have a place' with us?" That certainly was my response, anyway. But then, I pulled back a bit and looked at the broader context. And I thought "Huh. We already know the answer to that question. We already know the conditions for return. Dan Reynolds spelled it out: '{T}he church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.'" The article, as nicely written as it is, seems to be taking us to the same place. It's in here: "We honor and affirm them as they are." Yep. There it is. John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are saying the same thing. There is to be a re-write of the Law of Chastity to allow for homosexual behavior. That is the condition being set by people like John Bonner and Dan Reynolds. I want these brothers to return to fellowship and discipleship. I really do. But I can't pursue the former (fellowship) by sacrificing the latter (discipleship). That is, however, what John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are expecting us to do. I want these men in the Church, but they have to reconcile themselves to the Restored Gospel along with the rest of us. We all of us must go through the process described in Mosiah 3:19: We can and should embrace each other in fellowship. But fellowship cannot be attained by sacrificing discipleship. 4. (Mostly) Ignoring the Elephant in the Room. The article follows the trend I have seen elsewhere, which is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the Church's clear and unequivocal affirmation of its long-held teachings about sexuality and marriage. The Proclamation is a good place to start, but there have been many, many talks by General Authorities since then. The elephant is in the room. We already know that homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are incompatible with discipleship. So why do articles like this ignore the elephant? 5. Calls for "Discussion" or "Conversation" are Usually Code for "Give Me What I Want." Finally, another trend I have seen consists of calls for Mormons to have a "discussion" or "conversation" with people like John Bonner. These proposals sound awfully nice. Again, Mormons want to be nice. We want to talk and get along. So stuff like this sounds just dandy: This sounds wonderful. And yet also . . . one-sided. The "we" here is the royal "we." Meaning "You listen." Meaning "You listen to us." Meaning "You listen to us telling you to change the doctrines of the Church to comport with my/our expectations regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage." Consider the next part of the article: Again, this sounds wonderful. But what are the terms for such a reconciliation? What is this "actual meaning of love?" What does it mean to "go on claiming each other, time and again, no matter what happens?" Yes, we are "all part of the same body of Christ." But I think there is a concern that we are being told that being part of the "same body of Christ" requires rejecting the unified voice of the prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage, and instead acceding to popular "worldly" opinion about these matters. In other words, the price of reconciliation appears to be . . . rejection of prophetic guidance and capitulation to the world. I appreciated Dan Reynolds' candor when he said that "the church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." This seems to be a preview of what the calls for "listening" entail. When the LDS Church speaks, it is merely "platitudes" and "empty words" unless and until it capitulates on its teachings regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage. That seems to be the point and purpose of things like this article. And the meeting in Riverton. These efforts appear calculated to persuaded people away from, not closer toward, the Church's teachings. The call to "listen . . . just listen" does not seem to be a call to people like Dan Reynolds and John Bonner to "listen." As fine a writer as Mr. Bonner is, I don't think he is saying "We homosexuals need to listen to the Church. We just need to listen to the counsel and messages of prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage." The proposed discussion is about rationalizing rejection of prophetic counsel, not accepting and living in accordance with it. So what Provoman said bears repetition: Yes. The doors are open. But people like John Bonner are declining to enter into those doors unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions, I fear, include that the Church abandon the "standards of conduct" we have received through revelation. As much as I yearn to have Mr. Bonner return to fellowship, I cannot meet those conditions. I cannot join in accusations that the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage are "'platitudes'" and "'empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." So in the end, I cannot go where this article's author appears to want me to go. And because the article is nicely written, my unwillingness to "go there" might come across as me being the bad guy, the intransigent jerk. Well, I'll have to lump that. I've thrown my lot in with the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe it is what it claims to be. I will continue to study and contemplate and pray about how I treat others, and what my discipleship means. I am reminded of these remarks by Elder Ballard: Just so. Thanks, -Smac Oddly. I didn't see him saying anything about wanting any LDS members to change their views or even the Church itself. He might want it, just as I do. But what he seems to be saying to me is let's just learn to accept each other. To which you respond by saying I can't do that because of my discipleship. Well, there's the problem. he's wanting to see people come together no matter if they agree or not and embrace a love towards each other. You reject that option because, says you, you feel forced to choose between fellowship and discipleship if someone shows up and thinks they can be gay and Mormon. That's a hard position to speak to for sure. I figured at the very bottom we can agree that everyone should be made to feel welcome and we shouldn't be quick to decide between fellowship and discipleship because discipleship is nothing more than fellowship.
smac97 Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Oddly. I didn't see him saying anything about wanting any LDS members to change their views or even the Church itself. Well, that's sort of my point. Omissions and oblique references. Emphasis on feelings. Ignoring the elephant in the room. And yet, there's still this: Quote What I know is that you possess enough love to move proverbial mountains. The pioneer blood that moved our people across the plains through cold, hunger, disease, and fear of the unknown still courses through our veins and makes us who we are: a people who are proud to say we are Mormons. And being Mormon has, from its inception, meant belonging to each other as much as to God. So we turn our wagons in to love the kids sitting in the pews and the kids standing out in the foyer or waiting just outside the doors in the hallway—kids who, like me, have long questioned if they have a place there. We let them know what we believe about the radical inclusivity of love. We show them we can be a sounding board and a safe space: that we honor and affirm them as they are, that our table is big enough for everyone to have a seat around it. That is our religion. "Radical inclusivity of love" sounds great . . . until it is understood to be conditioned on affirmation of behavior incompatible with discipleship. I'm open to being wrong about this as to Mr. Bonner, but it doesn't seem so (and I am reasonably confident that I am quite correct in this as to Dan Reynolds). Quote He might want it, just as I do. But what he seems to be saying to me is let's just learn to accept each other. That would be great! But that "acceptance" seems to be conditioned on affirmation of behavior incompatible with discipleship. Hence the problem. Quote To which you respond by saying I can't do that because of my discipleship. Well, no. It is the condition precedent to "acceptance" that I find problematic, not the acceptance itself. Quote Well, there's the problem. No. Again, Dan Reynolds spelled it out: "{T}he church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." That's the problem. John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are, I think, saying the same thing. There is to be a re-write of the Law of Chastity to allow for homosexual behavior. That is the condition precedent. Quote he's wanting to see people come together no matter if they agree or not and embrace a love towards each other. I'm not sure about that. Again, he proposes something like this: Quote We let them {kids with same-sex attraction} know what we believe about the radical inclusivity of love. We show them we can be a sounding board and a safe space: that we honor and affirm them as they are, that our table is big enough for everyone to have a seat around it. That is our religion. "We ... affirm them as they are" sounds pretty much in line with what Dan Reynolds is saying. That the LDS Church must change its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex. That this is the condition precedent, a necessary component of "love." Quote You reject that option because, says you, you feel forced to choose between fellowship and discipleship if someone shows up and thinks they can be gay and Mormon. No, I did not say that. First, I'm not sure what "be gay and Mormon" means. Second, I think it is eminently possible for someone to be sexually attracted to others of their own gender and be in full fellowship in the Church. Third, my concern is the apparent expectation/demand of people like John Bonner and Dan Reynolds for the Church to abandon its teachings about the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage. Quote That's a hard position to speak to for sure. It's not my position. I'd prefer to go with my words, rather than your substantial re/mischaracterization of it. Quote I figured at the very bottom we can agree that everyone should be made to feel welcome Certainly. Quote and we shouldn't be quick to decide between fellowship and discipleship because discipleship is nothing more than fellowship. I quite agree. But people like Dan Reynolds (and, it appears, John Bonner) seem to bifurcate the two. To impose, as a condition of fellowship, the sacrifice of discipleship. "{T}he church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." This is the apparent expectation/demand that creates a dilemma for me. That I must choose either discipleship (which prohibits homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage) or fellowship (which people like Dan Reynolds and John Bonner are conditioning on acceptance of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage). Consider John 8: Quote 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. I don't condemn anyone. But the "go, and sin no more" part also requires some attention. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2018 by smac97 4
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, that's sort of my point. Omissions and oblique references. Emphasis on feelings. Ignoring the elephant in the room. And yet, there's still this: "Radical inclusivity of love" sounds great . . . until it is understood to be conditioned on affirmation of behavior incompatible with discipleship. I'm open to being wrong about this as to Mr. Bonner, but it doesn't seem so (and I am reasonably confident that I am quite correct in this as to Dan Reynolds). That would be great! But that "acceptance" seems to be conditioned on affirmation of behavior incompatible with discipleship. Hence the problem. Well, no. It is the condition precedent to "acceptance" that I find problematic, not the acceptance itself. No. Again, Dan Reynolds spelled it out: "{T}he church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." That's the problem. John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are, I think, saying the same thing. There is to be a re-write of the Law of Chastity to allow for homosexual behavior. That is the condition precedent. I'm not sure about that. Again, he proposes something like this: "We ... affirm them as they are" sounds pretty much in line with what Dan Reynolds is saying. That the LDS Church must change its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex. That this is the condition precedent, a necessary component of "love." 2 things, Smac. 1. Making a space for people to feel more inclusive, more appreciated, and feel affirmed by others for who they are is not akin to saying they want the Church to change it's laws and doctrines. 2. I want the Church to change...I think it has changed on this issue, and it'll continue to do so. I would gladly endorse it if the Church embraced homosexual members as opposed to saying there are no homosexual members, in some form of tricky talk. 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: No, I did not say that. First, I'm not sure what "be gay and Mormon" means. Second, I think it is eminently possible for someone to be sexually attracted to others of their own gender and be in full fellowship in the Church. Third, my concern is the apparent expectation/demand of people like John Bonner and Dan Reynolds for the Church to abandon its teachings about the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage. I apologize if I misread. But, surely you can see this Bonner article does not say anywhere that it wants the Church to abandon much more than that many, as he put it, have not been made to feel welcome. Affirming people for who they are does not require you to say, "I disagree with my former self and think those that are gay are not sinning". His piece notes that there was that spirit in that meeting. he just knows its not much more than a one time thing because, well, to put it frankly, you outlined the why that is by what you've typed. it seemed clear to me you were objecting to his position of accepting each other, and embracing brotherly and sisterly love as paramount. 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: It's not my position. I'd prefer to go with my words, rather than your substantial re/mischaracterization of it. Certainly. I quite agree. But people like Dan Reynolds (and, it appears, John Bonner) seem to bifurcate the two. To impose, as a condition of fellowship, the sacrifice of discipleship. "{T}he church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." This is the apparent expectation/demand that creates a dilemma for me. That I must choose either discipleship (which prohibits homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage) or fellowship (which people like Dan Reynolds and John Bonner are conditioning on acceptance of homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage). Consider John 8: I don't condemn anyone. But the "go, and sin no more" part also requires some attention. Thanks, -Smac Thanks for your comments. I'm certainly not seeing why you brought Dan Reynolds into this. I happen to agree with the statement you keep quoting, though. Bonner may too. But you are arguing against Bonner by quoting terms and ideas not present in his piece--that was my main reason for chiming in. I found it unfair. And apparently I've misunderstood you. I disagree also that Bonner, nor "people like Reynolds" are imposing as a condition of fellowship the sacrifice of discipleship. Indeed, I think there is plenty of room in Church for members to disagree on this and still remain in full fellowship. I'm aware, of course, that many disagree and want to put on me the opposite. My old bishop for instance told me, on a number of occasions and in different ways, although to the best of my knowledge will quote what he said at one point here "you're not my brother in the gospel". As you want to bunch up Reynolds and Bonner (not an entirely offensive thing to do), it feels to me you are in line with my old bishop's way of viewing things, to which I object.
Jeanne Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: I am pretty orthodox LDS with some very unorthodox views that do not conflict with orthodoxy but would also probably not be well received in Sunday School. I hope to one day find that special woman on the very edge of the bell curve who finds me attractive and who I find attractive and start a family if we are still young enough then. I also plan on inheriting eternal life ruling the cosmos. You know, the usual stuff. I do not deny the humanity of pretty much anyone despite how insulting I can sometimes be. I have an almost irresistible urge to mock pat answers and overly simplistic thinking which gets me into trouble and occasional thread bans. I feel a lot of empathy for LGBT people and know many. I wish the gospel has a happier response or explanation to give to them but at the current time it does not which makes it very hard. I am hoping for and sometimes pray for more light and knowledge on the subject. I hope to see some soon. I am wishing that for you...all these hopes and dreams come true for you. Knowledge is a wonderful thing...as the for light..you already have it. 1
The Nehor Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I am wishing that for you...all these hopes and dreams come true for you. Knowledge is a wonderful thing...as the for light..you already have it. Thank you. That is very sweet of you to say. 1
smac97 Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 2 things, Smac. 1. Making a space for people to feel more inclusive, more appreciated, and feel affirmed by others for who they are is not akin to saying they want the Church to change it's laws and doctrines. I think for some people, it really is akin to that. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 2. I want the Church to change...I think it has changed on this issue, and it'll continue to do so. I would gladly endorse it if the Church embraced homosexual members as opposed to saying there are no homosexual members, in some form of tricky talk. Yawn. This article does a pretty good job of contextualizing Elder Bednar's off-the-cuff statement. It is decontextualized cheap shots like yours that make discussions like this more difficult than they need to be. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I apologize if I misread. But, surely you can see this Bonner article does not say anywhere that it wants the Church to abandon much more than that many, as he put it, have not been made to feel welcome. Asked and answered. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Affirming people for who they are does not require you to say, "I disagree with my former self and think those that are gay are not sinning". His piece notes that there was that spirit in that meeting. he just knows its not much more than a one time thing because, well, to put it frankly, you outlined the why that is by what you've typed. it seemed clear to me you were objecting to his position of accepting each other, and embracing brotherly and sisterly love as paramount. No, that's not what I am doing. There. I've clarified my point. Now that you've misrepresented it twice, and I've corrected you twice, we can move on. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Thanks for your comments. I'm certainly not seeing why you brought Dan Reynolds into this. I explained why. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I happen to agree with the statement you keep quoting, though. Bonner may too. But you are arguing against Bonner by quoting terms and ideas not present in his piece--that was my main reason for chiming in. I found it unfair. Okay. I think there is some similarity in their remarks and apparent perspectives. As I said, I'm open to correction. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: And apparently I've misunderstood you. I disagree also that Bonner, nor "people like Reynolds" are imposing as a condition of fellowship the sacrifice of discipleship. I don't know how else to read Reynolds (Bonner is a bit more vague). Reynolds' my-way-or-the-highway approach to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel is not not feasible. It didn't work with Kate Kelly. It won't work here. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Indeed, I think there is plenty of room in Church for members to disagree on this and still remain in full fellowship. So do I. I am confused why you would imply the contrary. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm aware, of course, that many disagree and want to put on me the opposite. My old bishop for instance told me, on a number of occasions and in different ways, although to the best of my knowledge will quote what he said at one point here "you're not my brother in the gospel". I did not know you were a member. 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: As you want to bunch up Reynolds and Bonner (not an entirely offensive thing to do), it feels to me you are in line with my old bishop's way of viewing things, to which I object. You are personalizing this thread. I have never said "you're not my brother in the gospel," or anything like it. -Smac 1
cinepro Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Tacenda said: No, why would you think that? I've just seen LDSLiving having had posts taken down, now if my brain wasn't mush I could tell you what it was about. I'll try to remember. It appears LDSLiving is published by Deseret Book, so while it's not on par with a proclamation in General Conference, I think having this article published is at least tiny indicator that the meeting hasn't met with any acrimony from Salt Lake City. Edited February 21, 2018 by cinepro 3
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think for some people, it really is akin to that. Yawn. This article does a pretty good job of contextualizing Elder Bednar's off-the-cuff statement. It is decontextualized cheap shots like yours that make discussions like this more difficult than they need to be. This is no attempt at a cheap shot. This was a reference to a claim made that hurt people, whether the article you link does a good job of fixing those hurt feelings or not is up to you to decide. But there was no cheap shop. it was a reference to a comment that was made by a leader that hurt people. I'm sure the Church would like to fix the hurt it has caused, but it's not as easy to say the media is bad because they took it out of context. 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Asked and answered. No, that's not what I am doing. There. I've clarified my point. Now that you've misrepresented it twice, and I've corrected you twice, we can move on. I explained why. Okay. I think there is some similarity in their remarks and apparent perspectives. As I said, I'm open to correction. I don't know how else to read Reynolds (Bonner is a bit more vague). Reynolds' my-way-or-the-highway approach to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel is not not feasible. It didn't work with Kate Kelly. It won't work here. I think we're clearly at the opposite ends here not seeing clearly the other's perspective. You say Reynolds holds a my way or the highway approach, while it is the Church that holds that approach to me. Reynolds is just a guy (not related to this thread, BTW) and can't really send the Church down a highway. If pushing for change within an org fails, then the pusher ought to decide to stay or go at that point. The fact that pushing happens shows the individual is trying to make it all work together. 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: So do I. I am confused why you would imply the contrary. I did not know you were a member. You are personalizing this thread. I have never said "you're not my brother in the gospel," or anything like it. -Smac I think my point is clear, but it appears, we simply aren't seeing each others perspective to get very far here. I've said what I've felt necessary and feel it'll continue to be misunderstood, and perhaps I'm not un
Popular Post smac97 Posted February 21, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This is no attempt at a cheap shot. Yes, it is. It was a single extemporaneous comment that is only brought up as a cheap shot, and nothing else. From the article I quoted earlier: Quote What was meant to be a loving, encouraging remark to homosexual members within the Church has quickly been twisted, pulled out of context, and cut up by members of the media, making it appear as if Elder Bednar and the other leaders of the Church are anything but loving and supportive of its members. It's a popular tactic in the media, using an inflammatory title in hopes that the shock value will grab attention. And it works. Unfortunately, for those who don't take time to read beyond the headline, they are left thinking that our inspired Church leaders are insensitive, out of date, and even a bit naïve. But we know this isn't the case. Maybe you've seen the headlines carried by magazines like The Huffington Post and The Independent: "Mormon Leader Claims Church Has No Homosexual Members." If you have, please understand the context of the situation before jumping to conclusions or the emotional, negative reactions these media outlets want to elicit. Elder Bednar was offering encouragement to Church members who struggle with same-sex attraction by making a strong, though surprising point. Here's the rest of his comment that has been overlooked: "There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior." The article goes on to provide helpful context. Which you ignore in favor of characterizing the entirety of the Church's position with the glib cheap shot of you publicly accusing Elder Bednar of being "tricky." Quote This was a reference to a claim made that hurt people, whether the article you link does a good job of fixing those hurt feelings or not is up to you to decide. Yes, it is up to me. I can have an opinion, just like you. And yes, it is a cheap shot. To present this single off-the-cuff remark, in the decontextualized way you did, as the position of the Church is a cheap shot. Nothing more. I remember getting really fed up with political conservatives constantly pilloried Pres. Obama for his apparent gaffe when he referenced having visited "57 states." It was just an easy cheap shot available to his political opponents, and they used it up. But nobody suggested that Pres. Obama seriously thinks there are 57 states. And yet here you are, suggesting that the position of the Church is that there are no members of the Church with same-sex attraction. And worse, you are publicly accusing an apostle of being "tricky" in his extemporaneous remarks. Quote But there was no cheap shop. It is nothing but a cheap shot. Against an apostle, no less. Ironic, really, coming from someone who just complained about a hurtful statement from a fellow member of the Church. You apparently took offense when he said "you're not my brother in the gospel." And yet here you are, publicly accusing an apostle of "tricky talk." Some day you'll have to explain how your bishop's private (but now, thanks to you, published to the world) remark to you was unkind and unworthy of a member of the Church, but your public slandering of an apostle is just okey dokey. Quote it was a reference to a comment that was made by a leader that hurt people. It was a cheap shot. Nothing more. Quote I think we're clearly at the opposite ends here not seeing clearly the other's perspective. You say Reynolds holds a my way or the highway approach, while it is the Church that holds that approach to me. The Church's position is being presented by those in authority. The Church's position is presented as the Lord's position, not the personal opinions of the General Authorities. "But this generation shall have my word through you." (D&C 5:10) "{W}hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) So yes, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are situated very differently from Dan Reynolds. But even then, they have taken nothing like a my-way-or-the-highway approach to doctrine. They have presented the doctrnes of the Restored Gospel. That is within their provice. And they are moving heaven and earth to be as kind as possible to members who take exception to such things. In contrast, it is decidedly not the province of self-selected folks like Dan Reynolds to publicly issue demands that the Church alter its doctrines to conform to his expectations. The word "usurpation" comes to mind. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 21, 2018 by smac97 6
The Nehor Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, cinepro said: It appears LDSLiving is published by Deseret Book, so while it's not on par with a proclamation in General Conference, I think having this article published is at least tiny indicator that the meeting hasn't met with any acrimony from Salt Lake City. Our Danite Inquisitors are subtle and slow but sure.
USU78 Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 Just now, The Nehor said: Our Danite Inquisitors are subtle and slow but sure. Nobody expects the Danite Inquisition. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: It appears LDSLiving is published by Deseret Book, so while it's not on par with a proclamation in General Conference, I think having this article published is at least tiny indicator that the meeting hasn't met with any acrimony from Salt Lake City. LDS Living is not correlated and, like most of the content produced by Deseret Book, should not be viewed as binding upon the Church. And I'm not convinced that Deseret Book is micromanaged in the way you imply anyway. Edited February 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, cinepro said: It appears LDSLiving is published by Deseret Book, so while it's not on par with a proclamation in General Conference, I think having this article published is at least tiny indicator that the meeting hasn't met with any acrimony from Salt Lake City. 10 years ago I would have said it didn't make a difference knowing some of the books rejected by DB and some accepted, plus I had doubts about how close things were kept track of on the Internet and stuff slipped by on occasion that shouldn't have in my opinion. I am not tied into the book stuff anymore and my opinion of SL's awareness is based on how they have reacted in other things, so I would be very surprised these days if they weren't aware. However that is completely different from how onhands they are at running such things. The higher ups may have been completely unaware of the article prior to publishing and it may still be seen as neutral enough. I think it is safe to there is no "acrimony" from SLC. Not sure even if they were unhappy with it, there would be any ill feeling. Disappointment and frustration perhaps.k Edited February 22, 2018 by Calm
stemelbow Posted February 21, 2018 Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Yes, it is. It was a single extemporaneous comment that is only brought up as a cheap shot, and nothing else. I'm the one who brought it up. I know my intent. You do not. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: From the article I quoted earlier: The article goes on to provide helpful context. Which you ignore in favor of characterizing the entirety of the Church's position with the glib cheap shot of you publicly accusing Elder Bednar of being "tricky." Yes, it is up to me. I can have an opinion, just like you. And yes, it is a cheap shot. To present this single off-the-cuff remark, in the decontextualized way you did, as the position of the Church is a cheap shot. Nothing more. I remember getting really fed up with political conservatives constantly pilloried Pres. Obama for his apparent gaffe when he referenced having visited "57 states." It was just an easy cheap shot available to his political opponents, and they used it up. But nobody suggested that Pres. Obama seriously thinks there are 57 states. And yet here you are, suggesting that the position of the Church is that there are no members of the Church with same-sex attraction. And worse, you are publicly accusing an apostle of being "tricky" in his extemporaneous remarks. I have already clarified this. I borught it up because it hurt people's feelings, Smac. Nothing more. Id di not suggest that the position of the Church is to say there are no members with same sex attraction. Again, I know my intent. You do not. This motive questioning gets us nowhere. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: It is nothing but a cheap shot. Against an apostle, no less. Ironic, really, coming from someone who just complained about a hurtful statement from a fellow member of the Church. You apparently took offense when he said "you're not my brother in the gospel." And yet here you are, publicly accusing an apostle of "tricky talk." Yes saying someone engaged in tricky talk is on equal footing as eschewing someone who thinks he's a part of a group and yet in a pretty hostile sounding way is told he is not. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Some day you'll have to explain how your bishop's private (but now, thanks to you, published to the world) remark to you was unkind and unworthy of a member of the Church, but your public slandering of an apostle is just okey dokey. It was a cheap shot. Nothing more. The Church's position is being presented by those in authority. The Church's position is presented as the Lord's position, not the personal opinions of the General Authorities. "But this generation shall have my word through you." (D&C 5:10) "{W}hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) So yes, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are situated very differently from Dan Reynolds. But even then, they have taken nothing like a my-way-or-the-highway approach to doctrine. They have presented the doctrnes of the Restored Gospel. That is within their provice. And they are moving heaven and earth to be as kind as possible to members who take exception to such things. In contrast, it is decidedly not the province of self-selected folks like Dan Reynolds to publicly issue demands that the Church alter its doctrines to conform to his expectations. The word "usurpation" comes to mind. Thanks, -Smac Again, Dan Reynolds and his views are not the topic here. Why you are so ready to get after him is beyond me, honestly. I see your disagreement. Good enough. Have at it. But the topic of this thread is not saying what you have suggested. So I commented.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: I'm the one who brought it up. I know my intent. You do not. I have already clarified this. I borught it up because it hurt people's feelings, Smac. Nothing more. Id di not suggest that the position of the Church is to say there are no members with same sex attraction. Again, I know my intent. You do not. This motive questioning gets us nowhere. Yes saying someone engaged in tricky talk is on equal footing as eschewing someone who thinks he's a part of a group and yet in a pretty hostile sounding way is told he is not. Again, Dan Reynolds and his views are not the topic here. Why you are so ready to get after him is beyond me, honestly. I see your disagreement. Good enough. Have at it. But the topic of this thread is not saying what you have suggested. So I commented. Referencing something by way of a quick jab sans clarifying context is, by definition, a cheap shot, whether the one doing so wants to own up to it or not. 1
Popular Post Sky Posted February 22, 2018 Popular Post Posted February 22, 2018 LGBT members mostly just want to feel loved and some sense of understanding and empathy for our situation, even if the doctrine does not change. Why is that so hard for some people to grasp? Elder Ballard said it himself! https://news.byu.edu/news/byu-devotional-elder-ballards-questions-and-answers 6
CA Steve Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 33 minutes ago, Sky said: Why is that so hard for some people to grasp? Because it is much easier to demonize someone than it is to love them.
smac97 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Sky said: LGBT members mostly just want to feel loved and some sense of understanding and empathy for our situation, even if the doctrine does not change. Why is that so hard for some people to grasp? I can understand and appreciate and respect that. Thanks, -Smac 1
mfbukowski Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 On 2/20/2018 at 12:29 PM, Gray said: Edit: missed the joke Oh gosh don't make me imagine what the edit was.
Damien the Leper Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 11 hours ago, smac97 said: A few thoughts: From the article: So this brother chose to leave. He was not kicked out. Or shunned. He disagreed with the Church's stance on same-sex marriage. The Church's stance on same-sex marriage is a natural and foreseeable extension of its teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage (and, apparently, for other reasons). The Church's stance on same-sex marriage does not seem headed toward any substantive change. To the contrary, the Church has moved to clarify and emphasize its teachings on the Law of Chastity and marriage, while at the same time extending an olive leaf to all those who are currently not willing to accept those teachings. I empathize with feeling "lost and alone." But again, this brother chose to leave his "native faith." He was not kicked out. Or shunned. He chose to leave his faith community because of its stance on same-sex marriage. I want this brother to come back. I really do. But his return can't be on terms of, essentially, "Your doctrines hurt my feelings and offend my sensibilities, so change your doctrines to conform to my expectations." This is the Dan Reynolds approach to discipleship ("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.") This seems to be the end goal. I hope I'm wrong. I really do. But most indicators seem to be pointing to this. Here are some patterns that seem to be arising: 1. Emphasis on Emotions and Grievances (to the Exclusion of Doctrine and the Will of God). The article is well-written, but still somewhat distracting because it is detached from any particular code or standard. Lots of discussion of an individual's subjective feelings and grievances, but virtually no discussion at all about the really difficult bit: discerning and accepting the will of God. 2. Omission of any Specific Accusations of Wrongdoing/Mistreatment. The article does not specify any misconduct by the Church or its members. However, the "blame" still seems to be there. Imagine a man saying "I left my wife ten years ago after she said something I did not like." The estrangement was enacted by the husband (he's the one that left, after all), but the husband blames the wife. That's how I read this: So the Church's involvement in Prop 8 is obliquely characterized as wrongdoing, I guess. "Yes, I left, but it's your fault I left." This is the narrative. Over and over and over. It's endlessly the Church's fault. Prop 8. The 2015 policy changes. The Proclamation. Clear and unified prophetic counsel regarding the parameters of the Law of Chastity (which does not include homosexual behavior) and marriage (which does not include same-sex marriage). These things have given offense, ergo they are bad. To merely speak them is bad. To teach them is bad. 3. Omission of any Specific Conditions for Return. The article goes out of its way to portray Mormons as wonderful people . . . except for, you know. This is tantalizing stuff. Mormons want to be nice. And loving. To accept, and to be accepted in return. Zion is an ideal, but not one always out of reach (Enoch and his people did it, after all). The article poses a question ("kids who, like me, have long questioned if they have a place here"), but does not offer an answer. The intent, I think, is to tantalize. To prompt Mormons to ask "Well, what can we do to get you back? To help you feel that you 'have a place' with us?" That certainly was my response, anyway. But then, I pulled back a bit and looked at the broader context. And I thought "Huh. We already know the answer to that question. We already know the conditions for return. Dan Reynolds spelled it out: '{T}he church's "platitudes are empty words" until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex.'" The article, as nicely written as it is, seems to be taking us to the same place. It's in here: "We honor and affirm them as they are." Yep. There it is. John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are saying the same thing. There is to be a re-write of the Law of Chastity to allow for homosexual behavior. That is the condition being set by people like John Bonner and Dan Reynolds. I want these brothers to return to fellowship and discipleship. I really do. But I can't pursue the former (fellowship) by sacrificing the latter (discipleship). That is, however, what John Bonner and Dan Reynolds are expecting us to do. I want these men in the Church, but they have to reconcile themselves to the Restored Gospel along with the rest of us. We all of us must go through the process described in Mosiah 3:19: We can and should embrace each other in fellowship. But fellowship cannot be attained by sacrificing discipleship. 4. (Mostly) Ignoring the Elephant in the Room. The article follows the trend I have seen elsewhere, which is to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the Church's clear and unequivocal affirmation of its long-held teachings about sexuality and marriage. The Proclamation is a good place to start, but there have been many, many talks by General Authorities since then. The elephant is in the room. We already know that homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are incompatible with discipleship. So why do articles like this ignore the elephant? 5. Calls for "Discussion" or "Conversation" are Usually Code for "Give Me What I Want." Finally, another trend I have seen consists of calls for Mormons to have a "discussion" or "conversation" with people like John Bonner. These proposals sound awfully nice. Again, Mormons want to be nice. We want to talk and get along. So stuff like this sounds just dandy: This sounds wonderful. And yet also . . . one-sided. The "we" here is the royal "we." Meaning "You listen." Meaning "You listen to us." Meaning "You listen to us telling you to change the doctrines of the Church to comport with my/our expectations regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage." Consider the next part of the article: Again, this sounds wonderful. But what are the terms for such a reconciliation? What is this "actual meaning of love?" What does it mean to "go on claiming each other, time and again, no matter what happens?" Yes, we are "all part of the same body of Christ." But I think there is a concern that we are being told that being part of the "same body of Christ" requires rejecting the unified voice of the prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage, and instead acceding to popular "worldly" opinion about these matters. In other words, the price of reconciliation appears to be . . . rejection of prophetic guidance and capitulation to the world. I appreciated Dan Reynolds' candor when he said that "the church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." This seems to be a preview of what the calls for "listening" entail. When the LDS Church speaks, it is merely "platitudes" and "empty words" unless and until it capitulates on its teachings regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage. That seems to be the point and purpose of things like this article. And the meeting in Riverton. These efforts appear calculated to persuade people away from, not closer toward, the Church's teachings. The call to "listen . . . just listen" does not seem to be a call to people like Dan Reynolds and John Bonner to "listen." As fine a writer as Mr. Bonner is, I don't think he is saying "We homosexuals need to listen to the Church. We just need to listen to the counsel and messages of prophets and apostles regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage." The proposed discussion is about rationalizing rejection of prophetic counsel, not accepting and living in accordance with it. So what Provoman said bears repetition: Yes. The doors are open. But people like John Bonner are declining to enter into those doors unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions, I fear, include that the Church abandon the "standards of conduct" we have received through revelation. As much as I yearn to have Mr. Bonner return to fellowship, I cannot meet those conditions. I cannot join in accusations that the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity and marriage are "'platitudes'" and "'empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." So in the end, I cannot go where this article's author appears to want me to go. And because the article is nicely written, my unwillingness to "go there" might come across as me being the bad guy, the intransigent jerk. Well, I'll have to lump that. I've thrown my lot in with the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe it is what it claims to be. I will continue to study and contemplate and pray about how I treat others, and what my discipleship means. I am reminded of these remarks by Elder Ballard: Just so. Thanks, -Smac I have to agree with you. For me, the article says more about the author as opposed to the meeting. I guess I'm confused or not grasping the goal of either the meeting or the article. This issue, every time it is revisited, seems like we continue to beat a long dead horse. 3
Gray Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Oh gosh don't make me imagine what the edit was. Something indignant and stuffy! 1
smac97 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 9 hours ago, Valentinus said: I guess I'm confused or not grasping the goal of either the meeting or the article. This issue, every time it is revisited, seems like we continue to beat a long dead horse. Well, Elder Ballard recently said this during a Q&A session at BYU: Quote Question: What message do you have for LGBT young single adults? I want anyone who is a member of the Church who is gay or lesbian to know I believe you have a place in the kingdom and I recognize that sometimes it may be difficult for you to see where you fit in the Lord’s Church, but you do. 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 where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord. When we love God, we make and strive to keep our sacred covenants. I testify that living gospel commandments brings anyone untold blessings, allowing us to become our very best selves—exactly who God wants us to be. Question: Where does the Church stand on LGBT civil rights? We believe that the core rights of citizenship should be protected for all people—for LGBT people, for people of all faiths, and for everyone else. In essence, this means fairness for all. The Church believes the best approach to balancing these rights is to protect the core rights of all groups and then to find reasonable compromises in other areas when rights conflict. This is the approach the Church endorsed as part of the recent Utah nondiscrimination legislation. We condemn, in the strongest terms, bullying or harassment of any kind. Every person is a child of God. Everyone is entitled to love and respect. The reason that the Church supported the LoveLoud festival here in Utah County was to send a strong message that LGBT youth or anyone else should never be mistreated, and if any were troubled, they should seek help from friends, family members, and trained professionals. I am aware of the problem of suicide. I have had close family and friends who have taken their own lives. I have studied this matter, and I wrote an article for the Ensign magazine entitled “Suicide: Some Things We Know, and Some We Do Not.” Suicide is a very complicated subject. Experts point out that there are multiple causes—including anxiety, depression, and chemical imbalance—that can lead to despair and loss of self-control. Be careful in what you say about suicide and recognize that we do not know the full circumstances surrounding every suicide. The Lord alone has all the facts, and only He would know the intent of one’s heart. We should not judge those who do take their own lives, and we should support and comfort those who are left behind after such a death of a loved one. Finally, always remember that every life is precious—a gift from a loving Heavenly Father. "We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing." "I testify that living gospel commandments brings anyone untold blessings..." "We believe that the core rights of citizenship should be protected for all people—for LGBT people..." "The Church believes the best approach to balancing these rights is to protect the core rights of all groups and then to find reasonable compromises in other areas when rights conflict." "We condemn, in the strongest terms, bullying or harassment of any kind. Every person is a child of God. Everyone is entitled to love and respect." "I am aware of the problem of suicide . . . {it} is a very complicated subject . . . Be careful in what you say about suicide and recognize that we do not know the full circumstances surrounding every suicide." "Finally, always remember that every life is precious—a gift from a loving Heavenly Father." I appreciate Elder Ballard's call for us to listen to individuals. We certainly should. Thanks, -Smac 4
stemelbow Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Referencing something by way of a quick jab sans clarifying context is, by definition, a cheap shot, whether the one doing so wants to own up to it or not. It was not a quick jab. It was a reference to point out a point wherein people were hurt, at least people had told me so. Again, this motive questioning is not helpful.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: It was not a quick jab. It was a reference to point out a point wherein people were hurt, at least people had told me so. Again, this motive questioning is not helpful. One may think one's motive for making a cheap shot is as pure as the driven snow. It is no less a cheap shot.
Recommended Posts