Pres. Oaks devotional to Young Married Couples

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

An admission that your assumption is not supportable.

If you're so adverse to conspiracy theories, how else would you explain why you cling so tenaciously to what amounts to, well, a conspiracy theory? The First Presidency being subordinate to Public Affairs and Correlation? Come on!

Edited to add:

Here is the full transcript of Michael Otterson's FairMormon Conference address of August 2015.

And here is a relevant passage:
 

Quote

 

The public affairs work of the Church is overseen by the Church’s Public Affairs Committee, which is chaired by a member of the Twelve. Other general authorities or general officers include the senior president of the Seventy, the presiding bishop, the Church’s legal counsel, one of the female general officers and an additional Seventy who serves as executive director of the department. The executive director works particularly closely with me, especially on strategic planning matters. In addition, several senior Public Affairs staff, including myself, attend the weekly committee meetings.

 

The first thing I want to put on the record is this: Public Affairs does not have its own agenda, independent from the Brethren. I work on a daily basis with the member of the Twelve and the executive director. In addition to regular meetings twice a week with the member of the Twelve, we talk every day, often several times. With the executive director, I make presentations to the full Quorum of the Twelve monthly and receive direction from them. Sometimes a member of the staff with a particular specialty makes a presentation and receives counsel. I mention this because we sometimes have rocks thrown at us by some bloggers who love to postulate as to why Public Affairs does this or that. One blogger even referred to Public Affairs recently as a “rogue department,” which would be news to the Brethren. Newsflash: We don’t freelance.

 

Sadly, the insight and understanding of some who love to write volumes of commentary seems often in inverse proportion to the amount of words they write. Perhaps it’s simply easier to target Public Affairs because it seems less disrespectful than criticizing Church leaders. If so, we are honored to take those “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” A thick skin is a prerequisite for Public Affairs employment. This makes me think of that wonderful verse in Acts, when the high priest and his council were attempting to intimidate Peter and the apostles and had them beaten up. Verse 41 of Acts 5 says: “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” And the next verse notes, almost parenthetically, “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:41–42).

 

No member of the Public Affairs staff would last long if he or she issued a statement on behalf of the Church that had not been approved. Of course, we frequently suggest a response to a breaking issue, but the Brethren are not shy in editing or rejecting those statements or writing their own versions. In addition, the member of the Twelve who chairs the Public Affairs Committee will confer with other members of the Twelve or with the First Presidency on major issues. Our task is to find language that most accurately reflects what’s in the Brethren’s minds. There is no place for private agendas on the part of staff.

 

(Emphasis mine)

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

18 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.   

 

This all assumes that your opinions on it are right and that their's are wrong and that if they would just be reasonable and look at the info, they would agree with you.  As long as that is the perspective a person has, they are guaranteed to be frustrated.

Quote

I think this is a legitimate and important topic, but besides a few talks in recent years I can't think of how the church is effectively putting forward resources to address it.  I also wonder how much the church's own teachings and practices aren't contributing factors that exacerbate mental health issues.  They could lean on the vast knowledge of professionals in mental health to develop programs to assist those struggling with this serious issue, but I don't see any of the vast church resources being used effectively to combat this challenge.  

In our stake we have multiple combined meetings, in church, a year dealing with mental illness, anxiety, and suicide (both for youth and adults).  We are having another one at the end of September and just had one in June.

Quote

If this means the 2 hr block is coming, that would be excellent and I would cheer that decision.  I'm hoping here.  

Me too!

Quote

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.  

If the church's stance is in line with God's will (or, if it's in line with what they sincerely believe is God's will) then what do you purpose they do?

Quote

At least the first part of this is a step in the right direction.  Don't demonize your kids when they come to you with difficult questions.  But instead of actually trying to answer those questions, just testify.  Isn't this in conflict with Elder Ballard's talk to the CES a couple years back.  Thats exactly what Elder Ballard said not to do.  Crazy...

Why should we assume that bearing testimony is not a step in the right direction?  You're making some statements based on assumptions that you haven't proven to be true.

Quote

We're sorry that those critics keep criticizing us.  Don't they know that everything we do is approved by God by definition, and no matter how ugly our actions are, its not our fault, its God who's in charge of it, so really its not ugly at all, its really kind and loving.  By definition its kind because its God's way of doing things and God is kind.  Silly critics....

It seems odd to interpret the "Church’s long-standing effort to avoid creating conflicts between children and those who are raising them," as ugly actions.  I understand disagreeing with it, but how can any reasonable person interpret it as 'ugly'?

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. 

 

 

I think some of your beliefs and preconceived ideas about the church might be coloring how your perceived this talk.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that Juliann is illustrating confirmation bias in spades, or are you agreeing with her statement that the comment to which she was referring was "demonstrably untrue", signifying that she thought the other comment was confirmation bias? Just seeking clarity here.

I was agreeing with her comment and saying that HFT was showing confirmation bias in his criticisms.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think some of your beliefs and preconceived ideas about the church might be coloring how your perceived this talk.  

Agree, as above

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was agreeing with her comment and saying that HFT was showing confirmation bias in his criticisms.

But isn't it ironic that it would seem to work both ways  

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But isn't it ironic that it would seem to work both ways  

Of course. It's not ironic at all it's just a fact of life.

My intent was to call out one who is fond of pointing out confirmation bias, and show him that he was doing it himself.

The point is there is no such thing as an objective opinion on anything.

And HFT is always looking for objective evidence. There ain't none when you include human beings in the equation who are making value judgments.

Science itself often and goes in the direction of who has the most grant money available.  All one has to do to show that is look at the pharmaceutical industry.

I thought that was my clear point but obviously it wasn't. Thanks for helping me make it explicit.

Obviously I need to be more explicit in my comments.

Edited August 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

32 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. 

To be clear, I didn't mean traditional with the assumption that such a structure remains the same forever. Maybe a better description is the partnership and family ascribed in the temple/gospel. And families based on gospel principles. I do believe it. I also am aware that it leaves families like mine with perpetual question marks as to what that looks like in the eternities in our relationships with people we love dearly. I trust the lord in that.

Also as clarification. This doesn't mean that I proscribe to one exact and universal set of expectations for all people everywhere. I believe an overarching pattern is there and that there are obvious variation of the same basic structure (mother, father) that may come in a diverse means of expression. I wouldn't want a "1950's" family ideal for my family. I wouldn't want what I know about the New Testament families as well at times (ps. I don't read the same "major themes" in the New testament...they were there, I just wouldn't describe them as major). If I had to choose a gospel equivalence of what I'd like to see as part of my pattern, it would be the beginning of Moses 5. I want my family and what feels right for our circumstances. I know that there are different family structures and flavors...it goes beyond a lived experience and to a major part of my masters and continued work (it's focused on human systems in relationships). This doesn't mean that these systems are equal in their capacity for growth or can have limitations. Each system has concerns and weaknesses. The degree often depends on the levels of structural changes and the degrees of dysfunctional or untenable behaviors. 

I did not read from Oaks talk an overemphasis on "stereotypical gender roles" 

As for judgment, it has a place. I don't think it should be in a form that is belittling, attacking, or condemnatory. But without the capacity to judge we lose the capacity to choose righteousness and goodness in our lives. The church, IMHO, should emphasize a needed balance between mercy and justice, or in one of Oak's talks....love and law. 

 

With luv,

BD

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, CMZ said:

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.

Thanks, this is thoughtful, and I agree with most of it.  I recognize that President Oaks and all the other church leaders have somewhat differing perspectives and I don't expect them all to harmonize.  I also recognize they are a couple generations older than me and consequentially reflect the values of their generation.  However, there is this ideal that where much is given much is required that I feel very strongly about.  The church has vast resources and potential for doing good in this world, and when I see those resources being used in ways that hurt rather than build and uplift, it makes me very frustrated, especially knowing that I committed 40 years of my life and resources to this institution.  

I want to see change and real leadership, not expecting perfection, but we're very far from perfect in this culture.  

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

58 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?

Since you're asking I'll try to answer.  For me personally, I've gone back and forth in the last few years attending regularly and taking a sabbatical.  One theme that continues to come up for me when I'm feeling like I can't attend is this idea that I constantly question what my motivations are for attendance.  Is it because I think I'm more enlightened than others and I want to share with them some sense of what a different perspective looks like? 

When I first took a break from church I told the bishop I wanted to make sure I would attend for the right reasons.  Peer pressure and keeping up appearances was something that I wanted to make sure to eliminate.  So I'm past that part, I don't care what anyone else thinks of me or my family.  We've been on the project list for a while now thanks to my inactivity, and I'm past being motivated in that way.  

I guess now, I just want to attend for the social aspects, and also because I have similar shared values that are very Mormon.  Like my adherence to the WoW, even though I don't believe it was necessarily inspired by God, I do believe in healthy living and I live it because I recognize value there.  I'm also very conservative personally, even if my views on social issues are pretty liberal in many ways.  So in that sense I fit in well.  And whenever I'm attending activities or helping the Elders on a project I get along well with the other guys in the ward. 

Its the messages from HQ that disturb me most, and the idea that those people I'm interacting with hold bigoted views because of their desire to show allegiance to church leaders who are letting them down and leading them astray.  This kills me inside.  These are good people who otherwise probably wouldn't hold these prejudices, but this is institutionally mandated prejudice, and members are loyal to their leaders.  It makes me very upset, precisely because I was a victim of this institutional prejudice in that I perpetuated it myself because of my perceived loyalty to God.  Couple that with the family members and friends that are LGBTQ and how real and hurtful the current church policies and practices are, and we have an environment that is very challenging for me to personally navigate right now.  

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

A token letter from someone might feel good at the moment, but wouldn't really mean much in the long hall.  Change is about the only satisfactory way of addressing my concerns in all honesty. 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An admission that your assumption is not supportable.

If you're so adverse to conspiracy theories, how else would you explain why you cling so tenaciously to what amounts to, well, a conspiracy theory? The First Presidency being subordinate to Public Affairs and Correlation? Come on!

I said I can't support it with strong objective evidence.  I would love to have some counter evidence, and I would be happy to change my opinion.  The public words of Michael Otterson aren't directly addressing my concern, they seem to be more directed towards people that feel like the PR team had a completely independent agenda.  I don't think that.  I also don't think they are a rubber stamp on the brethren. 

I think there is probably some ground in between those two positions, but I also suspect that certain leaders who don't always agree with each other within the Q15 have some back and forth struggles going on that we don't see on the outside.  This is based on my reading of history and the evidence we have of these power plays in years past and I have no reason to believe that has stopped today.  

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour 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.

This has always been my view.  I still don't understand all the reasons for the policy.  It seems the Church could simply approach the issue by declaring that such marriages may be recognized by law, they are not recognized by the Church as those that are in such marriages are seen as they are not married.  Married gay people will still be seen by the Church as if they are not married and their children will be viewed the same.  So the policy is harsh but the reality it affects an incredibly small number of people.  The policy is harsher than the actual implementation of the policy.  It also shows the Church does not change with the times as many outside the Church claim it always does.  If the Church was to change its standards and view these marriages a legit, it really would raise the question as what is guiding the Church. Does the Lord guide it or society or social groups dictate how things are done. 

Elder Oaks simply is doing his job.  The job the Apostle is not just give everyone comforting messages.  People left Christ because he had harsh sayings and that will continue.  The moment standards of conduct and morality are established, it will most likely exclude people.  Christ calls everyone to repentance so they can be on the right side of righteousness.  Christ is not however going to move the goal post or measuring line to appease us.  Elder Oaks would display a high degree of incompetence if he was to declare that the Church will move it standards in accordance of how the laws of man or society move.  Babylon can not dictate and guide the Kingdom of God whether on earth or heaven.

Edited August 29, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church's stance is in line with God's will (or, if it's in line with what they sincerely believe is God's will) then what do you purpose they do?

Start my apologizing and disavowing the Nov 2015 policy.  Make all LGBTQ people welcome and equally valued in the religion.  That means accepting same sex married couples.  Even if they restrict SSM couples from temple sealings at first, they could slowly approach that topic in the future.  

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think some of your beliefs and preconceived ideas about the church might be coloring how your perceived this talk.  

Agree, as above

This kind of doesn't even need to be said.  All of our preconceive ideas and beliefs influence how we perceive EVERYTHING.  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

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.

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.

"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?  

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.

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.

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

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.  

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?

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:

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?

LOL.  

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

🤨

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Alright, smac.  I say the policy changed has caused conflict.  You say the members, former members and such are the ones causing the conflict in response to the policy change.  As I see it that is simply repeating the notion that the policy change caused conflict. either way, the policy change came, and conflict arose.  There is nothing prophetic about instituting the change to reduce conflict at all, as a result.  As I see it you've pretty much supported the point I raised in all of this.  Everythign else has just been distraction.  

With that said, thanks for supporting my initial point.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

To be clear, I didn't mean traditional with the assumption that such a structure remains the same forever. Maybe a better description is the partnership and family ascribed in the temple/gospel. And families based on gospel principles. I do believe it. I also am aware that it leaves families like mine with perpetual question marks as to what that looks like in the eternities in our relationships with people we love dearly. I trust the lord in that.

Well, its not a problem depending on how you define "gospel principles".  My definition wouldn't leave your family with a perpetual question mark.  See, that is one example where correlated church theology is placing an unnecessary burden on your family.  The theological construct itself I see as the problem, not your family.  

42 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Also as clarification. This doesn't mean that I proscribe to one exact and universal set of expectations for all people everywhere. I believe an overarching pattern is there and that there are obvious variation of the same basic structure (mother, father) that may come in a diverse means of expression. I wouldn't want a "1950's" family ideal for my family. I wouldn't want what I know about the New Testament families as well at times (ps. I don't read the same "major themes" in the New testament...they were there, I just wouldn't describe them as major). If I had to choose a gospel equivalence of what I'd like to see as part of my pattern, it would be the beginning of Moses 5. I want my family and what feels right for our circumstances. I know that there are different family structures and flavors...it goes beyond a lived experience and to a major part of my masters and continued work (it's focused on human systems in relationships). This doesn't mean that these systems are equal in their capacity for growth or can have limitations. Each system has concerns and weaknesses. The degree often depends on the levels of structural changes and the degrees of dysfunctional or untenable behaviors. 

You are noticing things that if you continue to consider you will realize something that is very freeing.  Who determines what is a "major" theme in scripture?  You are picking and choosing the things that you find inspirational and relevant to you.  You are essentially finding the gospel principles that you think work best.  As you continue to do this, you can start to shed the idea that an authority figure's perspective is God breathed, especially when those ideas have a negative influence on your life.  Hold onto what uplifts and brings goodness to your life.  Let go of the dogmas that don't.  Its empowering as you learn to trust yourself.  

Then as you do this you might notice that you're not going to fall off the deep end and start gratifying lusts and become a horrible selfish person.  You are a thoughtful and capable adult.  Trust the force Luke.  (I mean this will all sincerity)

[carbon dioxide]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Start my apologizing and disavowing the Nov 2015 policy.  Make all LGBTQ people welcome and equally valued in the religion.  That means accepting same sex married couples.  Even if they restrict SSM couples from temple sealings at first, they could slowly approach that topic in the future.  

What other practices that are currently viewed as wrong should be changed as well.  Why stop here.  I want all my sins to be accepted.  That makes it easy for me.  Then I don't need to repent for anything.  Party time.

Edited August 29, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

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

A token letter from someone might feel good at the moment, but wouldn't really mean much in the long hall. 

Then what is it you are looking to receive?  What counds as your concerns being "addressed?"

Quote

Change is about the only satisfactory way of addressing my concerns in all honesty. 

Ah.  So the only way you will be satisfied is if you personally get to dictate policy, you personally get to instruct the Presiding High Priest how to administer a 16-million-member church.

Surely you see that you are only setting yourself up for disappointment.  

I'd really like to be able to find common ground with you, but this is patently unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What other practices that are currently viewed as wrong should be changed as well.  Why stop here.  I want all my sins to be accepted.  That makes it easy for me.  Then I don't need to repent for anything.  Party time.

This just shows how effective the church's teachings are.  That you automatically assume that these things are sin, without critical evaluation.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So the only way you will be satisfied is if you personally get to dictate policy, you personally get to instruct the Presiding High Priest how to administer a 16-million-member church.

Surely you see that you are only setting yourself up for disappointment.  

I'd really like to be able to find common ground with you, but this is patently unreasonable.

All the glory to God, I don't care for any personal accolades.  I want truth, beauty and goodness, and I don't think that is unreasonable at all.  

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

This just shows how effective the church's teachings are.  That you automatically assume that these things are sin, without critical evaluation.  

I have no reason to believe that same sex marriages are not sinful.  What scriptural passage can I find the remotely suggests that same sex marriage would be ok.  I find as much scriptural support for gays being married as a man being able to be married and sealed to his favorite microwave oven.  Perhaps I am missing something.  What is the passage.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Alright, smac.  I say the policy changed has caused conflict. 

And I disagree with that.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You say the members, former members and such are the ones causing the conflict in response to the policy change. 

Yes.  Overwhelmingly.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I see it that is simply repeating the notion that the policy change caused conflict.

That's way too simplistic for me.  That's like saying the Rodney King jury "caused" the deaths of 63 people, 2,383 injuries, 12,000 arrests, $400 million in damages to Korean business owners, and so on.

Perhaps you could give some consideration to the concept of "intervening causation."  See here.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

either way, the policy change came, and conflict arose. 

But the source of that conflict matters.  A lot.  

The perpetuation of that conflict matters.  A lot.

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is nothing prophetic about instituting the change to reduce conflict at all, as a result. 

I'm curious as to what you make of John 6, in which large numbers of the Savior's followers rejected Him specifically because of his "Bread of Life" sermon.  By your reckoning, Jesus Christ was not prophetic in that sermon because it caused "conflict."  That really doesn't make sense to me.  

Abinadi caused "conflict" by preaching in King Noah's court.  Does that mean he wasn't "prophetic?"

There are dozens of examples of prophets prophesying something that is not well-received by the audience.  Something that causes "conflict."  

Since when is prophecy determined by how popular it is?  By how well it's received?  Where did you get such an idea?

Being a prophet is often not a fun gig.  "For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country."  (John 4:44).  So "Hey, X is unpopular, ergo X is wrong" doesn't seem like a workable formula.

Thanks,

-Smac

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

As I see it you've pretty much supported the point I raised in all of this.  Everythign else has just been distraction.  

With that said, thanks for supporting my initial point.

d

[cinepro]

Oaks: "Brothers and sisters, we know much more than you suppose"

I know he means well, but I always roll my eyes when someone needs to tell me that they know something.  Sorry, but if I can't figure it out on my own, then it's more likely you know less than I suppose, and you are hoping I'll take your word for it and not think about why you need to say you know something instead of it being obvious.

 

[BlueDreams]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, its not a problem depending on how you define "gospel principles".  My definition wouldn't leave your family with a perpetual question mark.  See, that is one example where correlated church theology is placing an unnecessary burden on your family.  The theological construct itself I see as the problem, not your family.  

"correlated church theology" is not my marker on this one. It's come from careful thought, study, and prayer about the issues at hand. I say it has a perpetual question mark about its overall dynamics, but I've received personal answers and comfort to questions I needed answered the most. I don't need to find a new definition to have all my concerns answered. For that matter I don't need all of my concerns answered. 

Quote

 

You are noticing things that if you continue to consider you will realize something that is very freeing.  Who determines what is a "major" theme in scripture?  You are picking and choosing the things that you find inspirational and relevant to you.  You are essentially finding the gospel principles that you think work best.  As you continue to do this, you can start to shed the idea that an authority figure's perspective is God breathed, especially when those ideas have a negative influence on your life.  Hold onto what uplifts and brings goodness to your life.  Let go of the dogmas that don't.  Its empowering as you learn to trust yourself.  

Then as you do this you might notice that you're not going to fall off the deep end and start gratifying lusts and become a horrible selfish person.  You are a thoughtful and capable adult.  Trust the force Luke.  (I mean this will all sincerity)

 

I'm sure you're sincere....but you are also projecting your problems onto me. I never had the problems you describe here. This journey your describing isn't my journey. It never has been and never will be. I value my individuality, generally am non-authority oriented anyways and chafe at people telling me what to do, I never did church for others....at least not since I was very young. I go because I believe. But at the same time what you describe is still not appetizing because it means I'm spinning off into my own little universe of thought. I do not believe in that either. I believe that I need others for my exaltation and salvation. That zion is a community transformation that means I need to share my perspectives and views, but also listen to others and respect our varying calls. That I need to be humble enough to know that the direction I assume we should make may not be best or even right at times. And I believe in consecrating all that I have to building up the kingdom of God on earth. I believe it with all my soul and without a shadow of doubt.

What you are describing may seem liberating and wonderful to you. For me, it would be limiting and a loss in truth/the potential to see truth. Like being liberated from the orbit of the sun. Obviously I don't expect you to agree....I'm just explaining why it seems you're projecting your experiences with the church, God, or even basic ideas onto me. They are by no means the same.

 

With luv,

BD  

Edited August 29, 2018 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

All the glory to God, I don't care for any personal accolades. 

I'm not speaking of accolades.  I'm speaking of usurping authority that doesn't belong to you.

Surely you see how utterly untenable your expectations are.  You are one of 16 million members of the Church.  You apparently want the Church to "change" and administer things in accordance with your demands/expectations.  May I gently suggest that this is manifestly unreasonable?  Who are you to dictate policy for the Church?  Who are you to presume to demand that prophets and apostles hop to and dance to the tune you're calling?  Who elected you?

And if "all the gory" is really going "to God," wouldn't that mean that God - through His appointed servants - are the ones to formulate policies for the Church?

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I want truth, beauty and goodness, and I don't think that is unreasonable at all.  

Sounds great.  But you are setting yourself up for failure.  One person's "my way or the highway" demands to a 16-million member church that declares it is guided by revelation to living prophets and apostles is never going to work.  Ever.  You are setting yourself up for disappointment and failure if you do that.

I hope you reconsider your position.

Thanks,

-Smac