Pres. Oaks devotional to Young Married Couples

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

As I've said this is all from my vantage point.  The policy change brought conflict to families, which conflict was not otherwise there. 

I disagree.  I think hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy have created most of the conflict, most of which conflict would not have otherwise arisen.

By way of evidence, I direct your attention to the nearly 100-year old and nearly-identical policy pertaining to children from polygamous families.  This policy has been in place, IIRC, since the 1920s, and has been working just fine.  Very little discernible "conflict" about it.  

The cranks and critics have manufactured a lot of outrage, and are stoking the outrage to this day.

Quote

Thus, at least for those I know about, the policy change did the exact opposite the brethren are saying it was put in place to do.  

Again, it is the hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy has created most of the conflict, not the policy itself.

Quote

No one can help that many people, at least many that I know, were hurt by the policy, smac. 

Yes, that can be helped.  People can calm down.  People can ditch the hysterics and mob mentality and ragefest.  People can cut out the hypocrisy of disliking the Church and yet objecting to it postponing the baptism of some very few children until they reach majority.  People can acknowledge the points raised by Elder Christofferson.  People can respect that the Church has the right to enact internal policies such as this.  

And on and on.

Quote

All this really does is show precisely that the policy change actually did the opposite of what they, after the fact, suggested it was intended to do.  

You don't know that.  You can't establish that.

And much of the purported "opposite" effect is attributable to hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy has created most of the conflict, not the policy itself.

Quote

If you say so.  Although I know many who were greatly hurt, felt completely cast out due to being labeled apostates. 

"Many?"  You know "many" Latter-day Saints who were surprised that entering into a same-sex marriage could carry repercussions on their membership in the Church?

I have a hard time with this.  What rock have these folks been sleeping under?  

Quote

I know many who feel estranged from their former ward families because of what the policy says.  

I doubt that.  A lot.  "What the policy says" is pretty innocuous.  

Rather, I suspect that "many who feel estranged" are responding to hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy has created most of the conflict, not the policy itself.

Quote

Agreed.  Thus the policy itself has no effect other than to send a hurtful message to people. 

Only if "obedience to God is important" is a "hurtful message."  And usually when the policy's "message" is filtered through the hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy.

The policy had a multitude of intended purposes.

Quote

It doesn't have any effect at all in terms of actual people who have under-aged children primarily being raised by LBGTQ parents who also want to be baptized. 

Thank you.  This rather strongly suggests that a lot of the hysterics about the policy are unjustified.  

Quote

If next to none, then what's the point of the policy change? 

I just quoted extensively from Elder Christofferson, who explains as some length the "point of the policy change."

Moreover, the policy change was the result of revelation.  

Quote

Well, it does label members who were otherwise quite content with their situations concerning family and church as apostates. 

Oh.  So it's okay to engage in apostate conduct as long as those involves are "quite content with their situations?"

So do you think the Church should allow polygamists into the Church?  Is being "quite content with their situations" the lodestar now?  

I really don't understand your reasoning here.  The Church is not a social club.  It's a bilaterally voluntary association.  Membership is open to everyone, but it still has conditions.  Some basic level of obedience to the precepts taught by the Church is a necessary component of continuing membership.  Some behaviors warrant discipline, and some behaviors are so far beyond the pale of acceptable behavior that they may require excommunication.  Polygamy is an example.  So is formally joining another church.  And now, given the recent creation of "same-sex marriage," so is entering into a same-sex marriage.

Are you seriously surprised that same-sex marriage is incompatible with membership in the Church? 

Or is your objection only that it is categorized as a form of apostasy?

Quote

In other words, the policy is just a message to send out. 

No, it's not "just a message."  It's a necessary regulatory guideline responsive to a massive societal change involving the radical re-definition of the concept of marriage.

Again, Elder Christofferson has explained at length the various purposes underlying the policy.  Here they are again:

Quote

So real or potential harms which were identified by the Brethren included:

• Welfare of children ("We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different.");
• Triggering events stemming from baby blessings, which events might cause consternation or acrimony in the home of a same-sex couple (assignment of home/visiting teachers, etc.);
• Clarifying to members of the Church the serious transgressive nature of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries and that people have the right, if they choose, to enter into those, and we understand that. But that is not a right that exists in the Church. That’s the clarification.”);
• Clarifying distinctions between what is allowed under church law versus civil law ("Further, he said, in the United States and in other countries around the world there needed to be some distinction between "what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord.'");
• Alleviating confusion and doubt regarding the Church's teachings on same-sex marriage (“It’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt...That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are...”);
• Providing guidance to members of the Church who think that same-sex marriage is somehow compatible with the Restored Gospel ("Elder Christofferson said Church leaders will not yield on their efforts to help all people find what brings happiness, 'but we know sin does not." ... 'There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ,' he said."); and
• Reiterating and protecting the Church's First Amendment rights and protections ("The new policy is 'really two sides of the same coin,' Elder Christofferson said. 'On the one hand, we have worked with others and will continue to do so to protect rights and employment and housing and that sort of thing for all. And on the other hand, there needs to be respect and acknowledgment of the rights of the religious community to set its standards and to live according to them and to teach and abide by its own doctrines, such as regards marriage in this case.'").

There may have been more potential harms as well (I can think of a few).

Why are you ignoring these?  Why are you pretending they don't exist or haven't been explained?  Elder Christofferson made his remarks nearly three years ago, and yet here you are, substantially misrepresenting the policy.  Why is that?

Quote

It has no to little actual effect, in practice.  Thank you again, for making my point.  

LOL.  

Quote

The people hurt by it have spoken to other members all of who have in turn been hurt by the policy change.  There's no need to pit this as people in certain categories for simple labeling purposes.  People in the Church actually disagree with and vehemently oppose this policy change.  You seem to have plugged your ears, closed your eyes and sang a song that suits your own agenda.  

Right.  I plug my ears and close my eyes by . . . regularly participating on this board and directly addressing these issues.

🤨

Quote

You operate, and it has been evident over the years, far too much in reading into other's intentions for my tastes. 

Says the guy who just accusing me of plugging my hears, closing my eyes, and singing a song that suits my "own agenda."

What is my "agenda," by the way?

Quote

But I will add if I were in your shoes wanting to defend the Church as you have, and you are opposed to those who speak out against it, as it seems you are, then it'd be way easy, I'd say, to attack the intentions of those who disagree with you. 

Meh.  Much of what we are talking about is attributable to hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy has created most of the conflict, not the policy itself.  That's my point.

Quote

In every case, that'd be the easy way.  But not the helpful way, of course.  It is just emptiness and what I'd call anger and resentment.  But have at it.  

LOL.  Here you are decrying a purported "attack" on "intentions," while in the next breath characterizing my motives as "emptiness" and "anger" and "resentment."

I'm getting whiplash at listening to your moral instruction and immediate violation thereof.

Quote

nearly every member I know who are in a situation that might be touched in some way by what the policy says, have felt hurt by it. 

Much of this effect is attributable to hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy has created most of the conflict, not the policy itself.

Again, virtually none of these people has "felt hurt by" the corollary policy affecting children from polygamous homes.  Now why is that?  Why are there such radically disparate reactions to these two nearly identical policies?  Outrage and hysterics as to the 2015 policy about gay families, and profound silence and indifference to the 1920s-era policy about polygamous families?

My assessment is that only one of these groups is politically popular.  Only one of these groups has the ear of the public consciousness.  Only one of these groups has factions which seek to bully and punish anyone who dares to not kowtow and embrace and adulate their lifestyle.  Only one of these groups has self-appointed advocates that have been throwing a collective and protracted hissy fit for several years now.

Hint: It's not the polygamists.

Quote

Nearly every child, nearly every adult, nearly every mom, nearly every dad...  Granted that's in my sphere.  I realize also that many members who I don't know so well, like some who post here, might also be in situations that would somehow pertain to what this policy says and do not feel hurt by it.  But, as I said, I only know them virtually.  

Much of this effect is attributable to hysterical and overwrought reactions to the policy has created most of the conflict, not the policy itself.

Quote

To me your logic is backwards.  You blame the families with conflict due the policy change and do not at all recognize that the policy change was the change that occurred that introduced the added conflict. 

To me, your logic is backwards.  The policy change was reactionary.  It was a response to the legalization of same-sex marriage.

It is that "change" that "introduced" the problem.  Then the Church enacted a policy that A) was pretty obviously coming, B) has a very limited practical effect, and C) was the result of revelation.

It is the innovation of same-sex marriage and its eventual conflict with membership in the Church that was problematic.  The policy change was foreseeable and reasonable.  And revelatory.

Quote

It is simple logic that you refuse to see.  It's plain blindness.     

First, I disagree with your "logic."

Second, I find your logic simplistic and facile.  Not "simple."

Third, it's not that I "refuse to see."  It's that I don't agree.  "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  Can you appreciate that?  Is it possible, in your view, for me to have evaluated your reasoning and found it wanting?  That your opinion may not be perfectly congruent with "simple logic?"  That it is possible to disagree with you based on reasoning and argument?

Or is that not the way of things?  Is it your way or the highway?  Disagreement with your opinion is per se disagreement with "simple logic" and "blindness?"

Oh.

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Some of what I'm going to say is pretty raw emotionally, and I think this talk is unfortunately one more example of why people like me just won't be welcome in church under the current regime. 

But people like you are welcome in church.

[Atheist Mormon]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think this is a trick question.

What's it saying, my Precious, Is Sméagol no Nehor losing his nerve??"

[Kenngo1969]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I am here reading the disparaging comments while I’m being referred to in third person you know.  

Why does anyone come here I guess is a question one could ask.  

There are plenty of fora in Cyber space where you can criticize the Brethren with little to no pushback.  This is not such a forum.

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just read through this news room article on a August 24th devotional by President Oaks, and I'm more than a little frustrated.  I'm going to critique some of the quotes and leave it up to you if you want to comment.  Some of what I'm going to say is pretty raw emotionally, and I think this talk is unfortunately one more example of why people like me just won't be welcome in church under the current regime.  

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-08-28/president-oaks-talks-church-history-lgbt-issues-mental-illness-at-los-angeles-devotional-47877

If they are informed so fully, including through consulting with knowledgeable professionals, you'd think they wouldn't be so out of touch with society on important issues of our day.  This quote helps me realize just how deliberately bad certain positions are, because of all the knowledge they have gathered, it makes me think that things like the Nov 2015 policy can't be made by mistake and that church leaders know exactly how damaging that policy really is and deliberately chose to implement the policy anyway.  

Realistically, what percentage of church families face obstacles from the Nov 2015 policy? 1%? There just aren't that many gay couples with kids who want to be members in the Church. While I personally have my own foibles with this policy, I don't think it was made in a vacuum, or that its implementation automatically means the leadership is out of touch in light of other comments made by Church leaders favorable to societal rights of gays. 

Quote

In a lighter note, here are some gender stereotypes and sexism.  Thanks President Oaks.  Offensive Grandpa humor, please keep it to yourself.  

Right, so at least they know that society at large is aware of the bigotry with the church's policies and the intolerant attitudes.  Unfortunately, it seems this knowledge only makes them defend the practices even further.  This is an issue for the younger generations.  You're losing the younger generations because of your bigotry, LDS church.  How can people not see the writing on the wall here.  

"Yes, dear" and "I love you" are statements of sexism and bigotry? Really? Gosh, I didn't know I was sexist when I tell my wife these things. I also didn't know I was a grandpa already. Maybe I should stop telling her I love her, and tell her to stop telling me she loves me. In your world is the title Grandpa going to be offensive? I suppose I will need to teach my grandkids to say Grandxea so as not to appear sexist and patronizing... boy(I meant xea) you are really feeling it today aren't you?
 

Quote

 

The young married demographic in the Church faces “insurmountable obstacles,” he said.

Ironically its often the policies and practices of the church that are the obstacles that young married couples face.  

 

I actually disagree that the young married demographic faces "insurmountable obstacles." Although all of my children have now reached the age of majority, the obstacles we faced raising them were significant. It takes dedicated parents, and probably the willingness of parents to makes lifestyle sacrifices but it is certainly not impossible to raise a close and loving family in the Church. I view the Church as being a major helper in this regard. The obstacles you see are societal ones. And yes they are there. Refusal to kowtow to new obstacles placed by societal expectations is not a weakness imho, but a strength. Expecting the family not to conform to every societal fad is not a weakness, but a strength. I builds character in children who are willing to stand for their principles. 

Quote

Now we're going to travel backwards in time to 2007 when our public statements on this topic were even more overtly offensive and troubling.  Thanks for bringing up the uncomfortable history and doubling down on disturbing teachings by calling them eternal.  Wow, this is just a cluster frank, I can't believe correlation let this talk get through.  Maybe they've cleaned house of the more moderate people in the PR department in the last few months?  I'm shocked these comments have been approved for public consumption in 2018.  

If you are insisting that we shouldn't retain our offensive pronouns from 2007 rather than xea and zay, then I say let's roll back the clock a little. No amount of verbal jockeying will make a gay lifestyle unoffensive to God nor change the scriptural language on the topic. You wish to shame the Church into changing. The Church is not supposed to be of the world. 

Quote

If the church cares about families, its only certain kinds of families, the 1950s family ideal, not other very real families, not families that don't fit the mold.  Either fit the mold or you don't belong in this church, and God doesn't approve of your family.  That's the message I get from this talk.  This is very frustrating and upsetting.  I can't believe this guy is our leader in 2018.  Such a horrible rewind into less tolerant times.  

Promoting an ideal lifestyle is a gospel trait. It doesn't mean we shouldn't love people who fall short - since we all do. There is a difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner. You always seem to confuse that distinction. While the mission of the Church is to call all sinners to Christ, it is not to accept nor indulge that sin. Sinners who refuse to hear that message may choose to be offended, but they could choose to turn to Christ.

[CMZ]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Not much really, but I did say I was hopeful about his allusion to future time savings efforts that the 2 hr block was coming.  I also said I was glad the church is acknowledging problems with mental health but that they need to do more than just give lip service.  

You could just choose to go to church for two hours if you wanted. A lot of people do it. In fact, a lot of people just leave after sacrament meeting. In all the "2-hr. block" talk people seem to fail to realize that it is three different meetings. This concept has been further confused by people now saying things like, "during second hour," rather than, "during Sunday School."

As far as mental health goes what exactly is the Church's responsibility in this regard? To house every person on the planet and supply them with pharmacological meds? I keep getting surprised at the amount the Church actually IS doing. But of course we can always be the ones to say what should be done and talk about how some other organization that we don't really believe in isn't doing enough.

https://www.lds.org/mentalhealth?lang=eng

[CMZ]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There are plenty of fora in Cyber space where you can criticize the Brethren with little to no pushback.  This is not such a forum.

Some people want to criticize the prophets but not have their criticism addressed.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It could be that having a non-traditional family structure has somewhat cemented my beliefs that there are things a traditional family structure has implicitly that's better. I say that, loving my peoples...but I wouldn't duplicate the family I have. And with all non-traditional families there are implicit costs and losses to it. I don't mean that that means no one should have a non-traditional family. But I think pretending that it doesn't is likely to lead to children that may inadvertently be hurt if those costs aren't acknowledged (again....please don't read this as a blanket statement that all people with non-traditional family will feel)

Always appreciate your input and perspective its valuable.  I don't agree with everything you've said, but you're measure in your approach and I think your insight on the mental health work is especially important.

As for families, I think the gospel as articulated in the New Testament doesn't have any resemblance to a 1950s family ideal, really nothing.  Celibacy and the forsaking of family were major themes in the original church movement.  Now, I'm not saying this to say that the LDS church's emphasis on the family is a bad thing, I actually think its great.  Just not the emphasis on what that ideal family should look like, that is why the church's message gets very problematic.  I appreciate that you understand a little what its like coming from a non-traditional family structure, but I would also want to emphasize that there are as many different family structures and flavors as there are people that exist on this earth.  The principles the church should emphasize here are love and service and forgiveness within the family structure.  Not judgment and stereotypical gender roles. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Yes men”? I thought your narrative heretofore has been that “the PR department” and Correlation tell them what to do. 

I was thinking of the lay clergy leaders, 70s, stake presidents, mission presidents, the people below the top 15 that are providing the input on what those current events issues are.   

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your “opinion” is altogether unsupported by observable fact, direct statements to the contrary from former Church Public Affairs director Michael Otterson and, as I mentioned, logic and common sense. 

When addressing this matter, Otterson  cleverly said of the Public Affairs Department, “We don’t free-lance.”

My opinion is not unsupported, its just different than yours.  I admitted that I don't have full confidence that its right, but that doesn't mean I haven't made observations and deduced reasoning through those observations that my perspective has merit.  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I was thinking of the lay clergy leaders, 70s, stake presidents, mission presidents, the people below the top 15 that are providing the input on what those current events issues are.   

But not Public Affairs or Correlation? Do they constitute some sort of shadow government or star chamber or deep state that dictates its will even to the president of the Church and his counselors?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But people like you are welcome in church.

The vast majority of personal and individual interactions with local members has been positive.  Unfortunately its a little more complicated, but I appreciate you saying this.  Thanks

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Always appreciate your input and perspective its valuable.  I don't agree with everything you've said, but you're measure in your approach and I think your insight on the mental health work is especially important.

As for families, I think the gospel as articulated in the New Testament doesn't have any resemblance to a 1950s family ideal, really nothing.  Celibacy and the forsaking of family were major themes in the original church movement.  Now, I'm not saying this to say that the LDS church's emphasis on the family is a bad thing, I actually think its great.  Just not the emphasis on what that ideal family should look like, that is why the church's message gets very problematic.  I appreciate that you understand a little what its like coming from a non-traditional family structure, but I would also want to emphasize that there are as many different family structures and flavors as there are people that exist on this earth.  The principles the church should emphasize here are love and service and forgiveness within the family structure.  Not judgment and stereotypical gender roles. 

The Church is constantly talking about different family situations and the Proclamation even talks about the necessity sometimes for adaptation. I think they are extremely aware of many different types of situations. They even write Ensign articles about it. I think they do emphasize "love and service and forgiveness within the family structure."

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There are plenty of fora in Cyber space where you can criticize the Brethren with little to no pushback.  This is not such a forum.

Yeah, I'm not too interested in echo chambers.  Besides, I get push back from the strident exmo's just as much as the orthodox believers, because I don't look at things in black and white terms.  

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The vast majority of personal and individual interactions with local members has been positive.  Unfortunately its a little more complicated, but I appreciate you saying this.  Thanks

Welcome to the Lord's true church, where literally everyone has their own such complications to deal with.

[CMZ]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, I'm not too interested in echo chambers.  Besides, I get push back from the strident exmo's just as much as the orthodox believers, because I don't look at things in black and white terms.  

This happens to others as well. We should all be striving to be individuals within an organization, not clones of each other who are only allowed in a group if we parrot exactly what others are saying. A lot of the concerns presented in this can be resolved when we realize that some talk or other by some leader in the Church is not the summum bonum of our existence, that President Oaks possibly using cliches about the husband/wife relationship actually has extremely little bearing on whether or not we are personally living worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost, and when we choose to stop reacting against a caricatured perception of the Church (e.g., constantly insisting that the Church isn't aware of many different types of family situations). When we actually mature in the Gospel we respect the Church for what it is but remove the burden from ourselves of feeling like the Church is out to get us. Instead of seeing ourselves as lackeys totally dependent on some organization that may or may not be looking out for our best interests so that we always have to be on guard we see it properly as an interdependent relationship that we choose to be part of, neither unaware of the possible shortcomings or weaknesses nor constantly heckling it for not being perfect as we perceive perfection.

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Realistically, what percentage of church families face obstacles from the Nov 2015 policy? 1%? There just aren't that many gay couples with kids who want to be members in the Church. While I personally have my own foibles with this policy, I don't think it was made in a vacuum, or that its implementation automatically means the leadership is out of touch in light of other comments made by Church leaders favorable to societal rights of gays. 

Its way more than 1%, but even 1% of 16M is 160,000 people.  The policy is hurtful on many different levels, even for many people that don't have LGBTQ members in their immediate family, for those allies of LGBTQ individuals it is also very hurtful.  Trying to minimize who's impacted doesn't lessen the real and painful reality of how much this policy and the attitudes surrounding it are hurtful to real people, children of God, "the least of these".  

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

"Yes, dear" and "I love you" are statements of sexism and bigotry? Really? Gosh, I didn't know I was sexist when I tell my wife these things. I also didn't know I was a grandpa already. Maybe I should stop telling her I love her, and tell her to stop telling me she loves me. In your world is the title Grandpa going to be offensive? I suppose I will need to teach my grandkids to say Grandxea so as not to appear sexist and patronizing... boy(I meant xea) you are really feeling it today aren't you?

No problem with "I love you, and I am sorry". Everything else was sexist and offensive.  "Yes, dear. You look good in that. We can’t afford it."

40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Expecting the family not to conform to every societal fad is not a weakness, but a strength. I builds character in children who are willing to stand for their principles.

Standing for principles is important and I agree with that.  Some of the principles the church is standing for are ethically problematic.  

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Promoting an ideal lifestyle is a gospel trait. It doesn't mean we shouldn't love people who fall short - since we all do. There is a difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner. You always seem to confuse that distinction. While the mission of the Church is to call all sinners to Christ, it is not to accept nor indulge that sin. Sinners who refuse to hear that message may choose to be offended, but they could choose to turn to Christ.

The falling short I see demonstrated here in this talk is church leaders falling short of principles of the gospel goodness.  I'm just pointing out where the church is falling short.  Hatting the sin and not the sinner is a flawed theological concept to start with and is another example of falling short.  We can do better than this as Mormons and as a culture. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What's it saying, my Precious, Is Sméagol no Nehor losing his nerve??"

No, not. Nehor wants to see them all dead!

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, CMZ said:

You could just choose to go to church for two hours if you wanted. A lot of people do it. In fact, a lot of people just leave after sacrament meeting. In all the "2-hr. block" talk people seem to fail to realize that it is three different meetings. This concept has been further confused by people now saying things like, "during second hour," rather than, "during Sunday School."

As far as mental health goes what exactly is the Church's responsibility in this regard? To house every person on the planet and supply them with pharmacological meds? I keep getting surprised at the amount the Church actually IS doing. But of course we can always be the ones to say what should be done and talk about how some other organization that we don't really believe in isn't doing enough.

https://www.lds.org/mentalhealth?lang=eng

I'm definitely less active right now, but when I do attend I like to interact with the people and see what I can do to socialize with others and let people know I'm still around and that I care about helping others.  

For mental health it seems to me that changing some of the high demand aspects of the theology would help a lot.  The tone from the top down could do this.  Sexuality and the messages sent around modesty and obedience I think are all contributing factors to poor mental health.  Embracing the medical community on these topics would help.  Maybe its happening more than I know and if thats happening I'm glad to hear it.  

 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The vast majority of personal and individual interactions with local members has been positive.  Unfortunately its a little more complicated, but I appreciate you saying this.  Thanks

What is it about the exceptional negative interactions that makes being welcome a little more complicated?

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Some people want to criticize the prophets but not have their criticism addressed.

I would love to have my criticisms addressed.  I've written letters (plural) to church leaders.  I've spoken with my local leaders multiple times about concerns.  I try the official channels as well.

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But not Public Affairs or Correlaton? Do they constitute some sort of shadow government or star chamber or deep state that dictates its will even to the president of the Church and his counselors?

Ugh, I think you know I'm not a conspiracy theorist.  I explained my position and even admitted I'm open to evidence otherwise and that I might be wrong about my perspective.  What else are you looking for?  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The Church is constantly talking about different family situations and the Proclamation even talks about the necessity sometimes for adaptation. I think they are extremely aware of many different types of situations. They even write Ensign articles about it. I think they do emphasize "love and service and forgiveness within the family structure."

Sending mixed messages is part of the problem.  What carries more weight an Ensign article or a talk by a first presidency member? 

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Welcome to the Lord's true church, where literally everyone has their own such complications to deal with.

I'm pretty sure all churches have similar problems.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would love to have my criticisms addressed.  I've written letters (plural) to church leaders.  I've spoken with my local leaders multiple times about concerns.  I try the official channels as well.

I'm curious what you mean by "addressed."  Are you looking for a response?  From whom?  What sort of response?  Would a "Thank you for your thoughts, we will take them under consideration" sort of response be sufficient?  Or do you want more?

Thanks,

-Smac