LDS Church Donates $25K to Affirmation (Re: Suicide Prevention Training)

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You really think the church is being criticized for trying to mitigate family conflict?

No.  I think the Church's position was not, and still has not been, given a fair hearing.  Instead, we've gotten a lot of overheated, knee-jerk, emotionalistic, borne-of-ignorance-and/or-hostility rhetoric.  For years now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 11, 2018 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You really think the church is being criticized for trying to mitigate family conflict?

Here's a reminder of recent past, the church announced we wouldn't be baptizing children being raised by same-sex parents.  There was lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of criticism. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

[dup]

Edited July 11, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Here's a reminder of recent past, the church announced we wouldn't be baptizing children being raised by same-sex parents.  There was lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of criticism. 

Your point being?

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yea...It's disturbing because it is true. Read some real tales of Carol Lynn Pearson. No need to get defensive here. It's not the moment for pointing fingers. 

Reminds me of the kid in the playground who'd come up behind you, hit you in the head with a rock, then run bawling to teacher that you were being mean to him.

Yeah  ...  hard upon libel is never the time to complain about the libel.

And Carol Lynn Pearson is hardly a witness worth listening to:  repeating self-serving, malicious slanders doesn't make you an expert or even reliable.

[Guest]

Good for them, I decided not to read other remarks. I feared I would see comments saying 25K is nothing. Or it's a start, or even worse they do t mean it. So I just wanted to "again", Good for them!  

[SouthernMo]

12 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I saw a press release that said one thing about the church's motivation behind a certain action, and the accompanying internal memo and executive summary said something quite different. Our summer intern had been assigned to edit the documents, and she came into my office in tears because she said the press release was a lie, and she didn't know if she could work on it in good conscience. I told her I understood why she was upset, and if she wanted me to do the edit, I would. 

ETA: I think I did edit it for her, but it's been a long time. At the time, I figured that it was just standard procedure for the public affairs department. 

I’d love more details on this situation. Message me in private if you’d like. 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

"In some ways I can see how it seems admirable to have this level of loyalty to an institution that you believe is favored by God."
The difference is, I believe it is loyalty to God; not just a institution favored by God. When changes happen it will be by God's will at the right time, not when the people insist on the change happening. 

I think this is the key difference I'd like to focus in on.  What is the difference between loyalty to God and loyalty to an institution favored by God? 

One way that I hear some people explain this idea within Mormonism is around the concept of fallible prophets.  Sometimes prophets aren't in tune with God's will, and make mistakes.  This doesn't mean the institution these prophets are aligned with is fatally flawed, but it does mean that the prophets leading the institution aren't always in sync with God's will.  So my question to you is, do you agree with this idea of flawed prophets that at times are not properly expressing the will of God?  

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, kllindley said:

For me too.  And the relationship that matters most is my relationship with God.  I have to remain faithful to my experience of Him.  I can trust Him even when other people seem to try to convince me that I can't be correct about my experiences with Him.  

Thanks, it seems to me this a key point, the idea that you are confident that your perspective is supported by God.  Lets try taking the perspective of an outside observer and see how things look in this scenario.  If an outside observer were to question a same sex religious couple and ask them if they believe their relationship was approved of by God, the answer I expect the observer would get is a resounding yes. 

So you essentially we have three individuals in this scenario who all believe God is on their side.  The couple and the child of the couple.  All believe they have a personal relationship with God and that God has approved of their views.  As outside observers we also notice that the couple loves their child and approves of the child's relationships and sexual orientation without judgement.  We also notice that the child loves his/her parents, but that the child also holds a belief that his/her parents are living in sin and that their relationship is offensive to God.  

As an outside observer, I would conclude that the child's relationship with his/her parents is fundamentally different than the parent's relationship with the child.  Because of the child's beliefs about God, the child is holding a judgment against the parents that creates a very different relationship dynamic.  I think any family counselor or relationship expert could recognize this different dynamic and how it has a negative effect on that relationship.  

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Like extra-marital sex?

Abortion?

Marijuana?

Same-sex marriage?

The Church's positions on "social issues" arise from doctrines and revelation.  

I see a lot of change in the above issues from my reading of church history.  But if the underlying assumption is that everything the church has done has the imprimatur of revelation, then there is no logical argument that can combat that position.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

but lags years behind the rest of the societal curve. 

Could you give some examples?

Sure, polygamy, race, biological evolution, mental healthcare, gender equality, sexual orientation, biblical scholarship.  In fairness, the church is better on some issues than others, and more progressive on some issues than conservative Christianity on some issues, like immigration.  I'm encouraged by some thing and discouraged by others.  Its not all bad or all good either, its a mixed bad from my perspective.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Let me illustrate: Years ago I stopped by to visit my grandmother, who I found to be somewhat distressed.  She explained that another of her grandsons had stopped by earlier in the day, and that he had been intoxicated/stoned and reeked of marijuana and cigarettes.  She had asked him to leave her apartment and come back when he was sober and showered.  This grandson then became very upset and yelled at her, telling her that she should love him for who he was and not ask or expect him to change.  She had responded that she loved him, but that she was not obligated to agree with his personal decisions, or to allow him in her home when he was under the influence of narcotics.  The grandson, still angry, had stormed out.

What are your thoughts about this?  Are individuals allowed to express such views, in your mind?  Was my grandmother being an intolerant, hateful bigot in asking her grandson to not come to her house while intoxicated/stoned?  Or was she capable of "truly honor[ing]" her relationship with her grandson while still disagreeing with his personal decisions?

Sounds like a great grandmother who loves her grandchild enough to hold him accountable to certain standards of conduct.  These things aren't always easy and of course I don't know the whole situation and all the history.  

Unfortunately, I believe you are trying to compare an illegal substance abuse problem with someones sexual orientation which is a fundamental part of who they are.  If you are intentionally doing this, its not only a horrible comparison substantively, but its extremely disrespectful.  

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

But in other ways it shows the flaws of prioritizing loyalty to a humanly administered and changing institution over relationships as close as a parent/child relationship. 

For me, relationships win every time.  

Me, too.  But those relationships include God.

Let me clarify then.  I prioritize human relationship above my relationship with God.  For two reasons:  1.  I believe it is essentially impossible for anyone to accurately judge that they are in alignment with God's will.  2.  My beliefs informed by my Mormon upbringing and my existential explorations have taught me to align to principles/values that I believe are as close to the will of God as humans have been able to get.  And one of these principles is loving our neighbor.  We should seek to increase our love and be leary of how our biases influence us. 

So loving a same sex couple must include loving their relationship and honoring it in the same way as I honor my sacred relationships.  If I don't do that, then I'm being untrue to that love your neighbor principle that I believe is a spark of the divine will.  When things are in tension (your culturally informed bias and a principle that is core to your understanding of God) it becomes necessary to wrestle with that tension.  For me, that wrestle has taken me to a place where I realized the error of my culturally informed bias.   Since that time, I've gotten to know many LGBT individuals and I've tried to make amends for my earlier prejudice.  Its been a wonderful journey for me personally.  

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

16 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Here's a reminder of recent past, the church announced we wouldn't be baptizing children being raised by same-sex parents.  There was lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of criticism. 

Your point being?

It would be a recent example of the church being criticized for trying to mitigate family conflict. 

"Hey - rather than show up and baptize your kids into a church where they'll be taught their parents aren't following God's plan, we'll stay out of it.  They can join when they're 18."

"The church is punishing children!  Discrimination!  Bigotry!  Hypocrisy!" etc.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It would be a recent example of the church being criticized for trying to mitigate family conflict. 

"Hey - rather than show up and baptize your kids into a church where they'll be taught their parents aren't following God's plan, we'll stay out of it.  They can join when they're 18."

"The church is punishing children!  Discrimination!  Bigotry!  Hypocrisy!" etc.

From my perspective, they are being criticized because their policy doesn't mitigate family conflict but exacerbates it. Perhaps they had the best of intentions, but anyone could have predicted how this would work out and how the church would be perceived for doing it. 

[ALarson]

Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

It would be a recent example of the church being criticized for trying to mitigate family conflict. 

That's what you believe they're doing?  I know that's the rationalization for this awful new policy....but it's still an awful policy, IMO.  And the criticism of it is well justified, IMO, too.  I have not seen any member who is enthusiastically in support of it (in my personal interactions off of this board).  Even my Bishop and SP really do not feel good about and hope they never have to put it into action.  I've seen members struggle with it and then in the end just shrug and say something like "well, we are supposed to support our leaders", but I believe  that's only a tepid support of this policy.  I've heard many voice that they hope it's just temporary and will be changed soon.  I'm in that camp too.

[jkwilliams]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I think the Church's position was not, and still has not been, given a fair hearing.  Instead, we've gotten a lot of overheated, knee-jerk, emotionalistic, borne-of-ignorance-and/or-hostility rhetoric.  For years now.

Thanks,

-Smac

And some people simply believe the policy is antithetical to the gospel of Christ and have seen firsthand the conflict this policy has introduced into families. 

[kllindley]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, it seems to me this a key point, the idea that you are confident that your perspective is supported by God.  Lets try taking the perspective of an outside observer and see how things look in this scenario.  If an outside observer were to question a same sex religious couple and ask them if they believe their relationship was approved of by God, the answer I expect the observer would get is a resounding yes. 

So you essentially we have three individuals in this scenario who all believe God is on their side.  The couple and the child of the couple.  All believe they have a personal relationship with God and that God has approved of their views.  As outside observers we also notice that the couple loves their child and approves of the child's relationships and sexual orientation without judgement.  We also notice that the child loves his/her parents, but that the child also holds a belief that his/her parents are living in sin and that their relationship is offensive to God.  

As an outside observer, I would conclude that the child's relationship with his/her parents is fundamentally different than the parent's relationship with the child.  Because of the child's beliefs about God, the child is holding a judgment against the parents that creates a very different relationship dynamic.  I think any family counselor or relationship expert could recognize this different dynamic and how it has a negative effect on that relationship.  

Well, unless you have training as a professional therapist, I don't place much stock in your opinion of what a professional would recognize. 

As a licensed professional, I don't for a second believe that any relationship is "without judgement."  Your outside observer conclusion is not grounded in any actual theory or practice of relationship dynamics. Sorry. 

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this is the key difference I'd like to focus in on.  What is the difference between loyalty to God and loyalty to an institution favored by God? 

One way that I hear some people explain this idea within Mormonism is around the concept of fallible prophets.  Sometimes prophets aren't in tune with God's will, and make mistakes.  This doesn't mean the institution these prophets are aligned with is fatally flawed, but it does mean that the prophets leading the institution aren't always in sync with God's will.  So my question to you is, do you agree with this idea of flawed prophets that at times are not properly expressing the will of God?  

It may happen on occasion but that is why there are 15 of them who consult together on issues and collectively receive the inspiration to proceed on whatever they decide to do. This cuts down on the possibility of one person doing something that may be contrary to God's will.  But we can't assume that will happen and think that we know better than them what is right for the church and the members. If we follow their counsel God will bless us for doing so.

[Exiled]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I think the Church's position was not, and still has not been, given a fair hearing.  Instead, we've gotten a lot of overheated, knee-jerk, emotionalistic, borne-of-ignorance-and/or-hostility rhetoric.  For years now.

Thanks,

-Smac

So, what is the church's side of things?  In my view, the church wanted to restate its position in light of their loss with the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage.  Prohibiting baptism of children of same-sex couples seemed to be a logical step given their position.  Surely, they cannot be surprised at the reaction from the public given the public's views on same-sex marriage.  How should the public have viewed the church's actions?

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately, I believe you are trying to compare an illegal substance abuse problem with someones sexual orientation which is a fundamental part of who they are.  If you are intentionally doing this, its not only a horrible comparison substantively, but its extremely disrespectful.  

Only if you accept a very narrow (and recent) view of sexual attraction, orientation, and identity. It is not fundamentally disrespectful comparison. Smac did not say they were completely similar. 

In fact he was comparing behavior to behavior. You brought up orientation/identity. If you are intentionally trying to blur the line between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, that is not only a poor comparison, but disrespectful. 

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Well, unless you have training as a professional therapist, I don't place much stock in your opinion of what a professional would recognize. 

As a licensed professional, I don't for a second believe that any relationship is "without judgement."  Your outside observer conclusion is not grounded in any actual theory or practice of relationship dynamics. Sorry. 

I don't have any professional therapist training, but that doesn't make my observations invalid or incompatible with who have more expertise on this subject.  I imagine you'd find a way to disagree with me anyway, regardless.  

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It may happen on occasion but that is why there are 15 of them who consult together on issues and collectively receive the inspiration to proceed on whatever they decide to do. This cuts down on the possibility of one person doing something that may be contrary to God's will.  But we can't assume that will happen and think that we know better than them what is right for the church and the members. If we follow their counsel God will bless us for doing so.

Thanks, I think your position is the most common position that orthodox members take when confronted with the fallible prophet idea.  In practice you don't really operate as if church leaders are fallible, because you prioritize their counsel at the top of your hierarchy of ideals.  The other term for this that is thrown around is blind obedience, which obviously has a negative connotation and I doubt you'd call what you do blind obedience, but I've yet to hear an adequate articulation for how this orientation isn't functionally the same thing as blind obedience.  

[USU78]

When somebody develops suicidal ideation, he/she is suffering from mental dysfunction or disease.

When somebody acts on that ideation, h/she generally has been triggered by some event.

The event doesn't cause the trigger or the acting out.

The mental dysfunction or disease both creates the trigger and causes the acting out.

Triggering events are not causes.

It is dishonest to accuse people or events of having caused suicides, suicide attempts, or suicidal ideation.

That's why accusing the Church and Mormons of causing suicides is slanderous.

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't have any professional therapist training, but that doesn't make my observations invalid or incompatible with who have more expertise on this subject.  I imagine you'd find a way to disagree with me anyway, regardless.  

Do you really think this about me trying to disagree with you? My opinions are independent of yours. The only reason I brought up professional training is that you used an appeal to authority to bolster your claim that truly loving someone means not judging their behavior or beliefs. That appeal to authority (my profession) didn't set well with me. 

It is analogous to arguing with a doctor that any medical professional could recognize that vaccines cause autism. 

In calling out a fallacious appeal to authority, I am absolutely not trying to invalidate your opinion or understanding of love. You have every right to hold that position. I honor your journey of personal and spiritual development. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I see a lot of change in the above issues from my reading of church history. 

Not really.  When has extra-marital sex ever been permitted in the Church?  Even now, 50 years into the Sexual Revolution, it's still prohibited.

When was marijuana permitted?  Same-sex marriage?  Elective abortion?

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Quote

But if the underlying assumption is that everything the church has done has the imprimatur of revelation, then there is no logical argument that can combat that position.  

I'm not saying that "everything the church has done has the imprimatur of revelation."

As to matters of doctrine, the Brethren are guided by A) revelation/scripture, and B) principled and reasoned exercise of their discretionary authority pursuant to D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant").  I'm not saying they get every detail of every decision right every time.  But in broad strokes, I think they are getting things right.

In the end, though, you have a point.  Buying into the LDS paradigm is ultimately an exercise in faith.  Basic notions of "logic" certainly have their place in and inform decision-making processes, but at the end following the counsel of prophets and apostles is an exercise in faith and in following the Spirit.

Quote

Quote

Quote

but lags years behind the rest of the societal curve. 

Could you give some examples?

Sure, polygamy, race, biological evolution, mental healthcare, gender equality, sexual orientation, biblical scholarship. 

This doesn't help.  How is the Church "behind the rest of the societal curve" on these things?

Quote

Sounds like a great grandmother who loves her grandchild enough to hold him accountable to certain standards of conduct.  These things aren't always easy and of course I don't know the whole situation and all the history.  

I agree.  So it is, I think, with the Church.  We love each other enough to hold each other accountable "to certain standards of conduct."  We are doing so in ever-improving ways, too.

But in the end, homosexual behavior is outside the "standards of conduct" that are found in the LDS Church.  This isn't a matter of submitting to worldly opinions, to conforming to "the societal curve."  It's a matter of faith.

Quote

Unfortunately, I believe you are trying to compare an illegal substance abuse problem with someones sexual orientation which is a fundamental part of who they are. 

I'm comparing behaviors.  I'm presenting the Church's "standards of conduct," whether it's the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity.  I'm comparing situations where Person X can love Person Y while still disagreeing with their behaviors that deviate from "standards of conduct" which have been agreed to under sacred covenants.

Quote

If you are intentionally doing this, its not only a horrible comparison substantively, but its extremely disrespectful.  

With respect, I disagree.  Disobedience to the Word of Wisdom is, in the LDS paradigm, means that repentance is in order.  Disobedience to the Law of Chastity (homosexual behavior), in the LDS paradigm, means that repentance is in order.  

You have agreed that my grandmother loved her grandchild enough to hold him accountable to certain standards of conduct.  Can you likewise grant that same concession to the LDS Church?

Quote

Quote

Me, too.  But those relationships include God.

Let me clarify then.  I prioritize human relationship above my relationship with God.  For two reasons:  1.  I believe it is essentially impossible for anyone to accurately judge that they are in alignment with God's will.  2.  My beliefs informed by my Mormon upbringing and my existential explorations have taught me to align to principles/values that I believe are as close to the will of God as humans have been able to get.  And one of these principles is loving our neighbor.  We should seek to increase our love and be leary of how our biases influence us. 

I can respect that.  I hope you can reciprocate the sentiment for those who prioritize their relationship with God.

I have been married for 21 years.  I have six children.  I work every day to support them financially, socially, emotionally, etc.  I would put my life on the line for them.  I feel this way precisely because I prioritize my relationship with God over them.  Obedience to the Gospel predominates over my personal preferences/opinions.  I'm far more likely to succeed at "getting it right" when I teach my children the principles of the Restored Gospel, and when I am an example to them in following those principles.

Quote

So loving a same sex couple must include loving their relationship and honoring it in the same way as I honor my sacred relationships. 

I hope that works for you.

I can respect a couple's relationship, whatever it is, without agreeing with it.  As I said before: "If Y and Z have a loving and healthy relationship, but they are unmarried, then X can respect those good aspects of the relationship while not feeling obligated to endorse the inappropriate/immoral aspects of it."

I'm not sure what you mean by "honoring" what is, by definition, an immoral relationship.  

Quote

If I don't do that, then I'm being untrue to that love your neighbor principle that I believe is a spark of the divine will. 

That's not how I see it.  My grandmother loved her grandson, but was not obligated to "honor" his immoral conduct.

Quote

When things are in tension (your culturally informed bias and a principle that is core to your understanding of God) it becomes necessary to wrestle with that tension.  For me, that wrestle has taken me to a place where I realized the error of my culturally informed bias.   Since that time, I've gotten to know many LGBT individuals and I've tried to make amends for my earlier prejudice.  Its been a wonderful journey for me personally.  

I'm not willing to diminish the value and sanctity and significance of the  revealed doctrines of the Church by characterizing them as merely "culturally informed bias."  That just doesn't work for me.  If the Church is what it claims to be, then the Law of Chastity, the Word of Wisdom, and so on are revelatory mandates from God, not simply cultural traditions/expectations.  I wish you the best, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 12, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Only if you accept a very narrow (and recent) view of sexual attraction, orientation, and identity. It is not fundamentally disrespectful comparison. Smac did not say they were completely similar. 

In fact he was comparing behavior to behavior. You brought up orientation/identity. If you are intentionally trying to blur the line between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, that is not only a poor comparison, but disrespectful. 

I'm sure you're antiquated with many people that are extremely offended by this.  Why would you personally try to defend this comparison between illegal drug abuse and sexual orientation?  Do you really think its a good comparison.  

What about Maslow's hierarchy of needs?  Is a physiological need like sex at the same level as a need on a different level?  For that matter is the sexual need the same as the need for food or shelter, even though those are at the same level in Maslow's hierarchy, they seem like very different needs.  

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I think your position is the most common position that orthodox members take when confronted with the fallible prophet idea.  In practice you don't really operate as if church leaders are fallible, because you prioritize their counsel at the top of your hierarchy of ideals.  The other term for this that is thrown around is blind obedience, which obviously has a negative connotation and I doubt you'd call what you do blind obedience, but I've yet to hear an adequate articulation for how this orientation isn't functionally the same thing as blind obedience.  

I just call it obedience PERIOD. It isn't blind if you study out the issue and their reasoning for what they do and then confirm it yourself between you and God.